# 27.5X4 Who's excited? Who's not?



## crohnsy (Sep 11, 2009)

I just sold my Fatboy and I think I've finally narrowed down my next ride to be a Farley.. 

My next first world problem is do I make the new 27.5x4 wheel set work or do I try and trade it off for a 26x5 setup?

If I understand correctly 27.5x4 will excel on groomers and in the summer. The Farley will be a late fall/winter/early spring bike for me so summer performance is not an issue and my trails are a mix of packed and not packed.

Can anyone comment on the differences between 26x4 and 26x5? How noticeable is the width?

Is anyone excited about 27.5x4?


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

In soft or marginal snow that extra width is very nice but 4" tires are fine in a lot of winter conditions. I'm intrigued by 27.5 x 4" tires simply because I already have a wheel set. If someone makes a light 4" tire I'd like to try it out, assuming it will fit my frame.


----------



## techfersure (Dec 17, 2010)

I ordered the Farley 9,so,yea,I'm pretty excited!


----------



## litespeedaddict (Feb 18, 2006)

How could you not be excited to at least ride it and see? I suspect it will kick ass. I also think the biggest mistake people are making when talking about this bike or whether or not they would consider it is, "My 26X4.8 will be better in the snow, so I don't have an interest in this bike"....I say, own more than one bike. Think back to our roadie days, or cross country race days. I never expected one bike to do everything perfectly, that's why I/we, owned multiple. However, if I could only afford one fat bike, I would pre order the Farley with the 27.5X4 and consider it the best of all worlds, and if it didn't perform in the snow as well as I would like, great. Gives me an excuse to buy another fat bike, or build a set of new hoops for the Farley. More choices is always badass.


----------



## techfersure (Dec 17, 2010)

I intend to ride mostly on dirt, the geometry is sweet for this and a trail maintenance bike,winters here in NE Pa are sporadic,but will entertain 26er wheelset for bigger tires if I can find some groomed trails close buy.


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

I'm in. 26x3.8 is a little small for me.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

meh.


----------



## newmarketrog (Sep 26, 2008)

yeah^^^^ i love how nimble my 26X4 are. woundn't want the diameter any larger for my type of riding.


----------



## bcriverjunky (Jul 8, 2014)

Not


----------



## Cody01 (Jul 23, 2014)

Giving up 1.5" of sidewall will hurt your cush.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

I suspect either wheel size will handle majority of conditions with aplomb. I plan on building a 27.5/4" wheel set for my Farley 7, but not because I think it will be superior in any way - mostly just curious. Oh and I'll wait for a 65mm 27.5 - otherwise what's the point.


----------



## NH Mtbiker (Nov 6, 2004)

radair said:


> In soft or marginal snow that extra width is very nice but 4" tires are fine in a lot of winter conditions. I'm intrigued by 27.5 x 4" tires simply because I already have a wheel set. If someone makes a light 4" tire I'd like to try it out, assuming it will fit my frame.


^^^On board as well! Would like to try a light 4 inch tire or at least something bigger than the current 3.25 only be offered now, as I think it will fit my frame!


----------



## newmarketrog (Sep 26, 2008)

if you want a light 4" tire go with 26er fat


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

I think it is a brilliant marketing ploy. You get the name recognition of a 27.5 and everyone who falls for the bike industries "look at me- I'm new" sales tactics will jump right on board. And don't forget you get to sell a buttload of rims when people try to run them at ideal fat tire pressures and ruin their rim. You also get to sell a bunch of Bluto forks, when people realize than a rigid half fat doesn't have enough cushion and bounces like a basketball when inflated to the required 12+ psi required not to ruin your rim. Win win.

Ask the guy running 24's on his SUV how they ride- they may look cool, but the lack of air doesn't equal comfort.

I'd love to buy a Trek Farley 9.6, but the wheels just don't make any sense to me. If they had made it a true 27.5 wheel with a 1.5" larger diameter than the 26's I'd likely change my tune, but this low profile wheel just doesn't make any sense.

So if you haven't guessed it now- I'm not very excited.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Yep, not quite sure what Trek was thinking there, and one of the reasons why the 7 is the sweet spot in the lineup. A 27.5 x 65mm wheel, now we're talking and I can see the point in having that setup. 

Lower profile tire and identical outer diameter, plus same rim width though - doesn't pencil out with me.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

I agree- the Farley 7 is the winner. I wish they had the option of bigger wheels on the pricer models as I'd love a carbon frame though. Also looks like the 26" Jackalope is MIA, unless they release it later in 190mm to fleece the 27.5" owners again.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

if someone buys one of these and needs someone to test ride it, shoot me a line. otherwise i'm sticking with my current fatbike. 29+ interests me much more than 27.5x4. 

the real question to me is when will they stop screwing around with mid sizes that overlap each other and just go to extremes. I want a 4" tire on a 65mm 29er rim. or maybe a 3" tire on a 36"x50mm rim. 

alternately i want to ride a 6" tire on a 24"x120mm rim. or maybe a 8" tire on a 24"x180mm rim. tubeless of course. that just sounds ridiculously fun. 

if only i had the tools, materials, time, money, and equipment...


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

My momma once told me if I don't have anything nice to say about something don't say anything at all. So here I am sayin nothin at all


----------



## newmarketrog (Sep 26, 2008)

Ha!


----------



## anortherncrazy (Feb 23, 2011)

Yeah no thanks here but I'm all for whatever anybody's stoked on. My Whiteout has 65mm 26in Nexties with 4.0 LS JJ's set up tubeless and my Fatback has 52mm 27.5 Hugo's with Vee Traxx Fatties set up tubeless as well. I thought the Vee/Hugo would be a lot quicker, but it's actually more sluggish due to the wheel diameter/rubber combo. Haven't weighed them either and I'm sure there's a bit of a difference as well. One thing I know for certain is that if you put more rubber further away from the hub, the "wagon wheel" effect increases. Tried 29+ as well and no thanks, but like I said, whatever's clever for ya! If all the fat was gone, I'd be riding 27.5x2.3. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Teton29er (Jul 31, 2011)

I'll say something nice--
I think 27.5 x 4 might actually be a touch better than 26x4 in the winter. 
I've always thought a 29 or 32 x 4 might be better than 26x5 on snow, and this is a tiny step in that direction. 

Often what slows a snowbike down is not just not enough float, but all the energy needed to break trail. Skinnier, long contact patch tires with a huge diameter would seem to have an advantage, just like long skinny skis are better for touring.

So kudos to Trek for trying something new, even if it might not have my name on it, it's great to see more and more ideas and options.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

It's gonna be really tall, as tall as a 29+, so fit will be a problem with many fat bikes and it's gonna raise the BB a whole lot. 

On my Mutz, the Trax Fatty 27.5 x 3.25 only leaves a short 1/2" of clearance at the bridges, so I couldn't run it. I could run them on my Jefe tandem, but I like 29+ on that ride.

Seems like a waste of molds, but you can't really complain about more choices 

I'm more interested in B+ tires, we have plenty of 4-5" tires these days.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Taller is not going to be better. I have 32" and 36" munis, the extra height puts your COG too high, so agility and slow speed performance are compromised. If you want "clearance", then a high BB 26 x 4-5 is your ticket.



Teton29er said:


> I'll say something nice--
> I think 27.5 x 4 might actually be a touch better than 26x4 in the winter.
> I've always thought a 29 or 32 x 4 might be better than 26x5 on snow, and this is a tiny step in that direction.
> 
> ...


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

Its great to have options, but personally I don't get all the in-between wheel sizes.

(coming from the guy that has never owned a 29er, any kind of +, or 650b - what a catchy name lol)


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Nurse Ben said:


> Taller is not going to be better. I have 32" and 36" munis, the extra height puts your COG too high, so agility and slow speed performance are compromised. If you want "clearance", then a high BB 26 x 4-5 is your ticket.


There's nothing taller about the 27.5x4 setup, maybe a 1mm difference in final diameter. So only is there no difference in that department, but you're not getting a narrower rim either to save weight and round out your tire profile.
I'll stick with the 26x4.8 and either build a set a Marge Lites as an option or wait for a 27.5 that makes sense - meaning 65mm.
The rides I've had on 4.8's haven't left me feeling the need for less tire though.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Bad math.

The only way a 27.5 x 4" tire will not be taller than a 26 x 4" tire is if WTB makes it 

If Vee Rubber makes it, it'll be friggin tall as shite!!



Gambit21 said:


> There's nothing taller about the 27.5x4 setup, maybe a 1mm difference in final diameter. So only is there no difference in that department, but you're not getting a narrower rim either to save weight and round out your tire profile.
> I'll stick with the 26x4.8 and either build a set a Marge Lites as an option or wait for a 27.5 that makes sense - meaning 65mm.
> The rides I've had on 4.8's haven't left me feeling the need for less tire though.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Nurse Ben said:


> Bad math.
> 
> The only way a 27.5 x 4" tire will not be taller than a 26 x 4" tire is if WTB makes it
> 
> If Vee Rubber makes it, it'll be friggin tall as shite!!


I'm talking about 26x5 vs 27.5x4.


----------



## MUSTCLIME (Jan 26, 2004)

29 inch inseam...bike fail


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

MUSTCLIME said:


> 29 inch inseam...bike fail


Doesn't work like that - logic fail?


----------



## MUSTCLIME (Jan 26, 2004)

taller wheel tires= the boys betting smashed....fail


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

MUSTCLIME said:


> taller wheel tires= the boys betting smashed....fail


Stand over is stand over - regardless of wheel size. Do you honestly think top tubes are 3" higher than they were back in the day of the 26" bike?


----------



## tyriverag (Jan 22, 2014)

I honestly can't think of anything that I give less of a sh!t about, than 27.5x4.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

tyriverag said:


> I honestly can't think of anything that I give less of a sh!t about, than 27.5x4.


About lost my morning beer


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

tyriverag said:


> I honestly can't think of anything that I give less of a sh!t about, than 27.5x4.


Yeah, I am in this same camp.

I find myself asking, "why?" What is this supposed to do that 26x4 or 26x5 cannot? This screams to me a bike company trying to tell me what to buy, rather than offering something that riders actually want.

With regular 27.5 wheels, I can't tell a difference from 26. I'm pretty "meh" on those, too.


----------



## Jefflinde (Mar 26, 2015)

if the overall diameter is the same on a 27.5x4 as a 26x4 and the width is the same isn't the contact patch the same? all you are doing is changing the sidewall. to me this seems like nothing more than a marketing ploy. the manufacturers saw how everyone went out and bought a fat bike and now they want to get everyone to but this new size. i see no advantage and as others have pointed out less cushion with the short sidewall. Now if the OD is taller so the 27.5 tire has the same sidewall as the 26 then there would be an advantage. not sure how much of one plus the addition of the extra weight may negate the advantage. either way i will not be jumpin into the 27.5x4 market.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

the overall diameter is the same on a 27.5x4 as a 26x5, not 26x4.


----------



## Jefflinde (Mar 26, 2015)

if this is true then your contact patch is most likely smaller on the 27.5 due to the narrower tire given the relative tire pressures. there is then no advantage.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Jefflinde said:


> if this is true then your contact patch is most likely smaller on the 27.5 due to the narrower tire given the relative tire pressures. there is then no advantage.


it will be a bigger contact patch than a 26x4, yet should roll faster than a 26x5, at least in theory.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

I don't see any point to this either unless we're talking a 27.5 x 65mm rim. Now we're getting somewhere. That would yield a rounder tire profile on the 4" tire and actually save weight instead of adding it while maintaining the overall diameter and bb height.

Keeping the 80mm rim width with the 27.5" rim on the other hand really makes the whole endeavor a wash at best IMO, at worst an actual disadvantage of only a minor one. We shall see. However in true MTBR fashion most who forked out the cash for those models will spew about how much of a difference it makes no matter what.


----------



## tyriverag (Jan 22, 2014)

I really wanted to post about Trek's new expandable rim coupler that allows you to switch between 26 and 27.5, but thought better to not.


----------



## Jefflinde (Mar 26, 2015)

Nice. Maybe next year they will allow it to cover all 3 sizes 26, 27.5 and 29. But by then the new 28.125" tire will be all the rage so you will still be missing the one everyone wants.


----------



## tyriverag (Jan 22, 2014)

I believe the settings are supposed to be very incremental, to be "future-proof".


----------



## TrailCrawler (Aug 24, 2013)

I would say I'm mildly interested. 
- If the bike is designed to run on 26x5 tires, then 27.5x4 (same tire diameter) would roll faster without compromising frame geometry in case 29x3 isn't enough traction/float/etc…
- Want a faster rolling 27.5x4? You don't have to use 80mm rims, they would work fine on 50mm rims, which there are an abundance of on the market. I've used 26x4 on 50mm rims, they are still very capable if traction is needed (I used them down to 7 psi).
- There are not many fast rolling 26x4.8 tires on the market (back to the bikes built around 26x5 tires, frame geo), tons of 26x4 tires though!
- I'm really interested in the 907 full suspenion bike (prototype at the moment) that can fit 26x4.8 on 100mm rims. This option would work well without effecting geometry (27.5x50mm rim and 4” tires is what I would run), I'm not interested in 29x3. Why am I particularly interested in this bike? I already have a 65mm Nextie/I9 wheelset built for my Blackborow that would fit this bike.

What I don't like about it is there is only one tire available in 27.5x4… If there were as many tires available in size as there are for 26x4, I would have had a wheelset built for my Blackborow. As of this time I am not interested in 27.5x4 for lack of tire selection, but I see the benefits as I stated above.

To each his own...


----------



## bcriverjunky (Jul 8, 2014)

Gigantic said:


> it will be a bigger contact patch than a 26x4, yet should roll faster than a 26x5, at least in theory.


 Can't you'll have less sidewall to squish...


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

litespeedaddict said:


> How could you not be excited to at least ride it and see? I suspect it will kick ass.


That tall tire will roll over things really nice and 4" is as fat as most people need. :thumbsup:

Although Surly's inevitable 29 x 5" fatbike will be awesome in an excessive way as well.


----------



## Co-opski (Oct 24, 2013)

tyriverag said:


> I really wanted to post about Trek's new expandable rim coupler that allows you to switch between 26 and 27.5, but thought better to not.


problem solvers has the 29 adapter.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

It sucks.


----------



## stremf (Dec 7, 2012)

I'll admit I am intrigued. After having tried 29+, I'd rather stick to fat. 4" would be great for summer time riding, but it does lower the BB a bit for a bike measured for 26x5". This would enable running slightly lighter 4" tires during the summer without the BB height drop.


----------



## MUSTCLIME (Jan 26, 2004)

Gambit21 said:


> Stand over is stand over - regardless of wheel size. Do you honestly think top tubes are 3" higher than they were back in the day of the 26" bike?


With many small fat bike frames having stand overs of 30+ inches....yes I do. Used to be small frames had stand overs of 27 inches with 26 inch tires. Look at a small fat boy, it has a stand over of 757mm....thats 30.25 inches !....here a link to prove it.

Specialized Bicycle Components


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

That's a frame design problem, not a wheel size issue. Look at the Nimble 9 or Ventana El Gordo, or Norco Bigfoot and see if you can figure this out. Specialized is just being stupid with their top tubes/seat tubes.


----------



## MUSTCLIME (Jan 26, 2004)

and Framed....and others


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Yep, they'll all slowly come around I think - or if they know what's good for them they will anyway.
Dropping the top tube and using a gusset to get stand over is a no-brainer. I think Specialized is just being stubborn and not wanting to look like they're copying Trek or other makers, but really there's no other solution. The stand over on the Fat Boys is ridiculous - I couldn't get my wife sized property to one.


----------



## newmarketrog (Sep 26, 2008)

Just put a DROPPER on it!!!!!


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Put some Windex on it.


----------



## TitanofChaos (Jun 13, 2011)

I'm going to weigh in here, at first I had the same WTF mentality as most of the responses here

Last night I rode a farley 8 back to back with my blackborow on the same super rooty climb, I'm so used to climbing with the blackborow that the slightly smaller wheel diameter seemed to hang up more, it felt like a lot more work and I was almost stalled twice

It was not a traction issue, zero wheel slip on either bikes, picked the same line up the roots as always

I'm committed to riding fat all year round now, my 29ers see very little trail time and I'm pretty sure the farley 9 is the trail bike that will replace my FS29er

I've tried 29+ and 27.5+ different tires in both sizes and they give up too much traction and cush for my tastes, 27.5x4 retains the tire diameter that I'm now used to riding and is sure to shed some weight and a little tire flex as well, I think it's a good option for summer fatties, 26x5 will always be king of ungroomed snow, this new size will only be marginally better than 26x4 in snow

Assuming you're a tall enough rider to be comfortable with the size, I'm 6'2" these larger diameters feel natural to me


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Yeah, I can see that - and I'm on board in theory.
What I need though is 2 things. I need a 65mm rim to maximize weight savings and give me a round tire profile...and I need more tire options. Give me those 2 things and that will be my second wheel set for the Farley 7.

I don't think mounting those 4" tires on the available 50mm 27.5 rims would work out so well.
If someone has direct experience that says differently, I'm all ears.


----------



## crohnsy (Sep 11, 2009)

Where are you getting 50mm rims? Do you mean second wheelset? The bike are coming stock with 75or 83mm rims.. Well the Wampas are 83mm I presume the jackalopes are similar to the 26ers which have 75 internal


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

crohnsy said:


> Where are you getting 50mm rims? Do you mean second wheelset? The bike are coming stock with 75or 83mm rims.. Well the Wampas are 83mm I presume the jackalopes are similar to the 26ers which have 75 internal


Stock rims are 80mm on the 7 (which is what I ordered) and yes I'm talking about a second wheel set.


----------



## TitanofChaos (Jun 13, 2011)

Gambit21 said:


> I don't think mounting those 4" tires on the available 50mm 27.5 rims would work out so well.
> If someone has direct experience that says differently, I'm all ears.


Quite a few folks I ride with are running 4" tires on 47-50mm rims, surly rabbit holes or schlick northpaws, one of them even ran dillinger 5's on the neon trials rim last season, never burped or anything when I was riding with him, I can't speak to ride quality on that big of a size difference, for summer riding the schlick 47's with 3.8 knards was pretty nice, surprisingly not too much tire squirm at about 8-10psi


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Hmm...thanks for that. I think I'll wait and see what Interbike brings.


----------



## Johnny_T (May 29, 2004)

Has anybody seen or heard when these tires will be available? I for one am excited to try them. I originally bought 26x4 tires for summer use but I didn't like the reduced diameter and with my 80mm rims I didn't like the tire profile and self steer that i was getting. I bought a second set of summer wheels and went with chinese carbon 27.5x50mm rims with Fat B Nimble 27.5 x 3.5 tires. That has been a very light, fast setup for summer but FBN 3.5 are more like 2.75 in width. I would love to get some 27.5x3.8 or 4.0 on there for dirt riding. I haven't seen any mention of being able to buy Bontrager tires in this size or other companies making comparable tires. Any spottings yet?


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

Johnny_T said:


> Has anybody seen or heard when these tires will be available? I for one am excited to try them. I originally bought 26x4 tires for summer use but I didn't like the reduced diameter and with my 80mm rims I didn't like the tire profile and self steer that i was getting. I bought a second set of summer wheels and went with chinese carbon 27.5x50mm rims with Fat B Nimble 27.5 x 3.5 tires. That has been a very light, fast setup for summer but FBN 3.5 are more like 2.75 in width. I would love to get some 27.5x3.8 or 4.0 on there for dirt riding. I haven't seen any mention of being able to buy Bontrager tires in this size or other companies making comparable tires. Any spottings yet?


I've been trying to keep my eye out and haven't seen anything available yet. Even when they are though, don't forget about the minor issue of availability of suitable rims. Those might actually be harder to find at first. I think 650bx4 is going to be perfect for my fat-front summer setup (26x5 is the correct height, but is a bit overkill and sluggish), but I'm not interested in an 80mm wide carbon fiber rim.

Has anyone heard of a manufacturer stepping up and planning a basic, good quality, alloy rim in the 65mm range? Something like a Marge x 650b?


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

iamkeith said:


> Has anyone heard of a manufacturer stepping up and planning a basic, good quality, alloy rim in the 65mm range? Something like a Marge x 650b]


That's what I'm after as well, but nothing so far. I was hoping for something at Interbike.


----------



## BATRG3 (Dec 11, 2012)

I myself am looking forward to getting a 27.5x4, but not in any hurry. I read that other mfrs will be coming out with rims and tires, so there should be a selection. I suspect 65mm will come around eventually, and be popular for this and also B+ as a max width.

The reasons I am looking forward to this tire are first that I've determined that this is the wheel diameter that best suits my body size and preferences. So that means 29+, this, or 26x5. Essentially, we were wondering when they would go up in wheel size next, well, this is how they've done it, and I approve. Second, I've determined that I'm Q-factor sensitive, and full fat frames are too wide for comfort. I will need a special low-q frame, which limits me to 4" tire on 80mm rim. With that frame, a second wheel set in 29+ would make sense, not that it would be absolutely necessary.

Basically, I like fat, and I like diameter. But I can only take so much of each, and this is it for me.


----------



## Swissam (Apr 8, 2008)

26 for life! FTW!!!
26 ain't dead!!!
It's a marketing ploy, man! 

Wait, didnt we already go through all of this?


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

anybody have a width measurement for these yet? and ideally a real world height from rim at (x) psi would be useful (though we can work it out if we assume treks diameter figures are correct...


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

I need these right now.


----------



## Johnny_T (May 29, 2004)

I stopped into the local Trek dealer at lunch time to day and asked if the tires were available yet. They were able to order a pair for me, they should be here next week! I have 50mm Chinese Carbon rims I will be trying them on. I currently have Fat B Nimble 27.5 x 3.5 but they are way skinnier than 3.5. I am hoping these Hodag will be exactly what I am looking for.


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

Johnny_T said:


> I stopped into the local Trek dealer at lunch time to day and asked if the tires were available yet. They were able to order a pair for me, they should be here next week! I have 50mm Chinese Carbon rims I will be trying them on. I currently have Fat B Nimble 27.5 x 3.5 but they are way skinnier than 3.5. I am hoping these Hodag will be exactly what I am looking for.


Please weigh them and post numbers before you mount them. Also if you could get a bead 2 bead measurement, I would give you a symbolic high five. Thanks.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Please post back with a ride report on those narrow'ish rims. I'm thinking of trying this myself as a summer option for the Farley.


----------



## Johnny_T (May 29, 2004)

Slow Danger said:


> Please weigh them and post numbers before you mount them. Also if you could get a bead 2 bead measurement, I would give you a symbolic high five. Thanks.


I will definitely weigh them and measure them and post the numbers. In the 2016 Trek Fat Bike thread I saw an actual measured weight of 1290 and 1295 grams.


----------



## crohnsy (Sep 11, 2009)

Slow Danger said:


> Please weigh them and post numbers before you mount them. Also if you could get a bead 2 bead measurement, I would give you a symbolic high five. Thanks.


Sorry didn't measure but my pair weighs 1290, 1295 when I weighed them last night


----------



## BATRG3 (Dec 11, 2012)

I have a Gravity Bullseye that was made for 26x3 tires on 50mm rims. I was able to fit the notoriously undersized FatBNimble in the rear and ended up with either the skinniest fat bike or the widest plus bike, all with standard width components.

I say this on this thread because I am wondering if a 27.5x3.8 on a 45-50mm rim might possibly work in some frames designed for 29x3. I would be very interested in the actual tire width if anyone puts this together.


----------



## Johnny_T (May 29, 2004)

BATRG3 said:


> I have a Gravity Bullseye that was made for 26x3 tires on 50mm rims. I was able to fit the notoriously undersized FatBNimble in the rear and ended up with either the skinniest fat bike or the widest plus bike, all with standard width components.
> 
> I say this on this thread because I am wondering if a 27.5x3.8 on a 45-50mm rim might possibly work in some frames designed for 29x3. I would be very interested in the actual tire width if anyone puts this together.


I should be able to make measurements on 50mm rim next week. I will post some numbers once I get them.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

FWIW, I just test rode a Farley 9.8 (27.5x4) and then a Pivot Les Fat with a 26x4 on a sand beach. The 27.5x4 had significantly more float than did the 26x4.

J.


----------



## Teton29er (Jul 31, 2011)

Got a bunch more riding on the 27.5 x 4's this week. Technical rock gardens, baby head ATV tread, buff single track, small pebble gravel roads, big roots, pavement, off trail grassy rocks-- pretty much everything.

I'm sold. The way I describe them is that they are not earth shaking different than my 26x4, just a tad better in every category. 

I know one thing--I don't have the slightest interest in any rim or tire smaller than that for summer use--it's a mountain bike, not a gravel grinder!

Can't wait to try them on snow, but I'm also setting up some 100mm with 5". Will be able to use the best tool for the conditions.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Teton29er said:


> I'm sold. The way I describe them is that they are not earth shaking different than my 26x4, just a tad better in every category.


BAM! That was the sound of 26" rimmed fatbikes going obsolete. The industry needs a new trend anways now that it has churned through 27.5, 26er fatbikes, enduro and plus bikes in just 3 years.


----------



## ascarlarkinyar (Apr 24, 2012)

Holding out for 29er fat wheels and tires with low casings to keep weight down.

Small increments don't make sense. Go right upto the best size in one shot.


----------



## Windigo (Jul 24, 2014)

JohnJ80 said:


> FWIW, I just test rode a Farley 9.8 (27.5x4) and then a Pivot Les Fat with a 26x4 on a sand beach. The 27.5x4 had significantly more float than did the 26x4.
> 
> J.


What could possibly give it "significantly more float"?


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

Windigo said:


> What could possibly give it "significantly more float"?


Trek's marketing materials under the tires......

I can setup my Fatboy so it has considerably less float and grip with a 4.8 tire than my Bucksaw with a 4.0, just pump the 4.8 up to 20psi and drop the 4.0 to 6psi.

Not to say that the 27.5" won't have more float than an identical width and tread pattern 26" tire both set to the same psi, but "significant" is drinking the manufacturer's Koolaid....


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Exactly - some wishful thinking and placebo effect going on I think.
The difference in outer diameter/contact patch just isn't that huge.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

Gambit21 said:


> Exactly - some wishful thinking and placebo effect going on I think.
> The difference in outer diameter/contact patch just isn't that huge.


Exactly!

If you compare a popular 26x4.0 tire, Surly's Nate (749mm dia) with the 764mm diameter Hodag 27.5 you are talking a 15mm (.591") difference in diameter and a 7.5mm (.295") difference in ride height. I seriously doubt anyone could tell the difference.

What I find really funny is that manufacturers are pushing riders towards the "better handling" 27.5" MTB tires over the wagon wheel 29er's on mountain bikes. Yet at the same time they are trying to push so called 27.5" fat tires that are actually a 30" tire if you look at the actual diameter. Even a 26X4 fat tire at 29.5" is larger than the so called "undesirable" handling 29ers.

Nothing about the Hodag 27.5" tire has anything to do with 27.5" except for it using a 584mm (23") rim that if shod with a tradional MTB tire would be 27.5".

I'm guessing if they called them by their actual measurement like motorcycle tires instead of a value somewhat associated to the rim size then the manufacturers would have a harder time fleecing consumers with an "improved" product every year.

I was trail riding yesterday and had a 29er rider tell me that my Bucksaw must be quicker through the trees than his bike due to its 26" wheels. I tried to explain that it had a larger diameter tire than his bike, but eventually just gave up. Looks the manufacturers have everyone tricked.....


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

This diameter similarity is a big part of the reason why I got the Farley 7.
I'll just throw 4" tires on it if I feel like it - can't go the other way and put 4.7" tires on the 9 models without new wheels.


----------



## Teton29er (Jul 31, 2011)

As usual, the guys who haven't ridden them have the most to say.

I have to admit you might be partially right though. Part of my enthusiasm over this new size might be clouded by new bike excitement. Going from a pugs ops to a carbon trek has a few things going on besides wheel size difference. I'm a pretty avid rider though, and I do think I'm detecting small improvements with rollover, traction and compliance with the new size. I cleared a few logs yesterday that I'm not so sure anything a millimeter smaller could have done.

I also think I can run a pound or two more pressure without getting the dreaded "fat tire bounce" which allows me to gain snappier steering.

I just measured my wifes farley with 26 rims/hodags and my bike with 27.5/hodags. About an inch difference diameter.

I suppose one place that extra .5" radius shows up is pedal height. In the rough areas I've been riding, that's something I'm glad to have. Also, when I switch to 26x100mm rims with 5" tires, the bike geometry stays about the same.

I would never tell anyone to go out and get the new wheelsize. But if you bike comes with it, don't worry about it for a second.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Teton29er said:


> As usual, the guys who haven't ridden them have the most to say.


I don't need to ride a bike with both purple and green paint to know they both ride the same, similarly some of us here have enough experience to know without having to ride these bikes that this small difference in diameter will not yield "significant' difference in floatation, traction, or anything else. The variance is just too small even at +.5" radius.

In fact with more sidewall on the 26x4 tire contact patch is likely of similar size.



Teton29er said:


> I have to admit you might be right though. Part of my enthusiasm over this new size might be clouded by new bike excitement. Going from a pugs ops to a carbon trek has a few things going on besides wheel size difference.


Yeah, just slightly. In fact going from a Pugs even to a lighter steel frame is likely to yield a similar experience, let alone aluminum, let alone carbon.
I think that accounts for your perceived super float and roll over powers.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

Teton29er said:


> As usual, the guys who haven't ridden them have the most to say.


I've ridden a 9.6 and it felt a little harsh compared to a 26x4.8, granted it wasn't in sand or snow. It felt like riding 26x4.8 at too high of pressures.

All of my recent saddle time on a 26x4 has been on my Bucksaw, and that really isn't a fair comparison as the suspension really transforms that bike.


----------



## cmg (Mar 13, 2012)

Im sure the betterness of 27.5x4 is due to Treks Boost standard, l can see no other reason


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

It's like we're back in the 90's, but instead of everyone going crazy over suspensions it's tires. Kind of cool and I'll be really curious to see how many of these survive the Great Dying.


----------



## techfersure (Dec 17, 2010)

I was really excited about 27.5 and ordered a Farley 9 early, almost bought a Farley 8 that was sitting on LBS floor for 2000 but as we were talking they expressed that a 27.5 version was in the works and since I am smitten with this wheelsize I was game even though I did not care for the 197 rear because my intended purpose is mostly for dirt with some snow here on the East Coast but the 27.5 sold me.

In July I fractured my ale with some tendon damage during an Enduro event and after copays and deductibles my dream of owning the Farley 9 had to be put off this year. As I was cruising Fat Bike Trader I came across a 2016 Specialized Fuse Comp, I knew little about plus sizes but did some research and came to the realization that this sizing may better fit my needs better and for a third of the cost, Paid 1075 shipped ,in comparison to the Farley and doable with my budget.I bought it and came in this week, I am back riding but still in rehab but managed to give it a good test ride. Bike comes in at 28.4 lbs but the previous owner made some upgrades, RF Deus cranks, Saint shifter, XT Plus rear derail, Sram Centerline rotors and converted to tubless. Pretty impressed with ride overall, steers and handles very much like my Mach 6 with just a tad steeper HA ,accelerates, climbs and tracks well and overall a very comfortable fun ride, does not feel sluggish in any way.So,did not go full Fatty 27.5 but by accident literally discovered a bike that better fits my needs and saved a bundle to boot. For you all out there considering a four inch 27.5 it my be in your interest to check out a plus size depending on your needs.


----------



## Teton29er (Jul 31, 2011)

Paochow said:


> I've ridden a 9.6 and it felt a little harsh compared to a 26x4.8, granted it wasn't in sand or snow. It felt like riding aired up 26x4.8


Exactly what I would expect. In fact, that's sort of the idea. A 26x5 will be less harsh than, well, just about everything on every trail surface. If that's your primary criteria, it's a no brainer.

But if you air 5" tires down to roll well in the rough stuff when the trail gets smooth you are going to have a slow ridin bike. Or air them up to roll nice on smooth stuff and they will be like two basketballs bouncing in the rough stuff.

The 27.5 seem to bridge the gap between 5" tires and 29plus stuff in that particular wheel diameter. Each rider has different needs for cush vs speed, depending on what conditions and what they want out of riding. 29er plus is my idea of too harsh for what I want to do with my bike. 5" more cush than I want.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Teton29er said:


> Exactly what I would expect. In fact, that's sort of the idea. A 26x5 will be less harsh than, well, just about everything on every trail surface. If that's your primary criteria, it's a no brainer.
> 
> But if you air 5" tires down to roll well in the rough stuff when the trail gets smooth you are going to have a slow ridin bike. Or air them up to roll nice on smooth stuff and they will be like two basketballs bouncing in the rough stuff.
> 
> The 27.5 seem to bridge the gap between 5" tires and 29plus stuff in that particular wheel diameter. Each rider has different needs for cush vs speed, depending on what conditions and what they want out of riding. 29er plus is my idea of too harsh for what I want to do with my bike. 5" more cush than I want.


That was my sense in the brief demo I did of a 26x4 and a 27,5x4 on sand. More float, rolled over obstacles better, less bounce and the bike seemed to be more nimble/less inertia feel to it. Didn't have that monster truck sort of feel to it. My feeling was that the 27.5x4 had a wider sweet spot and was more versatile than either the 26x4 or the 26x5/4.8.

J.


----------



## dEOS (May 25, 2009)

JohnJ80 said:


> That was my sense in the brief demo I did of a 26x4 and a 27,5x4 on sand. More float, rolled over obstacles better, less bounce and the bike seemed to be more nimble/less inertia feel to it. Didn't have that monster truck sort of feel to it. My feeling was that the 27.5x4 had a wider sweet spot and was more versatile than either the 26x4 or the 26x5/4.8.
> 
> J.


Was the bike you demoed with a front suspension? Do you feel that it would benefit from a front fork? Or are we too concerned with air volume?


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

dEOS said:


> Was the bike you demoed with a front suspension? Do you feel that it would benefit from a front fork? Or are we too concerned with air volume?


I demo'ed a straight up 9.8 (and bought it but haven't picked it up yet) with a rigid fork. That's how I'm planning on riding it this winter. I didn't want a Bluto fork because of the cold where I'll be riding it (Minnesota) and because I'll be primarily on snow and beaches. The Bluto has a temp spec that doesn't go down as low as what I'll be routinely riding in. In the summer, I think it would benefit from a suspension fork but not necessary in a lot of applications.

So, I guess it would depend on the fork. I would guess there would be some other alternatives popping up soon and prices should also come down.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

Teton29er said:


> Exactly what I would expect. In fact, that's sort of the idea. A 26x5 will be less harsh than, well, just about everything on every trail surface. If that's your primary criteria, it's a no brainer.
> 
> But if you air 5" tires down to roll well in the rough stuff when the trail gets smooth you are going to have a slow ridin bike. Or air them up to roll nice on smooth stuff and they will be like two basketballs bouncing in the rough stuff.
> 
> The 27.5 seem to bridge the gap between 5" tires and 29plus stuff in that particular wheel diameter. Each rider has different needs for cush vs speed, depending on what conditions and what they want out of riding. 29er plus is my idea of too harsh for what I want to do with my bike. 5" more cush than I want.


I agree- rider preference has a lot to do with it. I initially bought my fatbike for snow only, but quickly realized that it was more capable than I realized. After years of offroad motorcycling, I hurt more than I used to and take longer to heal, so for me now fatbiking is all about cushy ride and mountain goat capabilities so I can ride harder terrain longer and hurt less. I had a Fuel 29er which rode fast, but it was much harder to ride in technical terrain and lacked the fun factor of a fatbike.

One factor that can really help with the dreaded bounce of fat tires is suspension. It dampens the bounce effect and allows you to run the ideal pressures for the terrain. I rode my Fatboy a few months without a Bluto and after adding one there is no way I'd ever go back. It let me tune my tire pressure for grip/rolling resistance without bouncing out of control on the downhills. It allowed me to ride my Fatboy as fast as the Fuel.

I think the 27.5 with its shorter sidewall would make a good tire for a fat Fuel, the suspension would really help smooth out the harshness without having to regulate psi so precisely.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

Gambit21 said:


> What I need though is 2 things. I need a 65mm rim to maximize weight savings and give me a round tire profile...
> I don't think mounting those 4" tires on the available 50mm 27.5 rims would work out so well...
> If someone has direct experience that says differently, I'm all ears





iamkeith said:


> Has anyone heard of a manufacturer stepping up and planning a basic, good quality, alloy rim in the 65mm range? Something like a Marge x 650b?





Gambit21 said:


> That's what I'm after as well, but nothing so far. I was hoping for something at Interbike.





TrailCrawler said:


> - Want a faster rolling 27.5x4? You don't have to use 80mm rims, they would work fine on 50mm rims, which there are an abundance of on the market. I've used 26x4 on 50mm rims, they are still very capable if traction is needed (I used them down to 7 psi).


Well, since no new rim options seem to have come through at interbike (good thread/overview [here]), but tires are now available for purchase separately, I'm starting to research what existing options might work. Again, like many of you, I'm looking for an alloy rim in something significantly less than 80mm width, to optimize these tires for summer use. I'm after the height and a round profile, and don't need to maximize the footprint.

The best option, right now, might be the Sun Ringle Mulefut 50 [here].









I can't find a profile illustration, but if the sizing holds true to other Sun rims, it would have an _internal_ dimension of 50mm. So it would actually be 6mm wider than a 50mm rabbit hole (44 internal), 11mm wider than a 45mm Dually (39mm internal), and 10mm _narrower_ than a 65mm Marge (60mm internal).

Then, there's this Stan's Hugo 52, [here], which is almost 50mm internal as well :















Both are available only in black, though, where Rabbit hole and Dually are available in silver.

Meanwhile, here are some places where you can see 3.8" tires on the narrower Dually and other plus-size / mid-fat width rims:

http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/pics-3-8-4-tires-velocity-dually-surly-rabbit-hole-935057.html

Velocity "Dually" 26" Wheel Set: Final Review

Seems slightly forced, but I'd love to hear actual ride reports or impressions from others. Maybe the profile is perfect. I've used the Dually with a 2.4 Ardent, for which it was clearly too big - but it still worked ok. So maybe it works just as well going the other direction?!

Also anxious to hear of other options if anyone knows of some.



Teton29er said:


> Got a bunch more riding on the 27.5 x 4's this week....
> I know one thing--I don't have the slightest interest in any rim or tire smaller than that for summer use--it's a mountain bike, not a gravel grinder!


I might have missed it, but what rim are you using? Is it just the stock 80mm trek carbon rim? If not, you wouldn't happen to have a 135 qr front hub, would you? You're local to me and it would be nice to test fit if you're willing.


----------



## Teton29er (Jul 31, 2011)

iamkeith said:


> ........
> I might have missed it, but what rim are you using? Is it just the stock 80mm trek carbon rim? If not, you wouldn't happen to have a 135 qr front hub, would you? You're local to me and it would be nice to test fit if you're willing.


It's a 27.5 x 80mm alum rim called the jackalope. 150 Thru axles. PM me if you want to check it out. I've always like the wider rims even in the summer for good low pressure stability and volume.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

iamkeith, I checked in with Bdundee here since he has experience with 4" tires on 50mm rims. He had nothing bad to say about the setup.

I'll either go with the 27.5x50mm Mulefuts which will give me the option to run that Hodag, or 29+.


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

Gambit21 said:


> This diameter similarity is a big part of the reason why I got the Farley 7.
> I'll just throw 4" tires on it if I feel like it - can't go the other way and put 4.7" tires on the 9 models without new wheels.


This is exactly why I ordered a 2016 F5 frame. I can go 26x3.8 summer, 26x4.7 winter on the same wheels. And if I feel crazy I can build up a set of 27.5 X 3.8 summer wheels too. Stealing all the great parts I have upgraded on my 2015 F6 and putting it back to stock for my wife to ride. The black/orange frame looks fabulious.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

I like the black and orange too, if I could have that color scheme with the 7 build kit I would have been all over it. That said the purple is damn nice in person.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

Gambit21 said:


> iamkeith, I checked in with Bdundee here since he has experience with 4" tires on 50mm rims. He had nothing bad to say about the setup.
> 
> I'll either go with the 27.5x50mm Mulefuts which will give me the option to run that Hodag, or 29+.


Good to hear. Let us know what you decide, and your impressions if you happen to get your hands on a Mulefut 50 rim.



Teton29er said:


> PM me if you want to check it out.


Thanks! Even if I can't mount it, it would sure be nice to see it side by side with the tires I'm using. Sometimes all the specifications and internet chatter in the world can't compare to holding something in your own hands. I'm in Hoback. I think you're in Victor or Driggs, right? If this beautiful weather holds, I'll try to get in touch soon.



Teton29er said:


> I've always like the wider rims even in the summer for good low pressure stability and volume.


You do make a good point. I kind of forgot and am frequently surprised by how low I've had the pressure in the current 26x4.8, that I want to replace - even in the summer. I think the Dually, as illustrated in the thread I linked, is completely out of the question. Tire would likely roll right off. The Mulefut will probably be marginal.


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

Gambit21 said:


> I like the black and orange too, if I could have that color scheme with the 7 build kit I would have been all over it. That said the purple is damn nice in person.


Yes it does, I've seen them both. I saw one this weekend set up tubeless and it felt pretty light.


----------



## Johnny_T (May 29, 2004)

*First impressions of 27.5 Hodags.*

I got a set of the 27.5x3.8 Hodag tires yesterday at my local Trek dealer. I set them up tubeless on a pair of 50mm LB carbon rims. The tires weighed 1262 and 1269 grams. On the 50 mm rims at 20 lbs of pressure, I measured the width at 3 3/8 inches between the knobs and 3 5/8 inches at the widest knobs. The bead to bead measurement was about 21 cm.

The size of these tires seems like a perfect summer/packed snow tire. The profile on the 50mm rim seems really nice also. I haven't had a chance to ride them yet since it rained all day in Denver.

They seem extremely heavy though with a very solid sidewall. I am replacing some 3.5" Fat b Nimble tires. The FBN seem like a paper thin sidewall compared to these tires. I used the FBN all summer with no issues, maybe I have just been lucky. Maybe the Hodag is a bit of overkill? The FBN were 741 gms vs the 1260 gms for the Hodags. That is pretty significant. I liked how fast and light the FBN felt, but wanted a bit more volume. I an curious to see how these new tires feel, if the additional weight is a big factor.


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

Me likey.


----------



## Jeff_G (Oct 22, 2015)

New guy here. I know nothing about fat bikes other than reading all 22 pages of the 2016 Trek Farley thread. TWICE. And this thread once. 

Currently riding a Trek 8.4 DS and looking for a winter bike.

I am very close to pulling the trigger on a Farely 7 but 75% of my miles will be commuting (5 miles one way, up hill both ways, literally) in the winter and 25% on a Minnesota MBT with whatever snow conditions that brings with it. 

Nervous as a long tailed cat in a rocking chair store that the 4.8" tires are going to be too big for my purpose. 

Can a narrower tire (4"?) be mounted on the 80 mm rim? 

Going to test ride it tomorrow so that should help.


----------



## tadraper (Apr 14, 2010)

Jeff_G said:


> New guy here. I know nothing about fat bikes other than reading all 22 pages of the 2016 Trek Farley thread. TWICE. And this thread once.
> 
> I am very close to pulling the trigger on a Farely 7 but 75% of my miles will be commuting (5 miles one way, up hill both ways, literally) in the winter and 25% on a Minnesota MBT with whatever snow conditions that brings with it.
> 
> ...


you can mount a 4 inch tire on an 80mm rim without issues.

i wouldn't think a 4.8 on a 5 mile ride would be to much. i rode a bud and lou on paved, gravel and trail with no issues.

one more thing i forgot the 7 comes with 26 inch wheels not 27.5 just thought i would add that.


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

I ride my 4.8" tire bike on a paved path to the beach and back when I don't have time to do a proper trail ride. It's approx 5 miles each direction and it isn't the slightest bit difficult.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

I concur regarding the pavement riding.

Edit - and wow Trek - nice heavy tire on your supposed "light wheel" setup.
I was thinking of going Hodags on 50mm with my second wheel set on the F7, but I think I'll stick to the 29+ plan and Chupies.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

The drag effect of 4.8's is greatly overstated. I've done my commute (29mi one way) on my Fatboy and even though it wasn't my fastest average (13.8mph) it wasn't horrible by any means. I've been using my Fatboy to pull my son in the bike trailer as well on family rides and have no issue keeping up with my wife and daughter. If you are going to be riding solely pavement higher pressures of 10+psi help, but I wouldn't hesitate to ride it on the road.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Oh and JT, thank you for posting those pics! I was curious about the profile on 50mm rims and you've answered that question beautifully.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

Gambit21 said:


> I concur regarding the pavement riding.
> 
> Edit - and wow Trek - nice heavy tire on your supposed "light wheel" setup.
> I was thinking of going Hodags on 50mm with my second wheel set on the F7, but I think I'll stick to the 29+ plan and Chupies.


Definitely- Trek's lightweight carbon wheelset weighs more than many lightweight aluminum 26" setups and the tires are comparable to most 26"x4 tires and a few hundred grams heavier a 4.0 Jumbo Jim. Looks like not only is 27.5" fat heavier than a 26" fat at this point, but moves the weight further out on the wheel.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Looks like I'll be ordering the 29+ Mulefuts today.
Maybe I'll get a set of JJ's for the 80mm Mulefuts as my 3/4 fat setup.


----------



## Negotiator50 (Apr 21, 2012)

Johnny_T said:


> I got a set of the 27.5x3.8 Hodag tires yesterday at my local Trek dealer. I set them up tubeless on a pair of 50mm LB carbon rims. The tires weighed 1262 and 1269 grams. On the 50 mm rims at 20 lbs of pressure, I measured the width at 3 3/8 inches between the knobs and 3 5/8 inches at the widest knobs. The bead to bead measurement was about 21 cm.
> 
> The size of these tires seems like a perfect summer/packed snow tire. The profile on the 50mm rim seems really nice also. I haven't had a chance to ride them yet since it rained all day in Denver.
> 
> ...


Is that an Ican SN01 frame they are on? Did they fit OK? Thinking about going the same route on my sn01 frame.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk


----------



## TitanofChaos (Jun 13, 2011)

When the rest of the weight weenie 257x4 tires roll in we'll be all set, give it some time

does anyone have a weight on just the jackalope 275 rim?

Since I only intend to ride my farley 9 as a summer bike I'm thinking about going to a 50-60 mm rim from the 80's, for a more rounded profile and some weight loss

I see that the hugo 275 is already more than 100g lighter than the jackalope 26 rim, I'm thinking it's almost a pound lost by swapping rims, then when some lighter tires come...


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Jeff_G said:


> New guy here. I know nothing about fat bikes other than reading all 22 pages of the 2016 Trek Farley thread. TWICE. And this thread once.
> 
> Currently riding a Trek 8.4 DS and looking for a winter bike.
> 
> ...


I'm from MN too. Since they plow all the bike paths and roads, you are not ever going to need the float from the 5", the rest will be car or snowmobile packed. If you have a 4" tire you should be just fine. Too, the 27.5"x4 is going to have a larger footprint than a 26x4 so you could look at that too. While you would be fine with the 5" you'd be finer with the 4", I would think. You will, however, likely want to stud the tires - you know how long the ice sticks around and what snow that has been polished by lots of car tires packing it down acts like.

I'm getting a 9.8 and I rode the 27.5x4's over sand and thought they worked pretty well. That's going to be like you riding through deep snow not packed snow. So I think if the answer is that you will be riding mostly packed snow, then it's 4". Hard to believe it would be anything else for commuting, especially since we don't really get that much snow, but mostly cold so that snow never leaves.

J.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Get the 7 - more versatile.
You can always put 4" tires on a 7, but you can't
put 4.8" tires on the 9 without new wheels.
The difference in footprint between 27.5 x4 and
26x4 is tiny, and not a factor.

You were on the right track - 7 is the sweet spot.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Gambit21 said:


> Get the 7 - more versatile.
> You can always put 4" tires on a 7, but you can't
> put 4.8" tires on the 9 without new wheels.
> The difference in footprint between 27.5 x4 and
> ...


Test ride of both will answer the question on this. When I test rode both in the same sand conditions, I found that the difference in float on the 27.5x4 vs the 26x5 was a lot smaller than I had thought it would be. The test ride made the decision pretty easy. Everyone's experience will vary depending on where they ride and how they ride. The only way to find out is to try it.

J.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

The difference in float between 27.5x4 and 26x4 is even smaller.
The point is that with the 7 all doors are open to you.  
Of course test rides are always best.


----------



## techfersure (Dec 17, 2010)

I recently cancelled my Farley 9 order for a 2016 Specialized Fuse Comp I found used for a screaming deal after I discovered 27.5 Plus size. I was smitten at first by the 27.5 Farley and its geometry because it would be mostly used for trail with occasional East Coast Pa snow. I rode my Pivot mach 6 with 2.4 tires on groomed and compacted trails last year and previous year after significant snow falls and accumulation. Sure, a wider tire would have been better to a degree for handling and floatation but really did not suffer overall.I believe a three inch is all I'll realistically need for snow but really shines on trail riding I've done so far. Many choices to make to fit your needs for the best possible equipment,but choices do abound and that is a good thing!!!


----------



## Jeff_G (Oct 22, 2015)

Thanks for the input everyone. Test ride is pushed to Monday. If I can ride at a decent clip with the 4.8" tires then I'll likely get the 7 knowing I can get a spare set of 4" tires for the summer. 

If I hate riding the 4.8" on pavement I just won't buy it and explore different options. Can't justify spending more than $2,400 on a bike and/or spare rims at this juncture. Some think I'm insane already!


----------



## l3eaudacious (Jul 14, 2015)

I'd be interested in a 27.5 x 3.8 to gain back that inch of BB height I loose going form a 26 x 4.8 to a 26 x 3.8, just for consistency of feel. Although its all moot until I see a 27.5 x 3.8 Nate, and knowing Surly I'd have a better chance getting on to the International Space Station.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

JohnJ80 said:


> I'm from MN too. Since they plow all the bike paths and roads, you are not ever going to need the float from the 5", the rest will be car or snowmobile packed. If you have a 4" tire you should be just fine. Too, the 27.5"x4 is going to have a larger footprint than a 26x4 so you could look at that too. While you would be fine with the 5" you'd be finer with the 4", I would think. You will, however, likely want to stud the tires - you know how long the ice sticks around and what snow that has been polished by lots of car tires packing it down acts like.
> 
> I'm getting a 9.8 and I rode the 27.5x4's over sand and thought they worked pretty well. That's going to be like you riding through deep snow not packed snow. So I think if the answer is that you will be riding mostly packed snow, then it's 4". Hard to believe it would be anything else for commuting, especially since we don't really get that much snow, but mostly cold so that snow never leaves.
> 
> J.


I'm guessing you live in the metro and just ride the groomed trails. I'm out west of the metro and spend a good amount of time breaking trails, riding on lakes, islands, river trails, fields, parks, and everywhere else I can explore. Most see little or no fatbike traffic and I can reach them without having to truck my bike anywhere. A 4" tire won't cut it and if I could go bigger than 4.8" I would- there is no replacement for displacement when you are cutting trails especially when it drifts.

For me the best part of a Fatbike is going spots I normally wouldn't ride and the challenge of riding stuff that is tough in the summer. If I was going to ride plowed roads and groomed "trails", I'd probably just have a studded mountain bike or buy one of those silly trainer things.

The slight advantage your 27.5" tire is going to buy you over a 26x4" is negated by the shorter sidewall of your 27.5 that will restrict you from running lower PSI's or you'll risk trashing a rim. That is the beauty of a 4.8" tire, you can run lower pressures 3-5 psi and have a tank tread pattern and still have some sidewall left to prevent bottoming. Too much grip, just add a little air, not enough let some out.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

l3eaudacious said:


> I'd be interested in a 27.5 x 3.8 to gain back that inch of BB height I loose going form a 26 x 4.8 to a 26 x 3.8, just for consistency of feel. Although its all moot until I see a 27.5 x 3.8 Nate, and knowing Surly I'd have a better chance getting on to the International Space Station.


If you compare a 26" Nate to the 27.5" Hodag you are talking a 15mm (.591") difference in diameter and a 7.5mm (.295") difference in ride height not 1". I seriously doubt you could tell the difference.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

The problem as I see it, is that Trek is the only company that has gone forward with 27.5" fat. This doesn't bode well for an influx of 27.5 fat tires. This means any company even thinking of making a 3.8" fat tire would be doing so knowing that it's for an extremely limited market. That's not to say it won't happen at all, but it presents a big unknown and it's not a certainty by any means. Some people here thought we'd see a few examples at Interbike - Pfffttt...nothing.

Likely if we see another one any time soon, it will be just one, and it will be from Bontrager.

If I knew a 27.5x3.8" Chuppacabra was on the way, then I may well have gone ahead and ordered a 27.5" set of rims today instead of 29+ . As it stands I'm not willing to wait and see at this point.

If the 3.8" Chupie becomes a reality at some point, then maybe I'll re-lace the DT hubs to 27.5 Mulefuts.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Paochow said:


> I'm guessing you live in the metro and just ride the groomed trails. I'm out west of the metro and spend a good amount of time breaking trails, riding on lakes, islands, river trails, fields, parks, and everywhere else I can explore. Most see little or no fatbike traffic and I can reach them without having to truck my bike anywhere. A 4" tire won't cut it and if I could go bigger than 4.8" I would- there is no replacement for displacement when you are cutting trails especially when it drifts.
> 
> For me the best part of a Fatbike is going spots I normally wouldn't ride and the challenge of riding stuff that is tough in the summer. If I was going to ride plowed roads and groomed "trails", I'd probably just have a studded mountain bike or buy one of those silly trainer things.
> 
> The slight advantage your 27.5" tire is going to buy you over a 26x4" is negated by the shorter sidewall of your 27.5 that will restrict you from running lower PSI's or you'll risk trashing a rim. That is the beauty of a 4.8" tire, you can run lower pressures 3-5 psi and have a tank tread pattern and still have some sidewall left to prevent bottoming. Too much grip, just add a little air, not enough let some out.


I was responding to Jeff_G's post. What he described was more urban. I live in a rural area, on the St. Croix and will be riding it on the beach along the St. Croix. Works fine.

J.


----------



## TitanofChaos (Jun 13, 2011)

Paochow said:


> If you compare a 26" Nate to the 27.5" Hodag you are talking a 15mm (.591") difference in diameter and a 7.5mm (.295") difference in ride height not 1". I seriously doubt you could tell the difference.


I read this type of stuff a lot on here and no one takes into account the amount that fat tires flex under load at low pressure, the bottom bracket will drop more than you think when you sit on it


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

TitanofChaos said:


> I read this type of stuff a lot on here and no one takes into account the amount that fat tires flex under load at low pressure, the bottom bracket will drop more than you think when you sit on it


True, but both tires will flex by a similar amount so the measurement difference is very meaningful.


----------



## JR Z (Jan 23, 2012)

Bought a set of Jackalope's with Hodag's (27.5" version) from a local dealer who swapped them off of another customer's bike (long story). I got 'em for cheap, but have to replace the hubs to fit them to my Pugz. Kinda excited as the tubeless setup is the easiest that I've seen or tried. Not getting my hopes up since I'm used to 5"x65mm setups (super absorbant and corners like a dream...not to mention all that float!). Will post back when I have some ride time (could be a while).


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

what you doing with the hubs? Selling them by chance?


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

JR Z said:


> Bought a set of Jackalope's with Hodag's (27.5" version) from a local dealer who swapped them off of another customer's bike (long story). I got 'em for cheap, but have to replace the hubs to fit them to my Pugz. Kinda excited as the tubeless setup is the easiest that I've seen or tried. Not getting my hopes up since I'm used to 5"x65mm setups (super absorbant and corners like a dream...not to mention all that float!). Will post back when I have some ride time (could be a while).


good luck fitting them on a Pug- iirc, a pugsley needs a 17.5mm offset lacing and the hodags are setup for more or less centered lacing. let us know how it works for you.


----------



## JR Z (Jan 23, 2012)

FT251 said:


> what you doing with the hubs? Selling them by chance?


They're yours if you want them!


----------



## JR Z (Jan 23, 2012)

Gigantic said:


> good luck fitting them on a Pug- iirc, a pugsley needs a 17.5mm offset lacing and the hodags are setup for more or less centered lacing. let us know how it works for you.


Already did the spoke calculations. Not my first wheel build. 272mm are gonna work all the way around with my chosen hubs and offsets, perfect for back-country riding as only have to carry one size


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

Really tempted by the Velocity Dually build kit being offered at bikehubstore.com.

135/170mm BHS hubs, Dually rims in 27.5 or 29 with spokes and nips...

Velocity Dually/Fatbike Hubs Wheel Kit - 36/36 - $359.95

Seems like a really good deal... Thoughts?


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

MaximumX said:


> Really tempted by the Velocity Dually build kit being offered at bikehubstore.com.
> 
> 135/170mm BHS hubs, Dually rims in 27.5 or 29 with spokes and nips...
> 
> ...


It's a great deal. I'm picking one up as soon as I can. I'll post pics when it's built.


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

NYrr496 said:


> It's a great deal. I'm picking one up as soon as I can. I'll post pics when it's built.


As I read that link, it looks like there is only one set available.


----------



## MaximumX (Sep 6, 2014)

Slow Danger said:


> As I read that link, it looks like there is only one set available.


I asked. Seems they have several kits available.


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

There's 29 and 27.5.


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

MaximumX said:


> I asked. Seems they have several kits available.


Screaming deal then. Wonder who ordered 36H in bulk? Seems kinda strange, especially if a bike company had planned to use them.


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

I am crossing my fingers that some one with a 9.6 wants to sell their 27.5 Jackelopes for some Whampa's or carbon wheels and I can buy them used!


----------



## bcriverjunky (Jul 8, 2014)

JR Z said:


> They're yours if you want them!


If FT251 doesn't want them can I get next in line?


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

They will not fit my F5 build. They're yours.


----------



## JR Z (Jan 23, 2012)

bcriverjunky said:


> If FT251 doesn't want them can I get next in line?


Just so everybody's aware, these were hub swapped for the customer whose bike they came from. The hubs I have are 135QR/177TA. End caps are replaceable, they are for sale, and they are REALLY nice hubs. PM me with an offer if you want. No need ask about them here 

Edited to include that they are Bontrager Jackalope hubs


----------



## bcriverjunky (Jul 8, 2014)

Sorry I was thinking they were 150 and 177. One usable hub isn't going to do me much good. On to the Next!


JR Z said:


> Just so everybody's aware, these were hub swapped for the customer whose bike they came from. The hubs I have are 135QR/177TA. End caps are replaceable, they are for sale, and they are REALLY nice hubs. PM me with an offer if you want. No need ask about them here
> 
> Edited to include that they are Bontrager Jackalope hubs


----------



## Beach Ride (Mar 26, 2015)

I was just comparing my 26" 4.7s with some 26" MTB wheels, a 650b wheel I am building and a 700c.

The 26" fat is considerably larger in diameter than all of them. I don't like this because it looks like the industry is cracking the door to obsoleting all of our 26" bikes, but we already have the largest diameter wheels in bicycles, I don't see the burning need for more.


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

So whats the consensus on the new Jackelope 27.5 wheels with tubeless Hodags? How you guys liking them? how do they feel? Looks like i found me a set of takes offs for my F5 build. I've been real happy with the 26 inch Jackelopes currently on my F6 set up tubeless with hodags. Will be converting those to fatter tires for winter and use the 27.5 x 3.8's for summer along with a bluto fork. I was going to just use a faster 26 inch tire but feel the 27.5 wheels may be a bit nicer with the newer frame. Thanks for the feedback!


----------



## Teton29er (Jul 31, 2011)

FT251 said:


> So whats the consensus on the new Jackelope 27.5 wheels with tubeless Hodags? How you guys liking them? how do they feel? Looks like i found me a set of takes offs for my F5 build. I've been real happy with the 26 inch Jackelopes currently on my F6 set up tubeless with hodags. Will be converting those to fatter tires for winter and use the 27.5 x 3.8's for summer along with a bluto fork. I was going to just use a faster 26 inch tire but feel the 27.5 wheels may be a bit nicer with the newer frame. Thanks for the feedback!


Well I'm still loving 27.5 jackalopes/hodags. Since my last comments I've used them on sand dunes and snow. On the dunes I got the feeling I was doing better than guys with 26x4 but not quite as well as the 26x5 guys. The snow ride was less definitive, as it was new snow and aggressive knobs were more important than diameter. As pointed out by many on this thread, it's not a world of difference from 26".

It's nice to have the same diameter as my winter wheelset, which is clownshoes/5" tires.

The hodags are super nice--lots of traction they roll well.


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

Thanks!


----------



## JR Z (Jan 23, 2012)

bcriverjunky said:


> Sorry I was thinking they were 150 and 177. One usable hub isn't going to do me much good. On to the Next!


End caps are swappable to make the front 150TA... I just don't have those, your Trek dealer should be able to get them, no problem.


----------



## JR Z (Jan 23, 2012)

Laced my 27.5's up last night, and, as Teton29er says, they don't feel much different than a 26x3.8" setup. As a matter of fact, tubed (I haven't recieved my Stan's tape for tubeless, yet), they feel identical to Vanhelga's tubed (another tire in the same casing width category!). I suspect, they'll feel really similar to the Vanhelga's tubeless as well, but that will have to wait a few days. Bottom bracket height change between 26x5 and 27.5x4 seems to be minimal. These Hodags are only 8mm shorter in overall height that my Buds on Marge Lites.

Will keep everyone up to date as I continue to ride these up til the snow flies


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

Thanks, good to know. I will have the 27.5 jackelope as my "Summer Wheel" set up with the Hodags tubeless. For winter I have the 26" jackelopes with the bigger Barbagazi tires set up tubeless. Thought that would keep the BB about the same and the geo similar. i was worried that the larger wheels may have a effect or different feel being it's larger diameter. Maybe the sidewall of the hodag makes up for it.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

The sidewall of the Hodag isn't making up for anything.


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

Lots of good info here around 11:40. 27.5x4 not as great volume/ floatation in super soft conditions as 26x5" but the rolling efficiency is far greater with the 27.5x4.

Fat Camp Podcast #7 ? Ken and Andy Talk Tech With Trek Engineers | FAT-BIKE.COM


----------



## JR Z (Jan 23, 2012)

solarplex said:


> but the rolling efficiency is far greater with the 27.5x4.


Verified. 27.5 Hodags roll better than the double Buds I had before, but the Buds rolled significantly worse than the Ground Controls before that. Ground Controls are the best rolling 5" tire I've had so far (out of many), but the 27.5" Hodags MIGHT give them a run for their money. My main worry is how the Hodags will handle on MTB trail. I've gotten used to the forgiveness of 5" traction and squooosh.


----------



## the mayor (Nov 18, 2004)

You're saying a low knob 4" tire rolls better than a big knob 5" tire?
Amazing!



JR Z said:


> Verified. 27.5 Hodags roll better than the double Buds I had before, but the Buds rolled significantly worse than the Ground Controls before that. Ground Controls are the best rolling 5" tire I've had so far (out of many), but the 27.5" Hodags MIGHT give them a run for their money. My main worry is how the Hodags will handle on MTB trail. I've gotten used to the forgiveness of 5" traction and squooosh.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Yeah, pretty much my response as well.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

ATTENTION ATTENTION! 

NEWS ALERT: 700X23C tires roll better than 26X5" tires

WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Not really seeing the point. Slightly larger rim size, lower profile tire = the 26er Fatty and all the other tires available?


----------



## JR Z (Jan 23, 2012)

leeboh said:


> Slightly larger rim size, lower profile tire = the 26er Fatty and all the other tires available?


Not exactly. The 27.5x3.8 Bonti's are 763mm in diameter, my stretched Bud's on ML's are 770mm in diameter, and a Knard 3.8 on a RD is 726mm in diameter.

You can see that the Bonti's are pretty close to the (formerly) biggest 5" tires out there, diameter-wise, and nearly 1.25" taller than a 26x3.8" on an equivelant 80mm rim.

For me and my Pugz, getting the bigger diameter (and all the "features" or "quirks" that come with it) is a big plus, but I don't like having to trim side knobs off of my rear tire. The 27.5's get me even closer to what I want, in that regard, because they're narrower on a taller rim.

For the record, rolling resistance is not a large concern of mine. I was attempting to move the thread along, but since you all got hung up on it: Try riding a 3.8 27tpi Knard back-to-back with a Ground Control (a much bigger, knobbier tire) and try telling me the (clearly) more aggressive tire doesn't roll far better. And that's just one example I can give. Try to remember that making broad generalizations doesn't help anybody!


----------



## Teton29er (Jul 31, 2011)

JR Z said:


> Not exactly. The 27.5x3.8 Bonti's are 763mm in diameter, my stretched Bud's on ML's are 770mm in diameter, and a Knard 3.8 on a RD is 726mm in diameter.
> 
> You can see that the Bonti's are pretty close to the (formerly) biggest 5" tires out there, diameter-wise, and nearly 1.25" taller than a 26x3.8" on an equivelant 80mm rim.
> 
> ...


Yep. I got what you were saying. On many rides I do, the wider, big knob tires roll faster and better than anything smaller and it's a tough call whether big knob 26x5 or medium knob 27.4 or small knob 26x4 are best. The guys sitting at computers saying skinnier tires always roll better don't ride where I ride thats for sure.


----------



## JR Z (Jan 23, 2012)

:thumbsup:


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

leeboh said:


> Not really seeing the point. Slightly larger rim size, lower profile tire = the 26er Fatty and all the other tires available?


No, the outer diameter of the 27.5 x 4 equals almost exactly the diameter of a 26x4.7 - 4.8 tire. The benefits of 27.5 x 4 vs 26x4 is still up for debate, especially since Trek opted for an unnecessarily wide 80mm, 27.5 room which doesn't make much sense all things considered.


----------



## Teton29er (Jul 31, 2011)

Gambit21 said:


> No, the outer diameter of the 27.5 x 4 equals almost exactly the diameter of a 26x4.7 - 4.8 tire. The benefits of 27.5 x 4 vs 26x4 is still up for debate, especially since Trek opted for an unnecessarily wide 80mm, 27.5 room which doesn't make much sense all things considered.


Having just ridden some soft early season snow with 27.5 x 4 with 80mm and super low pressure, I can assure you that the rim width was not unnecessary.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

For most conditions 65mm rims would stand you in good stead,
and provide other advantages to boot. There are conditions where
a 100mm rim and a 5" tire provides an advantage.

On the 27.5 Farleys, and for their intended purpose, a 65mm rim
would be better/wiser choice.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

JR Z said:


> Not exactly. *The 27.5x3.8 Bonti's are 763mm in diameter, my stretched Bud's on ML's are 770mm in diameter, and a Knard 3.8 on a RD is 726mm in diameter*.
> 
> You can see that the Bonti's are pretty close to the (formerly) biggest 5" tires out there, diameter-wise, and nearly 1.25" taller than a 26x3.8" on an equivelant 80mm rim.


Another data point for illustration:

A 26x4.8 Knard, on an 82mm Rolling Darryl Rim, with tube and at 7psi riding pressure, measures 756mm. Incidentally, this happens to be _exactly_ the same diameter as a Fat B Nimble 29x3, on a 39mm Dually rim, which is the smallest of the "plus" size 29 tires. In both cases, they're about the biggest I can fit on my bike:









This is also the reason I'm following the 27x3.8 development with so much interest. Putting the FBN on the back was a phenomenal improvement I would never reverse, but the +/- 1" diameter difference from a 3.8" front tire altered the geometry and steering too much. Even a "4.7" Big Fat Larry was about 3/4" too short and a noticeable difference.

The 4.8 Knard fixed the geometry, but it's just slightly too much tire. I'm not talking about rolling resistance and I'm about as non-weight-weenie as they come... it's just a bit hard to keep on line on smooth surfaces and hard, concave trails. So I think the 27x3.8 might just be perfection.

I know that the "fat-front" thing is a bit of a minority concern, but it illustrates EXACTLY why this and all other new tire sizes/formats are a good thing for us consumers and riders! We get to pick the volume and width we want, while maintaining the diameter and geometry we need!


----------



## jrogersAK (Sep 17, 2015)

I have a Farley 9.6 with the 27.5 wheels and 3.8 Hodag's. During the fall, it seemed great, but as the snow is building, I am getting closer and closer to getting a set of 26 x 5's. I am trying to decide between DT Swiss 2250, which is out of stock at the cheap places, Chinese Carbon or going nuts and getting HEDs. For tires, maybe Dinninger 5 studded, although I know this is not as wide as some. Where I am struggling with the 27.5's on on unpacked single track with some ski tracks or a little foot traffic, and sometimes only my previous tracks. The issues has been mainly with the front end on downhills wanting to wash out when there is a bit of a sidehill. I started at 6 lbs in the front and 7 in the back, and ended dropping the front down to about 4 lbs which improved things, although I am fearful of frozen stumps. Things seems really good an stable while climbing; the problems seems to come on the downhills with more weight forward.



That is the trail I am riding in front of my front tire. Ignore the snow buildup on the tire, that has been really minimal. I had just gone through a muddy creek before this picture.


----------



## JR Z (Jan 23, 2012)

Gambit21 said:


> ...especially since Trek opted for an unnecessarily wide 80mm, 27.5 room which doesn't make much sense all things considered.


Must not be considering all things, then? It makes all the sense in the world that Trek would just re-roll the awesome 26" rim (that was already bought and paid for) to a bigger diameter when they took a gamble on this whole 27.5-Fat thing...

Don't get me wrong, I would have liked to have seen a 60mm wide version for the 27.5's but I'm not complaining 'til I give 'em a fair shake-down. They seam to have given the 27.5" Hodag a lot of thought to tire profile, as they have about the same crown as my Buds on Marge Lite (which is about perfect for my style of riding).

What DOESN'T make sense is that they're still spec'ing their bikes with MuleFuts when they have a better rim in the same size category...


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Yeah don't get me wrong, I don't think 80mm is 
a horrible idea. I just don't think they took
their own 'faste' logic far enough. 65mm would be
lighter and yield a better tire profile. 
80mm isn't fully comitting to what they say that 
they're going for with those bikes, and its leaving 
some performance unutilized/sitting on the table
for no apparent reason, which doesn't make
much sense from where I sit.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

JR Z said:


> Not exactly. The 27.5x3.8 Bonti's are 763mm in diameter, my stretched Bud's on ML's are 770mm in diameter, and a Knard 3.8 on a RD is 726mm in diameter.
> 
> You can see that the Bonti's are pretty close to the (formerly) biggest 5" tires out there, diameter-wise, and nearly 1.25" taller than a 26x3.8" on an equivelant 80mm rim.
> 
> ...


Ok, diameter seems clearer, but to the point, width is the most important factor needed for float in soft sand or snow, correct? As well as psi.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

leeboh said:


> Ok, diameter seems clearer, but to the point, width is the most important factor needed for float in soft sand or snow, correct?


Not necessarily.
Listen to the "fat camp" podcast with the Trek engineers and the old agriculture/tractor
research they utilized with regard to tires.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

So, still murky here. Longer foot print ala 26er vs 29er debate? I need science dammit, not some engineer/ marketing double speak. And now my Farley 6 I have to put out on trash day


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Both diameter and width play a role.
A happy combination of both parameters 
is the name of the game.


----------



## Jefflinde (Mar 26, 2015)

Flotation comes down to the ratio between over all diameter and width. it does not mater what size rim is in there. Except that with more sidewall (ie smaller rim for the same overall diameter) you will get more squish. More squish means wider tire on the ground. So if your goal is to have the most foot print you would want to go even smaller then 26" rim while keeping the same overall diameter. 

Now if one tire is a 4 and the other a 5 then all bets are off. Also i think there are multiple goal here. some people want more float and others want better handling. those two are opposing characteristics of the tire. a bigger rim with less sidewall will handle turning better but will ride much more harsh. look at monster truck tires vs Ferrari tires. those are the extremes but it illustrates the capabilities and characteristics of the tire sizes. 

I still think the fat 650b is still away to separate a man from his money. I think 26 is better suited for the really fat tires and 650b for the plus. But even for plus tires i would go 29+ for better rollover characteristics.

just my $.02


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*I agree with Trek*

My own (non scientific) testing seems to back up what Travis and co are claiming.

Full disclosure, though, I got some free product/tires from them during the testing phase.

-Walt


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

Gambit21 said:


> The sidewall of the Hodag isn't making up for anything.


What i meant is that the 27.5 Hodag is a bit lower profile than a 26 x 3.8 Hodag, so shorter sidewalls, and may be a bit firmer, maybe, IDK.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Oh, yes definitely.
If they are actually lower profile anyway.
I've seen mixed messages on that point.


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

Did some measuring today at the LBS:
26 X 3.8 is 29.0 in diameter
26 x 4.7 is 29.25 in diameter
27.5 X 3.8 is 29.3 in diameter
29.0 x 3.0 is 30.25 in diameter.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Wow - feeling even better about going with the Farley 7 about now,
and just throwing 4" tires on there in the Summer.
I knew they were all close - but damn.


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

Gambit21 said:


> Wow - feeling even better about going with the Farley 7 about now,
> and just throwing 4" tires on there in the Summer.
> I knew they were all close - but damn.


Yeah, I am going with 26 X 4.7 barbagazi's for winter on jackelopes tubeless with a makwa carbon fork and 27.5 x 3.8 Hodags tubeless for summer....with a Bluto. All on a F5 Frame with a Next SL crank ke poo. I dropped my "old" frame at the shop today for them to do the build. Soo, me no sleepy for a few nights i guess.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

I will say thought that I've seen measurements that put the 29x3 Chupie on the 50mm, and the 4.7 Barbegazi in the 80mm much closer together - within a few mm.
768mm, and 765+- respectively.

I think a 1/2" bottom bracket drop should be expected if going to 26x3.8" - which is no big deal.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

JR Z said:


> Not exactly. The 27.5x3.8 Bonti's are 763mm in diameter, my stretched Bud's on ML's are 770mm in diameter, and a Knard 3.8 on a RD is 726mm in diameter.
> 
> You can see that the Bonti's are pretty close to the (formerly) biggest 5" tires out there, diameter-wise, and nearly 1.25" taller than a 26x3.8" on an equivelant 80mm rim.
> 
> Try to remember that making broad generalizations doesn't help anybody!


FYI: The surly Knard is one of the smallest diameter 26X3.8" tires out there at 726mm per Surly specs.

If you compare the Bonti 27.5" to the Surly Nate, another common 26"X3.8" tire at 749mm you are talking a 14mm difference. Take half that for the radius and you have a 7mm (.275") difference in ride height.

Compare the Bonti 27.5" to the fast rolling Vanhelga- 21mm overall difference, 10.5mm (.41") in ride height.

Neither of the measurements in these comparisons are very significant and I doubt most riders will be able to tell the difference.

That is my problem with this whole 27.5" thing, it is a marketing scam. Trek is trying to capitalize on the "hot" 27.5" MTB's to sell fatbikes that offer a very small diameter increase over a 26X4" tire.

Not only that but it also has following downsides:

No tire selection- Heck you can you even get replacement tires? Granted the market may come out with more brands of 27.5" tires, but the only ones at the latest bike shows have been 3.5" or smaller. As of right now you have only one place to buy 27.5" fat tires- Trek.

No studded tires, no traction tires, no wider tires- If you want bigger or better tires- buy another wheelset in 26".

Shorter sidewalls than 26"X5" and even many 26X4" tires. More likely that you will ruin a rim at lower pressures as have happened to several already. Worse yet you can't even readily get a replacement rim in a timely manner.

Heavy wheels- The lightest 27.5" Wheelset is 2550gr with carbon rims negating any potential weight savings of the tires.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Yep - it's all pretty transparent when you top to look at it.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

i've been involved peripherally in the testing/design process of the Bontrager/Trek tires and discussed a lot of this with all the folks involved. I am sure they want to sell bikes and wheels and tires, and their marketing people are of course pushing their stuff. But they also do the most thorough job you can imagine testing stuff (including competitor's products). I would be very surprised if they were doing 27.5x4 as a gimmick. Travis likes to go fast too much to sell stuff that sucks.

-Walt


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

As I said somewhere and got the living cyber crap beat out of me with a cyber stick I don't see enough positive to warrant this tire size.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

I wouldn't say the concept by itself sucks- if it was the only fatbike tire size available I'd be ridding the $h!t out of it and be happy. My complaint is that this product under certain conditions gives a very limited diameter/performance advantage over 26" setups that have an abundance of options that therefore give a much wider range of performance. The irony is that these so called 27.5" fat tires are bigger than the 29er wagon wheels that many say are too big for the trail, which is why 27.5" MTB tires were developed in the first place. 

To me it is like an automaker developing a car that runs on kerosene that gets 1% better MPG than comparable gasoline models. Would you buy it knowing that you are very limited on where you can buy kerosene and if it wasn't working for you- you'd need to pay a bunch of money to switch it to a gasoline powered motor?


----------



## crohnsy (Sep 11, 2009)

FT251 said:


> Yeah, I am going with 26 X 4.7 barbagazi's for winter on jackelopes tubeless with a makwa carbon fork and 27.5 x 3.8 Hodags tubeless for summer....with a Bluto. All on a F5 Frame with a Next SL crank ke poo. I dropped my "old" frame at the shop today for them to do the build. Soo, me no sleepy for a few nights i guess.


Why not a Bontrager Haru Pro fork? They are pretty sweet.


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

crohnsy said:


> Why not a Bontrager Haru Pro fork? They are pretty sweet.


I already own the Makwa, I've had it almost a year and it was on my Farley 6.


----------



## JR Z (Jan 23, 2012)

*Just an update from my perspective:*

After only 6 years, it's hard for me believe that I used to ride tires this narrow (much crappier back then, too). I remember when the Endo was the only tire to be had and it rode like a dumptruck front and rear!

These 27.5 Bonti's on the other hand... So sweet! What I lost in ride comfort (from the double Buds) I gained in a more direct steering feel. No surprise, there, since the tire has less rubber to flex with!

The fact that that's the most significant finding, for me, speaks as loudly as any. Traction and rolling (on hardpack and loose, wet leaves) felt like they were right off of some Ground Controls.

So, yeah. Combine the minor compensation of me floating on the bike (read "not being a lazy rider") with majors of traction and predictability (plus the raised BB, something I like), and Bontrager's _awesomely easy_ tubeless setup. This set is a winner if you can get a discount!

I'm also worried (like others are) that this "standard" might fizzle and die (hence the comment about buying on discount), but Trek seems to be selling a fair few bikes set up this way... I could only hope that they come out with a tire in the 220-230mm Bead2Bead category (You listening Trek!?!?). That would be _perfect_ IMO.


----------



## Teton29er (Jul 31, 2011)

While people were taking time to write long essays about how bad this new rim choice is, I went on a ride in 3" new snow and had a great time!

Again, I detected a slightly better traction and trail braking capability from the 26x4's I have used for years. (my measurements show closer to an inch compared to hodags on 26). Call it my imagination if you like, but I can't imagine any reason a 26x4 would have been better yesterday.

Now we have a little more snow, I'll put on the 26x100mmx5". Oh yeah, winter is here!


----------



## frozenmonkey (Apr 30, 2012)

bdundee said:


> As I said somewhere and got the living cyber crap beat out of me with a cyber stick I don't see enough positive to warrant this tire size.


Hey!!! You get back down in that hole!!

Sheezus, we're gonna need to set some traps round here.


----------



## litespeedaddict (Feb 18, 2006)

bdundee said:


> As I said somewhere and got the living cyber crap beat out of me with a cyber stick I don't see enough positive to warrant this tire size.


Many people look at your fat tire bike and say the exact same thing, and I bet you think to yourself "dorks".


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

litespeedaddict said:


> Many people look at your fat tire bike and say the exact same thing, and I bet you think to yourself "dorks".


No it pretty much only comes out in the winter when all the uncool kids are hiding in the house.

Still wouldn't buy a wheelset that had one tire available. Them days are long gone no need to limit oneself.

edit: Now I remember who beat me up.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

Paochow said:


> That is my problem with this whole 27.5" thing, it is a marketing scam. Trek is trying to capitalize on the "hot" 27.5" MTB's to sell fatbikes that offer a very small diameter increase over a 26X4" tire.


I don't know. I'm the world's biggest hater of big, corporate bike companies - especially for their marketing hype around useless trends, use of components with built-in obsolescence, their tendency to hold up racing as the end-all archetype and - in Trek's case in particular - their propensity for swallowing up good, small companies. But, having just listened to that podcast (while I should have been working), I think I've changed my mind about Trek quite a bit! I have to say those guys actually "get it," in many ways where others don't.

Yea, like all the big guys, they were _way_ late to the party in terms of fat and 650b and plus, and they are benefitting from the risks taken by Surly, Fatback, Wildfire, Waltworks, etc. But unlike almost ALL the other big companies, they are looking at it fresh, with a critical eye, and are actually taking chances of their own, rather than just hopping on a bandwagon.

The big takeaways from listening to those guys, is seeing how they recognize that:

1. Plus-size volume tires are the future, for everything that doesn't require full-fat floatation. Just like most of us on this forum, they probably look at a 2 1/2" wide tire as almost comical in it's skinniness. Incidentally though, they DO directly acknowledge that there are times when the floatation of a 26 x 4.8 tire is warranted and superior to the 27.5x3.8.

2. Diameter is where it's at - in terms of efficiency, speed, comfort, traction, float! They clearly are NOT pushing this 27.5x3.8 thing because of the 650b trend. Quite the opposite, they're pushing it because they realize that 29+, with it's bigger diameter, is far superior to 650b+, and they want to build bikes around _that_ geometry - which is what this tire does.

3. It's perfectly ok to question even the most accepted-as-gospel tenets of contemporary bike design - things like "chainstays should be as short as possible" - in search of a geometry that best leverages a _specific_ wheel diameter. _For most of us non-perfectionist hacks, there's absolutely nothing wrong with messing up your bottom bracket height or trail figure, by squeezing in a tire that a bike wasn't designed around. But that's much harder for a designer to be comfortable with, since they've intended everything to work as a precise package. Trek wants a constant wheel diameter, regardless of rim format._

Now... none of this new-found Trek appreciation changes the fact that the whole Boost thing is a total cluster f___iasco - and that there are (were already) way better ways of achieving everything it managed to achieve. But I now believe that they came up with it in part just because they were honestly trying to see things from a fresh perspective - not entirely for the sake of marketing a new standard. It's just too bad there are so many roadies in their boardroom, telling them that a narrow q-factor was actually an important design criteria. Sigh...


----------



## TitanofChaos (Jun 13, 2011)

iamkeith said:


> 2. Diameter is where it's at - in terms of efficiency, speed, comfort, traction, float! They clearly are NOT pushing this 27.5x3.8 thing because of the 650b trend. Quite the opposite, they're pushing it because they realize that 29+, with it's bigger diameter, is far superior to 650b+, and they want to build bikes around _that_ geometry - which is what this tire does.


This.... and I'll be happily riding the piss out of my farley 9, I went from 26x4 to 26x5 for snow reasons (clydesdale) then went back to smaller tires for summer, then up to 4.8 knards for summer because I liked the larger diameter more, then trek went larger diameter with a 3.8, I'm sold, I rode last year's farley 8 after my salsa with 4.8 tires, I won't go back to that diameter, the 27.5x3.8 is a happy medium when I don't need the float

if you're a skinny guy that doesn't need the larger diameter or 5" tires to get more float or don't like the taller wheel geometry, more power to you, you get the run lighter wheels and tires, but I'm not going backwards now, more tires will come

B+ is cool because it fits my existing MTBs that could use a little more float or cush for certain rides but it's diameter now feels lacking to me

find what you like and rock it, I'm thrilled with all the options we have today


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

I sure do like the new Farley's, one of the coolest bikes out at the moment. Trek is actually an awesome company who help out a lot with the local MTB scene around WI and MI. If I needed another fatty I would be checking out the 7 fur sure.


----------



## JR Z (Jan 23, 2012)

bdundee said:


> Still wouldn't buy a wheelset that had one tire available. Them days are long gone no need to limit oneself.


I'm guessing you didn't buy an original Pugsley back when thousand's bought them with only 1 frame, 2 rim, and 1 tire option was around?


----------



## litespeedaddict (Feb 18, 2006)

jr z said:


> i'm guessing you didn't buy an original pugsley back when thousand's bought them with only 1 frame, 2 rim, and 1 tire option was around?


bam!!!


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

JR Z said:


> I'm guessing you didn't buy an original Pugsley back when thousand's bought them with only 1 frame, 2 rim, and 1 tire option was around?


Im guessing either your reading comprehension is off or you didn't read the whole post. Bam!!

And no I waited till the Larry came out.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

It amazes me how people can get their panties all up in a bundle over someone not agreeing with them on a silly wheelsize. Do we all have to agree in order to get along? There is not a right or wrong just different opinions.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

JR Z said:


> I'm guessing you didn't buy an original Pugsley back when thousand's bought them with only 1 frame, 2 rim, and 1 tire option was around?


So you are comparing the Pugsley, a bike that started the current Fatbike REVOLUTION, with a bike that is at best a mild evolution of existing product.

That sound you just heard... Hundreds of Pugslies rolling over in their shallow graves.


----------



## dEOS (May 25, 2009)

Paochow said:


> So you are comparing the Pugsley, a bike that started the current Fatbike REVOLUTION, with a bike that is at best a mild evolution of existing product.
> 
> That sound you just heard... Hundreds of Pugslies rolling over in their shallow graves.


Fat biking is far from a revolution. It's just an interesting evolution of rigid mtb that originally fitted a niche market of snow riding. Now that we are further improving that branch of the market, new wheel and type size are certainly options that need to be tested.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

dEOS said:


> Fat biking is far from a revolution. It's just an interesting evolution of rigid mtb that originally fitted a niche market of snow riding. Now that we are further improving that branch of the market, new wheel and type size are certainly options that need to be tested.


Maybe not in France, but here in the northern US, it definitely is....
https://www.google.com/search?sclie...0...1c.1.64.tablet-gws..0.13.1374.qUbvmlRVMSA


----------



## stremf (Dec 7, 2012)

Paochow said:


> Maybe not in France, but here in the northern US, it definitely is....
> https://www.google.com/search?sclie...0...1c.1.64.tablet-gws..0.13.1374.qUbvmlRVMSA


Seeing every single major manufacturer is jumping in, I agree.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

so many sandy vajay-jays...


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

Gigantic said:


> so many sandy vajay-jays...


Not to be confused with sandy vaginas
Urban Dictionary: Sandy Vagina

Or maybe.?.?.?.?.?.?


----------



## shoo (Nov 11, 2008)

Curious to know more. What conditions did you test under? How much time did you spend on the 27 tires?



Walt said:


> i've been involved peripherally in the testing/design process of the Bontrager/Trek tires and discussed a lot of this with all the folks involved. I am sure they want to sell bikes and wheels and tires, and their marketing people are of course pushing their stuff. But they also do the most thorough job you can imagine testing stuff (including competitor's products). I would be very surprised if they were doing 27.5x4 as a gimmick. Travis likes to go fast too much to sell stuff that sucks.
> 
> -Walt


----------



## JR Z (Jan 23, 2012)

Rode, again, this weekend on wet, leafy, frozen trails. Found that the Hodags didn't really like the drop in pressure associated with the drop in ambient temperature (last ride report was in the ~70*F range, yesterday was ~35*F). Pumped 'em up and they managed to get some of their cornering traction back. I was, initially, a little surprised to run into this, as I'm used to getting more traction with a lower pressure, but with more squirm. The Hodags were the opposite (which shouldn't have surprised me since I normally wouldn't run this small of tire on an 80mm rim). Overall, the Hodags really lost a lot with the temp change. I'm still liking these better for warm weather riding (something I didn't, really, ever expect to think/write/say), and will likely continue using them next warm season. 

Overall, I'm glad Trek brought this size out. I really, truely do like it better than 26x4", but it seems to be a toss-up between 26x5" and 27.5" standards depending on conditions. Honestly, I kinda like that I'm torn between the two. It helps reaffirm to me that more options are never a bad thing...


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

shoo said:


> Curious to know more. What conditions did you test under? How much time did you spend on the 27 tires?


I was only involved with the 29 and 29+ stuff. I rode all kinds of XC to easy FR stuff around Park City. I was just giving impressions, not doing any "serious" testing, though. Trek gave a couple of us ex-pro racer/framebuilder folks some tires early on to play with. Whit at Meriwether has a lot of time on them and some good info at his site as well.

I did do some super-ghetto testing on the 29+ vs 29, you can read about it here. Long story short: I'm faster everywhere on 29+ than 29. I don't doubt the same would be true for 27.5x4 vs 26x4.5 or whatever but I haven't tried it.

-Walt


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

bdundee said:


> Not to be confused with sandy vaginas
> Urban Dictionary: Sandy Vagina
> 
> Or maybe.?.?.?.?.?.?


yes. totes.


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

iamkeith said:


> It's just too bad there are so many roadies in their boardroom, telling them that a narrow q-factor was actually an important design criteria. Sigh...


Q factor is very important to me, but I'm pretty short. Keeping a relatively narrow Q didn't really hinder tall riders but helps shorter ones. Or at least that's probably their reasoning.
Just a little perspective from way down here!


----------



## ascarlarkinyar (Apr 24, 2012)

Walt said:


> I was only involved with the 29 and 29+ stuff. I rode all kinds of XC to easy FR stuff around Park City. I was just giving impressions, not doing any "serious" testing, though. Trek gave a couple of us ex-pro racer/framebuilder folks some tires early on to play with. Whit at Meriwether has a lot of time on them and some good info at his site as well.
> 
> I did do some super-ghetto testing on the 29+ vs 29, you can read about it here. Long story short: I'm faster everywhere on 29+ than 29. I don't doubt the same would be true for 27.5x4 vs 26x4.5 or whatever but I haven't tried it.
> 
> -Walt


since you wrote "everywhere". are you saying that 27x4 is better than 26x4.5 on snow?

btw I was faster on my 29er than 29+. I have the power to move the 29+ as fast as the 29er uphill, but the tiny knobs on the 29+ was not confident building. the same for 27+ and fat 26". too small of knobs on plus tires so far.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I would guess that in most snow conditions, yes, 27.5x4 will be a little better than 26x4.5 or 26.5. If it gets soft enough the 26x5 probably wins, though. As I said, I have not even ridden the 27.5x4, I'm just extrapolating (perhaps erroneously) from the 29+ experience I have and Trek's own claims that wheel diameter is a better way to increase volume than width for traction/rolling resistance purposes. 

Did you listen to the Trek guys interview podcast? Good info in there. Obviously they are biased but they do at least explain their own logic. 

For my testing, I compared 2.2" XR2s to Chupacabras, because of the almost identical tread patterns and casings/shapes. If you are comparing very large knob 29er tires to small knob 29+, that's obviously not super useful. You might like the Dirt Wizards?

It will also depend on riding style, I suppose. I was expecting a sort of bouncy fun machine that was generally slow. Turns out I was faster on every type of terrain, up or down. Pretty surprising to me, but makes sense based on Trek's stated logic/testing. 

-Walt


----------



## mikeetheviking (Jan 27, 2015)

I am very exited about the new 27.5 Hodag.
Let me explain.
I am a southern rider, my bike will most likely never see snow.
However I have many opportunities to ride through trails that pre-fatbike
were nearly unrideable.
I am wanting to build a new bike for myself on a fatbike frame for reasons of building
a "summer wheelset" to ultra wide hubs, which will give me a crazy strong wheel build.
However I do not want to build on an 80mm rim, most likely will be using wtb scrapers.
I have spent time on 26 x 4 and It is too slow for me.
The 27.5 Hodag will allow me to run a suspension fork up front and build on a 150mm hub, resulting in a strong wheel build and still give me clearance under the arch.
It will be a smidge slower than 29+ but will give me more bluto arch clearance "real world mud clearance"
This tire size will actually be better for "owning" endless rock gardens.
I feel that it will maximize the potential for a wheelset for a southern fatbike.
I feel that the 27.5 hodags competetion for performance in summer conditions will be from sizes 3.8-3.0
I plan on seeing for myself what this tire size will do for me.
I ride rediculously rocky terrain and loose river bed stuff. I just don't want to run 26 x 4.7-5.0,
Currently being a krampus rider I was excited to see a jones bike displayed with 29 x3.2 duro crux tires....
Could u imagine a 29 x 3.5? or 3.8? for that matter? It wouldn't fit inside a manitou magnum fork,,, That size would most likely be rediculously cumbersome also, so much weight and mass.... It would accentuate on 29+ only weakness in my mind.
I plan on building a bike around the Hodag tires without even riding them. I know
deep down what this tire size will do for me personally. 
On another note:
Did Trek/Bontrager really beat Surly to the punch on something fatbike oriented?
Way to go Trek for stepping out and "growing some" and having some fun.
Seriously Way to friggin' go! American ingenuity right there.
Thank you Trek/Bontrager!


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

What is the down side of the 80mm wheel other than a bit of weight/rolling mass?


----------



## mikeetheviking (Jan 27, 2015)

I don't see 80 mm rims for 27.5 x 3.8 as a downside....
I just see myself using tires from sizes 27.5 x 3.8 - 3.0 that are already in existence.
So using a narrower rim is going to benefit me
I also happen to like the tire profile using a narrower rim


----------



## JR Z (Jan 23, 2012)

FT251 said:


> What is the down side of the 80mm wheel other than a bit of weight/rolling mass?


For mikeetheviking's described riding, I'd have to agree with his choice for narrower rims. I'd do the same if I hadn't already purchased the Bonti's (at discount). I don't like having that small of tire (the Hodag 3.8) on that wide of rim, just for the sake of reducing rim strikes. Otherwise, Bontrager's profile design of the 27.5" Hodag seems like it was made for 80's.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

This podcast from fat-bike.com is pretty interesting. It's a long interview with the trek farley team (engineer, product manager, and Travis Brown) on the Farley, their outcome of their research on the 27.5x4 and why they are all in on that format. Really an interesting discussion and well worth the listen.

Here's the podcast: Fat Camp Podcast #7 - Ken and Andy Talk Tech With Trek Engineers | FAT-BIKE.COM

The upshot of this is that their research shows the 27.5x4 is a lot better than other formats in all but the deepest loose snow. What they described was consistent with my test riding over sand with the 9.8 Farley (27.4) and the Pivot Les Fat set up with 26x5's on the same sand beach (relatively firm sand that would break free into loose sand if you didn't have a light touch on the pedals).

I'm thinking that the 27.5x4 fits into a continuum between the 26x4 and the 26x5 where it is considerably closer to the 26x5 in terms of terrain compatibility than it is to the 26x4. It's hard to quantify since the science behind this is pretty complex and there are a lot of variables that have a pretty big impact. According to the engineering guy on this, a lot of the research on tires in loose terrain comes from the Ag world where research was done on low flotation tires for tractors with respect to fuel efficiencies etc.. I thought that was interesting especially given the large diameter of tractors with respect to other vehicles.

J.


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

Well I am cool with it either way as I have 2 wheel sets for my Farley Build, 26x5 winter and 27.5x3.8 summer. I also have 2 forks, carbon for winter and bluto for summer. I think in my case the 29+ would be just too tall for me at 5'4" shortness. LOL I am counting on Trek expanding the 27.5 tire choices such as a Rogarou. Those look really sweet.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

FT251 said:


> Well I am cool with it either way as I have 2 wheel sets for my Farley Build, 26x5 winter and 27.5x3.8 summer. I also have 2 forks, carbon for winter and bluto for summer. I think in my case the 29+ would be just too tall for me at 5'4" shortness. LOL I am counting on Trek expanding the 27.5 tire choices such as a Rogarou. Those look really sweet.


Your plan sound similar to mine but closer to completion.  I'll add the 26x5's only if I run into issues with the 27.5x4 this winter.

I'm interested to see how the 27.5x4 does on the terrain I have to ride on this winter. One of the attractions for me was the ability to support 26x5 all the way up through 29+. I, too, plan to add a Bluto fork this coming summer but I wanted a good carbon fork for the winter.

In that podcast, Trek had a discussion about what they were planning for tires. They talked about it in generalities, but that was because they have multiple tires apparently forthcoming and didn't want to spill the beans until they were available (reading a bit between the lines).

Have you had a chance to compare the 26x5 to the 27.5x4 in some softer terrain yet?

J.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Smartest money for many would be going with the F7 and holding out for a more sensible/logical 65mm 27.5 rim.
You're just not gaining much (except weight) with the 80mm rims shipping with the F9's currently.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Jackalope 27.5 x 80mm rims came into stock today.


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

mikesee said:


> Jackalope 27.5 x 80mm rims came into stock today.


:thumbsup:


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

Gambit21 said:


> Smartest money for many would be going with the F7 and holding out for a more sensible/logical 65mm 27.5 rim.
> You're just not gaining much (except weight) with the 80mm rims shipping with the F9's currently.


Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion (and it makes sense to have a 50MM 27.5 wheel for weight savings) but I had a blast on my 26X3.8 Jackelope/Hodags all last year, so I expect these will suit me fine, especially for what i paid for them including the tires. They are well built wheels. And I will have the Bluto this time around tooi instead of a fully rigid bike,.


----------



## Drevil (Dec 31, 2003)

I read through this thread and maybe I missed it, but has anyone run the 27.5 x 3.8 Hodag tires on 50mm rims yet? I have a 50mm 27.5 carbon wheelset and wondered how fatter tires would feel after running both 3.5 Fat B Nimble and 3.0 Ground Controls for a couple of months.


----------



## mikeetheviking (Jan 27, 2015)

Mikesee has built both 26 and 27.5 HODAG tires onto 52 mm HUGO rims.

you can see a photo of a 26 in hodag here on a 52mm rim, to give you and idea of tire
profile for both 26 and 27.5

Big Wheel Deals

when you think about it.....It's not hella bigger than 3.0....
were just adding .4 to each side, less than half an inch.
Just wide enough to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.


----------



## mikeetheviking (Jan 27, 2015)

The next thing I am curious about.... Is will the 27.5 x 3.8 Hodag fit front or back on any 27.5+ bikes in existence?

Or is this literally a "fatbike" only tire?


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

You guys keep spending my money...
...I need more tires!


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

mikeetheviking said:


> The next thing I am curious about.... Is will the 27.5 x 3.8 Hodag fit front or back on any 27.5+ bikes in existence?
> 
> Or is this literally a "fatbike" only tire?


On a 50mm rim, the Hodag 26" tire is about 90mm wide. I'd assume the 27.5 is the same bead to bead/shape/etc, just bigger diameter. So probably a no-go on basically all 27.5+ bikes? You'd have to measure each frame but I doubt you're going to find a lot with 100mm of space.

-Walt


----------



## mikeetheviking (Jan 27, 2015)

Kind what I was thinking, Thanks Walt!


----------



## idinomac (Apr 5, 2009)

Yeah I think it is going to be a fat bike only thing. I asked the mechanic at one of the bike shops here in mn. about the 27.5 x 4 fitting in the Trek 29er + bike (I forgot what it's called) he said it was one of his first thoughts, but its a no go. I live up in northern Minnesota and when the trails get packed down I'm thinking the 27.5 x 3.8 would be a good fit for me. Between Susie and I we have the three different wheel sizes her 27.5 + is on a narrower rim and I'm going to have it redone to a Hugo 27.5 and then get the 27.5 x 3.8 tires and give it a go on my Mukluk 2 I'm just having surgery on my neck on Wednesday so I'm going to be off my bike till the end of February.


----------



## mikeetheviking (Jan 27, 2015)

Oh shizzle..... Hope your operation goes well!


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

So, if I'm understanding this, a fat bike capable of taking 26 x 5" tires will also fit 29+, 27.5+ and 27.5 x 4" tires? And 27.5+ would offer the same bb height and fork geometry as 26 x 4" while 29+, 27.5 x 4" and 26 x 5" would all offer similar bb height/fork geometry?


----------



## mikeetheviking (Jan 27, 2015)

Exactamundo


----------



## Logantri (Mar 31, 2004)

27.5" Hodag on a 50mm rim is 86mm wide, 72mm high, very rounded. The 27.5" tire has less girth to it than the 26" tires. Very evident when you hold a rolled up 27.5" tire.


----------



## idinomac (Apr 5, 2009)

I am trying to talk my wife into moving to the Hayward WI. area.. if I was getting a new fat bike it would probably be a Farley and have three wheelsets for it.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

sean salach said:


> So, if I'm understanding this, a fat bike capable of taking 26 x 5" tires will also fit 29+, 27.5+ and 27.5 x 4" tires? And 27.5+ would offer the same bb height and fork geometry as 26 x 4" while 29+, 27.5 x 4" and 26 x 5" would all offer similar bb height/fork geometry?


More or less, depending on the rim/tire combos in question.


----------



## mikeetheviking (Jan 27, 2015)

Ok, which brings me to my next question, considering if this is a "fatbike" tire, Will it fit inside of early 26x4 "pugsley" esque fatbike frames?


----------



## JR Z (Jan 23, 2012)

mikeetheviking said:


> Ok, which brings me to my next question, considering if this is a "fatbike" tire, Will it fit inside of early 26x4 "pugsley" esque fatbike frames?


Yep! I was running exactly this setup (on a battleship grey Pug) with fenders for last month. A friend of mine (Sven7) was commenting this weekend how forward thinking Surly was with the first-gen. frames. 29"+, B-Fat, 26"-Fat, and 26"x5"x80mm all on one (albeit single speed) frame... Love!


----------



## mikeetheviking (Jan 27, 2015)

JR Z, 

How did you like the 27.5 Hodags? how much clearance did you have in that pugs frame?


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

This is how excited I am.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Now that I've built a few sets of these I 'get it' a lot more. 27.5 x 4 is not the best for deep/soft snow in my backyard, but for people that ride groomed hardpack, they are definitely faster with more float than 26 x 4, and probably at least as fast but lighter and with less rolling resistance than 26 x 5.

If groomed trails are your thing 27.5 x 4 makes the most sense.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

It (27.5 Hodag) also fits in the Fox Boost 27.5+ fork, fyi. Which is pretty awesome.

-Walt


----------



## mikeetheviking (Jan 27, 2015)

Hey Walt, Do you have pics of the 27.5 Hodag in the Fox 27+ fork?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

No, I'm extrapolating from the 26" Hodag dimensions. I will have tires and wheels here to mount up very soon but it's VERY generous clearance all around unless the 27.5 Hodags are dramatically different (much wider) than the 26" version.

-Walt


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Walt said:


> unless the 27.5 Hodags are dramatically different (much wider) than the 26" version.


They are the same.


----------



## tadraper (Apr 14, 2010)

I have almost 800 miles on my 27.5 Hodags mostly trail and gravel they are great. We got 12 inches of snow the other weekend the first day was a little challenging but on day two and three when i had a good path they worked great. I think it really depends on the intended use but i think for the most part they work great. I just received a set of Minion FBF/FBR that i will be mounting to my second wheelset i am getting to see how those work on fresh snow and gravel.


----------



## dEOS (May 25, 2009)

Walt said:


> No, I'm extrapolating from the 26" Hodag dimensions. I will have tires and wheels here to mount up very soon but it's VERY generous clearance all around unless the 27.5 Hodags are dramatically different (much wider) than the 26" version.
> 
> -Walt


I would be very interested in your findings. Pictures would be awesome.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

dEOS said:


> I would be very interested in your findings. Pictures would be awesome.


I will take some when I have all the parts here. I mean, it will fit with lots of room, there's really not a question about that. Hell, you can fit Vanhelgas on 70mm rims in there (pics here: http://forums.mtbr.com/27-5-29/2016-fox-29-fork-984094-4.html#post12343829) and those are considerably wider than Hodags.

It's pretty great - those boost 34 forks will fit:
-27.5+
-29+
-26x4 or so
-27.5x3.8
-Normal 29er/27.5/26 if for some reason you wanted to use one of those.

Pretty great flexibility there.

Edit: Here's a 29+ Chupacabra mounted up (this one has ~1000 miles on it, so it's nice and stretched out):

__
http://instagr.am/p/_BSI_pry70/

-Walt


----------



## mikeetheviking (Jan 27, 2015)

Very good to know, Thanks Walt! #herostatus


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Here's a good reference image I just made from the posted photo. (which is perfect, thank you)
I'm not buying the "it makes a huge difference" thing.
I'm going to say zero to just perceptible, depending on circumstances.
The tiny difference in contact patch, and it's increased length based on these 2 tires sizes is laughable.

I may end up building a set on 50mm rims (because then it actually makes sense) but not for contact patch reasons. Just to be faster in the summer vs 26x4.6 stock on the 7.


----------



## JR Z (Jan 23, 2012)

mikeetheviking said:


> How did you like the 27.5 Hodags? how much clearance did you have in that pugs frame?


They'll be my go-to summer tire from now on, if that tells ya anything... Clearance; a little taller and narrow (talking millimeters) than a BFL on 65's. In other words, plenty!


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I see it as more of a way to mess with tire size without screwing up bb height/frame geometry (ie 26x4.5-5 for deep snow, 27.5x4 for harder snow/sand/looser dirt, and 29+ for straight dry trails - all at pretty close to the same overall diameter). I am also dubious about any real differences in contact patch/feel but I guess we'll see soon!

-Walt


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

i think its probably a bit tricky to compare from that photo, isn't it? for example, if the angle the picture is taken at is not exactly at 90 degrees to the wheel, you are going to get some distortion of the visualised diameter from actual. then the lens has to be non distorting (is it a camera phone?) it is hard enough using a tape measure right next to the tyre from the ground and eyeballing the 'top'. i'm not saying it is a big difference, just that i think it is hard to judge from this picture and superimposing 2 circles like this. 

in saying that, i think you are probably right gambit21 and it's not a *huge* difference. the question is if it is a worthwhile difference i suppose....


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

Gambit21 said:


> Here's a good reference image I just made from the posted photo. (which is perfect, thank you)
> I'm not buying the "it makes a huge difference" thing.
> I'm going to say zero to just perceptible, depending on circumstances.
> The tiny difference in contact patch, and it's increased length based on these 2 tires sizes is laughable...


And you're basing this conclusion on merely drawing some lines on a photograph? Now THAT is laughable.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

radair said:


> And you're basing this conclusion on merely drawing some lines on a photograph? Now THAT is laughable.


I simply illustrated graphically the obviously, and seemingly telling small difference.
I'm coming to an opinion based on the tiny difference I see - if I come to a different conclusion later I'll post as much. As it stands, the small difference is the small difference - that's all. Unbunch your panties. Also feel free to explain why you think the tiny difference yields a significant difference in ride (other than I paid for it, so it's awesome)


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

dRjOn said:


> i think its probably a bit tricky to compare from that photo, isn't it? for example, if the angle the picture is taken at is not exactly at 90 degrees to the wheel, you are going to get some distortion of the visualised diameter from actual. then the lens has to be non distorting (is it a camera phone?) it is hard enough using a tape measure right next to the tyre from the ground and eyeballing the 'top'. i'm not saying it is a big difference, just that i think it is hard to judge from this picture and superimposing 2 circles like this.
> 
> in saying that, i think you are probably right gambit21 and it's not a *huge* difference. the question is if it is a worthwhile difference i suppose....


The photo is remarkably dead on, (I check these things) and the difference illustrated holds up with the actual real world measurements. Anway, it was for visual reference as to the relative difference, not a "to the millimeter" comparison.


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

Gambit21 said:


> I simply illustrated graphically the obviously, and seemingly telling small difference.
> I'm coming to an opinion based on the tiny difference I see - if I come to a different conclusion later I'll post as much. As it stands, the small difference is the small difference - that's all. Unbunch your panties. Also feel free to explain why you think the tiny difference yields a significant difference in ride (other than I paid for it, so it's awesome)


You're being the classic desk jockey expert. You see an unidentifiable "seemingly telling small difference" based on a few lines drawn on a photo, tell me to "unbunch your panties", and then tell me what i think when i never expressed an opinion at all - other than your method is laughable. I didn't pay for it so that argument is out too. I would base my opinion based on true experience, not a guess based on what i perceived a photo showed me.

Move your seat position 1/2" in any direction and tell me it's a small difference, maybe even "zero to just perceptible". Yet this would show up in your photoshop job as barely visible.


----------



## tyriverag (Jan 22, 2014)

I no longer wanna see what you're showing me. It doesn't mean a thing at all, doesn't change the way I feel.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Walt said:


> I see it as more of a way to mess with tire size without screwing up bb height/frame geometry (ie 26x4.5-5 for deep snow, 27.5x4 for harder snow/sand/looser dirt, and 29+ for straight dry trails - all at pretty close to the same overall diameter). I am also dubious about any real differences in contact patch/feel but I guess we'll see soon!
> 
> -Walt


Exactly, changing tire width without significantly changing BB height.

Edit: So, I initially read this thread because I thought might be something of value within, then you two start a pissing match. Please, don't mess up this thread with garbage. Delete your comments and stop making new comments. Let the thread be valuable.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

radair said:


> You're being the classic desk jockey expert.


Yeah, because getting a visual on something can't possibly yield any information whatsoever, or be the basis of an initial opinion, especially in conjunction with years of off road experience. Nah, that's totally off the deep end.



radair said:


> You see an unidentifiable "seemingly telling small difference" based on a few lines drawn on a photo,


Uh huh, which coincide pretty much exactly with what's already been ascertained based on measurements. The photo is a great visual illustration of the sizes difference. THE END. How much of a feel it translates into is the only part up for debate.



radair said:


> tell me to "unbunch your panties",


You don't have to - just a friendly suggestion. With respect - they're your panties.



radair said:


> and then tell me what i think


Oops, when you said using the visual reference as a basis for an opinion was 'laughable' I concluded that you disagreed with said opinion - that was silly of me.



radair said:


> other than your method is laughable.


There's the panty bunching I was referencing. I was talking about tires, you were referencing my post - see the difference? That said it was mostly tongue-in-cheek.



radair said:


> I didn't pay for it so that argument is out too.


I was referencing the oft typed "I own it, so I love it no matter what" we see so often around here. I wasn't suggesting you bought one.
Further, I'm happy for anyone who did purchase one and is happy with it.



radair said:


> I would base my opinion based on true experience, not a guess based on what i perceived a photo showed me.


Oh...yeah. So if I showed you a circle and a hexagon, you'd be unable to ascertain which one would roll better down a hill and would need to ride it first. Further anyone presenting an opinion based on the illustration that the circle shape would likely be better would be full of it. Got it - we've established that visual reference is useless even when combined with common sense and previous world experience. I've been so informed.



radair said:


> Move your seat position 1/2" in any direction and tell me it's a small difference, maybe even "zero to just perceptible". Yet this would show up in your photoshop job as barely visible.


This is a complete disconnect with the purpose of the illustration and my post, and tells me we're really just talking past each other here. You have the freedom to move your post back and forth. Get those wheels and you're stuck with that tire size.
Look, no hard feelings. I've seen enough of you around here that I know you're not a dolt. Let's not fall too far down the rabbit hole of written communication. I'm simply skeptical based on what I can see, as clearly as comparing a circle to a hex as mentioned above. It doesn't take a genius to conclude that at a certain point the difference in size is too small to matter, and at a certain point the difference would be large enough to matter. Based on measurements (forgetting the pic) it seems to me sizes fit into the former category. The pic was to drive that home - that's all. The difference here is clearly small - and I'm dubious as is Walt. I've simply stating my educated opinion, not trying to be a desktop expert.
Peace


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Walt said:


> I see it as more of a way to mess with tire size without screwing up bb height/frame geometry (ie 26x4.5-5 for deep snow, 27.5x4 for harder snow/sand/looser dirt, and 29+ for straight dry trails - all at pretty close to the same overall diameter). I am also dubious about any real differences in contact patch/feel but I guess we'll see soon!
> 
> -Walt


Yep, the conclusion I've come to as well, and why I'm considering it (50mm rim) as well as 29+ to compliment the 80mm/ Barbegazzi setup that comes with the bike. Those 29+ chuppies are pretty damn fat which I like - building up a new set, that probably makes the most sense all things considered.

The large tire selection, including the 3.8 is what was attracting me to the 27.5 idea. I'm just not sure I want to take the tiny chance of being unhappy with the BB height afterword when running 3" tires - which frankly I think would be just fine. With a better 3.8 tire selection and 60-65mm rims to boot, I'm all over those 27.5's.


----------



## dEOS (May 25, 2009)

I am not that convinced by the picture of the wheels side by side. If this was meaningful skinny 27.5 would not exist and we would still have 26''

I am convinced that depending on rider's size, weight and playground there is a matching wheel and tyre size that will bring joy to the rider. This is why ride reports are so subjective.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

dEOS said:


> I am not that convinced by the picture of the wheels side by side. If this was meaningful skinny 27.5 would not exist and we would still have 26''


That's neither here nor there, and not indicative of how it all went down with regard to 27.5 coming about.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

dEOS said:


> If this was meaningful skinny 27.5 would not exist and we would still have 26''


Funny you should say that, as a 26X3.8" fatbike tire is already bigger than a 29" skinny tired mountain bike. Wasn't the 27.5" MTB tire created because the 29er's were too big and unwieldy for the average joe on the tight trails.

Give it a few years and the bike industry will be selling us a "better handling" 24in fattire that has the same true outside diameter as a 27.5" mountain bike tire to go with our 1X13 drivetrain and stiffer external axle hubs all of which will cost more and be fractionally better than what we have now.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

The one thing that has really surprised me with this new tire size though is the lack of support from not just the outside market, but from Trek as well. Trek just released two new 26" fatbike tires Gnarwhal and Rougaru, but nothing in the 27.5" size. If they really want it to succeed, they need to have at least a few options compared to the many designs currently available for 26".


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

They probably had the process started long ago for the 26 inch tires so they were released.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

FT251 said:


> They probably had the process started long ago for the 26 inch tires so they were released.


True- but they also also knew long ago that they would be releasing bikes with 27.5" fat tires. The announcements for the Gnarwhal were long after the 27.5" fat info came out.

Trek invented two new 27.5" frames for three different bikes (9 and 9.6/9.8) and two versions of 27.5" wheels- Wampa and Jackalope, but only one tire-the Hodag 27.5? With the amount they have invested in the future of fat 27.5, tires seems like a odd area to become conservative with, especially since they are the only producer at this point.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Paochow said:


> Trek invented two new 27.5" frames for three different bikes (9 and 9.6/9.8) and two versions of 27.5" wheels- Wampa and Jackalope, but only one tire-the Hodag 27.5?


Yep, which (aside from the rim width that I've harped on enough times now), is the real disconnect. I know some thought (and I certainly hoped) that we'd see more support for this size, including a 65mm rim at this past Interbike but it didn't pan out that way.


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

Paochow said:


> True- but they also also knew long ago that they would be releasing bikes with 27.5" fat tires. The announcements for the Gnarwhal were long after the 27.5" fat info came out.
> 
> Trek invented two new 27.5" frames for three different bikes (9 and 9.6/9.8) and two versions of 27.5" wheels- Wampa and Jackalope, but only one tire-the Hodag 27.5?


i asked than that very same question at the Ice Man, and added the fact that their "racing Bike" features 27.5 wheel (9.8) but their "racing Tire" the Rogaurau wouldn't fit. They had not answer but that they were not aware of anything in the works. So I wrote Trek and and asked them again and all is quiet. So wait and see I guess.


----------



## shoo (Nov 11, 2008)

Funny you mention the Rogaurau. Switching to that tire from a 26" Hodag will drop your BB at least 15mm's. Crazy stuff going on these days.



FT251 said:


> i asked than that very same question at the Ice Man, and added the fact that their "racing Bike" features 27.5 wheel (9.8) but their "racing Tire" the Rogaurau wouldn't fit. They had not answer but that they were not aware of anything in the works. So I wrote Trek and and asked them again and all is quiet. So wait and see I guess.


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

Paochow said:


> Funny you should say that, as a 26X3.8" fatbike tire is already bigger than a 29" skinny tired mountain bike. Wasn't the 27.5" MTB tire created because the 29er's were too big and unwieldy for the average joe on the tight trails....





shoo said:


> Funny you mention the Rogaurau. Switching to that tire from a 26" Hodag will drop your BB at least 15mm's. Crazy stuff going on these days.


Indeed. And a lot of time spent focusing on minute differences that could be spent riding.


----------



## bcriverjunky (Jul 8, 2014)

With a 24" rim you could go wider and still keep the diameter of the 26x4....


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

Smithhammer said:


> Indeed. And a lot of time spent focusing on minute differences that could be spent riding.


Yup- if only it would stop raining and/or the ground would freeze:madman:


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

Paochow said:


> Yup- if only it would stop raining and/or the ground would freeze:madman:


No kidding. After a weekend of great conditions, it's been in the 40's and raining here the last couple days. **** El Nino. :madmax:


----------



## dEOS (May 25, 2009)

Paochow said:


> Funny you should say that, as a 26X3.8" fatbike tire is already bigger than a 29" skinny tired mountain bike. Wasn't the 27.5" MTB tire created because the 29er's were too big and unwieldy for the average joe on the tight trails.
> 
> Give it a few years and the bike industry will be selling us a "better handling" 24in fattire that has the same true outside diameter as a 27.5" mountain bike tire to go with our 1X13 drivetrain and stiffer external axle hubs all of which will cost more and be fractionally better than what we have now.


I sense a bit of bitterness toward the mtb industry 

I was referring to skinny wheels because unlike fatbikes they are not completely out of whack with their actual size/outer diameter.

People seem to feel the difference between 26 and 27.5 skinny wheels. A bit more rollover, a bit more inertia. They like it so why not.

27.5x4 is intended to be a more rolling/less resistance version of a fatbike.
I agree that its placement between 26x4 and 27.5/29+ may be very confusing.
27.5x4 large outer diameter makes it better for large bike sizes.

29+ isn't really in a better position. Its size makes it valuable for L/XL bike sizes. I am guessing that lower bike sizes tests bring the same reaction than 29er brought.

Overall, just as we have different wheel sizes for kids (basically changing wheel size every 10-15cm in size of the rider), the same would be applicable for adults.

If you trace a line of wheel size according to rider size, you can clearly see that 26 was way too small for L/XL size riders and that 29 is too large for S/M size riders.

Something along the lines of :
Trek Smart Wheel Size | VeloSport, Cleethorpes, UK - Specialized, Trek, Focus & Genesis Bikes & Cycle Accessories

Edit: made graph:


----------



## JR Z (Jan 23, 2012)

It occurred to me, on my ride home, last night that we've (yes, me included) have been coming at this the wrong way. 26x4 and 27.5x4 comparisons have not been apples to apples, thus far, because we're comparing outside diameter of the tires! I don't have a set of Hodags on 26"x80mm rims to take a direct measurement, but Mikesee has confirmed that Bontrager's Hodags are basically the same tire with a different over-all diameter... So let's look at the bead seat diameter:

26" ISO standard is 559mm BSD
27.5" (or 650B) ISO standard is 584mm BSD

All things equal, 27.5" will be a full 25mm taller than 26x4. Not a huge difference, but still significant. Just look at how much hubbub is going on in the skinny-bike world over this 25mm.

My stance hasn't changed. If you like 26x5 in the winter but want something a little more nimble for summer without comprimising BB height, AND you can get 27.5-Fat at a severe discount, (from my experience) it's worth it. Until it becomes more "standard" (assuming that happens with more tires), ride whatcha got and be happy!


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

dEOS said:


> I sense a bit of bitterness toward the mtb industry
> 
> I was referring to skinny wheels because unlike fatbikes they are not completely out of whack with their actual size/outer diameter.
> 
> ...


I agree- I'm a bit jaded and I definitely think that different wheel sizes for different height riders make sense. The problem I have with the industry is that they often push out half developed products use consumers as beta testers and then jump ship to a different design all while stiffing the little guy. Furthermore the way they push products through often uneducated dealers is annoying. I've had numerous friends go to buy bikes and be recommended the wrong thing as it was the hot product- i.e. My 6'4" buddy who was just getting back into ridding got told by several dealers that he should get a 27.5" MTB for desert riding as it was so much better than 29ers which one LBS called a dying standard.


----------



## dEOS (May 25, 2009)

Paochow said:


> I agree- I'm a bit jaded and I definitely think that different wheel sizes for different height riders make sense. The problem I have with the industry is that they often push out half developed products use consumers as beta testers and then jump ship to a different design all while stiffing the little guy. Furthermore the way they push products through often uneducated dealers is annoying. I've had numerous friends go to buy bikes and be recommended the wrong thing as it was the hot product- i.e. My 6'4" buddy who was just getting back into ridding got told by several dealers that he should get a 27.5" MTB for desert riding as it was so much better than 29ers which one LBS called a dying standard.


If you look at the chart, he should definetly get a 29er... err wait a fatbike 27.5x4!


----------



## JR Z (Jan 23, 2012)

Paochow said:


> I agree- I'm a bit jaded and I definitely think that different wheel sizes for different height riders make sense. The problem I have with the industry is that they often push out half developed products use consumers as beta testers and then jump ship to a different design all while stiffing the little guy. Furthermore the way they push products through often uneducated dealers is annoying. I've had numerous friends go to buy bikes and be recommended the wrong thing as it was the hot product- i.e. My 6'4" buddy who was just getting back into ridding got told by several dealers that he should get a 27.5" MTB for desert riding as it was so much better than 29ers which one LBS called a dying standard.


I think we're all disappointed in how poorly you have been treated by some shops and the marketing force driving them to not lose a big name backer that could make or break their shop. I can't say that, from my experience, that's the norm, though, and shouldn't be treated like it is, IMO.

And, in this case, listening to what the muckitymucks at Trek/Bontrager have to say about this standard and jumping on the 29+ bandwagon (while fully knowing that other companies were steering another direction) lends a bit of credibility to their claims. Whether there's an appreciable benefit to the bigger standard? All you have to go on is Trek/Bontrager's word, the word of people here who have tried it, and a little bit science that's peeked through the haze. It tooks some guts to stick to this and the beta behind it says there's a reason other than marketing... IMHO.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

JR Z said:


> It occurred to me, on my ride home, last night that we've (yes, me included) have been coming at this the wrong way. 26x4 and 27.5x4 comparisons have not been apples to apples, thus far, because we're comparing outside diameter of the tires! I don't have a set of Hodags on 26"x80mm rims to take a direct measurement, but Mikesee has confirmed that Bontrager's Hodags are basically the same tire with a different over-all diameter... So let's look at the bead seat diameter:
> 
> 26" ISO standard is 559mm BSD
> 27.5" (or 650B) ISO standard is 584mm BSD
> ...


So a 12.5mm difference in BB height then.... IMHO I wouldn't buy a bike that only has one tire available, especially one costing $3k+ just to gain less than 1/2" in ride height. Lower rolling resistance tires like the Juggernauts or Jumbo Jims would give you similar results for summer, but right now 26" wheels have a lot more options for the slick stuff, the smooth stuff and everywhere in between. Five years from now it may be different, but right now I'm not seeing any compelling reasons to jump to 27.5.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Paochow said:


> So a 12.5mm difference in BB height then.... IMHO I wouldn't buy a bike that only has one tire available, especially one costing $3k+ just to gain less than 1/2" in ride height. Lower rolling resistance tires like the Juggernauts or Jumbo Jims would give you similar results for summer, but right now 26" wheels have a lot more options for the slick stuff, the smooth stuff and everywhere in between. Five years from now it may be different, but right now I'm not seeing any compelling reasons to jump to 27.5.


It can also fit 26 x 4", 26 x 5", 29", and 29+. Conservative estimate is over a hundred options right there.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

mikesee said:


> It can also fit 26 x 4", 26 x 5", 29", and 29+. Conservative estimate is over a hundred options right there.


If you buy the wheels $$$$, but that wasn't his point.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Gambit21 said:


> If you buy the wheels $$$$, but that wasn't his point.


I understood his point, and I expanded it. It is not a rare thing for people to own 2, 3, even 4 high end bikes. Or 2 bikes with 2 (or 3) wheelsets for each. Getting more common as options increase that offer a different experience but keep geometry similar or identical.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

mikesee said:


> I understood his point, and I expanded it. It is not a rare thing for people to own 2, 3, even 4 high end bikes. Or 2 bikes with 2 (or 3) wheelsets for each. Getting more common as options increase that offer a different experience but keep geometry similar or identical.


Right, but you could type the same thing about the 5 and 7 and the guy achieves similar with fewer wheel sets.  Thus why bother with the 9 at this point.
One extra wheel set on a 5 or 7 and you're versatility/tire choice is greater.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Gambit21 said:


> Right, but you could type the same thing about the 5 and 7


I'm not that well versed in the models/options to know that.

But I didn't need to be -- you just typed it for me...


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

mikesee said:


> It can also fit 26 x 4", 26 x 5", 29", and 29+. Conservative estimate is over a hundred options right there.


True, but so can my Fatboy and am guessing most of the 5" fatbikes out there. If 27.5" fat is the same diameter as 26x4.8" many bikes can run it. The upside in buying a bike with 26" wheels is you have a multitude of options right out of the gate without having to drop another grand out on wheels and tires.


----------



## dEOS (May 25, 2009)

Paochow said:


> True, but so can my Fatboy and am guessing most of the 5" fatbikes out there. If 27.5" fat is the same diameter as 26x4.8" many bikes can run it. The upside in buying a bike with 26" wheels is you have a multitude of options right out of the gate without having to drop another grand out on wheels and tires.


Coming from a situation on skinnies where if I wanted to change wheels size, I had to buy a completely new bike, that isn't so bad


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

I saw these wheels on a Farley in a shop near my house. I can't wait to put a pair on my 907. Riding year round on 4.8's and 100mm rims is fun but I'm ready to go faster in warm weather.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

No connection to the sale, but for all of you wanting to go 27.5 fat here is a potential cheap way to add a set of wheels/tires....

Bontrager Jackalope 27 5" Fat Bike Wheelset Hodag Tires Tubeless Disc 150 197 | eBay


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Nobody is forcing these 27.5 fat wheels on people. If you don't want them, don't buy them. Buy one of the versions that has 26" wheels instead.

I do agree that Trek/Bontrager should get a couple of more tires out ASAP.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

JR Z said:


> They'll be my go-to summer tire from now on, if that tells ya anything... Clearance; a little taller and narrow (talking millimeters) than a BFL on 65's. In other words, plenty!


Wait... am I reading this correctly?! ^^^^

Are you saying that the Hodaq _on the 80mm Bontrager rim_ is narrower than a BFL _on a 65mm rim_? If so, that might make me re-think my insistence on holding out for a 650b x 65mm rim. I was completely satisfied with the steering characteristics of a BFL, even on a wider 82mm rim. It just wasn't tall enough.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

bikeny said:


> Nobody is forcing these 27.5 fat wheels on people.


I think everyone here realizes that.


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

I am looking at 27.5X4 what is the lowest tire pressure you have run on Trek 9 series tubeless. I like a bit of squish


----------



## jrogersAK (Sep 17, 2015)

I have run them down to 4lbs or so, but I don't really see much advantage and an mostly running them at 6 in the front, 8 in the rear. Maybe they don't give as much squish as 26's do, but it seems like they slow down a lot and I don't really get that much more traction. Since the sidewall is shorter, it seems like things would get dangerous quicker than on a 26. I have a 9.6 Farley.


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

Great thanks, how do you like it in snow ?


----------



## jrogersAK (Sep 17, 2015)

I think I agree with what I have heard from others. On firmer snow it is great, with great traction and I like it a lot. On deeper, fresh show, say more than 3 or 4 inches, it has a tendency to wash out , especially the front tire on any sidehill. It seems to me that wider and lower pressure would be better. I am still looking for a good set of 26 rims around 80mm, and then this may be my deep snow setup with something like D5's and studs, but it is not an immediate need. The LBS said that Bontrager was doing a studded 27.5 next winter, but I think it is the same 3.8 width, so that will be another option if I don't find what I am looking for in 26".


----------



## Jukahia (Jul 8, 2015)

I`m excited...




















Hodag 27,5 x 3,8" is 93 mm wide on a 50 mm rim. Height is pretty much same as Dunderbeist on a 65 mm rim.. So a bit less than Bud 4,8 height.

Easily fits to Beargrease2 rear.. etc.. Just to test these, as I will be using these in a fs.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

^ Man, the tires actually look small in this application! Funny how your perspective changes after you get used to fatter and fatter proportions, and they become the norm. 

Still, I think these do look a lot better on the 50mm rims. To my eye, the 80s make the profile too boxy for all-round use, and the rim doesn't look like it would have enough protection from rocks. I still think that 65mm is going to be the sweet spot, but this is looking pretty promising. Thanks for sharing the pics!


----------



## fatboy43 (May 4, 2008)

Don't think it has been posted here yet but Nextie is making a 27.5 x 65 rim. Could be perfect....

http://www.nextie.net/fatbike-black-eagle-65mm-NXT27BE65

Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Carbon - meh


----------



## BlueriderAK (Sep 22, 2007)

Well that answers my ? regarding fitting in a Krampus frame for curiositys sake. Regardless of the diameter inflated, I'm measuring 93mm up and down on my frame.


----------



## alias33 (Sep 22, 2008)

fatboy43 said:


> Don't think it has been posted here yet but Nextie is making a 27.5 x 65 rim. Could be perfect....
> 
> [NXT65BE-II] [Black Eagle II] 65mm Width Carbon Fat Bike 26" Rim Double Wall Hookless Tubeless Compatible 26-65mm | 34mm Depth | 550g | Tubeless | Tire 3.5"~4.8" | 3.5mm Rim Lip Thickness | [Black Eagle]
> 
> Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk


I've got a set of these, sadly they haven't been built up yet, anyone want to take them off my hands?


----------



## kntr (Jan 25, 2004)

Walt said:


> (pics here: http://forums.mtbr.com/27-5-29/2016-fox-29-fork-984094-4.html#post12343829)
> 
> -Walt


Is this a 29+ fork or a 27.5+? Every time you post it you are saying 29+, but I thought it was a 27+.


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

*Giving this a try.*

















Supa Fat before the skinnie fat:


----------



## Allamuchy Joe (Oct 18, 2005)

> Supa Fat before the skinnie fat:
> View attachment 1039166


I know fat bikes have great traction, but that is one steep hill!


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

Allamuchy Joe said:


> I know fat bikes have great traction, but that is one steep hill!


IDK why the damn pics are sideways, I wasn't drunk when I took them!


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Who makes that mud guard? My 7 might want one.


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

T'aint Muddy Fenders off Amazon.


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

I was at the bike shop yesterday and spotted a set of Jackalope rims with 27.5x4 tires waiting to be picked up. First time I've seem em off a bike. Makes me want em even more now.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

Continuing to obssess about how to make these Hodag tires work... I think these Fatlab 55 rims might be the most promising so far, now that I look at them more closely. Does anybody have experience with them?:

Fatlab 27,5x55 - FatLab bicyclesFatLab bicycles

I can't find the inner rim width anywhere, but it seems like they might actually be a couple of millimeters wider than the Hugo (49.5 inner - at least before the re-design), which is in turn wider than the Mulfut. Also - similar the Rabbit hole but opposite of the Hugo design - the hollow section and extra material is added at the EDGE, rather than the center. For me who will run them on an unsuspended bike, this seems like a better, more durable design.



























Some pics below, stollen from Bike Rumor and THIS THREAD, show them with Husker Du (4.0) and H Billie (4.25) tires, and the profiles actually look pretty darn good.

























Lastly, does anybody know if the production Hodag turned out to be smaller than promised? I ask for two reasons: 1) In some of the pics above, on 80mm bontrager rims, the profile looks really squared off and narrow, relative to the rim; and 2) in THIS thread, Walt cites the diameter as being 750mm which, if measured accurately, is significantly shorter than the intended 768mm. If this is the case it makes an even better argument for 55mm rims but, on the other hand, may mean the tire is too short for what I want to accomplish.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

iamkeith said:


> Lastly, does anybody know if the production Hodag turned out to be smaller than promised? I ask for two reasons: 1) In some of the pics above, on 80mm bontrager rims, the profile looks really squared off and narrow, relative to the rim; and 2) in THIS thread, Walt cites the diameter as being 750mm which, if measured accurately, is significantly shorter than the intended 768mm. If this is the case it makes an even better argument for 55mm rims but, on the other hand, may mean the tire is too short for what I want to accomplish.


Since the big advantage of 27.5 is supposed to be 26x5 diameter in a 4" tire, I'd be surprised if it was that small (750mm) of a diameter. If so, it would hold zero advantage over 26X4, aside from the placebo effect.


----------



## mbeardsl (Sep 9, 2009)

aquamogal said:


> I am looking at 27.5X4 what is the lowest tire pressure you have run on Trek 9 series tubeless. I like a bit of squish


I've got a 9.6 and have run less than 3psi a couple times in really soft snow (once was in a snowcross race, needed more traction). I'm also 225+ gear so keep that in mind. I agree with what jrogersAK, except that my front doesn't tend to wash out as bad if I go lower pressure, and it doesn't seem to wash out any worse than the folks I ride with (everything in the gamut, but mostly 26x5 and some 26x4s). I can say for sure that they roll faster even at very low pressures. I am often braking a lot more in groups on descents (road and trail) and tend to get to the top of the hill quicker (tubed 26x5 vs tubeless hodags is very different animal going uphill).

FWIW The local pro here races a 9.6 and only brings out the moonlander occasionally. We discussed at the last race and the consensus was that for an all-season bike they are better than the 26xwhatever due to the faster rolling/lighter weight/etc, and for all but the softest conditions they are better in winter too. So far for me (with exceptions that go both ways), if I'm walking with my bike so is everybody else regardless of wheels so I haven't felt limited.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

On Hugos, at about 4psi (about where I run them for snow), the 27.5 Hodags are just a smidge under 750mm diameter. I can confirm that. That compares to about 725mm for the 26" version at the same pressure and mounted to the same rim. So the tire casing/bead to bead is the same, just ~1" bigger diameter, as you'd expect. 

With Bud/Lou in the 760mm range, I'd say that's close enough to use interchangeably if you wanted to. 

I would love to see some more 27.5 fatbike tires, we'll see if Trek sticks to their guns or not. If not, I guess 27.5 Hodags will be going cheap. I for one will stock up, they're great all-arounders (and I built a whole bike for myself around 'em). 

-Walt


----------



## LCW (May 5, 2008)

Here's how I see the industry going... in an ideal sense.... I'm sure it won't though 

26": 4" to 5"+ tires
27.5": plus size... i.e. 2.8-3" tires
29": 2.2-2.5"


----------



## dEOS (May 25, 2009)

LCW said:


> Here's how I see the industry going... in an ideal sense.... I'm sure it won't though
> 
> 26": 4" to 5"+ tires
> 27.5": plus size... i.e. 2.8-3" tires
> 29": 2.2-2.5"


Neither the 27.5x3.8 nor 29+ do fit in your grand scheme.

I'd like things to be simple but I believe that we need wheel sizes adapted to adult rider sizes. Just like we do have different wheel sizes for kids.
Kulhavy who is 6'1 (1m87) does ride 29er.
Schurter who is 5'6 (1m73) does ride 27.5.
The size is adapted relatively to their size.

This taken into account you do realize that wheel sizes (and tyre sizes for fatbikes) do have a huge impact on how bike feels for various people with varying sizes.

Just like there are different frame sizes, we will have different wheel sizes for the same tyre width.


----------



## dbhammercycle (Nov 15, 2011)

iamkeith said:


> View attachment 1042427


Can somebody tell me what that fork is please?


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

Walt said:


> On Hugos, at about 4psi (about where I run them for snow), the 27.5 Hodags are just a smidge under 750mm diameter. I can confirm that. That compares to about 725mm for the 26" version at the same pressure and mounted to the same rim. So the tire casing/bead to bead is the same, just ~1" bigger diameter, as you'd expect.


Wow, I'm struggling to see the benefit then at this point. Many of the 26"x4.0" tires have similar diameters- My Van Helgas are right about ~745mm, Nates are ~750mm.

I realize that comparing Hodag to Hodag, the 27.5" has a 1" larger diameter, but comparing 27.5" to some of the other available 26" options it has minimal or no diameter advantage. If the diameter is the same doesn't the whole longer contact patch thing go out the window?


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

Paochow said:


> Wow, I'm struggling to see the benefit then at this point. Many of the 26"x4.0" tires have similar diameters- My Van Helgas are right about ~745mm, Nates are ~750mm.
> 
> I realize that comparing Hodag to Hodag, the 27.5" has a 1" larger diameter, but comparing 27.5" to some of the other available 26" options it has minimal or no diameter advantage. If the diameter is the same doesn't the whole longer contact patch thing go out the window?


nate at 750? my 3 are about 730 iirc...


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

Trying to come up to speed on this thread, Trek spec is 764OD for hodag.

Sorry real confused.

I have the farley 5 and 9.6 in west MI, we just got a bunch of snow !!!


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

Sorry correction 764 OD for hodag


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

dRjOn said:


> nate at 750? my 3 are about 730 iirc...


The stockers (120tpi? setup tubeless) on my Bucksaw were a hair under 29.5" when we measured them at my LBS when I bought the bike. I was concerned I'd drop my BB too much switching to JJ's, but they were only about .5" less so I made the switch.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

Paochow said:


> The stockers (120tpi? setup tubeless) on my Bucksaw were a hair under 29.5" when we measured them at my LBS when I bought the bike. I was concerned I'd drop my BB too much switching to JJ's, but they were only about .5" less so I made the switch.


hey! if they are and they fit id call it a bonus - wish mine were! im sure there is some variation...

yeah mine are 120tpi 'light' versions x2 and one 27tpi boat anchor version. all the same size. mounted to various rims between 45 and 85mm wide...tubeless and tubed....

cheers!


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

dbhammercycle said:


> Can somebody tell me what that fork is please?


Trans-Fat Fork - Carver Bikes


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

dRjOn said:


> hey! if they are and they fit id call it a bonus - wish mine were! im sure there is some variation...
> 
> yeah mine are 120tpi 'light' versions x2 and one 27tpi bpat anchor version. all these e same size. mounted to various rims between 45 and 85mm wide...tubeless and tubed....
> 
> cheers!


Yeah, doesn't look like Surly is that consistent with their sizing...
http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/bud-bluto-944893.html


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Regardless, the diameter isn't much different than a slightly larger 26" tire, which should be obvious, I suppose. The Hodag is the smallest fatbike tire I know of (about 90mm width on the Hugos, spreads out to maybe 95mm on a 65 or 80mm rim) and I struggle with whether it's really a big plus tire or a small fatbike tire. 

I think that if Trek had really wanted to play the wheel-diameter-is-king card, they'd have been better off just going to full on 29x4 or something. 27.5 is really just not that much different than 26.

For folks who want a smaller fatbike tire (like me) and the ability to swap to 29+ easily, they're great. And you can build yourself a fully geared 73mm shell frame with nice normal/low q-factor and still get the chain to clear, which is pretty cool. So I'm not saying the idea is dumb...but I'm also confused about Trek's thinking on this, given that they just released a bunch of new tires and didn't make any of them 27.5. 

-Walt


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

i feel pretty much the same way - for me, it is a big '27.5 plus tyre' - and the tread looks great for my uses too...struggling to wait for these darn spokes to get it rolling! 

its odd in some ways particularly as the chupa is so light. i know the hodag has a lot more tread, but it is 1250g ish...400g more than the hodag. if it were 1050-1100 id be super stoked...though i guess compared to a lot of the 26x5" jobs thats lighter by a fair chunk...so maybe they were splitting the difference a little...diameter vs weight wise....


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

aquamogal said:


> Sorry correction 764 OD for hodag


That is incorrect. They are not even close to that diameter, regardless of what Trek says. I have both the 26 and 27.5 versions here - about 725/750mm, respectively.

-Walt


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Walt said:


> That is incorrect. They are not even close to that diameter, regardless of what Trek says. I have both the 26 and 27.5 versions here - about 725/750mm, respectively.
> 
> -Walt


I've got a set of 27.5 Jacka's shod with 3.8" Hodag's. 754 and 756 respectively, at about 5psi.


----------



## Jukahia (Jul 8, 2015)

Yep, I measured my set also, on a 50 Hugo @10psi only 750mm. These 27,5 hodags has now been set tubeless on wheels for + two weeks @10psi. Compared to Bud on a nextie 65 (it is 768mm) these are far away from big boys... But I still like these tyres.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

Thank you guys, for confirming measurements. I can't decide yet if I'm disappointed. Fully aware that mfgr. specs rarely match reality, I just measured some tires myself to see if my expectations were unrealistic... or even important.

For reference:

FBN 29x3 = 768 mm (This is the crucial one, that I was hoping to pair the Hodag with)

Knard 4.8 = 770 mm (This is the tire I want to replace with the Hodag, because it's just too much volume. Measurement is from memory because it isn't mounted at the moment, but I recall it being ever-so-slightly larger than the FBN.)

D5 = 746 mm

BFL = 739 mm (My old front tire, paired well with Ardent rear, but detrimentally too short for pairing with FBN )

Ardent 29x2.4 = 743 mm (My old rear tire, paired well with BFL & D5 front)​
So splitting the difference between Walt's and Mike's numbers (and considering I'd run a bit more than 4 psi in the summer) let's say the Hodag is 753 mm:

- That equates to a 5/16" ride height (radius) difference between the FBN rear and the Hodag front. Certainly not world ending and I can compensate somewhat with headset shims, though the real difference will be a bit more noticeable due to tire squish.

- As Walt says, the Hodag size is probably close enough for replacing 29+ tires or 26x5 tires on a bike with a geometry built accordingly, if you're swapping _both_ wheels as a pair.

- However, this is really truest only if you're comparing to the _smaller_ 29+ tires, like the FBN and Dirt Wizzard. Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't really equate well to the larger 29+ tires, does it?

- Likewise, as Jukahia says, the Hodag does NOT seem to be an equivalent to the larger 26" fat tires, like the Bud, Knard 4.8, Snowshoe XL either. Which is what Trek advertises. It _is_ pretty equivalent to the "tweener" size fat tires, like the FBN, D5, Ground Control, etc.​
Like I said, not sure if I'm disappointed yet. Kind of just thinking out loud and sharing my thoughts. Good news is that this makes the 55mm rims seem all the more appropriate, if I go ahead with this:



Walt said:


> The Hodag is the smallest fatbike tire I know of (about 90mm width on the Hugos, spreads out to maybe 95mm on a 65 or 80mm rim) and I struggle with whether it's really a big plus tire or a small fatbike tire.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

iamkeith said:


> However, this is really truest only if you're comparing to the _smaller_ 29+ tires, like the FBN and Dirt Wizzard. Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't really equate well to the larger 29+ tires, does it?


Even DW is a solid ~12mm taller than Super B Hodag.

That said? These just make sense to me, in the same way that 29" makes sense over 26".

With no super fat rubber options they'll be limited to summer use, for me. For any kind of omniterrain traverse where massive float isn't needed, but some float coupled with efficiency is?

Like, for example, this or this or this?

I think 26 x 4" just died a quick death in my world.


----------



## JR Z (Jan 23, 2012)

FWIW, I've measured my 27.5" Hodags at 763mm diameter on a fresh mount on Jackalope Rims... Don't know what's happening with the discrepancy everyone is having, but every tire I've measured on my own (I measure circumference at the center of the tread at Max. Press. then divide by Pi) has been +/-2mm of the manufacturer's numbers for VEE, Surly, 45nrth, and Bontrager... These are new tires, prior to stretch, too!

Edited to include Specialized Tires, as well.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

JR Z said:


> FWIW, I've measured my 27.5" Hodags at 763mm diameter on a fresh mount on Jackalope Rims... Don't know what's happening with the discrepancy everyone is having, but every tire I've measured on my own (I measure circumference at the center of the tread at Max. Press. then divide by Pi) has been +/-2mm of the manufacturer's numbers for VEE, Surly, 45nrth, and Bontrager... These are new tires, prior to stretch, too!
> 
> Edited to include Specialized Tires, as well.


This brings up a good point, about standardizing how we're all coming up with these measurements. My method is to:

1. Bring the bike inside, and roll it up until the tire just touches a vertical wall (obviously, floor is horizontal).

2. Measure from face of wall, at height where tire hits, to center of axle.

3. Multiply X 2

With this method, you do have to be very careful that the wheel is plumb and perpendicular to the face of the wall, or the measurement changes significantly and quickly.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

Nonetheless, we have to assume that when someone like Walt says the Hodag does not even come close to the height of the bigger 26" fat tires or 29+ tires, that he is comparing apples-to-apples and using the same measurement method or both and/or comparing them side-by-side.


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

iamkeith said:


> This brings up a good point, about standardizing how we're all coming up with these measurements. My method is to:
> 
> 1. Bring the bike inside, and roll it up until the tire just touches a vertical wall (obviously, floor is horizontal).
> 
> ...


Why can't you hold the tire up, put a level on it and use a metric tape to measure from top of tire at the base of the level (centered on level) to the floor? Just making sure the tape dissects the wheel directly past the axel.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

FT251 said:


> Why can't you hold the tire up, put a level on it and use a metric tape to measure from top of tire at the base of the level (centered on level) to the floor? Just making sure the tape dissects the wheel directly past the axel.


I used to try it that way, but I could never duplicate a measurement, so I quit. Too hard to hold both the bike/wheel and the level plumb and horizontal, or something. Depending on how much air is in the tire, the weight of the bike could actually deform the tire, too - especially at these low pressures.

I also use the same face-of-wall method as an easy way to accurately measure things like front-center and effective (horizontal) chainstay length and saddle setback, without relying on eyeball measurements and/or trigonometry , so it just became my de-facto method, I guess.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

I use 2 right angled steel rules bolted together so they can slide against each other but be cinched down this means the total diameter is the minimum the rules can be reduced and still allow the wheel to fit. It helped to get accurate numbers for a number of wheels to have some very close fitting frames made around particular wheel sizes.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

And no 27.5 fatty studded? Farley 8 owner here, I'm not seeing a great advantage to the 27.5 rim size. Incrementally bigger? What am I missing?


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

Some of you might be following a parallel conversation going on in the Plus forum but, just in case, here's a picture that craigsj just posted, of the Hodag and Chupacabra together. This might be the most informative way to look at this:


----------



## Jukahia (Jul 8, 2015)

Yep, You need to twist Your head, it's an I phone quality + me 

Here is now hodag 27,5x3,8" on 50mm wheel and on the bottom/left is barbegazi 26 x 4,7" on 65mm wheel.... And wait for it...

Hodag is 5mm TALLER ! So by the method of bontrager 27,5x3,8" is a match for big tires  One just needs to make them all small...

Heights are, hodag 750mm and barbegazi 745mm, both 10psi, same method Bud is 768mm !! and yes, measured standing in front of wall with steel angle etc. I ewen tryed 20psi to barbegazi and had it 750mm.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Barb and 27.5 Hodag are roughly the same size - within 4-5mm.
Old news.
The bikes are designed with that in mind, and that's also how we knew 29+ would fit just as well since the Chupie is also within a few mm of the Barb.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

Ahhh.... that's what we thought was the whole point right ? But it seems that neither the barb or hodag really did turn out as tall as the chupa in reality, as we had expected - or as wide, for that matter. Thats really the only new revelation.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Hmmm...I have a 29+ wheel set here ready to be built up along with Chupas.
I'll be interested to see in person just how much size discrepancy there is from the Barbis.


----------



## xctearor (Jan 12, 2004)

I like the 27.5 x 4 idea, but is the ability to accommodate 26x4, 26x5, 27.5x4, 29+ specific to the Farley due to its geometry and sliding drop-out? Or would something like a Fat Caad 1 be able to run all wheel sizes as well?


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

xctearor said:


> I like the 27.5 x 4 idea, but is the ability to accommodate 26x4, 26x5, 27.5x4, 29+ specific to the Farley due to its geometry and sliding drop-out? Or would something like a Fat Caad 1 be able to run all wheel sizes as well?


Typically if the bike can run 26x5" tires it should fit all of the others.


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

Yep. Once I get some 27.5 stuff, I'll have all three for my 907.


----------



## deuxdiesel (Jan 14, 2007)

So what are we talking about as far as widths go on a 50mm rim?


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

I just measured my 26x4.7 Barbagazi on 26 in Jackelope 80MM and at 5 PSI it was 748MM tall, I also measured my 27.5 x3.8 Hodag on 80mm [email protected] 8PSI and it was 757MM tall. I used a metric ruler and a bubble level to assure both were measured exactly the same. I could feel the slightly taller ride height on them last time I roe the 27.5's FWIW. I figured these are my realistic PSI settings, as i will use the 27.5 in dirt.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

FT251 said:


> I just measured my 26x4.7 Barbagazi on 26 in Jackelope 80MM and at 5 PSI it was 748MM tall, I also measured my 27.5 x3.8 Hodag on 80mm [email protected] 8PSI and it was 757MM tall. I used a metric ruler and a bubble level to assure both were measured exactly the same. I could feel the slightly taller ride height on them last time I roe the 27.5's FWIW. I figured these are my realistic PSI settings, as i will use the 27.5 in dirt.


You felt a 1% increase in diameter? 9mm is only a 4.5mm (.177") increase in ride height.

More likely you felt the difference of less compression due to 3 more psi in a smaller casing.


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

Paochow said:


> You felt a 1% increase in diameter? 9mm is only a 4.5mm (.177") increase in ride height.
> 
> More likely you felt the difference of less compression due to 3 more psi in a smaller casing.


I think you are making assumptions based on things you don't know. I have a LOT of time on the Barbs at 14 PSI to 4. The first time I was on the 27.5's at probably 8-10 PSi it hit me immediately that it felt taller. But hey, you probably know more than me. I am 5'3" tall, I am sensitive to seat height. Probably just my imagination.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

If I gave you a Barb with a 757mm diameter and then swapped it with a slightly undersized one 9mm smaller with everything else being equal (bike, psi, rim size, etc) I'd be very surprised if you could tell the difference in ride height.

You are changing tires, rims, psi, casing size, width, tread pattern, knob height,wheel weight, rolling resistance, rigidity and a host of other factors and you claim that you can isolate all of that to notice the minute .177" difference in ride height? .177" is the same size as a BB from an air rifle, i.e. Very small. Can tell if you have a BB under your fat tire? 

Your "experiment" has way too many variables for you to say that the diameter/ride height is the difference. You are the one assuming that all of these factors (different tires, rims, psi, casing size, tread pattern, knob height, casing rigidity, tire construction, tpi, etc.) have no bearing on your perception of ride height. 

I'm not saying you can't tell a difference between the two wheel sets, they should be very different, but there is a lot more at play than just a small diameter increase making that difference.


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

OK, thank you. I wasn't experimenting, I just own 2 set of wheels and I reported my impressions of them, how ever useless that may be. I'll just stay our of this and leave it up to the scientists. Thanks!


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

mounted on nextie junglefox2 45mm internal, 87mm casing, 93mm tread, 745mm diameter. this was imediately after mounting tubeless, at 25psi, so it might stretch a bit, but the casing is pretty robust (1250g) so maybe not.


----------



## JR Z (Jan 23, 2012)

Paochow said:


> If I gave you a Barb with a 757mm diameter and then swapped it with a slightly undersized one 9mm smaller with everything else being equal (bike, psi, rim size, etc) I'd be very surprised if you could tell the difference in ride height.


I could definitely tell the difference in 9mm ride height! That's HUGE! That extra height means making it over that log, or not cringing leaning through corners, on my local trails... All things being equal, like you suggest.

Just because you don't believe it (or can't, personally, percieve it), doesn't mean others are full of it.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

JR Z said:


> I could definitely tell the difference in 9mm ride height! That's HUGE! That extra height means making it over that log, or not cringing leaning through corners, on my local trails... All things being equal, like you suggest.
> 
> Just because you don't believe it (or can't, personally, percieve it), doesn't mean others are full of it.


It's actually only 4.5mm ride height difference, less than a 1/4"


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

JR Z said:


> I could definitely tell the difference in 9mm ride height! That's HUGE! That extra height means making it over that log, or not cringing leaning through corners, on my local trails... All things being equal, like you suggest.
> 
> Just because you don't believe it (or can't, personally, percieve it), doesn't mean others are full of it.


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

[NXT65BE-II] [Black Eagle II] 65mm Width Carbon Fat Bike 26" Rim Double Wall Hookless Tubeless Compatible 26-65mm | 34mm Depth | 550g | Tubeless | Tire 3.5"~4.8" | 3.5mm Rim Lip Thickness | [Black Eagle]

Anyone got an opinion on how well these are made?


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

FT251 said:


> [NXT65BE-II] [Black Eagle II] 65mm Width Carbon Fat Bike 26" Rim Double Wall Hookless Tubeless Compatible 26-65mm | 34mm Depth | 550g | Tubeless | Tire 3.5"~4.8" | 3.5mm Rim Lip Thickness | [Black Eagle]
> 
> Anyone got an opinion on how well these are made?


Not those exactly but I ride with guys that have Nextie's fat rims and they swear by them.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

i have some older Nexties and wasnt ecstatic about the drilling, a common issue, but they have held up ok otherwise to a year plus of use, though they are on a rigid singlespeed so not massive impacts etc. the newer one i built up seems to have a step up in construction and the drilling was both directional and perfect.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

JR Z said:


> I could definitely tell the difference in 9mm ride height! That's HUGE! That extra height means making it over that log, or not cringing leaning through corners, on my local trails... All things being equal, like you suggest.
> 
> Just because you don't believe it (or can't, personally, percieve it), doesn't mean others are full of it.


You know some of us have been a this for a while.

However, I can totally tell that my front tire was molded from a different lot/production run than my rear tire. Must have been the next day and a different dude was molding the tire. Maybe a .002 difference in durometer but man the rear totally absorbs bumps better than the front. It's awesome and confidence inspiring once the bump gets to my rear tire and my butt cringes less than my wrists.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

bdundee said:


> It's actually only 4.5mm ride height difference, less than a 1/4"


Yeah, nobody on earth notices 5mm of radius difference between wheels or tires. That's ludicrous. I am honestly not sure if I can tell the difference between the 27.5 Hodags on my bike and the 26" ones my wife has, and that's half an inch.

-Walt


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

I must be drinking from an entirely different cup, I dream of 24" of pure bliss with some 4.6's and super short stays. Instead of worrying about about rolling over logs I'd be flying over em


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

I'm curious if anyone has tried fitting these to a Salsa Bucksaw on 44mm rims. Given the complaints about these tires that they're not true to size, I wonder if they'd fit...


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

walt: do you think the hodag would fit in paragons' yoke? (do you build with that, ever? i know you often dont use a yoke...)

edit....nope! too close!

View attachment MS2060.PDF


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Gigantic said:


> I'm curious if anyone has tried fitting these to a Salsa Bucksaw on 44mm rims. Given the complaints about these tires that they're not true to size, I wonder if they'd fit...


I'm 99% sure the 27.5 Hodags would fit the Bucksaw.

-Walt


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

Walt said:


> Yeah, nobody on earth notices 5mm of radius difference between wheels or tires. That's ludicrous. I am honestly not sure if I can tell the difference between the 27.5 Hodags on my bike and the 26" ones my wife has, and that's half an inch.
> 
> -Walt


Some people are more sensitive about things than other people.

Amazon.com: Books


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Walt said:


> I'm 99% sure the 27.5 Hodags would fit the Bucksaw.
> 
> -Walt


Sweet. Just ordered some for my bucksaw. I decided to build a set of 27.5 plus wheels for it first, because I got a sweet deal that I couldn't pass up on some WTB Scrapers. Of course, now that snowmageddon is about to hit the northeast, I'm wishing that I'd built up my marge lite rear instead, hopefully, we'll still have snow when the tires arrive next month.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

FT251 said:


> I just measured my 26x4.7 Barbagazi on 26 in Jackelope 80MM and at 5 PSI it was 748MM tall, I also measured my 27.5 x3.8 Hodag on 80mm [email protected] 8PSI and it was 757MM tall. I used a metric ruler and a bubble level to assure both were measured exactly the same. I could feel the slightly taller ride height on them last time I roe the 27.5's FWIW. I figured these are my realistic PSI settings, as i will use the 27.5 in dirt.


Width?


----------



## JR Z (Jan 23, 2012)

bdundee said:


> It's actually only 4.5mm ride height difference, less than a 1/4"


Sorry, my mistype. I meant 9mm in diameter, not ride height... Way to get hung up on my first sentence and ignore the rest. As Welnic and Gambit21 point out, my point is valid. Some people can feel it. Some can't and are saying the difference doesn't exist (an exaggeration, I'm sure). But I think we can all agree that the difference exists regardless of who can feel it or not.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

JR Z said:


> Sorry, my mistype. I meant 9mm in diameter, not ride height... Way to get hung up on my first sentence and ignore the rest. As Welnic and Gambit21 point out, my point is valid. Some people can feel it. Some can't and are saying the difference doesn't exist (an exaggeration, I'm sure). But I think we can all agree that the difference exists regardless of who can feel it or not.


Jeez talk about getting hung up  Uh nobody really said you had a valid point.

Oh and I read the rest, I just didn't want to call you out in public and call BS but since you bring it back up.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

JR Z said:


> Sorry, my mistype. I meant 9mm in diameter, not ride height... Way to get hung up on my first sentence and ignore the rest. As Welnic and Gambit21 point out, my point is valid. Some people can feel it. Some can't and are saying the difference doesn't exist (an exaggeration, I'm sure). But I think we can all agree that the difference exists regardless of who can feel it or not.


Nobody is arguing that the difference doesn't exist. It's just that with all of the other factors, a 4.5mm ride height difference is going to be extremely hard to notice. A slight pressure difference will result in more ride height difference than that and be much more noticeable.


----------



## shoo (Nov 11, 2008)

I am glad your not one of the surgeon's that operated on me.

It is a given that people have different sensitivities. Just because you can't feel it does not mean that it is not perceptable to others.

I can feel when a tire is getting worn and the knobs are shorter I don't stop riding but it does change the feel of the bike.



Walt said:


> Yeah, nobody on earth notices 5mm of radius difference between wheels or tires. That's ludicrous. I am honestly not sure if I can tell the difference between the 27.5 Hodags on my bike and the 26" ones my wife has, and that's half an inch.
> 
> -Walt


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

JR Z said:


> As Welnic and Gambit21 point out, my point is valid.


You may want to research this and then read their statements again.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

shoo said:


> I am glad your not one of the surgeon's that operated on me.
> 
> It is a given that people have different sensitivities. Just because you can't feel it does not mean that it is not perceptable to others.
> 
> I can feel when a tire is getting worn and the knobs are shorter I don't stop riding but it does change the feel of the bike.


So the shorter, worn, rounded knobs, and stretched/degraded rubber do nothing to change the feel of the tire, but yet you can feel the 2-3mm decrease in ride height?

"Why'd you change your tires- were they worn out and not gripping anymore?"
"No- I couldn't handle the 3mm decrease in ride height."

Worn tires feel different I agree, but there are other factors contributing much more to that change. With knobs averaging in the 4-6mm range, a half worn tire would only have a 2-3mm difference in ride height.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

so, have there been any rumblings of additional tires at this size?


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Gigantic said:


> so, have there been any rumblings of additional tires at this size?


Curious about this as well.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

shoo said:


> I am glad your not one of the surgeon's that operated on me.
> .


Note: Don't send Shoo to the grocery store to shop for apples and oranges.


----------



## dEOS (May 25, 2009)

A blog article on this very subject:
Bigger Wheels | DANOS MODERN(ER) LIFE

I am not the author but the guy being the owner of a bike shop has had many bikes over time so he can compare formats.

He also says that "big guns" are working on it.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

Gigantic said:


> so, have there been any rumblings of additional tires at this size?


Ive heard that other manufactures are having a hard time replicating the magic fairy dust that gives them their super powers


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

Personally I believe these where created specifically for a 6 foot whater freakishly tall dood that drifts like a *******


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

bdundee said:


> Ive heard that other manufactures are having a hard time replicating the majic fairy dust that gives their super powers


Placebo powder!


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

dEOS said:


> A blog article on this very subject:
> Bigger Wheels | DANOS MODERN(ER) LIFE
> 
> I am not the author but the guy being the owner of a bike shop has had many bikes over time so he can compare formats.
> ...


So a guy who sells Trek bikes, gives them a positive review....

Theoretically a larger diameter tire would hold the advantages he notes. However looking at the real numbers being posted here, there is little to no difference in diameter compared to available 26" options, so the the only advantage appears to be all placebo effect.

And with that placebo advantage you get the disadvantages of:
- smaller casing/less squish
- narrower footprint at lower pressure also due to smaller casing
- no winter/studded tires 
- no other tires available
- more mass concentrated further from the wheel center
- inability to run low pressures without rim damage

If Trek really wanted this to succeed, they should have made it bigger so it truly has an advantage in contact patch and not just an advertised advantage.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

So here's a thought and question:

I do think that it would be difficult for me personally to notice 1/4" or so of difference in ride height - at least as it affects things like inertia, mechanical advantage (gearing) and rollover ability ("angle of attack"). But I kind of wonder if there are other aspects or ride qualities that might truly be more noticeable in a change this small. Things like trail and center of gravity (bb height).

Looking at trail, for instance (calculator HERE):

Assuming a 70 degree head angle and 50mm of fork offset, tire diameters of 750mm, 760mm & 770mm give you trail figures of 83mm, 85mm & 87mm respectively. If you listen to roadies obsess about trail and their custom forks, those could be significant numbers.

Or maybe not? Interested in opinions, for sure.

Going back to the original question posed by this thread, this is why I've personally been excited about 650bx4, and why I thought Trek was on to something. It gets us closer to my dream of being able to choose whatever tire width I want, in the exact diameter I need.

I've always thought it funny how we fat bike guys all try to squeeze in as wide of a tire as possible - sometimes an inch or more fatter than the bike was designed for - and then critique the bike's "handling."

I also think the industry obsession with 27+ is kind of silly, when 29+ diameter is so much better. (Yes - a subjective opinion, I know.) But just like with road bike conversions, where a fat-tire 650b actually DOES equal the diameter of a skinny 700c, _this_ should have been the perfect use of the wheel size for a change.

*What I DON't get is why Trek would have botched it right out of the gate, by making the tire undersized*. Not to mention failing to offer a properly sized rim. Now, my fear is that they'll throw in the towel, without even giving it a fair shake:



Gigantic said:


> so, have there been any rumblings of additional tires at this size?





Walt said:


> I'm also confused about Trek's thinking on this, given that they just released a bunch of new tires and didn't make any of them 27.5. -Walt


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

2mm of trail is not discernible to anyone. 5mm is about the lower limit.

Trek botched this, though, for sure. They made a sweet plus tire, not a fatbike tire. Then when they released a bunch of nice new tires... they didn't make any of them in this supposedly superior size. No idea what the thinking was there. 

I mean, I really like my 27.5 Hodags. They're great. But they really probably aren't any different/better than a 26x4" tire for most people.

-Walt


----------



## jrogersAK (Sep 17, 2015)

So who says that what they have is all that they are going to have? I have a Trek 9.6, and it seems like there is plenty of room for more tire, both in width as well as height. If someone was to produce a 27.5 x 5 tire, it seems like you would have the width of any of the good snow tires now, and a larger diameter and longer patch. 

It does suck that there is no studded option currently, although I head that Trek is putting out a 27.5 studded in time for next year. I am still on the fence about getting a set of 26 rims or waiting to see what comes next...


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Paochow said:


> If Trek really wanted this to succeed, they should have made it bigger so it truly has an advantage in contact patch and not just an advertised advantage.


They get a better return advertising.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

well, its a very iffy video, but the hodag was anything but iffy...27.5x4 is allllllright by me...

more thoughts on my blog, here.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

The question is how "allllright" is it in relation to the standards that already exist. 

Higher pressure than 26" (thus negating any possibly TINY increase in contact patch) means there's little point in it. 
Not that I don't think it works just fine - it should since it's more or less the same thing - with less cush.

I tested the 9.6. My thoughts were "heavier and slower than 29+, and not feeling any better in the rolling resistance/quickness department than the 4.7 Barbis unless I air them up beyond what would feel good to me on the trail, then I just lose lose cush. So what's the point?" Might as well ride 4.7's and then get 29+. Best of all worlds.
I'm with Walt in that they're a nice Plus tire if you want the extra weight and more contact patch (compared to other Plus tires) but as a fat bike tire it comes in somewhere between no difference and slightly inferior.
Much of my take on this is due to how well the Barbis work - and that happens to be Treks own tire. Comparing the 27.5 Hodag to say a Lou - well now have something with regard to weight, rolling resistance, etc. 

This new standard is a sort of weird, intermediate, sort of "worst of all worlds" compromise. I'm sure they work great for the right person, not sure that person wouldn't be just as happy on 26x4" and a few of those people even on a fast rolling 4.7" tire. As I said before I don't think anyone is a dummy for buying them - just talking about the tires here relative to each other.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Woulda coulda shoulda... 29x3.8! 27.5 was always basically silly, not enough of a difference to matter over 26. 

Someone make it so I can build a bike around it. 

-Walt


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

dRjOn said:


> well, its a very iffy video, but the hodag was anything but iffy...27.5x4 is allllllright by me...
> 
> more thoughts on my blog, here.


27.5 "fat" should have more grip than 29+, it's .8" wider.

I'm not seeing anything in your vid though that 26" fat couldn't do as well or better, which is kind of the whole point of this thread.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

Walt said:


> Woulda coulda shoulda... 29x3.8! 27.5 was always basically silly, not enough of a difference to matter over 26.
> 
> Someone make it so I can build a bike around it.
> 
> -Walt


Screw that build me a 24er!!


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

bdundee said:


> Screw that build me a 24er!!


That would work too! 24x6" would be amazing for a lot of stuff, I bet. And I personally think the Q factor would be tolerable, if barely, at least for most people.

Maybe we'll get there. One can only hope; tires keep getting bigger and better so maybe it's just a matter of time.

-Walt


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

Paochow said:


> 27.5 "fat" should have more grip than 29+, it's .8" wider.
> 
> I'm not seeing anything in your vid though that 26" fat couldn't do as well or better, which is kind of the whole point of this thread.


Yeah, I'm not a GoPro jockey, I just did that video for sh!ts and giggles - I didn't expect it to prove anything... ;-)~

I haven't ridden the wtb trail boss or a dirt wizard- my point was simply that the Hodag is the most aggressive, biggest plus tyre I have tried and for that, it works very well. I don't see it as a replacement for my 26x4.5 but I do really like it ... I think it *is* better on my terrain...indeed for most trail riding I think it will be better than 26x4-5 ... Which in my mind is more suited for questionable surface- bog, snow, sand etc fwiw, I also think a bigger diameter would be pretty awesome...

But it's all fun, and that's the point I hope!


----------



## JR Z (Jan 23, 2012)

If anyone was wanting to try 27.5x4's for cheap, I'm selling my set of used Hodags and Jackalopes (have some bends, I recommend tubed on 'em, now). PM me if you're intersted!

Edit: Hodags are now sold.


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

*more to argue about*









I'll just put this right here, looks like a 2017 carbon Trek Frame, with 27.5 wampa wheels and 4.7 Barbagazi tires. (fromTravis Brown's Twitter. No words about the bike. The extra cables are data sensors for a log box probably in the bag.)


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

*Full Monty*


----------



## mbeardsl (Sep 9, 2009)

Not sure what everyone is complaining about. I took 7th today in a fatbike race running these. 3rd was running them too. I passed people running everything you're saying is better. Do you just not like running low pressure? What am I missing?

If I had any complaint it'd be with the tread, not the size. I really dig the low weight and they seem to roll better at all pressures than the bigger tires my buddies ride. Maybe I'm crazy?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

I think one thing we can agree on is people are very sensitive over a silly wheel size.

@mbeardsi if you don't like the tread design just go get some different tires, simple right?

Oh and I don't believe anyone is calling then inferior just not superior, ie the same


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

The point isn't that they suck. They're great. The point is that they're really not any different than 26" fatbike tires. That is really something you could say about all 27.5 stuff, not just fat 27.5, though. The difference in radius is pretty minimal, and hence the difference in ride is pretty minimal. So why do it, especially when there's not much evidence the size will be supported with more tires?

-Walt


----------



## dEOS (May 25, 2009)

Walt,

Outer Diameter as large as 4.7 without the "larger" 4.5+ tyre. I am all for it as my terrain is very rolling. 26x4 seems a rather small wheel size for my 6'1 height. And 26x4.7 is of no use for me as snow is probably going to last only a few days here in Europe.

27.5x4 brings some of the Fat tyre benefits without as much rolling resistance. I believe Trek is addressing the market wanting more of an all-year-round bike rather than a snow-only bike.

We can see that all large manufacturers are offering 26x4 on their high-end fat bikes (Specialized & Canyon come to mind, Surly with its Wednesday). If Fat bikes are to become year round bike they need to offer a better compromise.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

dEOS said:


> Walt,
> 
> Outer Diameter as large as 4.7 without the "larger" 4.5+ tyre. I am all for it as my terrain is very rolling. 26x4 seems a rather small wheel size for my 6'1 height. And 26x4.7 is of no use for me as snow is probably going to last only a few days here in Europe.
> 
> ...


Did you miss the last few pages of this thread? You know the part where everyone measured their tires and found them undersized and having smaller diameter than the 26"x4.8's and similar to many 26x4.0's. In theory, Trek should have some performance advantages, however their actual tires lack the diameter to have said advantages, so you are stuck with a similar performing wheel size with only one tire to chose from. Now with time that may change, as Trek will likely come out with more types and sizes of tires, but for now and until it is correctly implemented it's just a gimmick.


----------



## dEOS (May 25, 2009)

Paochow said:


> Did you miss the last few pages of this thread? You know the part where everyone measured their tires and found them undersized and having smaller diameter than the 26"x4.8's and similar to many 26x4.0's. In theory, Trek should have some performance advantages, however their actual tires lack the diameter to have said advantages, so you are stuck with a similar performing wheel size with only one tire to chose from. Now with time that may change, as Trek will likely come out with more types and sizes of tires, but for now and until it is correctly implemented it's just a gimmick.


I didn't miss that. However, they aren't bontrager tyre though.
Now 27.5x4 is compared to every other type of wheel & tyre combo in the fatbike universe.
Comparing different manufacturers tyres does not make sense when weight and structure play such a major role in a fatbike wheel behavior.
I am not sure we have any firm objective conclusion on what the benefits are. Only feedback we have is people having tried both type of wheels and reporting improvements.

Imagine what the different brands tyres would do with a 27.5x4' size?
Pic of that 2017 trek farley is showing Barbegazi probably in 27.5 size. 
Are we going to say it's the same as 26x5 from a different brand?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Outer diameter is about the same as a Surly Nate, or any number of other 4"x26" tires. So they are basically the same thing, albeit a little narrower. 

Again, that's not bad, per se. But it's frustrating when they're trying to say that larger diameter is such a huge advantage. If that's the case, they should have gone to 29" wheels or something else where the diameter difference would actually have been significant. 

-Walt


----------



## Jefflinde (Mar 26, 2015)

This seems to be a tire size in search of a cause. And it is being defended by people who have already spent the money and have a vested interest in making the supposed advantages come true. It feels like this is a test that has a predetermined result and will be run and tweaked until that result is proven. I have read what is supposed to be better about this tire size and to be honest it is all BS. People may feel the difference in steering responsiveness and blah blah blah but show me facts. I don't care if you came in 3rd on 27.5's. All that tells me is 2 26ers where faster then you. Since the size of your wheel makes such a small difference in a race compared to the racer it is a mute point. Also the fact the this is from trek and no one else has come along and joined in just tells me that this is a way to sell more junk and make sure you buy it from trek. If multiple brands hopped on board it would give it more credibility. 

Sorry. Rant over.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

dEOS said:


> I didn't miss that. However, they aren't bontrager tyre though.
> Now 27.5x4 is compared to every other type of wheel & tyre combo in the fatbike universe.
> Comparing different manufacturers tyres does not make sense when weight and structure play such a major role in a fatbike wheel behavior.
> I am not sure we have any firm objective conclusion on what the benefits are. Only feedback we have is people having tried both type of wheels and reporting improvements.
> ...


That's the point, you have to *imagine* the tires the other manufacturers are making. If a bunch of manufacturers jumped on board and made all kinds of options in 27.5 we'd compare them. BUT they haven't, so we are comparing the sole 27.5 tire to the horde of 26" tires and quite frankly it doesn't do anything better than the collective and in some cases, i.e. Deep snow, it actually is worse.

I agree, so far the conclusion is incomplete, but with what we have right now, the existing Hodag tire, there isn't a compelling reason to switch from 26" to 27.5".


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

FT251 said:


> View attachment 1045207
> 
> 
> I'll just put this right here, looks like a 2017 carbon Trek Frame, with 27.5 wampa wheels and 4.7 Barbagazi tires. (fromTravis Brown's Twitter. No words about the bike. The extra cables are data sensors for a log box probably in the bag.)


If you zoom in this could be a 26" carbon Wampa and std 26" barba tires. Thats my bet based on tire profile


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

FT251 said:


> View attachment 1045207
> 
> 
> I'll just put this right here, looks like a 2017 carbon Trek Frame, with 27.5 wampa wheels and 4.7 Barbagazi tires. (fromTravis Brown's Twitter. No words about the bike. The extra cables are data sensors for a log box probably in the bag.)


If it is a 27.5 Barbagazi, then Trek sure didn't learn from their mistakes. Looks very close to the 26" Barbagazi in size judging from where the tire meets the bends in the fork.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Walt said:


> Outer diameter is about the same as a Surly Nate, or any number of other 4"x26" tires. So they are basically the same thing, albeit a little narrower.


Not fair.

Surly labels it as a 3.8 tire. That's 12mm different.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Paochow said:


> If it is a 27.5 Barbagazi, then Trek sure didn't learn from their mistakes. Looks very close to the 26" Barbagazi in size judging from where the tire meets the bends in the fork]


That's my guess at this point.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

I stand corrected- looks like they are making a bigger Barbagazi after all... I'm guessing 770+mm from the pic?


----------



## Jefflinde (Mar 26, 2015)

I know they are not lined up but the distance the axles are off set looks to be pretty close to the distance the behind tire sticks out over the front tire on the right side and also about the same amount that the rims are off set on lower left of the tires. And the front is clearly a 26" wheel. To me they look pretty close to the same size just not lined up.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Yeah tough to say from that pic - line up the perspective on both axles and they're awfully close. Pictures lie all the time because of perspective. On the surface if you adjust for the difference in perspective on the axes it's pretty even. On the other hand the tire to the rear is going to look a bit smaller, again due to perspective.

Maybe the same difference between the 26x4 and 27.5x4 Hodags?
Tough to say - but if I had to hang my hat on something according to the pic alone...

The good news, assuming this is indeed a 27.5 Barbi is that peeps who bought into that wheel size will have another tire - and that Barbi rips.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

It's far more progress than my beloved Trek has shown up to this point with 27.5; so far it has been superior performance through marketing. A bigger Barbi is definitely an improvement. Now we are going to need a bigger Bluto to clear this and the Snowshoe 2XL.


----------



## dEOS (May 25, 2009)

Paochow said:


> It's far more progress than my beloved Trek has shown up to this point with 27.5; so far it has been superior performance through marketing.


I know we are all passionate about the mtb sport & subtleties.
Can we agree that though that this 27.5x4 may bring some good things on the table? Maybe not to the level that the marketing would like to advertise but still?

At this point, it looks like the naysayers are going to compare same tyre/different wheel sizes and repeat that this is basically the same thing. 26 vs 27.5 skinny wheels debate all over again.

As for many of the mtb parts, this is not a major breakthrough or change in mtb fatbike technology but rather a small improvement. A small improvement that I am sure does not grant the need to change someone's fatbike for a new model.


----------



## TitanofChaos (Jun 13, 2011)

Paochow said:


> I stand corrected- looks like they are making a bigger Barbagazi after all... I'm guessing 770+mm from the pic?
> 
> View attachment 1045675


everyone is obsessed with looking at tires, no one notices the 26" carbon wheel


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

TitanofChaos said:


> everyone is obsessed with looking at tires, no one notices the 26" carbon wheel


Nobody is saying the tire/wheel in front is a 27.5, they are talking about the wheel behind it as a possible 27.5 Barbegazi.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

I fall firmly in the camp of "the more tire size options, the better" so I'm not a hater or naysayer by any stretch. But...



dEOS said:


> At this point, it looks like the naysayers are going to compare same tyre/different wheel sizes and repeat that this is basically the same thing. 26 vs 27.5 skinny wheels debate all over again.


This is going to end up being even more impassioned - over even more subtle nuances - than the skinny version of the debate, because of the increased size of the tires we're talking about. For 2" tires, you gain something like 3.8% in diameter, by going from 559 to 650b. For these tires, the change only gains you something like 3.4%. Plus, as others have noted above, you can defeat or exaggerate any of that gain with just a couple of lbs of air pressure.



dEOS said:


> As for many of the mtb parts, this is not a major breakthrough or change in mtb fatbike technology but rather a small improvement. A small improvement that I am sure does not grant the need to change someone's fatbike for a new model.


Since it appears that Bontrager fat tires are going to be consistently under-sized compared to the industry average (they're not alone, of course), I don't think many people will need to change their bike _even if they DO want to use these wheels_. I think we can safely assume at this point that a A 650b Barbagazi will be the same height, or slightly smaller, than a Bud or some of the larger 26 x "4.8' tires.

Nonethless, this could easily end up being the exact tire I'm waiting for. so I say, BRING IT ON,TREK - but don't wait until next winter. You kind of have to wonder if they even realize that the these 27" fat tires hold most of their promise in the possibility of use as _summer_ tires.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

dEOS said:


> I know we are all passionate about the mtb sport & subtleties.
> Can we agree that though that this 27.5x4 may bring some good things on the table? Maybe not to the level that the marketing would like to advertise but still?
> 
> At this point, it looks like the naysayers are going to compare same tyre/different wheel sizes and repeat that this is basically the same thing. 26 vs 27.5 skinny wheels debate all over again.
> ...


It is definitely a step in the right direction, Trek has really blown it to this point by only having one tire available. If they release a few more and one of the big guys like Surly, 45NRTH, or Vee jump into the fray then this size may have a shot at succeeding down the road.

I wouldn't say that this is 26" vs 27.5" all over again, it is more like 29" vs 30" or with the new tires- 30" vs 31". With all of these huge sidewall tires nowhere close to their 26" or 27.5" stated measurements, maybe it is time that the bike manufacturers ditch the antiquated system and the switch over to a more accurate sizing system like on cars and motorcycles.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Paochow said:


> It is definitely a step in the right direction, Trek has really blown it to this point by only having one tire available. If they release a few more and one of the big guys like Surly, 45NRTH, or Vee jump into the fray then this size may have a shot at succeeding down the road.
> 
> I wouldn't say that this is 26" vs 27.5" all over again, it is more like 29" vs 30" or with the new tires- 30" vs 31". With all of these huge sidewall tires nowhere close to their 26" or 27.5" stated measurements, maybe it is time that the bike manufacturers ditch the antiquated system and the switch over to a more accurate sizing system like on cars and motorcycles.


"blown it"? Really? Is that why the bikes are flying out of the LBS's and some of the models are sold out or are hard to get? Making tire molds is not simple and just takes a while.

J.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

JohnJ80 said:


> "blown it"? Really? Is that why the bikes are flying out of the LBS's and some of the models are sold out or are hard to get? Making tire molds is not simple and just takes a while.
> 
> J.


Well, nobody is really saying that there's anything wrong with the Farleys. They're clearly a great bike. Plus - a lot of people seek out value-packed , mass-produced, carbon fiber bikes from big corporate manufacturers - that's no surprise. This thread is more of a debate about the merits of the tire platform alone.

I do agree that Trek blew it a bit. Not on the level of Surly with the Knard, where they actually came up with a real improvement but then let others steal the thunder because they couldn't follow up with more tires. But more because they didn't even follow through on their OWN idea, thereby denying anybody the opportunity to really test their theory.

If you go back and read the whole thread chronologically, from when there were just rumors, you'll see what @paochow is talking about. Trek initially suggested that the 27x4 was going to be the same size as 29+ and 26x5 tires. Unfortunately for all of us, it's not.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

JohnJ80 said:


> "blown it"? Really? Is that why the bikes are flying out of the LBS's and some of the models are sold out or are hard to get? Making tire molds is not simple and just takes a while.
> 
> J.


I'm a Trek fan, I've owned more Trek's than any other brand in my life and half the bikes in my garage are currently from Waterloo, but you are far too willing to give Trek a pass on the tires... If they had the time to design the carbon and aluminum frames, two different wheels, and one set of tires, they had more than ample time to figure out a few other different tires. I'm guessing they didn't decide just prior to the launch date that they were going to be using 27.5" wheels. To me it is similar to the days of Microsoft using paying consumers to beta test their products.


----------



## Jefflinde (Mar 26, 2015)

in the new 9.8 review that is posted on MTBR's home page, they pitch the bike as a wide tired 27.5 race bike. where the wide tires are there to increase traction on hard pack and soft dirt Now if it would have been sold to me from that aspect i would maybe buy into the marketing. they should have called is a 27.5++ or something. interesting how if didn't fair so well in traditional fat bike areas like snow performance and ride compliance. Actually they recommend switching to a 26er for snow conditions.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

...and if that's where I'm at..."hard pack race bike" then I just go to 29+. In other words if I care about speed above all else I don't bother with a fat bike. 

Still - I'm liking that Trek is expanding on this. Only good can come from it whether or not it's currently superfluous. They did well with that Barbegazi.


----------



## jrogersAK (Sep 17, 2015)

This may be old news, but my LBS said that Trek has a 26" studded tire out now (forgot which model) and committed to have a 27.5 version of it out by nest winter.


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

Hi wondering were this pic came from, inside Trek ? Thx


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

iamkeith said:


> Well, nobody is really saying that there's anything wrong with the Farleys. They're clearly a great bike. Plus - a lot of people seek out value-packed , mass-produced, carbon fiber bikes from big corporate manufacturers - that's no surprise. This thread is more of a debate about the merits of the tire platform alone.
> 
> I do agree that Trek blew it a bit. Not on the level of Surly with the Knard, where they actually came up with a real improvement but then let others steal the thunder because they couldn't follow up with more tires. But more because they didn't even follow through on their OWN idea, thereby denying anybody the opportunity to really test their theory.
> 
> If you go back and read the whole thread chronologically, from when there were just rumors, you'll see what @paochow is talking about. Trek initially suggested that the 27x4 was going to be the same size as 29+ and 26x5 tires. Unfortunately for all of us, it's not.


I did read the thread all the way through (a lot of it more than once). I'm just making the point that I don't this is a binary thing but rather more of a scale. So that makes it hard to have "blown" it be it as a bike or as a tire. Experientially, for me, I'd say that they probably got it a lot more right than wrong. I really like the performance of this tire and wheel combination.



Paochow said:


> I'm a Trek fan, I've owned more Trek's than any other brand in my life and half the bikes in my garage are currently from Waterloo, but you are far too willing to give Trek a pass on the tires... If they had the time to design the carbon and aluminum frames, two different wheels, and one set of tires, they had more than ample time to figure out a few other different tires. I'm guessing they didn't decide just prior to the launch date that they were going to be using 27.5" wheels. To me it is similar to the days of Microsoft using paying consumers to beta test their products.


I'm presuming your not a mind reader hence I really don't think you know what I am or am not willing to do (nor have you and I discussed it). That all aside, I can tell you that I am willing to be patient on the tire issue because I know how difficult it is to make such things and am familiar with all the issue of manufacturing in Asia. This is going to take a while. Which would have been better - hold back the bike until *everything* and all accessories are available or get it out in the real world? With that kind of a real world decision in front of Trek management, I'd say that sooner is better than later and I think that is beneficial to consumers too.

I'm also willing to be patient on this because the 27.5x4 format is a lot closer to the 26x5 format in performance than it is to the 26x4 format. I've also found that it works really well for me where I ride (beaches, trails in winter - traditionally at the lower end of 26x5 applications) and I think (for me, personally) that validates a lot of the research that Trek put into this.

Based on all of that, and the fact that the bikes have been very well received so far by actual consumers spending their own money that I think that it's hyperbole to say that Trek has "blown" it with either the tire or bike (and/or). If they had blown it, then sales would quickly have dried up. But that hasn't happened, has it?


----------



## TitanofChaos (Jun 13, 2011)

JohnJ80 said:


> I'm also willing to be patient on this because the 27.5x4 format is a lot closer to the 26x5 format in performance than it is to the 26x4 format. I've also found that it works really well for me where I ride (beaches, trails in winter - traditionally at the lower end of 26x5 applications) and I think (for me, personally) that validates a lot of the research that Trek put into this.


I'm really in the same boat here, between my own findings, (switching my rides between my farley 9 and my 26x5 clownshoed salsa) and what others in my local rider pool have said, I think it has a lot of merit with the exception of really deep or loose snow, tires will catch up and I can only imagine what a 27.5 x 4.25" or 4.5" tire could do, I think it would still roll more efficiently than the more square contact patch of a 26x5 tire


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

jrogersAK said:


> This may be old news, but my LBS said that Trek has a 26" studded tire out now (forgot which model) and committed to have a 27.5 version of it out by nest winter.


Gnarwal I think.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

So, would any frame/fork that fits a 27.5x4 also fit the new 26x 5.05 2xL's ?


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Outer diameter will be the determining factor there, and if the difference is as small as the difference currently between the 2 different sized Hodags....

I'm watching with interest.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

TitanofChaos said:


> I'm really in the same boat here, between my own findings, (switching my rides between my farley 9 and my 26x5 clownshoed salsa) and what others in my local rider pool have said, I think it has a lot of merit with the exception of really deep or loose snow, tires will catch up and I can only imagine what a 27.5 x 4.25" or 4.5" tire could do, I think it would still roll more efficiently than the more square contact patch of a 26x5 tire


Well said and I think, exactly right. The 27.5x4 will do anything a 26x4 will do and most of what a 26x5 will do with the exception of the very loose or very deep sand/snow. With that, you also get the benefit of a fast responsive wheel in all the conditions in which it will work. You also get the increased rolling efficiency of a larger diameter wheel. Hard not to see that as a lot of positive benefit.

Additionally, if they are getting ready to introduce a 27.5x4.7 or similar, that's going to be really interesting. All the benefit of the full 26x5 range plus better rolling efficiency.

I keep coming back to the podcast on fat-bike.com where the engineers and product people for the Farley were interviewed. They spend a lot of time talking about their research and why they made this decision. Trek is a large enough company that they can afford to do the research and they can also afford to prototype to test it before they launch it. While it's risky to push the innovation curve, you also don't gain good marketshare unless you do just that. You minimize that risk by doing solid research up front to make sure you're right or at least minimize the chances that you're wrong.

Here's that link to that podcast again. Well worth the listen. I found it fascinating because, after riding the bike in a lot of different conditions, it pretty much enumerated the experience I've had riding it. I think their research matches my experience with the bike (a very good thing).

J.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

leeboh said:


> Gnarwal I think.


Interesting.

That said, I studded up the tires that came on the bike. At 75 grip studs per tire - well below the sort of "armor plating" approach to studding that many of the pre-studded tires have - I don't lack for grip on ice (at all) and so I don't have the extra weight. This has worked so well that I think this is the better approach.

I'll just buy an unstudded version for the summer.

J.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

JohnJ80 said:


> Well said and I think, exactly right. The 27.5x4 will do anything a 26x4 will do and most of what a 26x5 will do with the exception of the very loose or very deep sand/snow. With that, you also get the benefit of a fast responsive wheel in all the conditions in which it will work.


Yes, the 27.5x4 does everything the 26x4 does, and the the other way around. That's been the entire point of this thread.

"Most of what the 25x4.7 will do" Good point! A 26x4.7 will do anything those other sizes will do and more, and guess what? You don't give anything up. Ride the Barbis and you'll see what I mean. Contact patch, plus fast, plus cush - you won't be crying for the 27.5x4" Bontrager Placebos I promise. That said, those 27.5's feel just fine for what they are. I'd ride em if I could come up with a reason to.



JohnJ80 said:


> You also get the increased rolling efficiency of a larger diameter wheel.


Yeah - so we've heard.
See the rest of the thread.


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

wow this thread is really fun to follow. I have both a Farley 5 with 4.7 and Farley 9.6 love them both, ride them back to back in conditions to see what i can learn.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Nice!


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Gambit21 said:


> Yes, the 27.5x4 does everything the 26x4 does, *and the the other way around*. That's been the entire point of this thread.


We disagree about this. And that is not what I said. The 27.5x4 does more than a 26x4 does. Putting words in my mouth and then pretending we agree is just argumentative to no good purpose.



> "Most of what the 25x4.7 will do" Good point! A 26x4.7 will do anything those other sizes will do and more, and guess what? You don't give anything up. Ride the Barbis and you'll see what I mean. Contact patch, plus fast, plus cush - you won't be crying for the 27.5x4" Bontrager Placebos I promise. That said, those 27.5's feel just fine for what they are. I'd ride em if I could come up with a reason to.


So the diameters of the wheels are completely and totally irrelevant? A 26" wheel does everything and there is *no* advantage whatsoever to anything different? But further than that, it's optimal and it's better than all_other_sizes (i.e. "and more" and "you don't give anything up")? That's actually absurd on it's face.



> Yeah - so we've heard.
> See the rest of the thread.


Obviously the larger diameter has a better rolling efficiency - that's just math. I presume we are arguing about how much that difference is.

J.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

I'm not arguing - that would be pointless.
Ignoring the rest of the thread is fun!


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

JohnJ80 said:


> The 27.5x4 does more than a 26x4 does.
> .


Elaborate on this - in the context of (not ignoring) what's already been pointed out regarding the almost exact sameness of the two sizes.
I'm curious what the 27.5x4 does that the 26x4 doesn't do, or where the 26x4 noticeably falls short. Again, not ignoring the facts already pointed out.

Go

Also just a conversation - don't confuse a debate with 'arguing' or me or anyone else being overly attached. This is all interesting given the similarities in size and the marketing. That's all.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Gambit21 said:


> Elaborate on this - in the context of (not ignoring) what's already been pointed out regarding the almost exact sameness of the two sizes.
> I'm curious what the 27.5x4 does that the 26x4 doesn't do, or where the 26x4 noticeably falls short. Again, not ignoring the facts already pointed out.
> 
> Go
> ...


Already done so far earlier in this thread, I believe. Go.

I'm not confusing anything. I asked you to not put words in my mouth and attribute that to me. That's generally considered common courtesy in both conversation or debate.

J.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

I added to your statement with my own statement, I didn't put words in our mouth.
Have a cookie.


----------



## dEOS (May 25, 2009)

Gambit, 

We just went over this 2 pages ago. You are just being aggressive with nothing new. 

What you say is basically the same debate between 26 & 27.5 wheels for skinny tyres. 


Envoyé de mon SM-G900F en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Look at what I said above about "discussion" and even outside of that I'm hardly being "aggressive" that's the trouble with written communication though eh?
...and not it's not the same as 26 vs 27.5 - as already pointed out.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

I'm going to stick to my original statement from page 1or2 and it is fact. Right now there is 1 tire available for this wheel size and I remember the days of 2 tire choices. I am not ready to go back to them days. When more tire choices become available I will revisit the notion but as of right now I have tires for every occasion.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Yep - that new Barbi looks promising though.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

Gambit21 said:


> Look at what I said above about "discussion" and even outside of that I'm hardly being "aggressive" that's the trouble with written communication though eh?
> ...and not it's not the same as 26 vs 27.5 - as already pointed out.


Yup, until the new Barbi comes out it's still 29" vs 29.375".


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

bdundee said:


> I'm going to stick to my original statement from page 1or2 and it is fact. Right now there is 1 tire available for this wheel size and I remember the days of 2 tire choices. I am not ready to go back to them days. When more tire choices become available I will revisit the notion but as of right now I have tires for every occasion.


Exactly- owning a 24" Muni, I know exactly what you are talking about. Every other size has a bunch of lightweight and better tire options, but the 24", not so much...


----------



## Jefflinde (Mar 26, 2015)

The difference between 26 and 27.5 non-fat is that the 27.5 actually has a larger diameter then a 26. This gives the 27.5 an actual advantage over the 26. With the 2 fat versions all you are doing is changing rim diameter within the same size overall diameter of tire. 

claiming that trek has the money to research is ok logic but they also have the money to develope something just to see if they can suck a bunch of people into buying it. If they really felt it was the future you would see this wheel on lower end bikes. But since it is only on the high end, high margin bike that tells me they are trying to get there money back ASAP. Also, if other companies saw this as a real option you would see other tire companies coming out with them. Look at how fast 27.5+ tire became available. 


Stir stir stir


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Paochow said:


> Yup, until the new Barbi comes out it's still 29" vs 29.375".
> 
> View attachment 1045892


Yup!
I like this image because although photos can lie and deceive due to perspective and distortion - this particular photo is pretty much dead-nuts on in representing the real difference between the two. Thus, it bothers some people - especially with graphics added.  Add to this the fact that with other 4" fat tires the difference shrinks to almost nothing.

I give Trek credit where it's due, they brought it, big time with these new fat bikes, and the Stache to boot. Just a bit of a miss on the 9's and the 27.5 thing so far - which is why I went 7. Again - I have an open mind and waiting for progress - which it seems is on the way.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

what seems to be developing here is a schism between discussing the Hodag 27.5x4 tyre and 27.5xfat as a concept. personally, i find the hodag 27.5 a great tyre. but it is more akin to a robust, grippy and big 'plus' tyre. it is somewhere inbetween x4" fat and x3" plus in terms of width and casing height, rim depending and probably nearer 4", but due to its 584 ISO it maintains the same rolling diameter as a 26x4.5 ish tyre (it is within a mm or two of my flowbeist for example, a smidge bigger than surly nate and smaller it sounds like the bud/lou for example, but in the ballpark so could be used in either situation with minimal issue.

This may have been what Trek were aiming at. its a poke in a new direction, afterall. as many fat users have found, 26x4.0 is not ideal for fast, *trail* riding in some circumstances at certain speeds. perhaps more circumstances than not. user opinion varies, but just as a lot of faster, aggressive riders in particualr terrain are experiencing with the current, relatively immature 'plus' tyres, they tend to wallow around a bit and be imprecise, while offering good traction in some terrains, but providing a bit of a slide out potential in deep mud - where a narrower tyre will bite through a bit more and offer more precision if less cush. 

none of this stuff is black and white of course! but a narrower/bigger diameter tyre for a fat bike is a heck of an addition to the options. IN SAYING that, the hodag may not be where this heads - it may be that this is a feeler towards 27.5x4.5 or even 5. with the birth of the XXL, it seems that tyre molds and machinary for bigger tyres are being made...(if memory serves, the limits oif which were the reason why 26x4 was the biggest tyre made back in the endomorph days- it was the limit of what the then current machinary/molds could handle -though i might have a poor memory!)

i for one really like the idea of being able to chose a flowbeist for snow/bog/questionable terrain with the option to stick a hodag on for faster, aggressive, rocky or dry riding - in that it will not change the geo and it seems (in my, admitedly relatively limited use, so far) to be more precise and offer as good grip while mainitaining low pressure bump absorption as the full fat, with less hang up on trail 'sides', bush and whatnot due to its less portly girth.while maintaining decent rollover with its diameter. I can only imagine that with a suspension fork this effect will be amplified. 

If you have a fat bike, and never use it in the terrain for which a 4.5-5.0 tyre is truly suited, but like somethign low pressure, i suspect you will actually be better with a 27.5x3.5-4.0. 

my 2 p...


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

When I measure my measure my farley 5 and 9.6 tires total height they are almost identical.


----------



## frank daleview (Jan 23, 2004)

I've been riding my wife's Beargrease with Flow & Dunder and my farley 9.6 back to back quite a bit recently. On groomed terrain, the Hodags definitely have the edge, the thing is fast and precise. I think this tire size has merit. A 27.5x 5.0 would awesome in an over the top sort of way.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

frank daleview said:


> I've been riding my wife's Beargrease with Flow & Dunder and my farley 9.6 back to back quite a bit recently. On groomed terrain, the Hodags definitely have the edge, the thing is fast and precise. I think this tire size has merit. A 27.5x 5.0 would awesome in an over the top sort of way.


Do you think it's the actual tire size difference or the extra weight and big knobs that are making the Beisties slower? At least for myself and the groomed trail I ride If I would've built a groomed specific tire for it they would be nowhere as aggressive as the Beisties. Point is even though the 45nrth tires where built for groomed I think you are comparing apples to oranges. I would rather see a comparison between a d4 and the new 27.5 Hodag. (if I actually cared about speed


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Gambit21 said:


> I added to your statement with my own statement, I didn't put words in our mouth.
> Have a cookie.


Same thing. Don't do that. If someone didn't say it or write it, don't make it look like they did.

J.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

frank daleview said:


> I've been riding my wife's Beargrease with Flow & Dunder and my farley 9.6 back to back quite a bit recently. On groomed terrain, the Hodags definitely have the edge, the thing is fast and precise. I think this tire size has merit. A 27.5x 5.0 would awesome in an over the top sort of way.


It's actually going to depend on what the construction of the tire looks like. If Trek can do this at 4.7" but keep the tire volume down to a degree, that could be an interesting tire. Keep the surface area/contact patch up and narrower/longer but the rotating weight down.

J.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

JohnJ80 said:


> ***whine mode = on***Same thing. Don't do that. If someone didn't say it or write it, don't make it look like they did.***whine mode = off***


Uh huh


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Gambit21 said:


> Uh huh


Maybe you'll grow out of this phase. Then again, maybe not.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

John - move on. 
You completely mis-characterized/misunderstood my post. They were my thoughts based on certain facts - that's all.
I simply expanded on your post, but it was MY post.
I won't engage this with you here - take it to PM if you must continue.

On with the adult discourse...


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

I rode with a guy tonight on the hodag 27.5++ and here is my take, (snow only) if you want to go fast in perfect groomed or stomped conditions these seem like good tires. If you want to ride in anything but perfect conditions these pizza cutters aren't for you. This really has nothing to do with the wheel size but with the crap size tires they put on em. Just not a good tire for everyday riding in adverse winter conditions, ymmv of coarse.


----------



## frank daleview (Jan 23, 2004)

Yes, I agree. I'm not sure where the definition of "groomed singletrack" breaks down, but the 45NRTH combo looks like it was pulled off a tractor, and behaves like it. It will pull you through deep snow and mashed potatoes if you're desperate. They roll like a Mississippi stern wheeler in mud season... but my GAWD do they have some cornering grip. Take these out in fresh over hardpack and you can corner with impunity. On the down side, they do grip the edges of ruts and seem to enhance the auto-steer feature of fatties at lower pressures. 

The hodags on the other hand are bit more subtle. They roll very well and grip much better than you'd expect. On the snow they are hardpack blasters, so much so they will get you in trouble as they don't have quite the cornering muscle of the Dow/Flunder but then again, they are completely different tires. Much to my surprise the dags performed extremely well in the "crunchy" thaw-freeze conditions today. My wife had a much harder time on her bike with the Flunderbeists and I was simply spanking it. Lastly, I will say without question the 'dags need more pressure than what you would think and perform best with minimal to no sidewall deformation.

So which do I prefer: Riding on snow is kind of like surfing: it's a little slidey, when the bike drifts you smile instead of soiling your chami like you would on dirt. The hodags stay true to their name sake; they look the business of serious snow racer tires-- and they could be, but I can't help but feeling they are a little bit of a joke as they are very fun tires-- kind of like a thoroughbred with siracha smeared up its bottom. The 45 NRTH's on the other hand are purpose built severe conditions tires with no sense of humor at all. 

Breaking trail, I'll take the Flow/Dunder. For everything else I'll take the 27.5 hodags.

It's good to have options 

For reference: trails: Lebanon Hills, Elm creek-- Metro Twin Cities MN, 45NRTH tires are on a Salsa beargrease with Mulfut 80sl rims.


----------



## matto6 (Dec 28, 2013)

Everyone focusing solely on the external diameter is missing two key points. 

First you're forgetting about the importance of sag. When you hit a rock and want the bike to roll over it nicely, the tire is going to be compressed. Sagged diameter (or even aggressively compressed diameter) is what matters when rolling over that rock, and 27.5 has the advantage. It's a small advantage but it's there. 

Second, even ignoring sag, larger diameter rims allow you to get an equal outer diameter tire without having to resort to as fat of a tire. If your goal is float this is bad. But if your goal is trail riding, speed, etc, a tire that is slightly narrower without decreasing outer diameter could be ideal. 

An analogous discussion would be: 27.5+ vs 29er. They have roughly the same outer diameter. Does this mean 29er wheels are stupid and unnecessary just because they are the same height as 27.5+? Obviously not. They have different pros and cons and serve different purposes.

I have not tried 27x4 so I'm not advocating them. But having the discussion focus on outside diameter only is dumb. If you think that's all that matters go ride your 2XL snowshoes and be happy!


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

Well, fat-bike.com just instagrammed a pic of travis and his proto 27.5x4.5 barbegazi... It's a good shot to compare to more traditional fatties. They are quite statuesque! Interesting times!


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

dRjOn said:


> Well, fat-bike.com just instagrammed a pic of travis and his proto 27.5x4.5 barbegazi... It's a good shot to compare to more traditional fatties. They are quite statuesque! Interesting times!


Wow those look bigger than 29+, it may be perspective, but they look taller than the top arch of the Bluto next to it.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Good catch on the Instagram photo. This is gonna get interesting, I think.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

There are some more (excellent) photos on a photographers site ajphoto


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Paochow said:


> Wow those look bigger than 29+, it may be perspective, but they look taller than the top arch of the Bluto next to it.


Could be, but I wouldn't trust this shot to determine one way or the other because of distortion/perspective as you said. Very well could be the case though.


----------



## xctearor (Jan 12, 2004)

Man that 27.5 x 4.5 looks tight in that fork; I'm thinking there's no way that would clear a Bluto. Ted- any insight on this?


----------



## ascarlarkinyar (Apr 24, 2012)

dRjOn said:


> Well, fat-bike.com just instagrammed a pic of travis and his proto 27.5x4.5 barbegazi... It's a good shot to compare to more traditional fatties. They are quite statuesque! Interesting times!
> 
> View attachment 1047036


Number 11 and 58 have the same size tires and wheels. They look like 27.5 with 4 or 4.25 tires.

One step closer to my dream, a 29er fat bike.


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

Here is my logic on bluto, Chupa 30.4” effective wheel size. Trek may follow that for target size of 27.5X4.5. Does a Chupa fit into a bluto ? What is the max size that does ? Also what is the min clearance required 10mm. I am looking to get a bluto 100mm travel for 9.6. I find it hard to believe that Trek would offer a new tire targeted at 9 series farley when the 9 comes with a bluto.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

ascarlarkinyar said:


> One step closer to my dream, a 29er fat bike.


Maybe you're missing how the wheel size thing works but you already have this - it's called 26x4. 26x4.7 is a "30er"
What you're saying is that you want a "32er" or similar - which would be ridiculous IMHO.


----------



## TitanofChaos (Jun 13, 2011)

ascarlarkinyar said:


> Number 11 and 58 have the same size tires and wheels. They look like 27.5 with 4 or 4.25 tires.


so you're telling me that #11 is running a prototype 27.5 dillinger 4 AND a prototype 27.5 whiskey 70 carbon wheel?????

I'm skeptical


----------



## ascarlarkinyar (Apr 24, 2012)

dRjOn said:


> Well, fat-bike.com just instagrammed a pic of travis and his proto 27.5x4.5 barbegazi... It's a good shot to compare to more traditional fatties. They are quite statuesque! Interesting times!
> 
> View attachment 1047036





Gambit21 said:


> Maybe you're missing how the wheel size thing works but you already have this - it's called 26x4. 26x4.7 is a "30er"
> What you're saying is that you want a "32er" or similar - which would be ridiculous IMHO.


29ers describe the rim size not the radius of the tire. Thats how that works. Most fat bikes are 26" and this new kinda fat trek is 27.5. Ok school is over....

So not ridiculous at all. A 29er wheel with a 6" tire. We need more float and traction. I want to be able to ride on top of the snow, not just plow though it like we do now.

We will eventually get there, slow painful increments that the bike industry puts us through.


----------



## ascarlarkinyar (Apr 24, 2012)

dRjOn said:


> Well, fat-bike.com just instagrammed a pic of travis and his proto 27.5x4.5 barbegazi... It's a good shot to compare to more traditional fatties. They are quite statuesque! Interesting times!
> 
> View attachment 1047036





TitanofChaos said:


> so you're telling me that #11 is running a prototype 27.5 dillinger 4 AND a prototype 27.5 whiskey 70 carbon wheel?????
> 
> I'm skeptical


Me too. I just measure the wheels and tires with a ruler from the pic. There must be a hieght distotion. If so then the tire in the middle could be any size.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

Take a heck of a motor to turn a 6" tire on a 29" wheel and goofie geometry to boot. Give me a 24" wheel with a 6" tire any day.


----------



## ascarlarkinyar (Apr 24, 2012)

dRjOn said:


> Well, fat-bike.com just instagrammed a pic of travis and his proto 27.5x4.5 barbegazi... It's a good shot to compare to more traditional fatties. They are quite statuesque! Interesting times!
> 
> View attachment 1047036





bdundee said:


> Take a heck of a motor to turn a 6" tire on a 29" wheel and goofie geometry to boot. Give me a 24" wheel with a 6" and tire any day.


Nope, with a 29er x 6" tire you would not need to air down as much, so you can have a less tall casing. That decreases the spinning weight dramatically and you get the same effort of a 26" x 5" tire now with triple the float and traction.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

bdundee said:


> Take a heck of a motor to turn a 6" tire on a 29" wheel and goofie geometry to boot. Give me a 24" wheel with a 6" tire any day.


It's OK--They got 'em in the bottom bracket these days. 
(on a serious note, we keep agreeing on this)


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

ascarlarkinyar said:


> Nope, with a 29er x 6" tire you would not need to air down as much, so you can have a less tall casing. That decreases the spinning weight dramatically and you get the same effort of a 26" x 5" tire now with triple the float and traction.


Your still drunk, go back to bed.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

ascarlarkinyar said:


> 29ers describe the rim size not the radius of the tire. Thats how that works. Most fat bikes are 26" and this new kinda fat trek is 27.5. Ok school is over.


Gotta love Internet boneheads.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Zowie said:


> It's OK--They got 'em in the bottom bracket these days.


I think ascarlarkinyar gets it in the bottom bracket.

...and in case there's any confusion I'm talking about unexpected impacts to the bottom bracket due to height or other factors. Rocks...sticks...logs.


----------



## Volsung (Nov 24, 2011)

29x6 is a fantastic idea. I want a fat bike that handles like my Big Dummy.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

there is a devon balet photo essay here that has a good shot of TB. its hard to tell but they certainly look pretty big..









if you expand mr balet's fine pic, you can just make out the 'prototype' on the sidewall...


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

2016 Farley will fit 29+ with the axle full forward - so there's plenty of room.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

Gambit21 said:


> 2016 Farley will fit 29+ with the axle full forward - so there's plenty of room.


you mean for 27.5x4.5? yeah - TB's frame looks to be the 9 point carbon frame here, right?

you have to guess that whole hodag=diameter of 26x4.7 was perhaps aimed more at these tyres...


----------



## [TA] (Dec 3, 2008)

Ok guys I'm going to give you a few more tidbits. Gotta love feeing the trolls.

1. The tire is a 4.5 but as usual measures slightly smaller at riding pressures. This is because when we measure tires it has to be done at MAX pressure for CPSC and ISO. We also need at least 6mm of clearance between frame and tire @max to ship bikes. As you all know fat tires stretch a lot, so a [email protected] 30psi is a lot larger than a "4.5" @ 4.5psi

2. They fit with the sliders slammed all the way forward in the 2016 Farley. Still room to grow 

3. Finding vendors to make tires this big is VERY hard. Incremental improvements aren't an industry conspiracy, simply the realities of actually making things.

4. Taller = faster rolling and better floating. When these launch (which should be soon) I highly encourage you to give them a try before dropping the e-hate. It's a difference you can feel right away. And the good news is they should fit most 5" bikes even if they don't say Trek.

5.









Enjoy 

TA

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Good stuff - thank you!
Do you know the outer diameter at either max psi or realistic riding pressures?


----------



## jrogersAK (Sep 17, 2015)

It seems like that is a 30.7" diameter using a little math.


----------



## [TA] (Dec 3, 2008)

The diameter image I posted above is at 5psi in my analogue low pressure gauge. Some simple math should get you the overall height. We find using a tape to measure circumference then back calculating is the most accurate way to measure height.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Sorry - I missed that tape measure pic on my phone the first time


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

244/pi minus a bit, or 777! thanks [TA] - incremental or not, very cool!


----------



## [TA] (Dec 3, 2008)

My math says 778.9mm diameter 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Volsung (Nov 24, 2011)

Going bigger rims and smaller tires seems like the opposite direction that the current 27.5+ vs 29er trend is taking us. Some people might like it and I love that Trek is trying new things, though. So keep it up.

I'd just rather see 120mm 26 inch rims.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

Volsung said:


> Going bigger rims and smaller tires seems like the opposite direction that the current 27.5+ vs 29er trend is taking us.


yeah true! ~

It's a real mix of 29+ roll over, but lower pressure and width. I was surprised going to a Hodag front from a chupa how noticeable the rollover is on a 29+. Really like the Hodag though- so this 4.5 has my interest piqued for sure!


----------



## Jeff_G (Oct 22, 2015)

I've read approximately 10,000 posts on tire size and none of it has made sense to me until this........

1*. The tire is a 4.5 but as usual measures slightly smaller at riding pressures. This is because when we measure tires it has to be done at MAX pressure for CPSC and ISO. We also need at least 6mm of clearance between frame and tire @max to ship bikes. As you all know fat tires stretch a lot, so a [email protected] 30psi is a lot larger than a "4.5" @ 4.5psi*

Thanks.....


----------



## MichaelHumpal (Sep 12, 2012)

I'll admit I only made it through 1/2 of this thread, but am I the only one that wishes for true 26x4.8/4.9/5.0 tire options before we move on?


----------



## Jukahia (Jul 8, 2015)

If it is diam. 244,6mm

/3.14159 (pi)

You get 778,6mm As height. And now you need to take -2% of to get correct size... So around 763mm... 

Why -2%, hodag 27,5x3,8" sayd 764mm -2% is 750mm as in reality...


----------



## [TA] (Dec 3, 2008)

764mm Hodag was measured @MAX pressure. The image I posted was @5psi... Not sure where you're getting this 2% thing. Not trying to argue, but you're not comparing apples to apples.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

Jeff_G said:


> I've read approximately 10,000 posts on tire size and none of it has made sense to me until this........
> 
> 1*. The tire is a 4.5 but as usual measures slightly smaller at riding pressures. This is because when we measure tires it has to be done at MAX pressure for CPSC and ISO. We also need at least 6mm of clearance between frame and tire @max to ship bikes. As you all know fat tires stretch a lot, so a [email protected] 30psi is a lot larger than a "4.5" @ 4.5psi*
> 
> Thanks.....


Seconded!


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Woot! 

Looks like my full squish 27.5 Hodag bike is obsolete after only 3 months! 

-Walt


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

Walt said:


> Woot!
> 
> Looks like my full squish 27.5 Hodag bike is obsolete after only 3 months!
> 
> -Walt


The next question being, will the fox 34 clear this barbegazi beast? ~


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

dRjOn said:


> The next question being, will the fox 34 clear this barbegazi beast? ~


I'm going to go ahead and say I really, really doubt it. The 3.8 has almost a cm on each side and loads at the crown, but even an undersized 4.5 is going to fill up all that space pretty fast.

Maybe Travis will hook me up with some to mess around with at some point and I can check.

-Walt


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

Wow, good stuff, will these new tires work with a bluto 100mm travel ?


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

also wondering what the weight of the new tire is  ?


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

I'm not giving up my 4.7" Barbis, but if I was starting from scratch this new size would at least have me debating what to do, unlike the 27.5x4's.


----------



## frank daleview (Jan 23, 2004)

OK, 27.5x4.5... it's official, I am VERY excited, 27.5 bring it on!


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

Yeah- that is definitely the tire that Trek should have launched 27.5 with...


----------



## [TA] (Dec 3, 2008)

aquamogal said:


> also wondering what the weight of the new tire is  ?


I was actually so excited to ride them that I forgot to weigh them... I can say that my engineering white '16 Farley with next sl cranks, XX1, Wampa wheels, rigid fork, and a dropper weighs in at 24.5lbs with xt spd's...









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Paochow said:


> Yeah- that is definitely the tire that Trek should have launched 27.5 with...


Most definitely - it would have made sense from the get-go in that case.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

[TA] said:


> 3. Finding vendors to make tires this big is VERY hard. Incremental improvements aren't an industry conspiracy, simply the realities of actually making things.


i dunno. i'm pretty impressed at the speed with which this is coming to market. compared to 29, 29+ 27.5 and even 27.5+ which has been lightning fast in some regards, this is on a fine trajectory....i think the above, candid, comment from [TA] probably tells you all you need to know. the fact that it is here, suggests significant commitment to the job. i for one am grateful for the effort to make it happen....i doubt anyone would complain (much!) if trek simply went for 26x4.7-8 like most everyone else...


----------



## xctearor (Jan 12, 2004)

This is awesome, thanks for the response Ted! This solidifies me getting a new Farley- Now I just need to decide on a 9 or 9.6.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

xctearor said:


> This is awesome, thanks for the response Ted! This solidifies me getting a new Farley- Now I just need to decide on a 9 or 9.6.


This may help your decision.... If the prototype size (788mm) carries over into production, then it likely won't fit the Bluto on the 9. My Bud is about 765mm and has less than 10mm of clearance at the top.

Hopefully when the Pluto comes out they make it a little bigger.


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

Thank you Paochow ! I have a 9.6. what is this about Pluto ? any more info ? rumor ?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Inside source at Bontrager puts proto tire weight at around 1250g. Of course we all know things change when production runs come out, but that's the info I have.

-Walt


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

aquamogal said:


> Thank you Paochow ! I have a 9.6. what is this about Pluto ? any more info ? rumor ?


Just a wild guess at this point- Pike+Bluto= Pluto?


----------



## TitanofChaos (Jun 13, 2011)

Walt said:


> Inside source at Bontrager puts proto tire weight at around 1250g. Of course we all know things change when production runs come out, but that's the info I have.
> 
> -Walt


figures the larger tire would weigh less than the 27.5 hodag that everyone already has


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Well it has smaller knobs/less rubber so it's going to weight less.
An equivalent Hodag would most likely weigh more. 
It's a good set of compromises that Barbi - great year-round tire.
I'll stick the 4.7" and more cush.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Okay, so without having to dig through pages of talk:

How tall is a "typical" 27.5 x 4" vs a Floater 26 x 4 or a 29 Dirt Wizard.

I'm asking so I can check clearances on my Mutz.

Running 50mm rims.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Nurse Ben said:


> Okay, so without having to dig through pages of talk:
> 
> How tall is a "typical" 27.5 x 4" vs a Floater 26 x 4 or a 29 Dirt Wizard.
> 
> ...


According to Mike See, they're 740mm in diameter on a WTB Scraper. I plan on running them on my Bucksaw. For reference, a Nate is listed at 749mm in diameter.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

just to help w reference: my nates on various rims have all been about 735mm at riding pressure and my hodag at 20-25psi on a 52mm external rim is 745mm...i havent measured it since dropping to 10psi... chupa is near 770 on a 50mm external and maxxis chronicle is about the same. i believe DW are a bit shorter than that....but not by much. 

HTH!


----------



## mbeardsl (Sep 9, 2009)

Gambit21 said:


> Well it has smaller knobs/less rubber so it's going to weight less.
> An equivalent Hodag would most likely weigh more.
> It's a good set of compromises that Barbi - great year-round tire.
> I'll stick the 4.7" and more cush.


I heard they made the knobs taller on the new 27.5x4.5 Barbi, which I would welcome over the too-small knobs on the current hodag.

Rumor or fact?


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Gigantic said:


> According to Mike See, they're 740mm in diameter on a WTB Scraper. I plan on running them on my Bucksaw. For reference, a Nate is listed at 749mm in diameter.


Awesome, sounds like they'll fit fine...of course I have some JJ 4.0 on the way, but options are always good 

I think this is a nice way to have two bikes on one set of wheels, granted the taller 27.5 x 4 is going to raise the BB, but perhaps that's not a terrible thing for winter time clearance.


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

dRjOn said:


> just to help w reference: my nates on various rims have all been about 735mm at riding pressure and my hodag at 20-25psi on a 52mm external rim is 745mm...i havent measured it since dropping to 10psi... chupa is near 770 on a 50mm external and maxxis chronicle is about the same. i believe DW are a bit shorter than that....but not by much.
> 
> HTH!


So that 745mm hodag is a 27.5 x 3.8?


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

yup! that was fresh mounted. i will get round to remeasuring it after riding a few times now and it sitting at 9-10psi or so, maybe less.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Nurse Ben said:


> Awesome, sounds like they'll fit fine...of course I have some JJ 4.0 on the way, but options are always good
> 
> I think this is a nice way to have two bikes on one set of wheels, granted the taller 27.5 x 4 is going to raise the BB, but perhaps that's not a terrible thing for winter time clearance.


yeah, depending on how well it works, I may not need 26" wheels on the bucksaw


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Nurse Ben said:


> I think this is a nice way to have two bikes on one set of wheels


Yep, but so is going from a Barbi to a Lou, or to a Hodag etc on 26" wheel. No different really - diameter excepting.


----------



## pplucena (Dec 25, 2010)

I think that if the Hodag 27.5/3.8" can be mounted on a Foes Mutz or a Bucksaw you can have a 27.5 plus for summer and a 27.5/3.8 for winter and you save the money of a second wheelset. 
I would try the Hodag 3.8 in the mutz in a few weeks. Maybe, bikepark is another utility of this tire.


----------



## OilcanRacer (Jan 4, 2008)

Tried out a 27.5 x 4 at a snow race yesterday from a friend's bike.
It was meh. Not much different from my surly nates. A bit lighter. I think the wider tires at 27.5 will make a much bigger and better difference.
To the past post about 29er fat bikes. If the manufacturers can figure out a frame, I think that might be the answer to a lot of our limitations with snow riding. The current conscencous is that we are still cutting through the snow and not on top of it yet. Traction is being controlled by airing down the tire, which has its drawbacks, instead of designing a larger tire contact patch. The 2 XL snowshoe is going in that direction.
Trek seems to be playing the conservative roll here(pun intended), better for dirt with the 27.5 rim size.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

pplucena said:


> I think that if the Hodag 27.5/3.8" can be mounted on a Foes Mutz or a Bucksaw you can have a 27.5 plus for summer and a 27.5/3.8 for winter and you save the money of a second wheelset.
> I would try the Hodag 3.8 in the mutz in a few weeks. Maybe, bikepark is another utility of this tire.


I should have my hodags by tuesday or wednesday. I will report my findings.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

pplucena said:


> I think that if the Hodag 27.5/3.8" can be mounted on a Foes Mutz or a Bucksaw you can have a 27.5 plus for summer and a 27.5/3.8 for winter and you save the money of a second wheelset.
> I would try the Hodag 3.8 in the mutz in a few weeks. Maybe, bikepark is another utility of this tire.


Or you could just buy a set of Vanhelgas for your existing 26" wheels and have a superior winter tire.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

,,.....,......


----------



## BikeShopMonkey (Nov 18, 2010)

bdundee said:


> Obviously you overlooked the smilie face and the sense of humor, way to make your presence here with the neg rep, you want rude here you go you ******************************************************************************************************************************************* insert whatever profanities you want


People actually care about the "rep" system? Sooo junior high school. How about we talk about bikes instead of worrying about who is the most popular.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

BikeShopMonkey said:


> People actually care about the "rep" system? Sooo junior high school. How about we talk about bikes instead of worrying about who is the most popular.


Your right I apologize, its more about the words that are left for the neg rep, could careless about the red. Once again I apologize.


----------



## ascarlarkinyar (Apr 24, 2012)

OilcanRacer said:


> Tried out a 27.5 x 4 at a snow race yesterday from a friend's bike.
> It was meh. Not much different from my surly nates. A bit lighter. I think the wider tires at 27.5 will make a much bigger and better difference.
> To the past post about 29er fat bikes. If the manufacturers can figure out a frame, I think that might be the answer to a lot of our limitations with snow riding. The current conscencous is that we are still cutting through the snow and not on top of it yet. Traction is being controlled by airing down the tire, which has its drawbacks, instead of designing a larger tire contact patch. The 2 XL snowshoe is going in that direction.
> Trek seems to be playing the conservative roll here(pun intended), better for dirt with the 27.5 rim size.


I also coincidently rode one 27.5"x4" this weekend on the snow and found it very similair to the 29er+ knard.

My experience is that this 27.5" tire is an excellent dirt tire but very limited even on groomed to softer snow conditions. A wider tire on that rim would not fit his current frame (sorry I forgot which frame he has).


----------



## pplucena (Dec 25, 2010)

Paochow said:


> Or you could just buy a set of Vanhelgas for your existing 26" wheels and have a superior winter tire.


I have the Mutz now build with 26" Vanhelgas and they are a very good option but they flat with agressive dirt riding. I changed the rear for a Hodag 26"/3.8 and still punctures occurs. 
This is for me the big problem with snow tires used in dirt, and more over in bikepark. Low pressure plus soft tire has puncture as a result when you hit edges of rocks and stones with the rear tire.
In the plus size I have found the Vee Bulldozer 26.5/[email protected] with a weight of 1140gr and a really resistant compound at a first look as an option paired with Crown Gen 3.0" front.
Maybe Hodag 27.5/3.8 is a better option to avoid punctures or in the future, a 27.5 3.8" resistant tire is build to be paired with the Mutz.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

pplucena said:


> I have the Mutz now build with 26" Vanhelgas and they are a very good option but they flat with agressive dirt riding. I changed the rear for a Hodag 26"/3.8 and still punctures occurs.
> This is for me the big problem with snow tires used in dirt, and more over in bikepark. Low pressure plus soft tire has puncture as a result when you hit edges of rocks and stones with the rear tire.
> In the plus size I have found the Vee Bulldozer 26.5/[email protected] with a weight of 1140gr and a really resistant compound at a first look as an option paired with Crown Gen 3.0" front.
> Maybe Hodag 27.5/3.8 is a better option to avoid punctures or in the future, a 27.5 3.8" resistant tire is build to be paired with the Mutz.


higher pressures will give you better puncture resistance. Low psi is fine for the snow, but not the best for the dirt.


----------



## pplucena (Dec 25, 2010)

Sure, that is what I do, but in my experience when I go with more than 1-1.2 bars the tire has lost a lot of traction in loose terrain because it floats over the terrain.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Mounted the Hodags on my bucksaw tonight, on WTB scrapers. They're less fat than they are B++, but I like them so far. They're a little bigger in diameter than the Panaracer fat b nimble 26 that it replaced up front, but not quite as wide, fitting in between the 26" fbn and 27.5+ WTB Bridger that I had out back in width. On the 50mm rim, the profile is arched and looks like it will have good cornering manners and decent grip over a number of conditions. Riding around my block, I'd place the acceleration between my 29er and full fat. If a 29er feels like a rocketship and a fat bike feels like a tank, the Hodags feel like a rocket-tank, accelerating pretty quickly, but nearly as confidence inspiring as a full fat. For what I got the bucksaw for, this may well be my ideal setup. I dig them so far and can't wait til it freezes up and I can ride them on dirt or snow.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Gigantic said:


> Mounted the Hodags on my bucksaw tonight, on WTB scrapers. They're less fat than they are B++, but I like them so far. They're a little bigger in diameter than the Panaracer fat b nimble 26 that it replaced up front, but not quite as wide, fitting in between the 26" fbn and 27.5+ WTB Bridger that I had out back in width. On the 50mm rim, the profile is arched and looks like it will have good cornering manners and decent grip over a number of conditions. Riding around my block, I'd place the acceleration between my 29er and full fat. If a 29er feels like a rocketship and a fat bike feels like a tank, the Hodags feel like a rocket-tank, accelerating pretty quickly, but nearly as confidence inspiring as a full fat. For what I got the bucksaw for, this may well be my ideal setup. I dig them so far and can't wait til it freezes up and I can ride them on dirt or snow.


That looks really nice! seems like a good all around setup for the Bucksaw. Can you do me a favor and measure the width of the tread and casing at riding pressure? I am seriously looking into that same tire/rim combo for one of my bikes. Thanks!


----------



## matto6 (Dec 28, 2013)

bikeny said:


> That looks really nice! seems like a good all around setup for the Bucksaw. Can you do me a favor and measure the width of the tread and casing at riding pressure? I am seriously looking into that same tire/rim combo for one of my bikes. Thanks!


What he said.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

I'll post some measurements later today. I got to take a very short spin (100m) through dirt and snow on my way to this office this morning. I'm pretty impressed with these tires.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

the Hodag measures 3.375 inches at the casing on a WTB Scraper 50mm rim








and 3.5 at the knobs on the same:







I do expect these to grow a little bit after sitting at pressure, but not too much. I'll check back in a couple of weeks.


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

Gigantic said:


> the Hodag measures 3-1/8 inches at the casing on a WTB Scraper 50mm rim and 3-1/4 at the knobs on the same:
> 
> I do expect these to grow a little bit after sitting at pressure, but not too much. I'll check back in a couple of weeks.


Nice! I like the size, may be a good replacement for the Trax Fatties i have on my summer wheelset.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

radair said:


> Nice! I like the size, may be a good replacement for the Trax Fatties i have on my summer wheelset.


the tread is definitely aggressive!


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

matto6 said:


> What he said.


@10 psi on a Hugo (52mm outer, not sure inner): 92mm width (knobs) at 345mm from the axle. Casing is quite a bit smaller. So if you've got 100+mm of space at 345mm from the axle, these are an option.

-Walt


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

Walt said:


> @10 psi on a Hugo (52mm outer, not sure inner): 92mm width (knobs) at 345mm from the axle. Casing is quite a bit smaller. So if you've got 100+mm of space at 345mm from the axle, these are an option.
> 
> -Walt


What tires are you measuring here?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

radair said:


> What tires are you measuring here?


Hodag 27.5.


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

Walt said:


> Hodag 27.5.


Interesting how much wider (almost 10 mm) than Gigantic's measurements. Would you expect these to grow that much over time? Or maybe it's just a variation in different tires?


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

radair said:


> Interesting how much wider (almost 10 mm) than Gigantic's measurements. Would you expect these to grow that much over time? Or maybe it's just a variation in different tires?


Gigantic measured 88mm knob width if you look at his picture. His tires are brand new and mounted on slightly narrower rims, so 4mm less width sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Walt said:


> Hodag 27.5.


it seems that I need reading glasses, as well as regular ones...


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

bikeny said:


> Gigantic measured 88mm knob width if you look at his picture. His tires are brand new and mounted on slightly narrower rims, so 4mm less width sounds reasonable to me.


You're right. I think he and I were both looking at the end of the caliper and not at the zero mark. So they're closer to 3.5" than 3.25".


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Finally got to ride the Bucks with Hodags. I'm sold on the concept. Did a 12 mile ride with my Thursday night group, at their "social" pace, which is roughly equivalent to a cat 2 podium pace. The tires rolled really fast, with excellent grip. I usually come close to getting dropped and as the only one in the group on a fat bike, I struggle to keep up, but not last night. While acceleration is slower than standard b+ tires, not to mention 29ers, it's noticeably faster than any 26" fat I've experienced. The WTB scrapers & the Hodags are a great combo. I was able to clean a couple of obstacles that I'd never gotten over before last night- whether it was the wheels, the tires or the bike, I'm not sure, but I'm sold on the combo.


----------



## a63vette (Jun 23, 2006)

Hi guys, my mutz frame is in and I need to pick a wheel/tire set for mostly dirt riding some packed snow in the northeast. Anybody know if the 27.5x4 will fit a mutz rear/fox 34 plus with a Margo lite or Hugo? Thanks !


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

a63vette said:


> Hi guys, my mutz frame is in and I need to pick a wheel/tire set for mostly dirt riding some packed snow in the northeast. Anybody know if the 27.5x4 will fit a mutz rear/fox 34 plus with a Margo lite or Hugo? Thanks !


Surly doesn't make a Marge Lite in 27.5. Despite pretty much inventing the plus platform, they've totally missed the boat on 650B+. I have no experience with the Hugo, but I do have a set of WTB Scrapers and I can say with confidence, that the Bontrager Hodag 27.5 x 3.8 tires will fit on your setup.


----------



## ealex (Feb 5, 2014)

27.5" Hodag on i45 Scraper rim and 26x4.8" JumboJim on 100mm Clownshoe rim side by side:








27.5" Hodag has actually exactly the same overall diameter, as 29x2.35" RacingRalph compared side by side.

I put Hodags on Bad Habit and it became even better bike to ride in winter.


----------



## Estuche (Apr 18, 2010)

ealex said:


> 27.5" Hodag has actually exactly the same overall diameter, as 29x2.35" RacingRalph compared side by side.
> 
> I put Hodags on Bad Habit and it became even better bike to ride in winter.
> View attachment 1051141


Wait so, can a Beast of the East 1 (lefty version) 27.5 plus also fit a 45-50mm rim + Hodag, both in the front and back?? Sounds like a great fat-ish bike with low q-factor. Please confirm! Pic of actual clearance would also be appreciated


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

ealex said:


> 27.5" Hodag on i45 Scraper rim and 26x4.8" JumboJim on 100mm Clownshoe rim side by side:
> 
> 27.5" Hodag has actually exactly the same overall diameter, as 29x2.35" RacingRalph compared side by side.


Yeah, seems to be the same height as most 29er tires. That's what makes this a great tire. Ironic, isn't it? That Trek finally managed to achieve what 650b+ was intended to give us in the first place - a high volume replacement for a 29er wheel.... even though it was by accident.

We probably could have saved some time and gotten to this point sooner, if the manufacturers weren't all so bent on deluding themselves by pushing the whole "27.5" moniker, suggesting that 650b is larger than it really is.

I hope the production version of the "4.7" Bargegazi doesn't end up anywhere near as wide as that "4.8" Jumbo Jim in your photo, in achieving the diameter of a 29+. That's too much tire for what I'm hoping to use it for.

Here's yet another comparison photo I recently found through a web search, on a random flickr account. Not quite as useful as yours, but interesting nonetheless. 29 Chupa / 27 Hodag / 26 Barbi:


__
https://flic.kr/p/23034271513


----------



## ealex (Feb 5, 2014)

Estuche said:


> Wait so, can a Beast of the East 1 (lefty version) 27.5 plus also fit a 45-50mm rim + Hodag, both in the front and back?? Sounds like a great fat-ish bike with low q-factor. Please confirm! Pic of actual clearance would also be appreciated


Here is clearance picture in rear of Bad Habit 1:









More detail information on fitting can be found in Bad Habit discussion: https://forums.mtbr.com/27-5-29/cannondale-bad-habit-997329-3.html#post12473631 It is tight especially if one decide to use high pressure, but for me 10psi is more than enough. I have had Hodag in rear of Bad Habit for almost 2 month with no problem.

At least chainline is same on Beast of the East as on Bad Habit. So if rear triangle clearance is also the same, then it should fit.


----------



## Estuche (Apr 18, 2010)

[TA] said:


> I was actually so excited to ride them that I forgot to weigh them... I can say that my engineering white '16 Farley with next sl cranks, XX1, Wampa wheels, rigid fork, and a dropper weighs in at 24.5lbs with xt spd's...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Would these new tires fit on 50mm rims such as the Hugos?


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Estuche said:


> Would these new tires fit on 50mm rims such as the Hugos?


Yes


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

Estuche said:


> Would these new tires fit on 50mm rims such as the Hugos?


. If you are talking about the new 27.5 Barb's, they would fit a 50mm rim, but the narrow rim would give the tire a very rounded profile.


----------



## Estuche (Apr 18, 2010)

Cool, many thanks!


----------



## NH Mtbiker (Nov 6, 2004)

Been waiting for a tire like this for some time. Been running the 3.25 VTF for almost a year now and waiting for something just a bit larger and with beefier knobs too. The Hogag fits the bill and will probably try it out front to start with the smaller 3.25 rear for now. Should air up nice tubless on my 50mm carbon wheels . BTW are these 27.5's under or near 1k grams?


----------



## ealex (Feb 5, 2014)

27.5 Hodags are heavy and 60tpi only. Mine are 1243g and 1248g. For comparison, mine 26x4.8” JumboJim Liteskins are 1233g and 1257g.


----------



## Estuche (Apr 18, 2010)

Paochow said:


> . If you are talking about the new 27.5 Barb's, they would fit a 50mm rim, but the narrow rim would give the tire a very rounded profile.


I see. Is the rounded profile better and/or worse for a particular terrain/type of riding?


----------



## a63vette (Jun 23, 2006)

Gigantic said:


> Surly doesn't make a Marge Lite in 27.5. Despite pretty much inventing the plus platform, they've totally missed the boat on 650B+. I have no experience with the Hugo, but I do have a set of WTB Scrapers and I can say with confidence, that the Bontrager Hodag 27.5 x 3.8 tires will fit on your setup.


Thank you


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

Estuche said:


> I see. Is the rounded profile better and/or worse for a particular terrain/type of riding?


It really depends....

It can help make the bike turn quicker and reduce self steer, but if too rounded it can also make the bike twitchy, cause it to "fall" into corners and cause tire roll issues when pushed hard. Usually with a rim that narrow you'd want to stick with diameters of less than 4", but then again there are a fair amount of riders using the even larger Bud/Lou on 65mm Marge Lites.


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

anyone running stan hugos 27.5 with nobby nic or racing rons 3.0 ? anyone running hugos with hodag ? Thx


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

Maxxis announced a new 27.5 X3.8" Minion. Hopefully it will be true to size and larger in diameter than the Hodag.

TPE16: Maxxis digs in with High Roller II, Minion plus sizes, 27.5 x 3.8" Minion fat bike tires, More - Bikerumor


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

Paochow said:


> Maxxis announced a new 27.5 X3.8" Minion. Hopefully it will be true to size and larger in diameter than the Hodag.
> 
> TPE16: Maxxis digs in with High Roller II, Minion plus sizes, 27.5 x 3.8" Minion fat bike tires, More - Bikerumor


That's pretty exciting. Even the High Roller in the 2.8 size could be a good replacement for the Trax Fatty I've been running on dirt.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

Paochow said:


> Maxxis announced a new 27.5 X3.8" Minion.
> 
> TPE16: Maxxis digs in with High Roller II, Minion plus sizes, 27.5 x 3.8" Minion fat bike tires, More - Bikerumor


Nice! Thanks for posting. I like this:

_"On the fat bike side, the biggest news (especially for Trek owners) is the addition of a 27.5 x 3.8″ tire for the Minion FBF and BFR." _

(Because, you know - they won't fit any other fat bikes other than Trek's.  )



Paochow said:


> Hopefully it will be true to size and larger in diameter than the Hodag.


Either way, we're still going to need a 60-65mm rim...

(I'm just going to keep harping on this, every opportunity I get, until it happens..)


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

aquamogal said:


> anyone running stan hugos 27.5 with nobby nic or racing rons 3.0 ? anyone running hugos with hodag ? Thx


I am running a set of Hugo's with Hodags. Only a couple of rides so far, but I really like the setup.


----------



## Estuche (Apr 18, 2010)

iamkeith said:


> Either way, we're still going to need a 60-65mm rim...
> 
> (I'm just going to keep harping on this, every opportunity I get, until it happens..)


100% looking forward to a set of 65mm 27.5 aluminum rims!


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Paochow said:


> Maxxis announced a new 27.5 X3.8" Minion. Hopefully it will be true to size and larger in diameter than the Hodag.
> 
> TPE16: Maxxis digs in with High Roller II, Minion plus sizes, 27.5 x 3.8" Minion fat bike tires, More - Bikerumor





iamkeith said:


> Nice! Thanks for posting. I like this:
> 
> _"On the fat bike side, the biggest news (especially for Trek owners) is the addition of a 27.5 x 3.8″ tire for the Minion FBF and BFR." _
> 
> ...


I'm running Hodags on 45mm WTB Scrapers. There's plenty of room for a bigger tire, at the very least, room for a true dimensional tire, but I suspect up to 4.25" wide. I personally see no need for a 65mm wide 27.5 rim, but I see the appeal.


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

What about running wtb scraper or Hugo with the new 4.5 trek 27.5.
I would love to have one set of wheels to run all these tires ? Feedback please


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

the 4.5s aren't available to the general public yet, afaik.


----------



## likeaboss (Jan 1, 2012)

Gigantic said:


> the 4.5s aren't available to the general public yet, afaik.


Is there any info anywhere online about these tires? I got snippets of info from the LBS but not much.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

mikes has a pair, perhaps he'll share more when he returns from his trip. See his Brrrrly thread for the mention.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

Gigantic said:


> mikes has a pair, perhaps he'll share more when he returns from his trip. See his Brrrrly thread for the mention.


Ah.. Those look pretty good. Much more reasonable profile on the 80mm rims than the Hodag had.

My question though: Was it my imagination, or did the production version of the Hodag end up being smaller than the prototype versions? The early publicity shots of those all looked to have a good profile, but the actual photos (as shared in this thread) looked really square and boxy. Is it normal and expected for production tires to be smaller? I just don't know how valuable the pre-production reports really are.

Also interesting in that thread, is Mikes comment that they were "not much, if any, taller than a Bud."

Either way, they appear to be zeroing in on my ideal tire. Hurry....


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

iamkeith said:


> Ah.. Those look pretty good. Much more reasonable profile on the 80mm rims than the Hodag had.
> 
> My question though: Was it my imagination, or did the production version of the Hodag end up being smaller than the prototype versions? The early publicity shots of those all looked to have a good profile, but the actual photos (as shared in this thread) looked really square and boxy. Is it normal and expected for production tires to be smaller? I just don't know how valuable the pre-production reports really are.
> 
> ...


no idea... i love that the hodags are the size they are and if the Barbegazi's turn out to be closer to 4.0" i'd be ecstatic, as they would be another option for my Bucksaw in the winter.


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

I'm not sure what is going on the with the size of the Hodag. I read some official Trek document where they talked about 26"x5", 27.5"x3.8", and 29"x3" all having the same basic diameter so you could run them all on one of their Farleys without changing the geometry. The Hodag was supposed to be a true 27.5"x3.8" tire so it wouldn't drop the bottom bracket height from a 26"x5" tire. And it seemed like there were some tires out there that were that big. But then it seems that the actual production model is just a big plus sized tire. Seems to me that they decided they wanted a tire to race with when you needed it to say 3.8" on the tire so it could race in the fat bike class, but the conditions didn't really require a fat tire.

I was excited about the tire because I've been thinking of trying 29+ on my Mukluk. Since I already have a 50mm 27.5 wheelset from trying 27.5+, I could try the same diameter as 29+ by just buying a couple of tires instead of a wheelset. It sounds like there might be some other 27.5"x3.8" tires, so I'm waiting for one of those.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

re Hodag: i got 93mm knob/87mm casing on a 52mm external/45mm internal rim. diameter was 745mm. 93mm, at 3.66" on a narrowish rim (compared to the rims Trek uses) aint far away from 3.8"

https://drj0nswanderings.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/hodag-part-2/

i really like this tyre: i would agree i class it as an aggressive BIG plus tyre rather than a full fat, but its a useful bit o' rubber!

that being said, im looking forward to a minion 27.5x3.8" and indeed 29x3"


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Welnic said:


> I'm not sure what is going on the with the size of the Hodag. I read some official Trek document where they talked about 26"x5", 27.5"x3.8", and 29"x3" all having the same basic diameter so you could run them all on one of their Farleys without changing the geometry. The Hodag was supposed to be a true 27.5"x3.8" tire so it wouldn't drop the bottom bracket height from a 26"x5" tire. And it seemed like there were some tires out there that were that big. But then it seems that the actual production model is just a big plus sized tire. Seems to me that they decided they wanted a tire to race with when you needed it to say 3.8" on the tire so it could race in the fat bike class, but the conditions didn't really require a fat tire.
> 
> I was excited about the tire because I've been thinking of trying 29+ on my Mukluk. Since I already have a 50mm 27.5 wheelset from trying 27.5+, I could try the same diameter as 29+ by just buying a couple of tires instead of a wheelset. It sounds like there might be some other 27.5"x3.8" tires, so I'm waiting for one of those.


I think there was also some indication that Trek/Bontrager is looking at a 27.5x4.8" which would be a slightly larger diameter. That could be interesting too and might have some interesting impacts on rolling efficiency.

J.


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

dRjOn said:


> re Hodag: i got 93mm knob/87mm casing on a 52mm external/45mm internal rim. diameter was 745mm. 93mm, at 3.66" on a narrowish rim (compared to the rims Trek uses) aint far away from 3.8"
> 
> https://drj0nswanderings.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/hodag-part-2/
> 
> ...


Personally I don't really care that much about the width. For my purposes the problem is the diameter is only about 10mm more than a Vee Tire Fatty, and 30mm less than a 29"x3" Knard. I am a big Maxxis fan, so if they make a true 27.5"x3.8" I'll be happy.


----------



## likeaboss (Jan 1, 2012)

JohnJ80 said:


> I think there was also some indication that Trek/Bontrager is looking at a 27.5x4.8" which would be a slightly larger diameter. That could be interesting too and might have some interesting impacts on rolling efficiency.
> 
> J.


:thumbsup:


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

Welnic said:


> Personally I don't really care that much about the width. For my purposes the problem is the diameter is only about 10mm more than a Vee Tire Fatty, and 30mm less than a 29"x3" Knard. I am a big Maxxis fan, so if they make a true 27.5"x3.8" I'll be happy.


true enough! I'm a maxxis fan too, and the minion 29x3 is an exciting prospect -along with the 27.5x3.8. if they use the chronicle casing (size) and add minion lugs on the former, it will be happy times! i'll be ordering a set of both, no doubt.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

JohnJ80 said:


> I think there was also some indication that Trek/Bontrager is looking at a 27.5x4.8" which would be a slightly larger diameter. That could be interesting too and might have some interesting impacts on rolling efficiency.
> 
> J.











pic is from ted alsop's instagram feed - who i think works at trek? - i think these are the 4.8? barb's - they look pretty big here at least...


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

dRjOn said:


> View attachment 1057016
> 
> 
> pic is from ted alsop's instagram feed - who i think works at trek? - i think these are the 4.8? barb's - they look pretty big here at least...


I like those. I think I saw a picture of Travis Brown's bike from Trek riding one in the snow. I ride a lot of beaches and snow, the larger rolling diameter would be really sweet as well as the larger width PLUS it would fit on my rims and wouldn't need a new set.

There was that fat-bike.com podcast with the trek engineers and they seemed to be saying they are all in on larger diameter.

J.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Gigantic said:


> no idea... i love that the hodags are the size they are and if the Barbegazi's turn out to be closer to 4.0" i'd be ecstatic, as they would be another option for my Bucksaw in the winter.


A little Birdie inside @ Trek gave the thumbs up on sharing dims, so here's what I've got:

Bontrager ~80mm rims, tubeless, at ~11psi (last ride finished with ~25 miles of pavement), tires have been used enough to account for stretch:
111mm casing width, 768.35 total O.D. including knobs.

Some visuals here:

Big Wheel Building: Heading out.


----------



## Estuche (Apr 18, 2010)

mikesee said:


> A little Birdie inside @ Trek gave the thumbs up on sharing dims, so here's what I've got:
> 
> Bontrager ~80mm rims, tubeless, at ~11psi (last ride finished with ~25 miles of pavement), tires have been used enough to account for stretch:
> 111mm casing width, 768.35 total O.D. including knobs.
> ...


Interesting, rather comparable to JJs on MLs, measurements courtesy of a fellow forum member:

The 4.8 @ 10psi on ML(65mm):

Width= 4.338" (110mm) 
Height= 29.875" (758mm)

Any idea if these 4.5 tires will fit after all on 27.5 Stan Hugos??


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

mikesee said:


> A little Birdie inside @ Trek gave the thumbs up on sharing dims, so here's what I've got:
> 
> Bontrager ~80mm rims, tubeless, at ~11psi (last ride finished with ~25 miles of pavement), tires have been used enough to account for stretch:
> 111mm casing width, 768.35 total O.D. including knobs.
> ...


[email protected] looks like they'll be a tight squeeze on the bucksaw, likely a no-go. Maxxis Minion 27.5x 4, seem like the best bet for next winter.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

mikesee said:


> A little Birdie inside @ Trek gave the thumbs up on sharing dims, so here's what I've got:
> 
> Bontrager ~80mm rims, tubeless, at ~11psi (last ride finished with ~25 miles of pavement), tires have been used enough to account for stretch:
> 111mm casing width, 768.35 total O.D. including knobs.
> ...


Bummer- looks like just a 10mm diameter advantage over a 26" tire again. I wouldn't get out of bed for a meager 5mm increase in ride height.

This is why this MTB theoretical tire sizing doesn't work. Logic would say if it is a 27.5" tire then It should be 1.5" (38mm) bigger than 26" tire. These are 26.39ers".


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

thanks for the figures mikesee: at 768~mm it is essentially equivalent to 29+ in diameter...it will be interesting to read your thoughts on comparing between the two.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Paochow said:


> These are 26.39ers".


My math says 768mm = 30.24".


----------



## Jukahia (Jul 8, 2015)

768mm is bretty much same as Bud on 65mm rim... This is just as I suspect it to be... But the outcome still is good, as I can fit it to both of my bikes...


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

mikesee said:


> My math says 768mm = 30.24".


Yes, if you use actual size, which is what I wish the bike industry would use instead of this BS nominal sizing.

If you add the actual difference between the so called 26 vs 27.5" tires (10mm/39mm) to the so called 26" tire you would have a so called 26.39" tire (26" +.39") rather than a so called 27.5" tire.

If the 27.5" vs 26" difference was 1.5" like it should logically be, then the 27.5" fat tire should be 1.5" (39mm) larger diameter than the 26" tire. Instead it is 1/4 of that (10mm).

Instead of 26" vs 27.5", we actually have something like 29.84" vs 30.24". Although I doubt using actual sizes would sell many new wheel sets as it reveals that there really isn't much difference. Taller knobs, stiffer casings, or a little more psi would give similar gains in ride height. I.e. The 26" Bud with it's tall knobs is a similar diameter to this 27.5" tire.

If 27.5" meant what it should it would measure 29.8"+1.5"= 31.3"


----------



## Matterhorn (Feb 15, 2015)

MTBR= math time before riding? I never knew. 

To answer the original question I am excited about 27.5 fat. Even more so after reading mikesee comments on his latest blog post.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

Matterhorn said:


> MTBR= math time before riding? I never knew.
> 
> To answer the original question I am excited about 27.5 fat. Even more so after reading mikesee comments on his latest blog post.


Just trying to show the man behind the curtain.....

AKA: There is no spoon.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

Paochow said:


> Yes, if you use actual size, which is what I wish the bike industry would use instead of this BS nominal sizing.
> 
> If you add the actual difference between the so called 26 vs 27.5" tires (10mm/39mm) to the so called 26" tire you would have a so called 26.39" tire (26" +.39") rather than a so called 27.5" tire.
> 
> ...


i *think* i get what you are saying.

it seems to me that 26, 27.5 and 29" refers more or less (at least in terms of the end user) to the rim size only and each individual tyre (and hence resultant tyre diameter, - sag from low pressure if approrpiate and general behaviour in different terrain) needs to be assessed, again, individually, no?

which *might* be the same as us bending rather than the spoon?


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

hi confused here, thought i read that ted posted new 4.5 is 778.9mm diameter ... but some above posts are 768 ? maybe difference in prototypes ??


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

mikesee said:


> A little Birdie inside @ Trek gave the thumbs up on sharing dims, so here's what I've got:
> 
> Bontrager ~80mm rims, tubeless, at ~11psi (last ride finished with ~25 miles of pavement), tires have been used enough to account for stretch:
> 111mm casing width, 768.35 total O.D. including knobs.


So I just thought I was loving my 26x4.5 Barbegazi! :thumbsup:


----------



## [TA] (Dec 3, 2008)

The 60tpi prototypes I've been riding for the last few months are 2447mm in circumference at 5psi... But I just design the frames not the tires so I can't comment on why some are taller than others.









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

dRjOn said:


> i *think* i get what you are saying.
> 
> it seems to me that 26, 27.5 and 29" refers more or less (at least in terms of the end user) to the rim size only ...


Unfortunately, not the case. "26er" and "29er" were initially used because they roughly corresponded to the overall diameter of the TIRE - or at least one with the typical-at-the-time mountain bike type volume of 1.75" to 2.25" or so.

"27.5" is a deliberately misleading term, used by manufacturers to suggest that the wheel falls half-way between the other two sizes. It doesn't of course. That's what I was refering to on the first post on the previous page.

That's also why I (and many others) try to use the term 650b. But that can get problematic too, because then you want to try to substitute 559 for a 26er and 700c for a 29er, and that's almost as misleading. 559mm is accurate for traditional mtb wheels, but 650b actually has a diameter of 584mm, while 700c actually has a diameter of 622mm. And in Europe, I think they call the 700c (our 29er) a 28" wheel. Sigh...









And


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

Gigantic said:


> mikes has a pair [of 4.5s], perhaps he'll share more when he returns from his trip. See his Brrrrly thread for the mention.





JohnJ80 said:


> I think there was also some indication that Trek/Bontrager is looking at a 27.5x4.8" which would be a slightly larger diameter. That could be interesting too and might have some interesting impacts on rolling efficiency.J.





[TA] said:


> The 60tpi prototypes I've been riding for the last few months are 2447mm in circumference at 5psi... But I just design the frames not the tires so I can't comment on why some are taller than others.


So, wait.. are there TWO new sizes coming out, a 4.5 *and* a 4.8?


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

iamkeith said:


> Unfortunately, not the case. "26er" and "29er" were initially used because they roughly corresponded to the overall diameter of the TIRE - or at least one with the typical-at-the-time mountain bike type volume of 1.75" to 2.25" or so.
> 
> "27.5" is a deliberately misleading term, used by manufacturers to suggest that the wheel falls half-way between the other two sizes. It doesn't of course. That's what I was refering to on the first post on the previous page.
> View attachment 1057332


yup! i probbaly wasnt clear but that is exactly what i was gettign at also. when i see '26" wheel' or '27.5" fat tyre', i actually think of the rim ISO/ETRTO mesurements and not the outer diameter that the nominal " would refer to, just as you say.


----------



## [TA] (Dec 3, 2008)

iamkeith said:


> So, wait.. are there TWO new sizes coming out, a 4.5 *and* a 4.8?


Just one for now, 27.5x4.5

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

nitrousjunky said:


> So I just thought I was loving my 26x4.5 Barbegazi! :thumbsup:


Just leave it out in the sun for a few days @20psi and it should stretch enough to get close to those 27.5 measurements. You can send me the money you just saved on wheels/tires if it is burning a hole in your pocket.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Paochow said:


> Just leave it out in the sun for a few days @20psi and it should stretch enough to get close to those 27.5 measurements. You can send me the money you just saved on wheels/tires if it is burning a hole in your pocket.


You don't have to like the idea, nor the execution. But spreading half-truths to fit your version of how you want to see the world isn't helping anyone. Not even you.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

So are more folks excited about having a really tall fat tire or is it more about having a fat tire/mid fat tire combo that'll work on one wheelset?


----------



## mtmiller (Nov 1, 2006)

mikesee said:


> You don't have to like the idea, nor the execution. But spreading half-truths to fit your version of how you want to see the world isn't helping anyone. Not even you.


I may have to steal that quote. It works everywhere, not just in biking. ;-)


----------



## mtmiller (Nov 1, 2006)

Nurse Ben said:


> So are more folks excited about having a really tall fat tire or is it more about having a fat tire/mid fat tire combo that'll work on one wheelset?


Just a tall guy (>6'3") that loves choices.


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Paochow said:


> Just leave it out in the sun for a few days @20psi and it should stretch enough to get close to those 27.5 measurements.


Ummmm :skep:



Nurse Ben said:


> So are more folks excited about having a really tall fat tire or is it more about having a fat tire/mid fat tire combo that'll work on one wheelset?


I'm going with Both!


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Nurse Ben said:


> So are more folks excited about having a really tall fat tire or is it more about having a fat tire/mid fat tire combo that'll work on one wheelset?


yes to the latter, but for me and my bucksaw, it seems that Barbegazzi is not the one tire to rule them all. I love the 27.5 Hodag, but a tire that was 1/2" wider and only a little taller would be great.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

Nurse Ben said:


> So are more folks excited about having a really tall fat tire or is it more about having a fat tire/mid fat tire combo that'll work on one wheelset?


Speaking for myself only, because I think I'm more single-minded or one-dimensional than most people here:

I'm excited about this for precisely the _opposite_ reason: I want fat and mid fat tires that both work with the same DIAMETER. So _one_ bike/geometry, but _multiple_ wheels.

Even more narrowly, what I really want is to be able to use the fatter one in the front paired with the mid-fat in the rear, which is what makes it critical that the diameters match.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

The whole wheel size thing is very interesting to me. Pleople get all worked up that 27.5" isn't 1.5" bigger than 26". According to the rim sizes, (584 - 559) it's 25mm bigger, which is 0.98". But nobody complains that a 29er rim is not 3" bigger than a 26" rim. 622 - 559 = 63mm, which is 2.48". Somebody lied to me about my 29ers!

So there you have it. If someone made the exact same fat tire in 26" and 27.5", the 27.5" tire would be 25mm bigger in diameter, all else being equal. That is noticeable. Don't blame the wheel size for Bontrager's inability to make tires to their rated sizes.


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

Nurse Ben said:


> So are more folks excited about having a really tall fat tire or is it more about having a fat tire/mid fat tire combo that'll work on one wheelset?


I've got a Mukluk with 3.8" tires on Marge Lites. I've also have some 27.5" x 3.25" VT Fattys on 50mm rims that I got to see if I liked that tire size. After trying the 27.5+ setup, now I want two things, I want to try 29" x 3" tires, and I want a tubeless specific 3.8" setup. If I can find a true 27.5" x 3.8" tire that would let me see if I like the diameter of the 29" x 3" by buying just a set of tires instead of a wheelset. And if I like it enough then I'm set on my tubeless 3.8" tire also.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

mikesee said:


> You don't have to like the idea, nor the execution. But spreading half-truths to fit your version of how you want to see the world isn't helping anyone. Not even you.





Paochow said:


> You can send me the money you just saved on wheels/tires if it is burning a hole in your pocket.


Sorry-didn't realize my comments could be hurting your bottom line. I don't make any money from the bike industry and sometimes forget there are some good guys that are dependent on it for their livelihood.



mikesee said:


> With just a few quick shakedown rides on them, my initial impressions are that 26 x 4" just became completely obsolete -- except for kids. ​


I'll go back to riding my obsolete kid's bike now.


----------



## Jeff_G (Oct 22, 2015)

Son of a beach.....I'm confused. :yikes:


----------



## likeaboss (Jan 1, 2012)

I like both ideas but having the choice to run either size on my 27.5 rims is cool. I would like wider tires for the winter here in Maine without having to buy a whole new wheelset. I do enjoy riding my Farley with the Hodags on hard pack dirt though.


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

I think I'm excited because it means I have a new option for my 5" tire bike.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this nicely splits the difference between the 29+ w/ 3" tires and 26er w/ 5" tires, while keeping almost the exact same circumference. No worries about the BB being higher or lower based on tire/rim choice.

...right?


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

I don't have a bud, but surly quote it as 762mm diameter.

http://surlybikes.com/uploads/downloads/SUR_Tire_Geometries.pdf

Most of the 29+ tyres I have are 766-770mm diameter (chronicle, chupa, knard)

The Hodag I have is 745mm and the flowbeist is iirc about the same, maybe 750mm?

My nates on hed big deal for reference were 737mm.

Obviously when you ride a bike the tyres compress, more at lower psi, so the working radius will be less on fatter tyres typically- you might take off 5mm or more. So - the 27.5 barbi is directly comparable to a 29+ as it might compress only a few mm more than a 29+ ...


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

iamkeith said:


> So, wait.. are there TWO new sizes coming out, a 4.5 *and* a 4.8?


Dunno. There are just pictures that Trek allowed out but they are not close enough to provide detail or measurements. Smart marketing guys, good to keep the buzz going on your product line. See? It's working.

J.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

post #601 by [TA] mentions that there is just the 4.5, presently. he is one of the frame design crew at trek.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

I may have missed a discussion of this elsewhere, but it is interesting in light of the discussion we've been having in this thread, regarding relative heights and how they're measured. In fact it's almost as if Surly have been reading this, because they recently updated their tire geometry chart using a different methodology, and the numbers have changed considerably:

Tires!!* Geometry Chart Update | Blog | Surly Bikes

1. They discuss the various common measuring methods as we have, dismissed the find-the-circumference-then-calculate-the-diameter method as inconsistent, and the measure-the-vertical-height as too difficult, and gone with a specialized "fixture" - presumably like the giant caliper @dRjOn described on pg 14.

2. They are now taking their measurements at MAXIMUM pressure, instead of at a logical riding pressure, just as Trek is doing. To me this is completely irrelevant information, but I guess I understand why.

So long story short - the Bud just "grew" to 775.5 mm tall. Some of that is the tall knobs. The 4.8 Knard (which is what I'm using but hoping to replace with the Barbegazi) grew to 771.5mm tall. It is actually the bigger casing, but has shorter knobs.

http://surlybikes.com//uploads/downloads/13827_Update_Tire_Geo_Chart_v2.pdf


----------



## Matterhorn (Feb 15, 2015)

There is another thread asking if anyone gets teased for riding a fat bike. I'd never thought of teasing fat bikers until....now. Nothing against the bikes, those are cool, but it seems the riders skew pretty hard toward the nerd end of the spectrum. 

Obviously I put myself in that group. Nerd on!


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

Matterhorn said:


> There is another thread asking if anyone gets teased for riding a fat bike. I'd never thought of teasing fat bikers until....now. Nothing against the bikes, those are cool, but it seems the riders skew pretty hard toward the nerd end of the spectrum.
> 
> Obviously I put myself in that group. Nerd on!


Hey! I resemble that remark!

Ironically, the reason I'm following and thinking about this thread so much is because I feel like, after more than 30 years of mountain biking, I'm finally >this< close to nailing down the perfect setup for me.

If I can just... get... this... one... last.. missing piece in place - the correct diameter/volume front tire - I'll never be spend time on these forums again, because I'll have everything I've ever needed. Except this lamp...


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

iamkeith said:


> I may have missed a discussion of this elsewhere, but it is interesting in light of the discussion we've been having in this thread, regarding relative heights and how they're measured. In fact it's almost as if Surly have been reading this, because they recently updated their tire geometry chart using a different methodology, and the numbers have changed considerably:
> 
> Tires!!* Geometry Chart Update | Blog | Surly Bikes
> 
> ...


I have noticed this with my Bud- it keeps growing. I've had to trim tire hairs that keep rubbing on the fender. Downside is since I only use it as a winter tire, if it keeps growing it won't fit in my Bluto long before it actually wears out.

My sarcasm obviously went over Mike C's head earlier when I joked about stretching a Barbi in the sun, but in my experience, tires stretch quite a bit especially when set up tubeless. If not I'd still be riding with a D5 on my Bucksaw, and wouldn't need a new Bud down the road to fit in the Bluto.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

Matterhorn said:


> There is another thread asking if anyone gets teased for riding a fat bike. I'd never thought of teasing fat bikers until....now. Nothing against the bikes, those are cool, but it seems the riders skew pretty hard toward the nerd end of the spectrum.
> 
> Obviously I put myself in that group. Nerd on!


Those that ride fatbikes are smart enough to realize that they are a better weapon for tackling difficult terrain, so yes the nerd quotient is higher. That being said, we are also smart enough to realize (or have been suckered enough times in the past), that just because someone says something is bigger/better/etc. doesn't always mean it is.

Back in the day it was a speaker brand that used the motto: Better sound through research, to which audiophiles used say "Better sound through marketing". Sure the speakers cost more and every store would push them as they gave good profits and free speakers to the employee. But if you actually applied science and measurements, you'd see the speakers had giant holes in the audible frequency range, and had poor construction like undersized paper drivers. Walk into a stereo shop though and they were being pushed like crack and "Ignorance is bliss" customers overpaid for them.

That being said, we are just talking about wheels and tires here, and although important, they aren't going to make a good rider into a great rider or even a bad rider into an average one. The guys that are the fastest at the local singletrack or sitting on the podium on race day, would be in a similar position with any decent tire/rim combo.


----------



## Prof_mudflap (Mar 17, 2016)

schnee said:


> I think I'm excited because it means I have a new option for my 5" tire bike.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this nicely splits the difference between the 29+ w/ 3" tires and 26er w/ 5" tires, while keeping almost the exact same circumference. No worries about the BB being higher or lower based on tire/rim choice.
> 
> ...right?


This is my understanding as well.

However, this thread seems to be debating the premise in theory vs execution. Some are upset that the "27.5/650b" rim size isn't exactly between 26&29. Leading to undersized tire diameters on 27.5/650b sized rims. This refers to tire/rim widths across the spectrum. 
Haters gonna hate. Trollers gotta troll. Lurker's first post?

Personally, I hope someone knowledgeable chimes in to illuminate the casing size difference between the hodag 3.8 and the barbegazi 4.0 or 4.5. This is the fine line between B+ and true Bfat.

Knowing that Maxxis is on the horizon with DHF and FBF/FBR in almost all these new sizes could make for and interesting contrast /comparo. between 26x4.8--27.5x3.8--29x3.0

may you live in interesting times


----------



## Swerny (Apr 1, 2004)

mikesee said:


> A little Birdie inside @ Trek gave the thumbs up on sharing dims, so here's what I've got:
> 
> Bontrager ~80mm rims, tubeless, at ~11psi (last ride finished with ~25 miles of pavement), tires have been used enough to account for stretch:
> 111mm casing width, 768.35 total O.D. including knobs.
> ...


OK, so the Barbi on Mikesee's photo says 27.5 x 4.5

Someone later says it's actually 4.5 wide.

Will this tire fit on the current Farley 9, 9.6, 9.8 rims and clear the fork and rear stays?

I'm considering buying a current 9.6 but would need wider rubber for winter use...I'd like to avoid having to buy a 26x5 wheelset.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Swerny said:


> OK, so the Barbi on Mikesee's photo says 27.5 x 5.
> 
> Someone later says it's actually 4.5 wide.
> 
> ...


No, the tires in Mike's pictures say 27.5 x 4.50. And I am pretty sure they will fit in the current Farley frames. Maybe [TA] will chime in, he should have that info.


----------



## Swerny (Apr 1, 2004)

bikeny said:


> No, the tires in Mike's pictures say 27.5 x 4.50. And I am pretty sure they will fit in the current Farley frames. Maybe [TA] will chime in, he should have that info.


you're right, sorry I edited my post.

Just need confirmation it will fit the current 27.5 equipped Farley's

Thanks


----------



## [TA] (Dec 3, 2008)

Swerny said:


> you're right, sorry I edited my post.
> 
> Just need confirmation it will fit the current 27.5 equipped Farley's
> 
> Thanks


The new tire fits the current Farley just fine (both alloy and carbon). Depending on your clearance needs you can even slam the drops all the way forward, if that's your thing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Swerny (Apr 1, 2004)

[TA] said:


> The new tire fits the current Farley just fine (both alloy and carbon). Depending on your clearance needs you can even slam the drops all the way forward, if that's your thing.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thank you sir!


----------



## Bizarro (Apr 20, 2006)

so anyone trying the chupacbra 27.5 x 2.8 on their Farley yet? or any other in that size? Got a 9 and rippin it up for a while now on the Hodags.... my shop guy talked me into trying those tires on the bike mounted to the rims.. going to save over 2lbs on that tire! Hope my bb doesn't suffer a lot.. don't think it will but will corner like crazy. 

thoughts? 


cheers!


----------



## TitanofChaos (Jun 13, 2011)

Bizarro said:


> so anyone trying the chupacbra 27.5 x 2.8 on their Farley yet? or any other in that size? Got a 9 and rippin it up for a while now on the Hodags.... my shop guy talked me into trying those tires on the bike mounted to the rims.. going to save over 2lbs on that tire! Hope my bb doesn't suffer a lot.. don't think it will but will corner like crazy.
> 
> thoughts?
> 
> cheers!


2.8's on the stock 80's? the profile is going to be really square


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Bizarro said:


> so anyone trying the chupacbra 27.5 x 2.8 on their Farley yet? or any other in that size? Got a 9 and rippin it up for a while now on the Hodags.... my shop guy talked me into trying those tires on the bike mounted to the rims.. going to save over 2lbs on that tire! Hope my bb doesn't suffer a lot.. don't think it will but will corner like crazy.
> 
> thoughts?
> 
> cheers!


i could see doing it on 45mm rms, but on 80's? it will bring the suckitude, fast.


----------



## Bizarro (Apr 20, 2006)

I thought about the profile on those but now that you mention it..yeah.. interesting.. but i'll try one mounted to the rear to see how it fits before buying.. my shop guy is cool and wants to experiment I guess. -) Let me ask you guys.. what tires would you fit on those rims in the 27.5 version if any? A few out there go up to 3.25. 

thanks!


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

With that tire/rim combo Not much rubber or air volume will be left to protect your expensive rims. Make sure to keep the psi high.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Bizarro said:


> Let me ask you guys.. what tires would you fit on those rims in the 27.5 version if any? A few out there go up to 3.25.
> 
> thanks!


honestly, i think those rims are too wide for anything but fat tires, unless you find plus slicks for road riding, i wouldn't bother.


----------



## Bizarro (Apr 20, 2006)

Paochow said:


> With that tire/rim combo Not much rubber or air volume will be left to protect your expensive rims. Make sure to keep the psi high.


hummm.... yeah I'm a big guy at 250 too that rides hard if I can... I saw the picture on this thread with the side by side on page 14 I believe with the Hodags and Chupie 29+... guess my brain was thinking about 27+ not being that much differ...etc for that rim.. seeing them side by side in the bike shop also isn't too bad either. hummm... trying to get away with tires for that rim without buying a new set of rims like the WTB Scrapers..etc.


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

Bizarro said:


> hummm.... yeah I'm a big guy at 250 too that rides hard if I can... I saw the picture on this thread with the side by side on page 14 I believe with the Hodags and Chupie 29+... guess my brain was thinking about 27+ not being that much differ...etc for that rim.. seeing them side by side in the bike shop also isn't too bad either. hummm... trying to get away with tires for that rim without buying a new set of rims like the WTB Scrapers..etc.


If you are going to buy a new set of rims you should definitely go 29+.


----------



## TitanofChaos (Jun 13, 2011)

Bizarro said:


> hummm.... yeah I'm a big guy at 250 too that rides hard if I can... I saw the picture on this thread with the side by side on page 14 I believe with the Hodags and Chupie 29+... guess my brain was thinking about 27+ not being that much differ...etc for that rim.. seeing them side by side in the bike shop also isn't too bad either. hummm... trying to get away with tires for that rim without buying a new set of rims like the WTB Scrapers..etc.


FWIW I'm about the same weight as you and I went with a set of scrapers in 27.5 and kept the hodags, it rounds out the profile while still leaving a ton of tire to protect rims from rocks etc as well as keeping the cushy ride


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

TitanofChaos said:


> FWIW I'm about the same weight as you and I went with a set of scrapers in 27.5 and kept the hodags, it rounds out the profile while still leaving a ton of tire to protect rims from rocks etc as well as keeping the cushy ride


+1 I love the hodags on my 45mm WTB Scrapers.


----------



## mohrgan (Sep 12, 2013)

Gigantic said:


> +1 I love the hodags on my 45mm WTB Scrapers.


Can you post a picture of what this setup looks like?!


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

mohrgan said:


> Can you post a picture of what this setup looks like?!


I also would like to see pics of this setup.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

mohrgan said:


> Can you post a picture of what this setup looks like?!

















__
http://instagr.am/p/BCiKPlbI69G/
unfortunately, I don't have anything better and i've already switched to 27.5+ for the summer.


----------



## TitanofChaos (Jun 13, 2011)

My wheels, on not my bike, they will be on my bike later this week (farley 9)




























80mm wampa vs 45mm WTB


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Cool, thanks guys!


----------



## mohrgan (Sep 12, 2013)

Awesome! Thanks guys!


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

Anyone running fatlab 55 think that might be a good option for all tires on 27.5
3.0, hodag and new 4.5 ?


----------



## RPK3 (Aug 18, 2005)

TitanofChaos said:


> 2.8's on the stock 80's? the profile is going to be really square


And as you flatten them out, you also lose some more diameter making your bb even lower than it would be on 27.5x2.8 on 45mm rims. This bike is expected to run 29x3, 27.5x4 or 26x5 and has bb drop calculated accordingly. If you have no technical climbing it might be ok but a 29+ wheelset on this bike makes more sense to me...


----------



## TitanofChaos (Jun 13, 2011)

RPK3 said:


> And as you flatten them out, you also lose some more diameter making your bb even lower than it would be on 27.5x2.8 on 45mm rims. This bike is expected to run 29x3, 27.5x4 or 26x5 and has bb drop calculated accordingly. If you have no technical climbing it might be ok but a 29+ wheelset on this bike makes more sense to me...


OD does not change with rim width unless the tires stretch, not trying to be rude but this was beaten to death in another thread

Check the surly document for reference http://surlybikes.com//uploads/downloads/13827_Update_Tire_Geo_Chart_v2.pdf


----------



## RPK3 (Aug 18, 2005)

TitanofChaos said:


> OD does not change with rim width unless the tires stretch, not trying to be rude but this was beaten to death in another thread
> 
> Check the surly document for reference http://surlybikes.com//uploads/downloads/13827_Update_Tire_Geo_Chart_v2.pdf


ummm... You have your opinion. I have mine. We can agree to disagree. I don't think of it as a huge change but in my experience there has been a small change when switching between different rim widths.

I'll see your Surly tire chart and raise you a 45North tire chart that supports my opinion. 

http://45nrth.com/files/pages/13193_45N_Tire_Geo_Update_V3.pdf


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

RPK3 said:


> ummm... You have your opinion. I have mine. We can agree to disagree. I don't think of it as a huge change but in my experience there has been a small change when switching between different rim widths.
> 
> I'll see your Surly tire chart and raise you a 45North tire chart that supports my opinion.
> 
> http://45nrth.com/files/pages/13193_45N_Tire_Geo_Update_V3.pdf


13mm difference in wheel diameter... them's fightin' stats. :lol:


----------



## ealex (Feb 5, 2014)

In my experience, at same pressure there is absolutely no change in overall diameter on different width rims, including 45NRTH D5 tires. The 45NRTH chart above must be somehow theoretically calculated.


----------



## TitanofChaos (Jun 13, 2011)

Zowie said:


> 13mm difference in wheel diameter... them's fightin' stats. :lol:


that's called an uncontrolled variable


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Paochow said:


> Sorry-didn't realize my comments could be hurting your bottom line. I don't make any money from the bike industry and sometimes forget there are some good guys that are dependent on it for their livelihood.
> 
> I'll go back to riding my obsolete kid's bike now.


I'm a stickler for fact-based reporting and I could give a rip about sales in this instance. I'm speaking from the position of having ridden both of them. Are you?

The difference in rollover between 26 x 4 and 27.5 x 4 is both substantial and quantifiable. And that says nothing of the more subtle but equally important differences in ride feel and ride quality.

You don't have to like it. You don't even have to try it. But if you're going to spout off about it, you should at least have an experience-based leg to stand on.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Boom.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

My sweetie and I recently did a 5-day desert traverse using B-fat rims and tires. I had the 4.5" Barbi's, she had the 3.8" Hodag's, both on ~80mm rims.

We both noticed and appreciated the added rollover capability relative to the 26 x 4" or 4.8" tires we've run for similar trips in the past.

Our bikes were heavily laden and unsuspended -- a combo that makes it pretty easy to notice what they'll roll over and what slows or stops them. We both have lots of 'muscle memory' for this sort of thing, which is a fancy way of saying that my evidence is purely anecdotal.

Best quote to sum up what we felt came from Jeny, whom said that she felt like her loaded bike felt more efficient with B-fat tires than it did unloaded with Bud and Lou. How often does adding 40+ pounds of crap to a bike and riding on soft surfaces make it feel more efficient?!

Not often.

Jeny is a non-tech sort, so I asked a series of questions aimed at determining if she was referring to the difference in tread between Bud/Lou and Hodag, or if she meant the way the wheels/tires and thus the overall bike moved through rough terrain. She clarified that she meant the latter -- said the only bike she's ridden that felt more efficient in the rough stuff was her 29+. And we agreed that 29+ simply didn't have enough float for the terrain we were moving through, nor the loads we were hauling.

I'll reiterate that all of our 'evidence' is based on feel, not hard numbers or empirical tests. But the feel was different enough, and positive enough, that it was a slam dunk for us.

YMMV, as our typical summer fatbike use (see link above) is probably not entirely similar to the way most others use them.


----------



## jrogersAK (Sep 17, 2015)

Hello fellow Trek cool aid drinkers! I like the 3.8 x 27.5's too. I ended up studding up a set with power grips this winter, and it made a big difference, but they did not compete with the 26 x 4.8s in deep snow, even at really low pressures. I kept the studs in them and bought another set for the summer. Hopefully Bontrager comes out with a 27.5 x 5 before next winter. More float and more diameter so hopefully out performing the 26 x 5's out there.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

mikesee said:


> I'm a stickler for fact-based reporting and I could give a rip about sales in this instance. I'm speaking from the position of having ridden both of them. Are you?
> 
> The difference in rollover between 26 x 4 and 27.5 x 4 is both substantial and quantifiable. And that says nothing of the more subtle but equally important differences in ride feel and ride quality.
> 
> You don't have to like it. You don't even have to try it. But if you're going to spout off about it, you should at least have an experience-based leg to stand on.


That's the thing, I have tried it.

I'll start this out by saying that Trek didn't buy me off with a set of 27.5" Barbis, so I don't have experience on those. But I've ridden plenty on the 27.5's Hodags between demos and riding friends bikes and just don't have the glowing review that you have. Now it could be different terrain, snow composition, bike setup, etc. but for me as a winter tire, they felt more like trying to ride a plus tire in the snow than a real fatbike tire. They roll fast, but at equal pressures seem harsher than 26" tires. If you air them down, you risk blowing out a rim due to the shorter sidewall. They pretty much suck for anything really loose and don't compare to a good 26" tire like the Van Helga in these conditions. We haven't had any summer yet, so no experience there, maybe that is where they do better?

As for the size advantage, it is minuscule at best- 10mm more diameter, 5mm in ride height? Even if it is 20mm more diameter that is only 10mm (.38") more ride height. If you compare Gigantic's pics of the 27.5" tires on the Bucksaw vs a 26" tire, you'll notice there really isn't much difference between the tire and the seat stay bridge with 26" vs 27.5", which in that case is good as there isn't much tire clearance there on a Bucksaw to begin with. You are right there is a quantifiable difference in size- it is 1.3-2.6% bigger. Is this difference substantial- maybe for you, but if someone told me something was going to be substantially better and then gave me something 2.6% better, I'd likely be disappointed.

I think the theory could have been good with these tires, but the reality is not quite there. With the 27.5 Barbi measurements, it appears that they are now downsized fit in a Bluto, so now you have a similar sized tire to a Bud/Lou/JJ/etc. so what did the 27.5 buy you other than reduced sidewall?


----------



## Matterhorn (Feb 15, 2015)

Cool, cool, you all have different opinions about tires. Great to hear some solid trip reports, less excited to read what seem to be personal digs. 

I'm still excited about 27.5X 4.whatever because as a 29+ rider I love to rollover stuff, but you dudes are bumming me out.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Paochow said:


> I'll start this out by saying that Trek didn't buy me off with a free set of 27.5" Barbis, so I don't have experience on those.


Not only not the truth, but that's just a straight up d1ck thing to say. You knew it when you wrote it, and you wrote it anyway. Lame.



> But I've ridden plenty on the 27.5's Hodags between demos and riding friends bikes and just don't have the glowing review that you have. Now it could be different terrain, *snow composition*, bike setup, etc. but for me as a winter tire,


No experience with them on snow -- not enough air volume for the average snowpack out my back door.

I'm talking about this platform strictly from the perspective of summer use -- as a complement to 26 x 5.2" in winter.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

mikesee said:


> Not only not the truth, but that's just a straight up d1ck thing to say. You knew it when you wrote it, and you wrote it anyway. Lame.


Sorry pal, but your reviews and comments like 26" are for kids bikes, read a lot like paid advertisements.

That being said, I've recommended you to at least five people in the past year looking for wheels. Since you've resorted to name calling, I don't think I'll be sending anymore business your way.


----------



## senor_mikey (Apr 25, 2009)

have you found the 27.5 Fatlab rims anywhere?

mike


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Paochow said:


> Sorry pal, but your reviews and comments like 26" are for kids bikes, read a lot like paid advertisements.
> 
> That being said, I've recommended you to at least five people in the past year looking for wheels. Since you've resorted to name calling, I don't think I'll be sending anymore business your way.


I don't understand. Mike has repeatedly stated his opinions are for non-snow riding, and you keep talking about winter snow riding.

I completely agree with Mike's assessment of the B fat setup. I swapped form 26 Vanhelga front/26 Hodag rear to 27.5 Hodag front and rear, and immediately noticed a difference. I will also state this is for riding on dirt, not snow. The 26" setup just feels like it's falling into holes and depressions more, whereas the B fat smooths everything out more and keeps momentum better. I can't fit it in the rear, but would love to try one of those 4.5s on the front. Or one of the upcoming Maxxis B fat tires!

And I will continue to point people his way for wheel builds.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

bikeny said:


> I don't understand. Mike has repeatedly stated his opinions are for non-snow riding, and you keep talking about winter snow riding.
> 
> I completely agree with Mike's assessment of the B fat setup. I swapped form 26 Vanhelga front/26 Hodag rear to 27.5 Hodag front and rear, and immediately noticed a difference. I will also state this is for riding on dirt, not snow. The 26" setup just feels like it's falling into holes and depressions more, whereas the B fat smooths everything out more and keeps momentum better. I can't fit it in the rear, but would love to try one of those 4.5s on the front. Or one of the upcoming Maxxis B fat tires!
> 
> And I will continue to point people his way for wheel builds.


+∞


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Same ****, different names...


----------



## Thrawn (Jan 15, 2009)

From 26" Hodag F/R to 27.5" Hodag F/R in trail rides only, I noticed less bouncing and a more responsive sprint. Handling was crisper and felt reminiscent of a 29+. Hugged baby berms better and felt more balanced in the rock gardens. Guessing it is air volume and sidewall difference is what accounts for this feel.

Setup is on a Farley 8 with Bluto fork, 11psi front and 10.5psi rear, for both 26" and 27.5"...

Sorry, no rides in the snow...


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

What's the tallest 27.5 x 4" tire?

I have a super secret project in mind


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Nurse Ben said:


> What's the tallest 27.5 x 4" tire?
> 
> I have a super secret project in mind


There is only one tire at this point, the Bontrager Hodag, so it's the tallest! In the works are the above Bontrager Barbegazi 27.5x4.5 and I think 2 Maxxis 27.5x3.8 or 4.0 tires. No idea when they will be available.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

bikeny said:


> There is only one tire at this point, the Bontrager Hodag, so it's the tallest! In the works are the above Bontrager Barbegazi 27.5x4.5 and I think 2 Maxxis 27.5x3.8 or 4.0 tires. No idea when they will be available.


Gotcha, it's the potential that has me intrigued, I am all about tall tires for roll over, esp when fat.

So my super secret project: A custom swingarm for the Mutz. Brent said he could do it if I gave him a couple months 

It would allow the Mutz to clear 29+, so naturally the thing to then is to run 27.5 x 4 for winter 

Vroom, vroom!


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Bontrager hit it out of the park with the 26x4.7 Barbis. Perfect summer tire - switching to 27.5 x 3.8" Barbis with a smaller sidewall would be a Gigantic waste of money for me personally. So far there's no setup that's more versatile - depending on who you are.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

A 5" tire for summer?

Maybe if if you ride mostly on the beach, but you're not talking about the beach... why the hell anyone would want to haul that much friction around all year round is a strange concept to me.

I'm interested in the taller 4" tire for increased rollover compared to a 26 x 4 and because it's closer in height to a 29+; better for a one bike/two wheelset option.



Gambit21 said:


> Bontrager hit it out of the park with the 26x4.7 Barbis. Perfect summer tire - switching to 27.5 x 3.8" Barbis with a smaller sidewall would be a Gigantic waste of money for me personally. So far there's no setup that's more versatile - depending on who you are.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

I agree with Nurse Ben, I don't think a 4.7 tire equates to a perfect summer tire at all. For my needs, the 3.8 makes a great winter tire, and something around 3.25 is my preference for summer.


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Gambit21 said:


> Bontrager hit it out of the park with the 26x4.7 Barbis.


I would have to agree here. I think you guys should try a Barbegazi before you discount it. Yes at 1360-1370ish weight you could go lighter with a 3.25" tire, but your also loosing some cush that the 4.7" Barbi provides. It's a trade off and about which is the more important thing for you.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Nurse Ben said:


> A 5" tire for summer?
> 
> Maybe if if you ride mostly on the beach, but you're not talking about the beach... why the hell anyone would want to haul that much friction around all year round is a strange concept to me.
> 
> I'm interested in the taller 4" tire for increased rollover compared to a 26 x 4 and because it's closer in height to a 29+; better for a one bike/two wheelset option.


Ben Ben Ben...tsk tsk...Are you new here? Have you ever looked at the daily Fat Bike pic thread? I guess you've missed the other 20 posts I've made about riding the Barbi as well.
Welcome to the MTBR Fat Bike forum, and we hope you enjoy your first day.

Seriously - you think a 4" tire makes sense for Summer, but add .25" to each side and suddenly it's just too much? I've seen that logic before and it always baffles me. How does that logic go? Also if you follow your (odd for a fat bike guy) logic to it's conclusion then why not just ride a 2.3" tire and be done with it? Why not got down to 27.5+? I'm sure a guy riding a skinny tire 29er would ask you why you want to haul around all the weight of a 3.8" tire - and what would you tell him? Probably a similar thing to what I'd tell you. I'll go further and bet that in a blind test you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in effort/rolling resistance between your average 3.8" tire and the Barbi. Cush? Yes, the Barbi would feel better. Rolling resistance/effort? Not so much.
Depending on which tire's you're comparing, you'll get a bit more, to A LOT more rolling resistance, but even then it's about trade offs. Tires are always about trade-offs. With the Barbi the trade off happens to be very nil in the category mentioned.

Beach? Pfff! Haven't even done it yet, but I will at some point. Friction? Have you ridden a good 4.7" tire like the Barbi? Hell I came off of a year training on an old 26" Parkpre mountain bike from the 90's - guess what? Those 26x4.7" Barbis were anything but a shock, hardly noticed a difference. I can pedal them all day, and I can take them anywhere. From pavement, to single track, to the beach, to the snow.
There is no reason to go smaller, no matter the season. If my bike came with Lou's it would be a different story.

Now a caveat here - maybe if you have wussy, underdeveloped chicken legs and no lungs you might think pedaling around a 4.7" Barbi is too much work, but at that point any fat bike would be too much work... I happen to have normal cyclist legs and don't notice it.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

nitrousjunky said:


> I would have to agree here. I think you guys should try a Barbegazi before you discount it. Yes at 1360-1370ish weight you could go lighter with a 3.25" tire, but your also loosing some cush that the 4.7" Barbi provides. It's a trade off and about which is the more important thing for you.


Yep


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Gambit21 said:


> Ben Ben Ben...tsk tsk...Are you new here? Have you ever looked at the daily Fat Bike pic thread? I guess you've missed the other 20 posts I've made about riding the Barbi as well.
> Welcome to the MTBR Fat Bike forum, and we hope you enjoy your first day.
> 
> Seriously - you think a 4" tire makes sense for Summer, but add .25" to each side and suddenly it's just too much? I've seen that logic before and it always baffles me. How does that logic go? Also if you follow your (odd for a fat bike guy) logic to it's conclusion then why not just ride a 2.3" tire and be done with it? Why not got down to 27.5+? I'm sure a guy riding a skinny tire 29er would ask you why you want to haul around all the weight of a 3.8" tire - and what would you tell him? Probably a similar thing to what I'd tell you. I'll go further and bet that in a blind test you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in effort/rolling resistance between your average 3.8" tire and the Barbi. Cush? Yes, the Barbi would feel better. Rolling resistance/effort? Not so much.
> ...


You are so silly, maybe you're a rabbit?

If rabbits rode bikes, would they ride fat bikes?

Now there is a question to keep you up at nights.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

bikeny said:


> I agree with Nurse Ben, I don't think a 4.7 tire equates to a perfect summer tire at all. For my needs, the 3.8 makes a great winter tire, and something around 3.25 is my preference for summer.


Well yeah you agree with me, you're not a rabbit


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

This silly has the tire thing figured out.


----------



## j0hnj0hns (Dec 26, 2014)

So I just tore the sidewall in my rear 27.5" hodag on my Farley 9 after 4 rides. I've patched it up but it looked pretty dodgy so I thought I should look into getting a new tyre. Apparently they are $170AUD (Maxxis mammoth is $90 for reference) and there are none in Australia and they aren't planning on bringing any in for awhile and the Maxxis/WTB/Kenda alternatives are ages away.

So my question is, can I put a 3.0" or 3.5" tyre on the 80mm Jackalopes? Or will the tyre profiles just not work?

Ta


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

j0hnj0hns said:


> So I just tore the sidewall in my rear 27.5" hodag on my Farley 9 after 4 rides. I've patched it up but it looked pretty dodgy so I thought I should look into getting a new tyre. Apparently they are $170AUD (Maxxis mammoth is $90 for reference) and there are none in Australia and they aren't planning on bringing any in for awhile and the Maxxis/WTB/Kenda alternatives are ages away.
> 
> So my question is, can I put a 3.0" or 3.5" tyre on the 80mm Jackalopes? Or will the tyre profiles just not work?
> 
> Ta


Maybe you can find a US, UK, or EU mailorder place that delivers to your country?

There is no such thing as a 27.5x3.5. There is a Panaracer tire that is labeled 3.5, but it's really around 2.9". The next biggest tire below the Hodag is either the Vee Trax Fatty 3.25 or the Duro Crux 3.25. They are quite a bit smaller that the Hodag and will not provide the same cushy ride. No idea if they will work on your 80mm rims, doesn't seem ideal to me.


----------



## likeaboss (Jan 1, 2012)

j0hnj0hns said:


> So I just tore the sidewall in my rear 27.5" hodag on my Farley 9 after 4 rides. I've patched it up but it looked pretty dodgy so I thought I should look into getting a new tyre. Apparently they are $170AUD (Maxxis mammoth is $90 for reference) and there are none in Australia and they aren't planning on bringing any in for awhile and the Maxxis/WTB/Kenda alternatives are ages away.
> 
> So my question is, can I put a 3.0" or 3.5" tyre on the 80mm Jackalopes? Or will the tyre profiles just not work?
> 
> Ta


Can you give specifics on how you tore the sidewall?

Trek sells Hodags on their website.


----------



## j0hnj0hns (Dec 26, 2014)

Split the tire on a sharp rock I guess as I hurtled down a loose rocky singletrack. The air shot out instantly so I ended up banging down the trail on the rim for a few metres and put 3 big dents in it. It had started off as such a good day.

I had them at 11psi as I had already stuck a small hole in the sidewall the week before at 9.5psi. I am a heavy rider and I guess I push the bike pretty hard, so combined with the rocks everywhere maybe I'm expecting too much.

I've been looking for places to buy online but all the usual places don't stock Bontrager (e.g. Jensons, Chainreaction, Wiggles and Evans Cycles) and the Trek US store doesn't ship to Aus and the Trek AUS store doesn't sell online (and doesn't have the 27.5 Hodag shown anyway).

I patched the tyre up and ended up putting them on some 55mm rims and the profile looks a lot better IMHO. Tread goes right round and there is less sidewall exposed. I'll just put the Jackalopes in the corner until something else comes onto the market.


----------



## senor_mikey (Apr 25, 2009)

j0hnj0hns said:


> I patched the tyre up and ended up putting them on some 55mm rims and the profile looks a lot better IMHO. Tread goes right round and there is less sidewall exposed. I'll just put the Jackalopes in the corner until something else comes onto the market.


Curious what 55 mm rim you used. I want to get some 27.5 wheels built for my Ritchey Commando and looking for something in that size.

mike8


----------



## j0hnj0hns (Dec 26, 2014)

These were 27.5 x 55mm Dice Parts Co rims from an Australian Company - Dice Parts Co.
Just an alloy rim similar to the Stans Hugo I think. I'd probably get light-bicycle or nextie rims next.
Tyre width is now 90mm wide according to calipers and dia is around 760mm.


----------



## Borgschulze (Nov 5, 2007)

Wonder if these new 27.5" tires will fit in my 2011 Fatback Aluminum frame...?

I can't justify buying a new Fatbike, I like mine too much, but new wheel build on my existing hubs would be great.

I always hated riding trails on my Fatback because the BB is too low, I get constant pedal strikes. Should have got 170mm cranks instead of 175 I guess.


----------



## senor_mikey (Apr 25, 2009)

j0hnj0hns said:


> These were 27.5 x 55mm Dice Parts Co rims from an Australian Company - Dice Parts Co.
> Just an alloy rim similar to the Stans Hugo I think. I'd probably get light-bicycle or nextie rims next.
> Tyre width is now 90mm wide according to calipers and dia is around 764mm.


Thanks for the info. The width sounds consistent with other reports on rims of that size but many have reported a diameter closer to 755.

I did check their website. Free shipping to the US on wheelsets.

mike


----------



## j0hnj0hns (Dec 26, 2014)

senor_mikey said:


> Thanks for the info. The width sounds consistent with other reports on rims of that size but many have reported a diameter closer to 755.
> 
> I did check their website. Free shipping to the US on wheelsets.
> 
> mike


Yeah, measured it real rough last night so not surprised if its out. Ill try again tonight.


----------



## pplucena (Dec 25, 2010)

j0hnj0hns said:


> So I just tore the sidewall in my rear 27.5" hodag on my Farley 9 after 4 rides. I've patched it up but it looked pretty dodgy so I thought I should look into getting a new tyre. Apparently they are $170AUD (Maxxis mammoth is $90 for reference) and there are none in Australia and they aren't planning on bringing any in for awhile and the Maxxis/WTB/Kenda alternatives are ages away.
> 
> So my question is, can I put a 3.0" or 3.5" tyre on the 80mm Jackalopes? Or will the tyre profiles just not work?
> 
> Ta


You can try with "alltricks" from France:
BONTRAGER Tire HODAG FAT BIKE 27.5 Flexible TLR - ALLTRICKS
They ship a lot of countries and is a good price for this tyre!


----------



## j0hnj0hns (Dec 26, 2014)

pplucena said:


> You can try with "alltricks" from France:
> BONTRAGER Tire HODAG FAT BIKE 27.5 Flexible TLR - ALLTRICKS
> They ship a lot of countries and is a good price for this tyre!


Thanks for that. I haven't seen that store before but that price is the same as what I can get from the LBS. Maybe that's just the Bontrager pricepoint then.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

triton cycles in uk will have them back in stock end of april apparently and they will be cheaper than the place in france. in saying that, you will have to pay postage i guess? i got mine from there at £69 and intend to get another for spares until the maxxis 27.5x3.8 comes out....


----------



## N8R (Feb 4, 2004)

It's interesting how such small differences get hyped into something so huge. This has been said but I'll say it again.....the difference between the 26" and 27.5" fat bike tire format diameters is minuscule and a 2% increase in diameter is not going to really make a significant difference, mathematically. 

Maybe in people's minds it "feels" better. Sweet. If it can enhance one's cycling experience, whether perceived or actual, and one doesn't mind paying the "way much higher than 2%" new trend tax, then it's a win for that person. 

One thing I am certain of is, it's mathematically and physically impossible for 27.5" fat tires to render 26" fat tires obsolete, performance wise for the average recreational rider. 2% is pretty close to zero. The only thing that could possibly make 26 fat obsolete is changing marketing trends to push new product, and people being receptive to such. 

Meanwhile, I'm perfectly happy with my vintage 26 x 4 fat tires, with 2% less rolling-over-stuff-ability. I'm pretty sure I'll be rolling over all the same obstacles as those with 27fat just the same with as big a grin on my face.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

got to say that i totally disagree. yeah, the outer diameter is roughly similar (lets face it, what is the total percentage relative decrease and increase across the board?)

in this instance though, the point is getting a relatively high volume tyre, not a huge volume tyre, at that specific diameter. 

the volume of a tyre and the pressure hugely influences its behaviour and feel. i really like having a little LESS volume at the same diameter for some riding. where you need real floatation and you are not going to be hitting square edges at speed, or cornering hard, big volume matters a lot, as well as diameter. 

going the other way from your premise: with the hodag at ~745-750 mm diameter, a maxxis minion 2.5 is real similar. but its behaviour is entirely different - due to the volume mostly. this is a bigger change than from bud to hodag i grant you, but its the principal that matters. 

for trail riding there is (i believe) a sweet spot of how the pressure changes in the tyre under impact. huge volume at very low pressure has a much more linear response under compression of the tyre compared to a smaller volume where the pressure temporarily rises and resists the compression. its a small effect but change the pressure in a fatty by 1 or 2 psi and you know all about it. 

then, there is how the height of the side wall affects things etc.

well, thats the way i see it at least...


----------



## N8R (Feb 4, 2004)

dRjOn said:


> got to say that i totally disagree. yeah, the outer diameter is roughly similar (lets face it, what is the total percentage relative decrease and increase across the board?)
> 
> in this instance though, the point is getting a relatively high volume tyre, not a huge volume tyre, at that specific diameter.
> 
> ...


I agree.....which is why I no longer run 26x 100mm or even 80mm fat bike rims. I just laced up a set of 60mm rims and I love them so much more. I wouldn't want to have any less volume than a 4" tire on a 26x60mm rim and the diameter is more than sufficient.

I personally see the lower sidewall height of 27.5 x 3.8 as a negative. I prefer more tire and less rim. I've also noticed that the angle of the sidewall relative to the rim changes the feel of the tire, for the better with 60mm rims. 80-100mm rims spread the sidewalls out and make them more vertical, a 60-65mm rim brings them in and makes them more horizontal and therefore more supple. The lower profile a tire, the more vertical the sidewall will be.

I have a theory that the more vertical sidewalls caused by wider 80-100mm rims cause more deformation and faster wear of the sidewalls than narrower rims, but it's just a theory.

I would think overall, the volume of 26x3.8 and 27.5x3.8 tires on the same width rims would be pretty close to the same or if anything the 26 would be less volume than the 27.5. Has anyone calculated the volume of 27.5 x3.8 hodags vs something like a Nate 26 x3.8?

With 26 fat wheels, there is enough tire and rim choice to get whatever volume one is looking for, so I still think that 27.5 fat really isn't bringing much to the table other than a cross platform for those wanting to keep the same diameter over multiple wheelsets.


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

SOC16: Trek Farley EX full suspension 27.5" fat bike crushes all seasons, hardtails get lighter - Bikerumor


----------



## JohnMcL7 (Jul 26, 2013)

Thrawn said:


> From 26" Hodag F/R to 27.5" Hodag F/R in trail rides only, I noticed less bouncing and a more responsive sprint. Handling was crisper and felt reminiscent of a 29+. Hugged baby berms better and felt more balanced in the rock gardens. Guessing it is air volume and sidewall difference is what accounts for this feel.
> 
> Setup is on a Farley 8 with Bluto fork, 11psi front and 10.5psi rear, for both 26" and 27.5"...
> 
> Sorry, no rides in the snow...


Stupid question perhaps but what setup are you using to run those tyres on the Farley 8?

John


----------



## Thrawn (Jan 15, 2009)

JohnMcL7 said:


> Stupid question perhaps but what setup are you using to run those tyres on the Farley 8?
> 
> John


Stock Wampa in the front, Wampa hoop with the Jackalope rear hub. I wanted to test it before buying a better hub. At 10.5 psi, there's about 7mm clearance on the NDS chainstay and closest knob. No rubbing yet on my typical rides. Will do some gnar stuff later and see how it does.


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

Anyone have a hodag on wtb scraper and can tell me tire width? Thx


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

aquamogal said:


> Anyone have a hodag on wtb scraper and can tell me tire width? Thx


I posted pictures a few pages back.


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

my goal is a new rim 27.5 wtb scraper, run hodags in summer and new Trek 27.5 X4.5 in winter, thoughts ?


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

aquamogal said:


> my goal is a new rim 27.5 wtb scraper, run hodags in summer and new Trek 27.5 X4.5 in winter, thoughts ?


My thought is if the smallest tire you want to run is the 27.5x3.8 Hodag, you would want a wider rim than the Scraper. Something around 65mm to 80mm would work well for those 2 sizes.


----------



## BATRG3 (Dec 11, 2012)

Trek 27.5x4.5? That's news to me!


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

aquamogal said:


> my goal is a new rim 27.5 wtb scraper, run hodags in summer and new Trek 27.5 X4.5 in winter, thoughts ?





bikeny said:


> My thought is if the smallest tire you want to run is the 27.5x3.8 Hodag, you would want a wider rim than the Scraper. Something around 65mm to 80mm would work well for those 2 sizes.


I'm running the Scrapers on my Bucksaw; while I can't speak for the 4.5" tires, the Hodags are great on the 45mm rims, with a nice, rounded profile and great volume. That said, I've come to prefer 3.0 27.5 plus tires over the Hodags.


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

anyone how of a 27.5 65mm rim that is not carbon ?


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

typo Know of ?


----------



## Haste11 (Jul 5, 2014)

If you find one let us know. I'm in the same boat, I already have scrapers and hope pro 4s on order for my Wednesday frame up build. Also WTB trail boss and Hodags.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

I think Hugo is the way to go, I only want one set of wheels to run all 27.5 tires
And understand there are going to be trade offs putting a 3.0, hodag and 4.5 tire 
On the same rim. I was good with the hodag in winter in Mi., so putting a 4.5 on 
Hugo would be wider than a hodag on 80mm. I do like the weight of scrapper but
But not that important because not racing.


----------



## Bizarro (Apr 20, 2006)

Ohhhhh man...well... I did it... one ride so far and it's something different and works so far... 41 mile ride yesterday on 27.5 x 2.8 Chuppies mounted on 80 mm rims on my Trek Farley..WOW. Now my shop guy made me a deal I couldn't resist and would purchase the rim for me if any damage... heck..try them for a bit and if I don't like them their warranty if top notch take them back.... I'll try to post pics of them mounted compared to the Hodags 27.5..which I love but I lost over 2 lbs switching tires already and was super surprised how they felt..fit and cornered..(didn't break traction yesterday and I was testing them hard.) BB height didn't suffer that much.. still just a tad over 12inches.. rolled over lots of log crossings yesterday and was all so far.. very nimble the bike is now..(like it wasn't before..lol.) I do have them with 15psi in rear and 13 psi in front. Rounded profile...not square like I thought. 

Little backround..all mountain rider that weighs 248 w/out gear...riding 20 years..have a number of bikes..few fat..few enduro. Love the trek fat. 
Those tires have to more than a 2.8. Crazy.


----------



## FatBike&SlenderWoman (Apr 1, 2016)

Nurse Ben said:


> It's gonna be really tall, as tall as a 29+, so fit will be a problem with many fat bikes and it's gonna raise the BB a whole lot.


A Bud 26 x 4.8 is taller (775mm) than any 27.5 or 29+ tire on the market.
The closest thing to 775mm is a 29 x 3.0 Knard pumped up to 30psi.

Check out the link below.
http://www.m2group.com/bikestuff/WheelSpecs.pdf


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

FatBike&SlenderWoman said:


> A Bud 26 x 4.8 is taller (775mm) than any 27.5 or 29+ tire on the market.
> The closest thing to 775mm is a 29 x 3.0 Knard pumped up to 30psi.
> 
> Check out the link below.
> http://www.m2group.com/bikestuff/WheelSpecs.pdf


I wouldn't depend on the accuracy of that table, if it's based on manufacturer specs as noted. They all seem to measure a bit differently (different methodology, different pressures, etc.)

From first-hand measurement experiences as well as many other anecdotal reports on these forums, I can tell you that, at actual riding pressures, the only 29+ tire that's in the same height range as the Bud is the Panaracer Fat B Nimble. All other 29+ tires are taller - some significantly so.


----------



## FatBike&SlenderWoman (Apr 1, 2016)

iamkeith said:


> ... All other 29+ tires are taller - some significantly so.


I am lacing up a fair weather 29+ wheelset for my Blackborow and am looking for the largest 29er that I can find. So tell me what 120tpi tire is larger than a 29+ Knard...slick preferred...the less knobby, the better.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

FatBike&SlenderWoman said:


> I am lacing up a fair weather 29+ wheelset for my Blackborow and am looking for the largest 29er that I can find. So tell me what 120tpi tire is larger than a 29+ Knard...slick preferred...the less knobby, the better.


Hopefully someone else will chime in here. I think the biggest is the Durro Crux, but it's not exactly slick, right? So Knard is probably still king for what you're describing. Chronicle is comparable overall, but some of the height comes from knobs, where Knard is mostly casing, so more volume.

In another thread somewhere, someone posted a link to a 29x3 true slick/road tire, but I'll be damned if I can find it at the moment. Will keep searching. Schwalbe Super Moto / Big One are a defacto standby for fast, fat, supple road tires, but this other one was even bigger. (edit: though I doubt it was 120 tpi, as I think it was marketed as a "cruiser" tire.)


----------



## FatBike&SlenderWoman (Apr 1, 2016)

I am currently running Vee Speedsters (puny 2.8" tires) but word on the street is that if you take a Knard, pump it up to 30psi and run it 1000 miles on pavement, it will morph into the fastest 29+ road tire in existence. That may take me a couple months!


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

The 27.5 x 4.5" Barbegazi's came into inventory this morning. If your local Trek dealer can't/won't get them for you, I have them.


----------



## Tunalic (Feb 13, 2012)

mikesee said:


> The 27.5 x 4.5" Barbegazi's came into inventory this morning. If your local Trek dealer can't/won't get them for you, I have them.


Thanks for the heads-up! Got me a couple on the way.


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

My LBS has a couple on the way. I've been wanting to have a good 26"x3.8" tubeless setup for my Mukluk, and I've also wanted to try 29"x3" tires on it. I figure these can maybe replace my 26"x3.8" and give me an idea whether I would like the 29+. Since I already have a pair of 27.5 rims from trying out out 27.5+ just buying two tires seems like a pretty inexpensive way to go.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Tunalic said:


> Thanks for the heads-up! Got me a couple on the way.


Me too. They're available from Bontrager. I'll probably put them on and give them a shot on the sand. Otherwise, I'm pretty ok with the 3.8" tires for the summer.

J.


----------



## FatBike&SlenderWoman (Apr 1, 2016)

iamkeith said:


> I wouldn't depend on the accuracy of that table.


Most were hand measured by taking the diameter at 20psi and dividing it by 3.14159.
So far, the Knard is the tallest 29er that I have measured. I have not gotten my hands on a Vee Bulldozer yet but Vee Tires tend to be smaller than advertized.


----------



## sryanak (Aug 9, 2008)

FatBike&SlenderWoman said:


> Most were hand measured by taking the diameter at 20psi and dividing it by 3.14159.
> So far, the Knard is the tallest 29er that I have measured. I have not gotten my hands on a Vee Bulldozer yet but Vee Tires tend to be smaller than advertized.


This tendency is not limited to Vee Tires.

As an aside, did you really mean to say you divided the measured circumference by pi?

Furthermore, I seem to be piling it on here, I think the exercise on rim width to tire width is really looking at the trees and not the forest, especially when you rank accuracy of the methods. Tire width/ rim width relationships depend on many things, like shape of tire, bead height, tire pressure, rider preference, riding surface, etc. so relying on very simple formulas as the be all end all is somewhat short sighted.


----------



## FatBike&SlenderWoman (Apr 1, 2016)

sryanak said:


> This tendency is not limited to Vee Tires.


Sad to say, that is true. 



sryanak said:


> As an aside, did you really mean to say you divided the measured circumference by pi?


In my Ed McMahon voice, "You are correct sir!" I could not get the Greek character to display on here plus there may be some non-math folks that are not aware of these geometric constants.



sryanak said:


> Furthermore, I seem to be piling it on here, I think the exercise on rim width to tire width is really looking at the trees and not the forest...


Given the ambiguity of advertised tire specs, 'looking at the trees' is a good metaphor.



sryanak said:


> ...Tire width/ rim width relationships depend on many things...


The variables come in the plethora of compounds and tread profiles that are bonded to the outside of a tire casing in an effort to optimize performance for different applications.
My PDF is focused on actual (not advertised) rim and casing dimensions. It is an attempt to provide a more apples to apples comparison for obtaining the highest reliability and performance from 120tpi tubeless casings. Experimenting with different rim widths, tire pressures and tread construction is best left up to the rider's discretion so I leave that topic for another conversation. 

Unlike automotive tires where the aspect ratio is maintained by multiple plys and belts under the tread cap, the shape of bicycle tire casings are dictated by the physics of a compressed gas contained within a simple flexible medium.  If you have two bike tires from different manufacturers with the same inside bead-to-bead dimension, mounted on the same rim at the same pressure, the casings will be essentially the same diameter and shape. That being a constant, there is a casing/rim width ratio that yields the highest load capacity and the lowest rolling resistance along with the ability to safely run lower pressures with potentially the largest footprint.

Engineering is the art of compromise. One must prioritize among must haves and trade offs to achieve the best performance for a particular application.
A 4.8" tire on a 100mm rim will provided the highest load capacity and most available float. This would be desirable for a 210lb rider on a 30+ lb bike riding through 6" of fresh snow.

Mounting a 4.8" tire on a 65mm rim reduces the load capacity by 35% with a 50% increase in the air pressure required to avoid burping and/or pinch flats. These trade offs may be acceptable for a 150lb rock climber that would benefit from the lighter rotating mass along with reducing the exposure of rims and side walls to rough terrain hazards.

What I fail to understand is is the point of running a 26 x 5 tire on a 65mm rim when a 65mm 27.5 x 4 wheelset provides equivalent ground clearance in a lighter package with more available float.

Of course, who am I to talk? While waiting for my 622-60 rims to arrive, I am currently running 3.5" Speedsters on 99mm Clown Shoes while enjoying all of the oversteer that accompanies use of a rim that is too wide for the tread profile.


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

mikesee said:


> The 27.5 x 4.5" Barbegazi's came into inventory this morning. If your local Trek dealer can't/won't get them for you, I have them.


i just received mine, same weight as hodag, thinking about trying them now before winter. interested to hear any feedback on these. Also would anyone want to be a beta for mounting these on a hugo ?


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Curious about the measurements of the Barbegazi's on Scrapers or Hugos...


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

FatBike&SlenderWoman said:


> A Bud 26 x 4.8 is taller (775mm) than any 27.5 or 29+ tire on the market.
> The closest thing to 775mm is a 29 x 3.0 Knard pumped up to 30psi.
> 
> Check out the link below.
> http://www.m2group.com/bikestuff/WheelSpecs.pdf


What's your point?

It still ain't gonna fit some bikes.


----------



## FatBike&SlenderWoman (Apr 1, 2016)

Nurse Ben said:


> What's your point?
> 
> It still ain't gonna fit some bikes.


You can interchange 26 x 5", 27.5 x 4" and 29 x 3" wheelsets on an ICT, Blackborow or Farley 5 and maintain the same ground clearance and gearing.


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

Gigantic said:


> Curious about the measurements of the Barbegazi's on Scrapers or Hugos...


I second that ! trying to find the ideal rim for all 27.5 tire sizes. Anyone want to beta the 4.5 on these smaller width rims and let me know how it goes ?


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

As soon as I get my 27.5x4.5 Barbegazis I'll be putting them on some 50mm Nexties and can measure them. I don't know when I'll be getting them, but they are ordered.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

does anyone have a width of the 27.5 barbegazi on any sort of rim? 

i'm thinking of getting hold of one at some point and wondering if i need a rim wider than 50~mm external as some of you guys seem to be as well...the hodag is fine, but if the barbegazi is much wider id probs try and source a 65mm rim.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

dRjOn said:


> the hodag is fine, but if the barbegazi is much wider id probs try and source a 65mm rim.


You'd like to think you could, anyway. ;-)

Barring the carbon fibre one mentioned a few pages back, I think the next best available is still the Fatlab 55mm. Someone should try that one and report back, please. If you're in a shop that has access to one, the rim doesn't even have to be built into a wheel. Just something that allows us to see the profile and take some measurements.


----------



## FatBike&SlenderWoman (Apr 1, 2016)

iamkeith said:


> You'd like to think you could, anyway. ;-)
> 
> Barring the carbon fibre one mentioned a few pages back, I think the next best available is still the Fatlab 55mm...


I have got some on order but the rep is still working out logistics so they are not in the US yet. The inner rim bead-to-bead is 51mm.

http://www.m2group.com/bikestuff/FATlab55.pdf


----------



## senor_mikey (Apr 25, 2009)

FatBike&SlenderWoman said:


> I have got some on order but the rep is still working out logistics so they are not in the US yet. The inner rim bead-to-bead is 51mm.
> 
> http://www.m2group.com/bikestuff/FATlab55.pdf


can I ask who in the US you are working with? I heard there were no US distributors at the moment.

mike


----------



## FatBike&SlenderWoman (Apr 1, 2016)

senor_mikey said:


> can I ask who in the US you are working with?
> mike


Adventuron


----------



## Tunalic (Feb 13, 2012)

I just got both tires on the Jackolopes and they measured nearly 4.3", weight is 1250g. My dropouts are still jammed forward with maybe 1/8" clearance off the middle of the seat tube. Diameter is roughly 30.5".

I think these will do until I get a nice carbon 26" wheelset.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Tunalic said:


> I just got both tires on the Jackolopes and they measured nearly 4.3", weight is 1250g. My dropouts are still jammed forward with maybe 1/8" clearance off the middle of the seat tube. Diameter is roughly 30.5".
> 
> I think these will do until I get a nice carbon 26" wheelset.


They look good. Looking forward to hearing a ride report especially if there is sand involved.

J.


----------



## Tunalic (Feb 13, 2012)

JohnJ80 said:


> They look good. Looking forward to hearing a ride report especially if there is sand involved.
> 
> J.


I will try soon. Just getting over some weird cold.


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

in the trek 2017 farley pics i saw a 27.5 X4.5 barbi on what i think was an 80mm Mulefut rim. Also the Hugo is like a couple mm les inside width than Fatlab. Hugo would be my first choice before buying nextie 65 as an option for smaller rim width than Jackolpe.


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

So I've got one Barbegazi mounted up on a Nextie 50mm OD rim. I didn't have any success getting tubeless to work, it seemed like the rim was too narrow so the tire bead was inward and up from the edge of the rim. I'll try it again after it sits around with a tube in it for a while. It actually isn't even on well with the tube, there are a couple of spots where the bead hasn't seated.

Barbegazi 27.5 x 4.50 on Nextie 50mm rim with 20 psi.
94.5mm casing width.
101mm knob width. The knobs stick out really far with the narrow rims.
250mm B2B
765mm tall. This is just measured placed against a wall with no weight. For comparison I measured a couple of other tires the same way.
Well worn Knard 26 x 3.8 on Marge Lite was 724mm tall.
Vee Trax Fatty 27.5 x 3.25 on Nextie 50mm was 739mm tall.

Took a quick look at the rear of the Mukluk and it looks like the width is okay and I need to move the axle rearward for clearance around the chainstay yoke.


----------



## FatBike&SlenderWoman (Apr 1, 2016)

Bizarro said:


> Ohhhhh man...well... I did it... 27.5 x 2.8 Chuppies mounted on 80 mm rims on my Trek Farley..WOW....


Betcha that bike rolls fast and corners like a slot car...still waiting for photos!


----------



## tadraper (Apr 14, 2010)

Just installed the Barbegazi's on my 9.8 should get them out tonight and a good long test ride tomorrow.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

PSA: Manitou Magnum plus fork fits the 27.5 x 4" Bontrager Hodag tire. 

I have one mounted on a 27.5 x 50mm carbon rim, tubeless at ~12psi. Higher than I plan to run, but wanted it to stretch/seat.

Tight on the sidewalls, good clearance on edge knobs, enormous clearance to the arch. 

Looks badass.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

I can't remember where I heard it, but isn't the 27.5x4.5 supposedly lighter than the 3.8"?

J.


----------



## EBG 18T (Dec 31, 2005)

FatBike&SlenderWoman said:


> I have got some on order but the rep is still working out logistics so they are not in the US yet. The inner rim bead-to-bead is 51mm.
> 
> http://www.m2group.com/bikestuff/FATlab55.pdf





senor_mikey said:


> can I ask who in the US you are working with? I heard there were no US distributors at the moment.
> 
> mike


They should be here soon. Once the stateside inventory gets built things will be much easier to get.:thumbsup:


----------



## Tunalic (Feb 13, 2012)

JohnJ80 said:


> I can't remember where I heard it, but isn't the 27.5x4.5 supposedly lighter than the 3.8"?
> 
> J.


I didn't know it for sure but noticed that my bike weight didn't change much after changing tires. I just weighed one Hodag at 1300g and one of my Barbs was 1250g.


----------



## EBG 18T (Dec 31, 2005)

Tunalic said:


> I didn't know it for sure but noticed that my bike weight didn't change much after changing tires. I just weighed one Hodag at 1300g and one of my Barbs was 1250g.


Those barbs look quite appealing!


----------



## Tunalic (Feb 13, 2012)

EBG 18T said:


> Those barbs look quite appealing!


Yeah, so far so good.


----------



## FatBike&SlenderWoman (Apr 1, 2016)

Since there are quite a few Trek enthusiasts on this thread, could someone tell me where would I find a 10-speed driver to replace the XD driver on a Jackalope hub?


----------



## EBG 18T (Dec 31, 2005)

FatBike&SlenderWoman said:


> Since there are quite a few Trek enthusiasts on this thread, could someone tell me where would I find a 10-speed driver to replace the XD driver on a Jackalope hub?


you may call a few local dealers. Some of the early shipments came with the 10sp free hub installed and the shops swapped out for the XD freehand. They may still have them kicking around.


----------



## j0hnj0hns (Dec 26, 2014)

So are there any 27.5 fat tire alternatives out yet? Maxxis was showing off their new minions but does anyone have any word on when they'll hit the market? Wasn't WTB and Kenda making one too?


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

I got the 27.5 x 4.5 Barbegazis installed on my 2014 Mukluk Ti. I had to slide the rear axle all of the way back to get clearance for the seatstay bridge. The closest clearance is about 5mm when the chain is on the biggest rear cog of my 1x11. I plan on getting them dirty on the way home from work. I blew them up to 25 psi because it was hard to get the beads to seat. It felt like a lot of air riding them to work.


----------



## tadraper (Apr 14, 2010)

Welnic said:


> I got the 27.5 x 4.5 Barbegazis installed on my 2014 Mukluk Ti. I had to slide the rear axle all of the way back to get clearance for the seatstay bridge. The closest clearance is about 5mm when the chain is on the biggest rear cog of my 1x11. I plan on getting them dirty on the way home from work. I blew them up to 25 psi because it was hard to get the beads to seat. It felt like a lot of air riding them to work.


You may have needed that much to set them but if the held at that over night I would lower to a better pressure. I think I am running 9 front and 10 rear and I am a heavy rider.

T


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

tadraper said:


> You may have needed that much to set them but if the held at that over night I would lower to a better pressure. I think I am running 9 front and 10 rear and I am a heavy rider.
> 
> T


Oh, I hear you. I sometimes ride to the beach on about 8 miles of pavement and then let the air out for the sand. Even then I don't run anywhere near 25psi. But since I already had 25psi in them I was interested in what it would be like. I'll probably go with 10psi for the pavement-dirt ride home.


----------



## tadraper (Apr 14, 2010)

25 psi on pavement must have rolled very fast!!


----------



## Thrawn (Jan 15, 2009)

For trail riding, what pressures are you all using on Wampas with Hodags? I'm at 11 psi and scared to burp. Can I safely go lower?


----------



## tadraper (Apr 14, 2010)

I ran them at 7 not issues and I am 210.


----------



## hoboscratch (Apr 26, 2005)

mikesee said:


> PSA: Manitou Magnum plus fork fits the 27.5 x 4" Bontrager Hodag tire.
> 
> I have one mounted on a 27.5 x 50mm carbon rim, tubeless at ~12psi. Higher than I plan to run, but wanted it to stretch/seat.
> 
> ...


That's cool... I just put 27.5x50mm wheels on my Farley 5. Was hoping to keep this set as my only wheelset going forward. Don't know much about the Hodags tho.

Sounds tho like the Barbegazis might be too wide, according to another post.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

If that's the case then why not just get a plus bike and be done with it - why bother with the fat bike in the first place?


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

hoboscratch said:


> That's cool... I just put 27.5x50mm wheels on my Farley 5. Was hoping to keep this set as my only wheelset going forward. Don't know much about the Hodags tho.
> 
> Sounds tho like the Barbegazis might be too wide, according to another post.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No way the Barbe will fit the Magnum. Full FUPA.

Even the Hodag is *tight* once stretched. Class B fit. Fun as hell, just no mud clearance.


----------



## Tunalic (Feb 13, 2012)

I finally got to do a little bit of comparing of the 4.8" Jumbo Jims with the Barbs. As far as I can tell I like the Barbs just as well as the JJs. Too bad I can't try the JJs on the Farley.


----------



## hoboscratch (Apr 26, 2005)

Gambit21 said:


> If that's the case then why not just get a plus bike and be done with it - why bother with the fat bike in the first place?


For me, I want to be able to be plus and fat. *If* the 27.5x50mm rim will work with 27.5+ and a 27.5x4 (or beyond) tire, i'm down with that. I love the way the bike handles with the 27.5+ on my local singletrack. Plus I live in MN and have a long winter cycle, so I definitely want to stay fat. If the rims are too narrow, I still have my 26x80mm rims on standby...


----------



## FatBike&SlenderWoman (Apr 1, 2016)

Gambit21 said:


> If that's the case then why not just get a plus bike and be done with it - why bother with the fat bike in the first place?


Dittos to that! Putting 50mm rims (which in most cases are really 45mm) on a fat bike frame makes for a glorified plus bike.


----------



## TitanofChaos (Jun 13, 2011)

Gambit21 said:


> If that's the case then why not just get a plus bike and be done with it - why bother with the fat bike in the first place?





FatBike&SlenderWoman said:


> Dittos to that! Putting 50mm rims (which in most cases are really 45mm) on a fat bike frame makes for a glorified plus bike.


My 2 cents on why I run this combo, I have plus wheelsets, B+ and 29+, being a clydesdale at 250#+ in order to run non bouncy tire pressure and not get rim dings this was a happy medium for me, the difference in volume between + and the hodag on a 50mm rim is still more than double and allows me to run low pressure and not break things


----------



## sryanak (Aug 9, 2008)

FatBike&SlenderWoman said:


> Dittos to that! Putting 50mm rims (which in most cases are really 45mm) on a fat bike frame makes for a glorified plus bike.


Maybe but I have one of each type of these wheels on a couple of my bikes and the ride on each is not the same. I don't know if I could even begin to say which is "better" but I do know that I've been spending more time on the + bike. Several factors unrelated to tire size play a part in this but still.


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

I love my "glorified plus bike", and also really like being able to run studded 26 x 4" tires in winter.


----------



## FatBike&SlenderWoman (Apr 1, 2016)

radair said:


> I love my "glorified plus bike", and also really like being able to run studded 26 x 4" tires in winter.


I laced up some Fatlab 55's and turned my Blackborow into a glorified 29+ bike while Bud, Lou and the Clown Shoes take the summer off.


----------



## Haste11 (Jul 5, 2014)

radair said:


> I love my "glorified plus bike", and also really like being able to run studded 26 x 4" tires in winter.


Yup couldn't agree more

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## senor_mikey (Apr 25, 2009)

FatBike&SlenderWoman said:


> I laced up some Fatlab 55's and turned my Blackborow into a glorified 29+ bike while Bud, Lou and the Clown Shoes take the summer off.


so how are those Fatlab rims? Did they build up straight and how were they to set up tubeless? Considering a set to do a 27.5 superPlus (Hodags) build on my Ritchey Commando.

mike


----------



## j0hnj0hns (Dec 26, 2014)

Bizarro said:


> Ohhhhh man...well... I did it... one ride so far and it's something different and works so far... 41 mile ride yesterday on 27.5 x 2.8 Chuppies mounted on 80 mm rims on my Trek Farley..WOW. Now my shop guy made me a deal I couldn't resist and would purchase the rim for me if any damage... heck..try them for a bit and if I don't like them their warranty if top notch take them back.... I'll try to post pics of them mounted compared to the Hodags 27.5..which I love but I lost over 2 lbs switching tires already and was super surprised how they felt..fit and cornered..(didn't break traction yesterday and I was testing them hard.) BB height didn't suffer that much.. still just a tad over 12inches.. rolled over lots of log crossings yesterday and was all so far.. very nimble the bike is now..(like it wasn't before..lol.) I do have them with 15psi in rear and 13 psi in front. Rounded profile...not square like I thought.
> 
> Little backround..all mountain rider that weighs 248 w/out gear...riding 20 years..have a number of bikes..few fat..few enduro. Love the trek fat.
> Those tires have to more than a 2.8. Crazy.


Did you ever share a pic of this? I've destroyed the Hodags on rocks and need an alternative and all I can get are 3" tires. I'll be interested to see if 3.0" tires work OK on 80mm rims.


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Anyone seen these 65mm Mulefut rims before? - Mulefüt 65SL | SUNringlé

Just noticed the OEM Only in the description.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

j0hnj0hns said:


> Did you ever share a pic of this? I've destroyed the Hodags on rocks and need an alternative and all I can get are 3" tires. I'll be interested to see if 3.0" tires work OK on 80mm rims.


the Maxxis Minion DHR & DHF 27.5x3.8 are due any day now...


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

radair said:


> I love my "glorified plus bike", and also really like being able to run studded 26 x 4" tires in winter.


 think i like my Bucksaw better as a 27.5+ than fat. There, I said it.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

hoboscratch said:


> For me, I want to be able to be plus and fat. *If* the 27.5x50mm rim will work with 27.5+ and a 27.5x4 (or beyond) tire, i'm down with that. I love the way the bike handles with the 27.5+ on my local singletrack. Plus I live in MN and have a long winter cycle, so I definitely want to stay fat. If the rims are too narrow, I still have my 26x80mm rims on standby...


I get plus and fat - I have a second wheel set, 29+ as of yet unbuilt, myself (although I have yet to find a good reason to build up the plus set other than the fact that I spent the money) I just don't get buying a fat bike and leaving the 'plus' wheels on 100% of the time - seems silly.

Riding plus most of the time, and going to fat on occasion when conditions demand it - down with that too although I wouldn't do it. The Farley 7 and the Barbis - I have to say I'm not finding myself wishing I had less tire. It's fast, light, nimble, rolls great, plenty of cush.
I've toyed with selling the plus setup, but I hate the idea of getting rid of those DT Swiss hubs. Even if decide not to build up the 29+ I'll probably want those at some point as either a replacement or maybe a set of 27.5x65mm.


----------



## hoboscratch (Apr 26, 2005)

It's all good man; but not silly. The Farley drew me in due to its versatility. 100% love the idea of one bike to rule them all.

And for the record, I want to love the Barbis sooo badly. I totally agree with your statements about being fast, light, etc. but in the winter they unfortunately fail me where my Bud/Nates succeed. And now that I've tried plus, I am sold. Thankfully, the Farley is the best fat bike out there IMO and maybe the future holds 27.5x80 Barbis for me in the summer. Just damn glad I have this bike to try it all out on!

So yeah, 27.5x4 and beyond, I'm excited 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

I get the "one bike to rule" them all thing completely - can't beat a fat bike, let alone a fat bike with 2 wheel sets.


----------



## FatBike&SlenderWoman (Apr 1, 2016)

Gambit21 said:


> ...can't beat a fat bike, let alone a fat bike with 2 wheel sets.


...or three!


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

Thanks to mikesee for helping me get hold of this monster.

surprised at how big it seems compared to a flowbeist on a hed. the rim is a nextie 65mm. diameter at 20psi is more or less 770mm and the width of the casing is 115mm, with a few extra mm of knob.

this will be used on my fatty with a hodag/junglefox rear wheel.


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Awesome! Can you take a pic of the tire profile on that rim?


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

will do... ~


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

seems tricky to get a good shot! this is the best one i got, this is at 20psi.


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

That's good enough for me, Thanks!


----------



## Thrawn (Jan 15, 2009)

Bizarro said:


> Ohhhhh man...well... I did it... one ride so far and it's something different and works so far... 41 mile ride yesterday on 27.5 x 2.8 Chuppies mounted on 80 mm rims on my Trek Farley..WOW. Now my shop guy made me a deal I couldn't resist and would purchase the rim for me if any damage... heck..try them for a bit and if I don't like them their warranty if top notch take them back.... I'll try to post pics of them mounted compared to the Hodags 27.5..which I love but I lost over 2 lbs switching tires already and was super surprised how they felt..fit and cornered..(didn't break traction yesterday and I was testing them hard.) BB height didn't suffer that much.. still just a tad over 12inches.. rolled over lots of log crossings yesterday and was all so far.. very nimble the bike is now..(like it wasn't before..lol.) I do have them with 15psi in rear and 13 psi in front. Rounded profile...not square like I thought.
> 
> Little backround..all mountain rider that weighs 248 w/out gear...riding 20 years..have a number of bikes..few fat..few enduro. Love the trek fat.
> Those tires have to more than a 2.8. Crazy.


I'd love to see pics of the 2.8 on an 80mm rim... I might try Trailboss 3.0...


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

32 pages - that was kind of painful.

It's a fair while since these wheels were announced and have been shipping. I'm still not seeing many tire choices for the 27.5 rims. We have a Farley 8 (Hodag 26x3.8) and are considering a second fat bike such as Farley 9.6. I get a Barbegazi should be better than what we have in deep snow. Can anyone say if a Fat B Nimble would be much better in summer than the stock 3.8 Hodags? Any fast 27.5 fat tires I missed? 

After all this reading I'm thinking I probably want two sets of wheels and 29+ to be fully happy with summer riding. I'm sure I'd be happy with 27.5 x 3.8 or 4.5 in winter. It's what to do about 2.1 mi of road to trail head and long fast trail rides.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

bitflogger said:


> 32 pages - that was kind of painful.
> 
> It's a fair while since these wheels were announced and have been shipping. I'm still not seeing many tire choices for the 27.5 rims. We have a Farley 8 (Hodag 26x3.8) and are considering a second fat bike such as Farley 9.6. I get a Barbegazi should be better than what we have in deep snow. Can anyone say if a Fat B Nimble would be much better in summer than the stock 3.8 Hodags? Any fast 27.5 fat tires I missed?
> 
> After all this reading I'm thinking I probably want two sets of wheels and 29+ to be fully happy with summer riding. I'm sure I'd be happy with 27.5 x 3.8 or 4.5 in winter. It's what to do about 2.1 mi of road to trail head and long fast trail rides.


in all honesty, the fat b nimble is a plus tire, not fat. The Maxxis minions 27.5x4 are supposedly imminent, but not yet available. I'd expect more n this segment from interbike.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

Gigantic said:


> in all honesty, the fat b nimble is a plus tire, not fat. The Maxxis minions 27.5x4 are supposedly imminent, but not yet available. I'd expect more n this segment from interbike.


Thank you.

Please don't shoot while I'm in learning mode. Is the Fat B Nimble suitable for the 27.5 Jackalope wheels on a Farley? That might be enough to have me happy with one set or the OEM wheels to start. It would seem that size would not drop the bottom bracket as much as plus wheels with 2.8 or 3 inch tires.

I'm really sure the OEM wheels will be fine for winter considering I know 26 x 3.8 Hodags on our Farley 8, and know the Barbegazi is a larger option.

If it's not obvious I'm looking at whether or not a Farley with these wheels would keep me happy for all seasons.

Thanks again.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

I suspect that the panaracers would not be ideal for 80mm rims, the profile would be too flat and reportedly, they're more than a little prone to tearing. They're better on narrower plus wheels, they'd drop the bb even more on the jackalopes. Ultimately, I think you can be happy with those wheels for all seasons, you just need to be patient, more tires are on the way.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

bitflogger said:


> 32 pages - that was kind of painful.
> 
> It's a fair while since these wheels were announced and have been shipping. I'm still not seeing many tire choices for the 27.5 rims. We have a Farley 8 (Hodag 26x3.8) and are considering a second fat bike such as Farley 9.6. I get a Barbegazi should be better than what we have in deep snow. Can anyone say if a Fat B Nimble would be much better in summer than the stock 3.8 Hodags? Any fast 27.5 fat tires I missed?
> 
> After all this reading I'm thinking I probably want two sets of wheels and 29+ to be fully happy with summer riding. I'm sure I'd be happy with 27.5 x 3.8 or 4.5 in winter. It's what to do about 2.1 mi of road to trail head and long fast trail rides.


I can ride the 4.7 Barbegazi's on pavement all day if I was so inclined, certainly a few miles to a trail head is no worries for me even at 5 psi, let alone higher.
Great tires those Barbis.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

bitflogger said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Please don't shoot while I'm in learning mode. Is the Fat B Nimble suitable for the 27.5 Jackalope wheels on a Farley? That might be enough to have me happy with one set or the OEM wheels to start. It would seem that size would not drop the bottom bracket as much as plus wheels with 2.8 or 3 inch tires.
> 
> ...


When you wear out the Hodags on your current bike, I'd recommend going with a set of 45NRTH Vanhelgas. They are by far the best 4 season tire, I've tried. Roll pretty fast in summer, but grip snow like no 4" tire should.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

Paochow said:


> When you wear out the Hodags on your current bike, I'd recommend going with a set of 45NRTH Vanhelgas. They are by far the best 4 season tire, I've tried. Roll pretty fast in summer, but grip snow like no 4" tire should.


Thank you. I've had that suggestion before.

My continued worry is hearing or reading some of the other 27.5 tires I've found are really for plus rims - not the rims you'll get with a Farley 9, 9.6 or 9.8 etc.... As it stands I am not finding tires where I'd be happy riding from home to trail head in summer - a 2.1 up uphill ride.

My apologies if I've missed tire options for the stock 9 or 9.6 rims.


----------



## FatBike&SlenderWoman (Apr 1, 2016)

bitflogger said:


> Thank you.
> 
> ...It would seem that size would not drop the bottom bracket as much as plus wheels with 2.8 or 3 inch tires...


The numbers are deceiving. A '27.5' rim is only a half inch taller than a so called '26' rim so a 4.8" tire on a '26' rim is taller than a 4.0" on a 27.5.
Likewise a 29 (622) rim is 1.25" taller than a 26 and .75" taller than a 27.5 making a 3.0 x 29 wheel taller than anything currently available in a 27.5.

Bottom line, the 4.5% difference between a 26 and a 27.5 is less significant than the 6.5% difference between a 27.5 and a 29

On another note the Fat B Nimble may be a good snow tire but it is one of the slowest tires on hard pack.
Fat Bike Tires Rolling Resistance Reviews


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

FatBike&SlenderWoman said:


> The numbers are deceiving. A '27.5' rim is only a half inch taller than a so called '26' rim so a 4.8" tire on a '26' rim is taller than a 4.0" on a 27.5.
> Likewise a 29 (622) rim is 1.25" taller than a 26 and .75" taller than a 27.5 making a 3.0 x 29 wheel taller than anything currently available in a 27.5.
> 
> Bottom line, the 4.5% difference between a 26 and a 27.5 is less significant than the 6.5% difference between a 27.5 and a 29
> ...


Thank you for the input and the .pdf you've linked.

I have no doubts I'd like the Trek with this wheel size in winter. It's searching out affordable or simple summer options. Already owning 26 x 3.8 Hodags on a Farley 8 I can't imagine liking 27.5 x 3.8 Hodags much more for the ride to trail head. All the interest here is how a composite Farley might be a do it all bike for me when my same height wife is riding our Remedy 29.

Thanks again.


----------



## sryanak (Aug 9, 2008)

FatBike&SlenderWoman said:


> The numbers are deceiving.
> 
> On another note the Fat B Nimble may be a good snow tire but it is one of the slowest tires on hard pack.
> Fat Bike Tires Rolling Resistance Reviews


There are a whole bunch of tires not on that list that are likely much slower than the FBN.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

Welnic said:


> So I've got one Barbegazi mounted up on a Nextie 50mm OD rim. I didn't have any success getting tubeless to work, it seemed like the rim was too narrow so the tire bead was inward and up from the edge of the rim. I'll try it again after it sits around with a tube in it for a while. It actually isn't even on well with the tube, there are a couple of spots where the bead hasn't seated.
> 
> Barbegazi 27.5 x 4.50 on Nextie 50mm rim with 20 psi.
> 94.5mm casing width.
> ...





tadraper said:


> Just installed the Barbegazi's on my 9.8 should get them out tonight and a good long test ride tomorrow.


Two more helpful posts I forgot or missed earlier. Thanks!

My wife said go on the project but get ride of two bikes to do this. We're looking at remaining 2016 Farley 9.6 and the 2017s soon to come.

The 2017 will come with Barbegazi 27.5 x 4.5 but 27.5 Mulefut wheels vs the Jackalopes. Also what might be better SRAM brakes. I get the advantage of big Barbegazi in winter. My associates are giving really strong opinions on what size wheels for plus summer tires.

My wife's opinions are most entertaining - that's she's into it, likes the 2016 9.6 color more, and she's way more "shut up and ride" than think about gear. I tell her it's not entirely true because she always chooses the better of the bikes we share when we ride together.

For now I'm making spreadsheets and lists of wheel and tire info and am thinking the 2017 bikes with Mulefut could mean more tires will be made in that 27.5 fat size.

I'm also wondering if a non-Bluto fork with plus wheels might be a best option for summer. All great fun thoughts to distract from other challenges.

Thanks again for all the bits of info that help one figure out their custom ride.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

At this point I'll say pleased if not excited. My wife and I got a 2016 Farley 9.6. Now we've done several rides with it and the Farley 8 having same Hodag 3.8 tires but the different wheel sizes.

The larger rim and lower profile tires don't have so much basketball bounce and they move along really well in crappy summer season trail conditions. For a while I wished we got a 2017 bike for the Barbegazi tires but the 3.8 Hodags have cut my desire to want plus wheels right away. There's no snow to compare at this point but the 27.5 Jackalope+Hodag are better trail riding tires.

Better yet, now Maxxis has 27.5 fats and Rocky Mountain has a bike with this diameter and what appears to be 65 mm Mulefuts. I think 2017 Farleys have 27.5 x 80 but at last check only dealers had the official bike specs.

Pressing a friend who is in Bontrager product management only gets me another 27.5 fat is coming. I'm looking forward to that and the narrower fat rims being available. At the moment I think I'd prefer the latter over plus rims.

Rocky Mountain Launches Two 27.5? Fat Bike Models at Eurobike 2016 | Singletracks Mountain Bike News


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

bitflogger said:


> Better yet, now Maxxis has 27.5 fats and Rocky Mountain has a bike with this diameter and what appears to be 65 mm Mulefuts.


It is indeed 27.5x65mm Sun Ringle Mulefut rims - Mulefüt 65SL | SUNringlé

These are only an OEM product right now and are not available to be purchased separately (for now anyway), Per an email reply I received from Sun Ringle.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

nitrousjunky said:


> It is indeed 27.5x65mm Sun Ringle Mulefut rims - Mulefüt 65SL | SUNringlé
> 
> These are only an OEM product right now and are not available to be purchased separately (for now anyway), Per an email reply I received from Sun Ringle.


I did not see the 27.5 x 80 mm Mulefut on Sun's site even though Trek has it on bikes. Right now Trek only lists 26 in Jackalopes for sale.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

I have a set of DT Swiss hubs and ICT rotors just sitting here waiting to be turned into a new wheel set for my Farley 7. I have 29+ tires and hoops, but I love the Barbegazi's so much that I have no desire to go plus on this bike for any conditions, summer or otherwise. This discovery is why the wheel set remains as of yet unbuilt.

I was staying away from 27.5+ fat because with the Hodag it didn't make any sense to me for reasons I've stated a few times on here. However since I have the hubs and rotors I need to build up _something_. So now I'm unsure what to do.

Loving the 26 Barbis all year as I said, but having hubs I'm thinking of the 27.5 Barbis for summer next season for grins. Question is, which wheels?

I don't want to go wider than necessary, or narrower than is wise.
Anyone running the 27.5 Barbis on Scrapers? I'm wondering if that's too narrow and if I should hold off for some 60-65mm hoops to become available.
Really to me, 65mm Mulefuts would make the most sense.

The other option is just building up another nice set of fat rims and get a more aggressive winter tire for when the Barbi is overwhelmed by muck, but that seems like a waste given my situation. I don't ride much in snotty conditions.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

my 27.5 barbi is on a 58mm internal 65mm external nextie. i wouldnt want it on anything narrower than that i think....its a big tyre.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

OK - thanks. That's what I figured.
Now I have to sell my 29+ and Chuppies.


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

What are the thoughts out there regarding hodag v's 27.5 barbi ? I have mine on jackalopes.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

aquamogal said:


> What are the thoughts out there regarding hodag v's 27.5 barbi ? I have mine on jackalopes.


I've only tried 27.5 Bargegazi in summer time test rides. I've done back to back or swap bikes with 26 version of that and Hodag on groomed and soft snow. In that scenario the Barbegazi tires were better in soft snow.

I can't imagine wanting anything bigger than Hodags in summer but I only weight 150 and don't do epic trips on sand. On a recent ride with some mud and wet rocks riders with 26 Nate, Barbagazi, Mammoth and Kanard were complaining more than I was with Hodags. Our 26 Hodags are not too different but have more basketball bounce you can tune out of the 27.5s.

If nothing else comes out in 27.5 size soon I'm sure I'll want Barbegazi on our Farley 9.6 in winter because the Farley 8 can't take really big tires in back. In the meanwhile I've stopped wanting plus tires and wheels on that bike because the Farley 9.6 with Hodags has been like a get farther and go steeper weapon compared to friends around me.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

well, my slightly nebulous reply might be the barbi 27.5 should be seen as a full-fat tyre and the hodag, somewhere between a fat and a plus tyre in terms of ideal range of use?


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

mikesee said:


> PSA: Manitou Magnum plus fork fits the 27.5 x 4" Bontrager Hodag tire.
> 
> I have one mounted on a 27.5 x 50mm carbon rim, tubeless at ~12psi. Higher than I plan to run, but wanted it to stretch/seat.
> 
> ...


Will it fit on 27+/29 Pike?


----------



## deadgoat (Jan 19, 2004)

Here is what I have.
Specialized 6 fattie with 27.5 by 29 mm rims with a 3" tire.
Looking at getting the 40 or 45 mm wide rims and a 3.8" or 4" tire.
Does anyone know if this setup will fit in this frame?
Front fork is a Fox 34 boost 110, rear is a boost 148
Thanks


----------



## RFBca (Sep 5, 2016)

I heard some rumors that the 27.5 x 4.5in tires are not clearing the spacing on Blutos. Trek apparently acknowledged this. Can anyone confirm? If they do actually clear, what rim width are you using? Can you post a pic? thanks!


----------



## tadraper (Apr 14, 2010)

RFBca said:


> I heard some rumors that the 27.5 x 4.5in tires are not clearing the spacing on Blutos. Trek apparently acknowledged this. Can anyone confirm? If they do actually clear, what rim width are you using? Can you post a pic? thanks!


It will just fit when new but after sometime it will stretch and no longer fit.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Gambit21 said:


> I don't want to go wider than necessary, or narrower than is wise.
> Anyone running the 27.5 Barbis on Scrapers? I'm wondering if that's too narrow and if I should hold off for some 60-65mm hoops to become available.
> Really to me, 65mm Mulefuts would make the most sense.
> 
> The other option is just building up another nice set of fat rims and get a more aggressive winter tire for when the Barbi is overwhelmed by muck, but that seems like a waste given my situation. I don't ride much in snotty conditions.


Scraper's (assuming i45) aren't quite wide enough for the Hodag's IMO, and the Barbe and new Gnarwhal are substantially more girthy. I'd want an 80mm rim for either of those.

I liked the 26" Barbe too, but not nearly as much as the 27.5.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

dRjOn said:


> well, my slightly nebulous reply might be the barbi 27.5 should be seen as a full-fat tyre and the hodag, somewhere between a fat and a plus tyre in terms of ideal range of use?


This is a good way to put it.

I think of the B Fat Hodag as the ideal size for fat-on-dirt.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

mikesee said:


> Scraper's (assuming i45) aren't quite wide enough for the Hodag's IMO, and the Barbe and new Gnarwhal are substantially more girthy. I'd want an 80mm rim for either of those.
> 
> I liked the 26" Barbe too, but not nearly as much as the 27.5.


Fwiw, I really like the Hodag on 45mm Scrapers. Some may object that the narrow rim makes the profile too bulbous, but I appreciate that, as it enhances cornering grip considerably over similar tires on 26x65mm or larger rims. The Hodag 27.5 fat is also a wicked fast tire, faster than any fat or plus tire I've used to date. It's not particularly quick, but once it's spun up, it really moves.


----------



## jpfurn (Oct 21, 2014)

After reading thru all the positive feedback on the plus/Hodag combo, I decided it was worth a shot. I tried the Hodags on my 50's and have to say I not a fan so far. I knew they would be heavier, but I didn't realize how much more rolling resistance compared to JJ4.0 & NN3.0 there would be, especially on such a nice round profile tire. I felt like they actually had less corning traction then both tire's I mentioned above. I agree with others that the Hodags have a tough sidewall, but for me then just feel dead. Yesterday I dropped the pressure in small increments during my ride till I saw a wrinkle in the casing when bounced on. 

I'm not giving up on the 27x4" platform completely, I just think I'm done with the Hodag. I may give it a couple more weeks, but don't want to force something when I have better options for me laying in the garage. I think I'm going to go back to the 3" tires till a lighter faster rolling 27x4" tire pops up. I still have my 26 fat wheels for this winter, but my wife may have to be stuff with 3" tires in snow. I'm thinking about throwing on the new 45nrth studded Wrathchild and see how she fairs.


----------



## delopez (Oct 27, 2016)

tadraper said:


> It will just fit when new but after sometime it will stretch and no longer fit.


That's a crying shame. Does anyone know if the wren fat bike suspension fork will fit the 27.5 x 4.5 inch tires?


jpfurn said:


> After reading thru all the positive feedback on the plus/Hodag combo, I decided it was worth a shot. I tried the Hodags on my 50's and have to say I not a fan so far. I knew they would be heavier, but I didn't realize how much more rolling resistance compared to JJ4.0 & NN3.0 there would be, especially on such a nice round profile tire. I felt like they actually had less corning traction then both tire's I mentioned above. I agree with others that the Hodags have a tough sidewall, but for me then just feel dead. Yesterday I dropped the pressure in small increments during my ride till I saw a wrinkle in the casing when bounced on.
> 
> I'm not giving up on the 27x4" platform completely, I just think I'm done with the Hodag. I may give it a couple more weeks, but don't want to force something when I have better options for me laying in the garage. I think I'm going to go back to the 3" tires till a lighter faster rolling 27x4" tire pops up. I still have my 26 fat wheels for this winter, but my wife may have to be stuff with 3" tires in snow. I'm thinking about throwing on the new 45nrth studded Wrathchild and see how she fairs.


Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

*I'm excited!*


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

What's the word on when we might see more 27.5 x 4" tires? So far, we've really only got the hodag, until they hit the streets or trails as it may be, the Maxxis Minion 27.5 x 4's might as well be vaporware. Is there any scuttlebutt about, say, a Schwalbe 27.5 fat tire in the works? A B-fat JumboJim would be the cat's pajamas.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Gigantic said:


> What's the word on when we might see more 27.5 x 4" tires? So far, we've really only got the hodag, until they hit the streets or trails as it may be, the Maxxis Minion 27.5 x 4's might as well be vaporware. Is there any scuttlebutt about, say, a Schwalbe 27.5 fat tire in the works? A B-fat JumboJim would be the cat's pajamas.


I've not heard word of any other options unfortunately. Hopefully the Maxxis tires will materialize sooner rather than latter. And I agree, a B Fat Jumbo Jim would be sweet! At least the one tire we have is a good one, and Bontrager now has 2 4.5" tires as well.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

A year later and I'm still not excited.


----------



## jpfurn (Oct 21, 2014)

bdundee said:


> A year later and I'm still not excited.


You sure Bob, I'll make you a sweet deal on some 27 Hodags😉


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

mikesee said:


> Scraper's (assuming i45) aren't quite wide enough for the Hodag's IMO, and the Barbe and new Gnarwhal are substantially more girthy. I'd want an 80mm rim for either of those.
> 
> I liked the 26" Barbe too, but not nearly as much as the 27.5.


Hmm...thanks for the feedback.
Still not sure what to do with those DT Swiss hubs then.
I almost wish I wasn't so happy with the 26" Barbis in the Summer/year round, then building up the DT Swiss as 29+ (which I already have hoops and Chupies for) would be a no-brainer. As it stands I still don't feel the need, and they sit un-built.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Gambit21 said:


> Hmm...thanks for the feedback.
> Still not sure what to do with those DT Swiss hubs then.
> I almost wish I wasn't so happy with the 26" Barbis in the Summer/year round, then building up the DT Swiss as 29+ (which I already have hoops and Chupies for) would be a no-brainer. As it stands I still don't feel the need, and they sit un-built.


Clearly I can't speak for you, but it's a rare person that builds a set of 29+ with Chupa's and doesn't *love* what they do for the bike in summer months. That's one of the more popular wheel/tire sets that I sell.

Worst case, if you build 'em and don't love 'em, there is a great used market for 'em.

But I'm betting you'll love 'em. As my sweetie says (about the Chupa's): "There's something magical about that tire...".

Good luck.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

Coming from you that's strong endorsement, I'll reconsider just building them up.
Already made the investment after all.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

my guess is they will as they are spec'ed on rocky mountain's fat bikes and that = a bulk order for maxxis, so they have a reason to pop them out before or at least early winter. The pre order for the Suzi q is expected oct 16 so the tyres cant be *that* much after?

i hope!



bikeny said:


> I've not heard word of any other options unfortunately. Hopefully the Maxxis tires will materialize sooner rather than latter. And I agree, a B Fat Jumbo Jim would be sweet! At least the one tire we have is a good one, and Bontrager now has 2 4.5" tires as well.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Excited? Not exactly.

Thrilled, tickled, psyched, stoked, jazzed?

All of the above.

Details here.


----------



## Fwilpum (Jun 25, 2007)

Need, ok, want to build some 29+ for a Farley 9.6. Scraper i40's with DT Hubs. Reasonable or better ideas?


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Fwilpum said:


> Need, ok, want to build some 29+ for a Farley 9.6. Scraper i40's with DT Hubs. Reasonable or better ideas?


What does that have to do with 27.5x4 tires? Maybe try the Farley thread?


----------



## gravitylover (Sep 1, 2009)

delopez said:


> That's a crying shame. Does anyone know if the wren fat bike suspension fork will fit the 27.5 x 4.5 inch tires?


If you use the longer travel version it will work. You need the one that uses the 570 AC and then drop the travel to 130 from 150, 120 will give you a greater safety margin and is probably the smarter way to go.


----------



## Fwilpum (Jun 25, 2007)

bikeny said:


> What does that have to do with 27.5x4 tires? Maybe try the Farley thread?


Gee sorry bikeny........the relevance was unfortunately not clear. Mikesee had just posted on his website a build for a Farley Al frame with 27.5x4 tires and wheels. Thought I could throw this question out. I guess it was the incorrect thread. Didn't intend on wasting your time reading that post. I guess I should apologize in advance for this one.

Love them 27.5x4 tires. Excited? yeah.


----------



## delopez (Oct 27, 2016)

gravitylover said:


> If you use the longer travel version it will work. You need the one that uses the 570 AC and then drop the travel to 130 from 150, 120 will give you a greater safety margin and is probably the smarter way to go.


Thanks gravitylover. However, since I've posted this, I've spoke with the lead engineer at wren. The 150 would change the geometry too much and raise the bottom bracket. The 110mm, after measuring everything while on the phone with him, would be a great fit and will clear the wheel/tire combination.

Just trying to regurgitate the same information that I received. Also, the lauf carbonara fits the 27.5 x 4.5 wheel/tire combo...

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Fwilpum said:


> Gee sorry bikeny........the relevance was unfortunately not clear. Mikesee had just posted on his website a build for a Farley Al frame with 27.5x4 tires and wheels. Thought I could throw this question out. I guess it was the incorrect thread. Didn't intend on wasting your time reading that post. I guess I should apologize in advance for this one.
> 
> Love them 27.5x4 tires. Excited? yeah.


Not a big deal, I just think you will get more/better information elsewhere. Enjoy the Farley!


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

delopez said:


> That's a crying shame. Does anyone know if the wren fat bike suspension fork will fit the 27.5 x 4.5 inch tires?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


Yes it will, I ran 29+ Dirt Wizards on the 150 travel and the 110 travel Wren forks. If it's close (each tire is different), you can limit travel in 10mm increments.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

When can I get my hands on set of Minion EXO 27.5 x 3.8??

I'm building wheels this weekend, gonna need some tires, and those are the ones I want!

Hey Mike, got a release date on these suckers?


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Nurse Ben said:


> Hey Mike, got a release date on these suckers?


Nope.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

I found the front listed and available direct from Maxxis, but it's $120! The rear is not listed. 

QBP has them listed, but not available. The pricing is far friendlier than Maxxis direct.


----------



## CrashTheDOG (Jan 4, 2004)

mikesee said:


> I think of the B Fat Hodag as the ideal size for fat-on-dirt.


Including soft sand?


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

CrashTheDOG said:


> Including soft sand?


Depends on what % of sand vs. harder surfaces you're talking about, per ride. And which (width) rims you're running them on.

P.S. Hey man!


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

Nurse Ben said:


> I found the front listed and available direct from Maxxis, but it's $120! The rear is not listed.
> 
> QBP has them listed, but not available. The pricing is far friendlier than Maxxis direct.


available? (ears prick up)


----------



## MMcG (Jul 7, 2003)

So right now the only tires are Bontragers with Maxxis in due time? any other rumors or tires waiting in the wings for 27.5x4 or more?

I have a 27.5 Jackelope wheelset with Hodags en route hence the curiousity..........


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

yup. the hodag is pretty versatile though. oddly, for once, it might be nice to have a *less* aggressive tread pattern next! first time i have said that in about 10 years.

it looks like the 27.5 minion fbf is about in the usa...see the other thread on this forum for a link. if the current differences in maxxis and bontrager tyres are anything to go by, the minion will have a more robust sidewall, be a little heavier and will be around the same size. 

The hodags are really impressive tyres. bearing in mind their volume and stability at low pressures, and robust, siped tread, they offer great trail behaviour and are not that much heavier than a maxxis minion 29x2.5, depending on version. if i was running one on the rear i might break out the cutters and give some of the centre knobs a trim, or i might not...when i had one on the rear it felt like a fair bit of rolling resistance. 

enjoy it when it comes!


----------



## NH Mtbiker (Nov 6, 2004)

Anyone seen of or heard of these 3.5 tires? Not quite 4.0 or even 3.8,but could be a viable cheaper option for some....

Origin 8 Tsunami Fatbike Tire 27.5x3.5 - 120TPI

Product Description | Origin8


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

NH Mtbiker said:


> Anyone seen of or heard of these 3.5 tires? Not quite 4.0 or even 3.8,but could be a viable cheaper option for some....
> 
> Origin 8 Tsunami Fatbike Tire 27.5x3.5 - 120TPI


No, but here is the link to the 27.5 & 29 models: Product Description | Origin8


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

MMcG said:


> So right now the only tires are Bontragers with Maxxis in due time? any other rumors or tires waiting in the wings for 27.5x4 or more?
> 
> I have a 27.5 Jackelope wheelset with Hodags en route hence the curiousity..........


Bontrager also makes the Barbegazi in 27.5 x 4.5, and the Gnarwhal in the same size. Barbe is a go-fast low tread tire with a surprising amount of grip. Gnarwhal has big, meaty, chunky knobs and stud pockets. Gnarwhal's are amazing if you really need 'em.


----------



## DLd (Feb 15, 2005)

jpfurn said:


> After reading thru all the positive feedback on the plus/Hodag combo, I decided it was worth a shot. I tried the Hodags on my 50's and have to say I not a fan so far. I knew they would be heavier, but I didn't realize how much more rolling resistance compared to JJ4.0 & NN3.0 there would be, especially on such a nice round profile tire. I felt like they actually had less corning traction then both tire's I mentioned above. I agree with others that the Hodags have a tough sidewall, but for me then just feel dead. Yesterday I dropped the pressure in small increments during my ride till I saw a wrinkle in the casing when bounced on.
> 
> I'm not giving up on the 27x4" platform completely, I just think I'm done with the Hodag. I may give it a couple more weeks, but don't want to force something when I have better options for me laying in the garage. I think I'm going to go back to the 3" tires till a lighter faster rolling 27x4" tire pops up. I still have my 26 fat wheels for this winter, but my wife may have to be stuff with 3" tires in snow. I'm thinking about throwing on the new 45nrth studded Wrathchild and see how she fairs.


You may end up liking them in the snow. At least on packed trails. Worth a shot in any case since you have them.


----------



## jpfurn (Oct 21, 2014)

DLd said:


> You may end up liking them in the snow. At least on packed trails. Worth a shot in any case since you have them.


They've been passed on to radair, he's gonna do some experimenting of his own. Interested in his feedback!


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

mikesee said:


> This is a good way to put it.
> 
> I think of the B Fat Hodag as the ideal size for fat-on-dirt.


Yes, totally. We got a Farley 9.6 after having Hodags on Farley 8. I was obsessed with wanting plus wheels and tires right away. That's been completely out of mind because the 27.5 Hodags are so great for bad and tough conditions and trying different plus tires gave a sense that none are ripping fast like 2.3 or 2.4 29 tires.

Now I want to try the B vs 26 Hodags on snow before going with the desire to get Barbegazi on the bigger rims.

If you look at the two sizes of Hodags next to each other you would not think there would be much difference but when riding it's like my wife's car with large diameter performance tires and my stock Subaru wheels and tires.

I didn't want to believe the marketing hype but I know and sometimes ride with Trek engineers and product people who got these on bikes. I know it wasn't just the marketing dept that started this. Our Farley with 26 in Hodags makes me think I want plus tires. Our Farley with 27.5 Hodags makes me think shut up and ride.


----------



## Gambit21 (Feb 6, 2015)

A Farley with either version of the Barbi's will want to make you shut up and ride as well.


----------



## DLd (Feb 15, 2005)

mikesee said:


> This is a good way to put it.
> 
> I think of the B Fat Hodag as the ideal size for fat-on-dirt.


Do you happen to know if the B Fat Hodags will fit on a MRP Stage 29er fork? I'm running a 29x2.5 DHF right now. I'd need to get a new wheel for the Hodags of course. I like the DHF a lot. Just that little bit of extra diameter over a 29x2.35 seemed to make it roll over chunder so much easier and really gain speed fast on the downhills. I'm also considering trying out a NobbyNic 29x2.6. I believe those will fit on a Stage. The majority of my riding is at Lunch Loops. More Ped/Holy Cross/Gunny/Raven/Curt's/Andy's rather than Free Lunch/Pucker Up


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

DLd said:


> Do you happen to know if the B Fat Hodags will fit on a MRP Stage 29er fork?


Not even close.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

very interested in the 27.5x4. read this thread multiple times over.


----------



## Drevil (Dec 31, 2003)

I got the 27.5 x 3.8" Bontrager Hodags last week and installed them on XM Carbonspeed 50mm (~45mm internal) carbon rims, which kicked the chainstay back to 420mm.

They did not make me a superstar. I'm requesting my money back. 






They're skinnier than I expected. Maybe I'll try to see if they fit in my Stumpy 6 Fatty.


Vertigo as 27.5 Fatty by ricky d, on Flickr


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

dude, you need a cape... capes always work... ;-)~


----------



## NH Mtbiker (Nov 6, 2004)

radair said:


> No, but here is the link to the 27.5 & 29 models: Product Description | Origin8


Well I just got this 3.5 tire in and will be sending it back. What a joke all around....barely 7 inches bead to bead and the knobs are smaller than on my 2.5. These are waaay under 3.5 inches and very thin. Should have expected this for under $40. Think I will just pay up for the Hodags and be done.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

NH Mtbiker said:


> Well I just got this 3.5 tire in and will be sending it back. What a joke all around....barely 7 inches bead to bead and the knobs are smaller than on my 2.5. These are waaay under 3.5 inches and very thin. Should have expected this for under $40. Think I will just pay up for the Hodags and be done.


Yeah, it's just a rebadged Panaracer Fat B Nimble. No idea why they are still labeling them 3.5", should be 2.9"!


----------



## BATRG3 (Dec 11, 2012)

My new 29x3.0 FBN barely measures 2.6 on a 42mm rim. I wonder if they count on using a max width rim like 50mm, and then size down from there by some margin.


----------



## jpfurn (Oct 21, 2014)

Has anyone tried a 27.5 x4.5 Gnarwhal on plus rims yet? I've read the 4.7 Barb was a no go so wondering if this is just smaller enough to be an option.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

jpfurn said:


> Has anyone tried a 27.5 x4.5 Gnarwhal on plus rims yet? I've read the 4.7 Barb was a no go so wondering if this is just smaller enough to be an option.


They'll fit and function just fine. Whether you want a big tire on a narrow rim, and the attendant need to run higher pressures to prevent squirm, is personal preference.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

jpfurn said:


> Has anyone tried a 27.5 x4.5 Gnarwhal on plus rims yet? I've read the 4.7 Barb was a no go so wondering if this is just smaller enough to be an option.


I believe the 27.5 Gnarwhal and Barbi use the same casing and are the same size. I ran a Barbi on a 65mm rim for a bit, and I wouldn't go any smaller.


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

I just ordered a set of Nextie 27.5 x 65 for my Hodags. Going on some DT Swiss hubs. Selling off my Jackelope 27.5 x 80 wheels when they are done.


----------



## 2LO4U2C (Jun 9, 2011)




----------



## CrashTheDOG (Jan 4, 2004)

2LO4U2C said:


> View attachment 1110144


So you're saying there's a chance. Just kidding. Looks like a Trek Farley EX 8. Right? What's the largest tire you've been able to fit in the rear triangle? I'm currently considering a Farley EX but I worry I'm narrowing my tire choices too dramatically.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

Must be some significant tire variation- a guy on Facebook has them fitting fine front and rear on a EX 9.8, which should have the same clearances.


----------



## 2LO4U2C (Jun 9, 2011)

My buddy loves his Farley EX, it's his one bike with a couple wheelsets, he has Dillinger 5's on 26" wheels and 29x3 Chupacabra tires on another wheel set.


----------



## tadraper (Apr 14, 2010)

My only off road bike is the ex 8, 3 wheel sets it fits almost every ride I need it for. Just can't go 27.5x4.5 would be nice but I can do with my 26x4.8 is needed.


----------



## DLd (Feb 15, 2005)

CrashTheDOG said:


> So you're saying there's a chance. Just kidding. Looks like a Trek Farley EX 8. Right? What's the largest tire you've been able to fit in the rear triangle? I'm currently considering a Farley EX but I worry I'm narrowing my tire choices too dramatically.


Looks like it wouldn't rub at all after the first hundred miles or so


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

Paochow said:


> Must be some significant tire variation- a guy on Facebook has them fitting fine front and rear on a EX 9.8, which should have the same clearances.


He posted later that the beads wernt seated. He later inflated fully and they didnt fit. I suspect they might fit with a 65mm rim then.


----------



## Paochow (Jul 23, 2014)

solarplex said:


> He posted later that the beads wernt seated. He later inflated fully and they didnt fit. I suspect they might fit with a 65mm rim then.


Yeah I saw that. I don't think a 65mm would help. If anything it would make the tire slightly taller, leading to more rubbing in the middle.


----------



## gchapron (Dec 16, 2016)

So I bought last month a Trek Farley EX 9.8 ( Farley EX 9.8 | Trek Bikes ) and I have been struggling to find studded tires. I ride (in Sweden) on a mix of snow, ice and melted-refrozen-snow. Right now I have the stock Hodag 27.5 x 3.8 tires but I already felt several times on icy sections (so icy I could not even walk). I really need studded tires but it seems the new Gnarwhal in 27.5 x 4.5 will not fit, the Hodag will not survive long having Gripstuds. The only solution left is to buy a set of 26" wheels with studded tires.

I am not an expert on tires so my question is which studded tires would you use to give the best grip on the most awful winter roads and if those tires would fit the Farley EX? Am I correct to assume that this bike will accept most 26" fat tires or do I need to be careful with the width? I am eyeing at the 45nrth Dillinger (either 4 or 5). The Dillinger 5 is 4.8" wide: is there anyone here using that tire on a Farley EX 9.8 and who can confirm they fit well with no rubbing? I just don't want to buy these tires to realize they can't fit... Many thanks!


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

there was some chat in a different thread of 27.5x3 studded from nokian. it might drop the bb slightly but might work?


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

gchapron said:


> So I bought last month a Trek Farley EX 9.8 ( Farley EX 9.8 | Trek Bikes ) and I have been struggling to find studded tires. I ride (in Sweden) on a mix of snow, ice and melted-refrozen-snow. Right now I have the stock Hodag 27.5 x 3.8 tires but I already felt several times on icy sections (so icy I could not even walk). I really need studded tires but it seems the new Gnarwhal in 27.5 x 4.5 will not fit, the Hodag will not survive long having Gripstuds. The only solution left is to buy a set of 26" wheels with studded tires.
> 
> I am not an expert on tires so my question is which studded tires would you use to give the best grip on the most awful winter roads and if those tires would fit the Farley EX? Am I correct to assume that this bike will accept most 26" fat tires or do I need to be careful with the width? I am eyeing at the 45nrth Dillinger (either 4 or 5). The Dillinger 5 is 4.8" wide: is there anyone here using that tire on a Farley EX 9.8 and who can confirm they fit well with no rubbing? I just don't want to buy these tires to realize they can't fit... Many thanks!


Hej! Jag bor i Stockholm.

If you can't find studded tires, I can give you some 26" wheel measurements. I have Dillinger 5 studded tires on 90mm Nextie rims, tubeless, which have been on the bike for a while so they should be stretched out. I took some measurements that might help.

My tire is 115mm wide at it's widest point, which is the middle of the sidewall, 330mm away from the axle. At it's tallest point, the tire is 370mm tall, so 540mm diameter.

Does that help?


----------



## jrogersAK (Sep 17, 2015)

gchapron said:


> I ride (in Sweden) on a mix of snow, ice and melted-refrozen-snow. Right now I have the stock Hodag 27.5 x 3.8 tires but I already felt several times on icy sections (so icy I could not even walk). I really need studded tires but it seems the new Gnarwhal in 27.5 x 4.5 will not fit, the Hodag will not survive long having Gripstuds.


I studded up a set of Hodags last year and used them for the season, and this year moved the grip studs to a set of the Babergazi's because I wanted more width. The grip studs work great for me, and I have not had a single one come out. The tread depth is definitely a bit marginal, so you have to stop at the right point when putting them in. You can feel them hitting the chords and that is the point that I stop. I run them in with a hand tool and felt this gave much better control that trying to use a drill attached to the bit.

I run tubeless, so any small penetrations by studs get sealed up quickly.


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

jrogersAK said:


> I studded up a set of Hodags last year and used them for the season, and this year moved the grip studs to a set of the Babergazi's because I wanted more width. The grip studs work great for me, and I have not had a single one come out. The tread depth is definitely a bit marginal, so you have to stop at the right point when putting them in. You can feel them hitting the chords and that is the point that I stop. I run them in with a hand tool and felt this gave much better control that trying to use a drill attached to the bit.
> 
> I run tubeless, so any small penetrations by studs get sealed up quickly.


That matches my experience too - they worked great on ice and held up well. I am going to set of the Gnarwhals in 27.5x4.5 for riding on snow and I'm going to stud them too. I'll be selling the 3.8" version that I studded if anyone is interested. Mostly ridden on snow.

J.


----------



## Windigo (Jul 24, 2014)

3.8 fits my 27Plus, how much for the Studded Gnarwhals?


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Windigo said:


> 3.8 fits my 27Plus, how much for the Studded Gnarwhals?


The 27.5x4.5" Gnarwhals don't come studded but they have pockets for studs to make them easily studded. Bontrager also makes studs that fit the pockets. If I recall, the tires are priced at $119 ea from Bontrager and the studs are $49.95 for 225 (which, I think, is about how many pockets are on each tire, but not sure).

If you're talking about the 27.5x3.8" studded tires I have, these are the stock tires that come on the Treks with grip studs added. PM me if you are interested.

J.


----------



## 2LO4U2C (Jun 9, 2011)

JohnJ80 said:


> The 27.5x4.5" Gnarwhals don't come studded but they have pockets for studs to make them easily studded.


And they don't fit into a Bluto....


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

PSA: B Fat Minions are available in the US as of today. if your local shop didn't get any (and I think they still can), then I've got a few.


----------



## PoshJosh (Mar 30, 2007)

JohnJ80 said:


> The 27.5x4.5" Gnarwhals don't come studded but they have pockets for studs to make them easily studded. Bontrager also makes studs that fit the pockets. If I recall, the tires are priced at $119 ea from Bontrager and the studs are $49.95 for 225 (which, I think, is about how many pockets are on each tire, but not sure).
> 
> If you're talking about the 27.5x3.8" studded tires I have, these are the stock tires that come on the Treks with grip studs added. PM me if you are interested.
> 
> J.


214 studs per tire.


----------



## dwaharvey (Mar 3, 2008)

I've gone through this thread getting numbers for the size of the 27.5x4.5 Barb. Seems to be a lot of variation, no doubt different rim widths and inflation pressures. Looking for more data, I stopped by my LBS and measured a few tires from their bikes... pressure was around 15psi, all on 80mm rims (Mulefut), and all measured within +/-0.5mm of 107mm carcass and 106mm knobs (4 tires on 2 bikes). Couldn't get OD unfortunately.


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

Some one needs to make a 4.2" that fits the suzi q, bluto, farley ex. Studable and speedy. Like a dillinger 4.2"x 27.5"


----------



## NH Mtbiker (Nov 6, 2004)

solarplex said:


> Some one needs to make a 4.2" that fits the suzi q, bluto, farley ex. Studable and speedy. Like a dillinger 4.2"x 27.5"


Indeed, the 4.2 x 275 would be nice. I've just mounted up 3.8 Hodags and wishing they were a bit larger (closer to 3.5 on a 50mm) and meatier. Plenty of bikes and forks that would support this size too! It is THE missing fat tire size imo.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

NH Mtbiker said:


> Indeed, the 4.2 x 275 would be nice. I've just mounted up 3.8 Hodags and wishing they were a bit larger (closer to 3.5 on a 50mm) and meatier. Plenty of bikes and forks that would support this size too! It is THE missing fat tire size imo.


According to dwaharvey's measurements, the 27.5 Barbegazi measure 106-107 on 80mm Mulefut rims.

If you do the conversion, that's 4.17" - 4.21"....

I've seen other measurements that are bigger though, so who knows.

I just got a set of 27.5 Jackalope wheels that will be getting Bargegazi tires, so I'll post my measurements soon.


----------



## the_eleven (Apr 5, 2004)

(spam alert)

Speaking of 27.5 Jackalopes, here is a set in perfect condition, with super low mileage Barbegazis: Bontrager Jackalope 27.5 Barbegazi 4.50 wheelset - Buy and Sell Mountain Bikes and Accessories

Thanks for looking!


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

the_eleven said:


> (spam alert)
> 
> Speaking of 27.5 Jackanapes, here is a set in perfect condition, with super low mileage Barbegazis: Bontrager Jackalope 27.5 Barbegazi 4.50 wheelset - Buy and Sell Mountain Bikes and Accessories
> 
> Thanks for looking!


Ugh! Where were you last week! I would have snapped those up in a jiffy.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

bikeny said:


> According to dwaharvey's measurements, the 27.5 Barbegazi measure 106-107 on 80mm Mulefut rims.
> 
> If you do the conversion, that's 4.17" - 4.21"....
> 
> ...


yeah, i get bigger - 115mm on 65mm external rim...that was measure fresh at 20psi though. so might have lost a few mm on airing down to riding pressure.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

dRjOn said:


> yeah, i get bigger - 115mm on 65mm external rim...that was measure fresh at 20psi though. so might have lost a few mm on airing down to riding pressure.


Wow, that's huge! I just mounted mine last night. One is brand new and one has a couple of rides on it. They are mounted tubeless on Bontrager Jackalope rims, which are I think 80mm outside width. Knobs and casing measure almost exactly the same width. The new one measures 108mm, and the used one measures 112mm. That is at 25 psi though, which I used to seat them. I expect they will be about 5mm smaller at riding pressure, which should be below 5 psi.

BTW, the tires were super easy to setup on the Jackalop rims, and they are still at full pressure after sitting overnight with no sealant. This is how all tubeless setups should work!


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

on mine the knobs were wider by a few mm - makes sense as it would be rounder...i expect. and im sure it lost a few mm on airing down just as you say.

the nextie black eagle 27.5 i used was ok, but not *super* easy to set up. there was no way with a floor pump. i used an airshot and had 2 goes to seat it properly. it then held (im using a vinyl tape for spoke hole coverage) but dropped 10psi overnight. i think mikesee has voiced how amazing the tubeless interface on bonty rims is...i am generally impressed with the tyres too....these for the chumba?


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

bikeny said:


> BTW, the tires were super easy to setup on the Jackalop rims, and they are still at full pressure after sitting overnight with no sealant. This is how all tubeless setups should work!


Yeah, pretty much any tire mounts lickety split, with just a floor pump, and no drama whatsoever, on the Jackalope and Wampa rims.

I just installed a set of Barbe's on one set, and some Gnar's on another, and both were taking air on the first pump. Both beads had set (on all 4 tires) by 12psi.

I measure all 4 at 109mm casing, at 8psi (on a Meiser 0-15 gauge), on Jacka's.


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

hi wondering if a hodag mounted on 45mm or 50mm would fit a stache ? Any feedback out there ?


----------



## alixta (Dec 27, 2006)

aquamogal said:


> hi wondering if a hodag mounted on 45mm or 50mm would fit a stache ? Any feedback out there ?


Mike says they will fit the magnum fork (tight on the sides IIRC). I doubt it would fit the rear as the fork has more width than the frame. I'd be happy to be wrong though.


----------



## Rideon (Jan 13, 2004)

mikesee said:


> Yeah, pretty much any tire mounts lickety split, with just a floor pump, and no drama whatsoever, on the Jackalope and Wampa rims.
> 
> I just installed a set of Barbe's on one set, and some Gnar's on another, and both were taking air on the first pump. Both beads had set (on all 4 tires) by 12psi.
> 
> I measure all 4 at 109mm casing, at 8psi (on a Meiser 0-15 gauge), on Jacka's.


Do you build with the Wampa/Jackalope rims?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lactatofilo (Jul 6, 2008)

I have been thinking about a 29er + fully rigid trail bike as my do it all ride. Now I discovered 27.5 x 3.8-4. Note that I do not ride in snow.
I see benefits in building a smaller wheel, being stronger without adding too much weight of reinforced spokes and rims (I weight 220lbs)
Asking those who tried them, would 27.5x3.8 give me some extra cushion compared to 29+ and less bounce and tire roll as true fat tires?
I am not a racer, so tire weight is not a concern to me, I am using a 1100gr tire+tube combo right now and it feels ok.
What would you choose for a one and only fully rigid trail bike, 27.5x3.8 or 29x3?
Thanks in advance!!


----------



## Rideon (Jan 13, 2004)

lactatofilo said:


> I have been thinking about a 29er + fully rigid trail bike as my do it all ride. Now I discovered 27.5 x 3.8-4. Note that I do not ride in snow.
> I see benefits in building a smaller wheel, being stronger without adding too much weight of reinforced spokes and rims (I weight 220lbs)
> Asking those who tried them, would 27.5x3.8 give me some extra cushion compared to 29+ and less bounce and tire roll as true fat tires?
> I am not a racer, so tire weight is not a concern to me, I am using a 1100gr tire+tube combo right now and it feels ok.
> ...


Fully rigid trail bike? Why not go bigger? 27.5 x 4.5 for more cushion

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lactatofilo (Jul 6, 2008)

Rideon said:


> Fully rigid trail bike? Why not go bigger? 27.5 x 4.5 for more cushion
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I am concerned about tire roll at low pressures. Even if a do not ride super low pressures, I hate experimenting tire roll due to my weight when cornering hard. And what about rolling resistance and bounce, wouldn't they be too much with 27.5x4.5?
I am just asking, sice I know tires evolve day to day.


----------



## tadraper (Apr 14, 2010)

lactatofilo said:


> I am concerned about tire roll at low pressures. Even if a do not ride super low pressures, I hate experimenting tire roll due to my weight when cornering hard. And what about rolling resistance and bounce, wouldn't they be too much with 27.5x4.5?
> I am just asking, sice I know tires evolve day to day.


i rolled the 27.5 x4.5 Barb's when i had the farley 9.8 full rigid!!! great summer tires rolled great on any surface and at what ever pressure i felt like running. one of my favorite tires for that bike.


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

I like the 3.8 Hodag for dirt, seems less bouncy than the bigger tires and it rolls fast.


----------



## Rideon (Jan 13, 2004)

FT251 said:


> I like the 3.8 Hodag for dirt, seems less bouncy than the bigger tires and it rolls fast.


Makes sense. 3.8 for dirt 4.5 for snow. But then your changing BB height. Frankly I don't believe in a one bike quiver!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

Rideon said:


> Makes sense. 3.8 for dirt 4.5 for snow. But then your changing BB height. Frankly I don't believe in a one bike quiver!!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My wallet likes a 1 bike quiver and 2 sets of wheels. I use the 26x4.7 barbs for snow, BB seems stable. The frame set works fine for me, I just ride for fun.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Rideon said:


> Do you build with the Wampa/Jackalope rims?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yep, both.


----------



## Rideon (Jan 13, 2004)

mikesee said:


> Yep, both.


PM sent

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Projectnortheast (Mar 29, 2011)

Do you guys think manufacturers will follow suit for more 27.5x4" tires? Thinking about building a set of 27.5x55mm wheels for my fatbike cuz Im thinking it would be enough to run a 4" tire but pull double duty as a 27.5+ with 3" tire for sunmer riding...


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

manchvegas said:


> Do you guys think manufacturers will follow suit for more 27.5x4" tires? Thinking about building a set of 27.5x55mm wheels for my fatbike cuz Im thinking it would be enough to run a 4" tire but pull double duty as a 27.5+ with 3" tire for sunmer riding...


I think Maxxis or someone else is already in, IIRC. Bontrager is coming out with new tires too.

I like the format.

J.


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

JohnJ80 said:


> I think Maxxis or someone else is already in, IIRC. Bontrager is coming out with new tires too.
> 
> I like the format.
> 
> J.


what new tires is Bontrager coming out with. (beside Barbagazhi and Gnarwahl?)


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

looking at shox options with Hodag and 50mm (Duroc) rim, i know bluto would work.
thoughts on pike, yari and fox ? Thanks, not interested in Magnum


----------



## fishboy316 (Jan 10, 2014)

I was not excited until last week. I had been wanting to try a set of 27.5 Hodags on my 2017 Farley7. Found a used set w/Jackalopes for cheap. Had to knock a couple of flat spots out but the wheels turned out to be NICE. Rode it this past Sunday and now I am excited about the setup! They are fast. They are agile. For the money They Are Awesome! We don't get much snow here so these will be my everyday set of wheels. Stock mulefut w/4.7 Barbi's for snow.


----------



## the_eleven (Apr 5, 2004)

This Jackalope wheelset is ready to excite someone!

Bontrager Jackalope 27.5 wheel set, 150f/197r - Buy and Sell Mountain Bikes and Accessories


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

aquamogal said:


> looking at shox options with Hodag and 50mm (Duroc) rim, i know bluto would work.
> thoughts on pike, yari and fox ? Thanks, not interested in Magnum


That combo fits the Fox 34 27.5+ 120-140mm forks well.


----------



## Projectnortheast (Mar 29, 2011)

What do people think is the best all around rim width for 27.5x 4 and 27.5x 3 in summer? 50mm? 65mm? Trying to decide what size rims to build up but I know Im definitely going 27.5 and hopefully we will see a whole boatload more tires in the 4" range available this year

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

45mm internal is good.


----------



## Rideon (Jan 13, 2004)

fishboy316 said:


> I was not excited until last week. I had been wanting to try a set of 27.5 Hodags on my 2017 Farley7. Found a used set w/Jackalopes for cheap. Had to knock a couple of flat spots out but the wheels turned out to be NICE. Rode it this past Sunday and now I am excited about the setup! They are fast. They are agile. For the money They Are Awesome! We don't get much snow here so these will be my everyday set of wheels. Stock mulefut w/4.7 Barbi's for snow.


What about the 27.5 x 4.5 Barbegazi's? Seems like that would be a great winter mixed conditions setup, while the 27.5 x 3.8 Hodags would be better in dry conditions.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Haste11 (Jul 5, 2014)

dRjOn said:


> 45mm internal is good.


This

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

I was looking at the farley ex 8 yesterday at my LBS and we measured the tires, they were very squishy but i dont know the pressure but 3.8" wide. Never had an issue with my 4"x26" hodags yet, hell i run a 3.8"x26" gnarwhal up front. We maybe get 1 foot of pow accumulation over the winter and our trails are well used by hikers, snow shoers, dog walkers so they get nicely groomed. 

Think im going to pull the trigger on one next year and keep my farley 6 for a extreme cold/ice bike and get a dillinger 4 rear. Ive seen people run 26x4.6" tires on the ex so if i find im not using the 6 and i need more float ill get a 26" wheel set and some d5s or something. Biggest reason i would like the ex is to go 29+ for a summer trail bike... would be sick!


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

What's the size on the 27.5x 4.5 Barbegazi?
On what rim size?
Is there a 100mm 27.5 rim?


----------



## JAGI410 (Apr 19, 2008)

It probably has the Bontrager 27.5x80mm Jackalope rims


----------



## Rideon (Jan 13, 2004)

Tjaard said:


> What's the size on the 27.5x 4.5 Barbegazi?
> On what rim size?
> Is there a 100mm 27.5 rim?


I don't know the exact measurement of the 27.5 x 4.5 Barbegazi but I do know just by looking at them mounted on the 2017 Farley 9.6 (Mulefit 80mm rim) that they are significantly bigger than the 27.5 Hodags. However, I'm finding it very difficult to find a review on the Farley set up with 27.5 x 4.5 Barbegazi's!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

dRjOn said:


> View attachment 1077817
> 
> surprised at how big it seems compared to a flowbeist on a hed. the rim is a nextie 65mm. diameter at 20psi is more or less 770mm and the width of the casing is 115mm, with a few extra mm of knobl.


That's huge! Bud is only 112mm at the casing on a 65mm rim, according to Surly.

So that would make this the widest tire around after the XXL, let alone the added diameter!


----------



## Rideon (Jan 13, 2004)

Tjaard said:


> That's huge! Bud is only 112mm at the casing on a 65mm rim, according to Surly.
> 
> So that would make this the widest tire around after the XXL, let alone the added diameter!


To me that looks like it would have advantages in mixed conditions (snow, ice, slop, etc). Longer contact patch, larger wheel for better rollover and better balance on the bike especially for taller riders.

This thread has several conversations going on at the same time. I understand Mikesee's topic of 27.5 x 3.8(really 3.5) being an improvement or goldilocks for dry conditions full suspension tech riding. Or just dry conditions period. Makes sense. But not necessarily for mixed conditions where a rigid can rule. The question I have and I'm beating the drum...does a 27.5 x 4.5 have advantages over 26 x 4 or even 5 in mixed conditions?

That set up does look huge!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fishboy316 (Jan 10, 2014)

Rideon said:


> What about the 27.5 x 4.5 Barbegazi's? Seems like that would be a great winter mixed conditions setup, while the 27.5 x 3.8 Hodags would be better in dry conditions.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Won't fit the Bluto, 27.5x3.8 max. Not sure if I will run the bluto for long or not. It just came in on Tuesday. Putting it on tonight. If not then that would be an awesome setup. I like the Barbi's on the 26" setup. The bluto can run them. If I don't like the Bluto may look at the Lauf. Not sure how big it can go. Gotta wait and see. I got such a deal on both that I could not pass it up. Wheels, tires, rotors, gx 10-42 cassette and warranty hub. $360 shipped. Had to do a little work to em but they are sweet! Bluto new $300. Easy switch out with the wheel setup.


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

27.5"x3.8" gnarwhal! Wooo! Makes me feel better about going 27.5 next.


----------



## Rideon (Jan 13, 2004)

fishboy316 said:


> Won't fit the Bluto, 27.5x3.8 max. Not sure if I will run the bluto for long or not. It just came in on Tuesday. Putting it on tonight. If not then that would be an awesome setup. I like the Barbi's on the 26" setup. The bluto can run them. If I don't like the Bluto may look at the Lauf. Not sure how big it can go. Gotta wait and see. I got such a deal on both that I could not pass it up. Wheels, tires, rotors, gx 10-42 cassette and warranty hub. $360 shipped. Had to do a little work to em but they are sweet! Bluto new $300. Easy switch out with the wheel setup.


IMHO Bluto is not very good in the snow. I've had one on my Beargrease for a few years now. Better in the dry conditions but not great. I've even upgraded the damper. A riding buddy just got the Fox 27.5 and it's way better. I'd rather go rigid in mixed conditions though, that's why I'm so interested in the bigger 4.5 Barbegazi.

3.8 in dry conditions and dual suspension, sure.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fishboy316 (Jan 10, 2014)

Rideon said:


> IMHO Bluto is not very good in the snow. I've had one on my Beargrease for a few years now. Better in the dry conditions but not great. I've even upgraded the damper. 3.8 in dry conditions and dual suspension, sure.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 I live in Maryland. We get snow 1 or 2 times a year and it's gone in a day or 2(usually). Switching back to the 26x4.7 is good for me. I went with the bluto as a stopgap to see what I think of a suspension, at that price was a no brainer. Broke my back about 3 years ago and been bothering me with rigid. Hope the EX does fit the 4.5, there may be an EX in my future.

How big of a tire does the Fox 27.5 take?


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

fishboy316 said:


> I live in Maryland. We get snow 1 or 2 times a year and it's gone in a day or 2(usually). Switching back to the 26x4.7 is good for me. I went with the bluto as a stopgap to see what I think of a suspension, at that price was a no brainer. Broke my back about 3 years ago and been bothering me with rigid. Hope the EX does fit the 4.5, there may be an EX in my future.
> 
> How big of a tire does the Fox 27.5 take?


The Fox fork will fit the 27.5x3.8 Hodag, but not much bigger. It will most definitely NOT fit the 27.5x4.5 tires.

My 27.5x4.5 Barbi measures exactly 110mm. That's tubeless at 5 psi on an 80mm Jackalop rim after a couple of rides.

Cool to hear about another tire coming out, but I'm disappointed that it's going to be the same size as the Hodag. I think something in the 4.0" to 4.2" would be a great addition and fit in more bikes than the 4.5" tires.


----------



## gigrob (Sep 10, 2015)

fishboy316 said:


> I live in Maryland. We get snow 1 or 2 times a year and it's gone in a day or 2(usually). Switching back to the 26x4.7 is good for me. I went with the bluto as a stopgap to see what I think of a suspension, at that price was a no brainer. Broke my back about 3 years ago and been bothering me with rigid. Hope the EX does fit the 4.5, there may be an EX in my future.
> 
> How big of a tire does the Fox 27.5 take?


 In regards to the EX fitting a 4.5 tire. For some reason I cant get a picture to post here, but if you go to Treks website and look at the Farley EX8, there is a guy by the name of Travis Knapp that wrote a review. He included a photo of his bike with the Barbegazi 27.5x4.5 mounted front and rear. He claims that it fits no problem. Also if you got to the Barbegazi tire itself and look at the reviews, there are more there stating it will fit the Bluto.


----------



## hoboscratch (Apr 26, 2005)

That's looks tight as f. I have read that people are only able to make it fit at 6psi or less.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

gigrob said:


> In regards to the EX fitting a 4.5 tire. For some reason I cant get a picture to post here, but if you go to Treks website and look at the Farley EX8, there is a guy by the name of Travis Knapp that wrote a review. He included a photo of his bike with the Barbegazi 27.5x4.5 mounted front and rear. He claims that it fits no problem. Also if you got to the Barbegazi tire itself and look at the reviews, there are more there stating it will fit the Bluto.


Maybe he lucked out and got a smaller moulded one. Doubtful... but a guy at my lbs says he has dual barbs on 27.5 on his F9 with a bluto no issue too.

Hmmm.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

(duplicate MODS please delete - i cant seem to do so...)


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

so, heres a vaguely interesting pic.

left, a 29x3 minion DHF
right, a 27.5x4.5 barbegazi

both acquired with the help of [email protected]

both are kind of monstrous. the barbi is MASSIVE....


----------



## Up North Eh (Apr 14, 2016)

The rumour of a 27.5 x 3.8 Gnarwhal studded appears to have been started by someone that does not know difference between 3.8 and 4.5 - so none coming from what I've been told.


----------



## PoshJosh (Mar 30, 2007)

Up North Eh said:


> The rumour of a 27.5 x 3.8 Gnarwhal studded appears to have been started by someone that does not know difference between 3.8 and 4.5 - so none coming from what I've been told.


Winter 2017.


----------



## spruceboy (Feb 18, 2008)

dRjOn said:


> View attachment 1114293
> 
> 
> so, heres a vaguely interesting pic.
> ...


Wow - I really like the "normal" 26" version . The 27.5x4.5 version would be great, especially if the change the rubber a bit so it doesn't roll so slow when it is cold..


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

Up North Eh said:


> The rumour of a 27.5 x 3.8 Gnarwhal studded appears to have been started by someone that does not know difference between 3.8 and 4.5 - so none coming from what I've been told.


Well good for you. Treks website, gnarwhal reviews, person complains about the gnarwhal 27.5" doesnt fit the ex, trek replies a 27.5"x3.8" is coming soon, contact LBS. Sooo it appears your wrong.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Is there any source, overseas, black market, whatever, for a Minion 27.5 x 3.8 FBR. 

Please PM with info.


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

*Got the NEXTIES today*









27.5 x 65 Nexties, DT Swiss hubs 2183 grams with tape and valves. Will use the Hodags, these are my "dirt" wheels.


----------



## aquamogal (Aug 20, 2015)

Anyone have comparisons of tire width for hodag and barbi on 65mm v's 80mm on 27.5 ?


----------



## FT251 (Dec 7, 2014)

Hodag on 80 MM Jackelope = 3.8 inches, Hodag on 65MM Nextie = 3.7 inches. I measured today. Outside knob to outside knob.


----------



## kryten (Mar 8, 2012)

Anyone know if there is any chance of fitting Hodag 27.5x3.8 or Minion 27.5x3.8 on Yari or Magnum Pro fork with i45 Scraper wheels (45mm ID, 49mm OD)?


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

kryten said:


> Anyone know if there is any chance of fitting Hodag 27.5x3.8 or Minion 27.5x3.8 on Yari or Magnum Pro fork with i45 Scraper wheels (45mm ID, 49mm OD)?


Definitely no on the Yari, maybe for the magnum, specs say 3.4," presumably that means with a bit of space around it and the Hodag is just under 3.5" on an i45 Scraper.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Gigantic said:


> Definitely no on the Yari, maybe for the magnum, specs say 3.4," presumably that means with a bit of space around it and the Hodag is just under 3.5" on an i45 Scraper.


You can install that wheel/tire in a Magnum, but there is essentially zero clearance for it to turn. Like less than 2mm.


----------



## alixta (Dec 27, 2006)

mikesee said:


> You can install that wheel/tire in a Magnum, but there is essentially zero clearance for it to turn. Like less than 2mm.


Is that a downgrade from your original 'hodag fits magnum' PSA Mike?

http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/27-5x4-whos-excited-whos-not-979984-16.html


----------



## Windigo (Jul 24, 2014)




----------



## kryten (Mar 8, 2012)

Windigo said:


> View attachment 1120094


Thanks for this.


----------



## Windigo (Jul 24, 2014)

kryten said:


> Thanks for this.


Minion 3.8 x 27.5 on 50mm rim with room to spare.


----------



## kryten (Mar 8, 2012)

Windigo said:


> Minion 3.8 x 27.5 on 50mm rim with room to spare.


50mm outside diameter? Maybe it is the angle of the photo, but looks like it would barely turn?


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

kryten said:


> 50mm outside width? Maybe it is the angle of the photo, but looks like it would barely turn?


Fixed it for you.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

alixta said:


> Is that a downgrade from your original 'hodag fits magnum' PSA Mike?
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/27-5x4-whos-excited-whos-not-979984-16.html


Downgrade?

I called it a class B fit. I love the Hodag, and I love the Magnum, but there's nothing to like (for me, where I live and ride) about a fit that tight.

I run the Hodag in a Fox B+ Boost fork, with loads of clearance. Lots to get excited about with that setup.


----------



## Windigo (Jul 24, 2014)

kryten said:


> 50mm outside diameter? Maybe it is the angle of the photo, but looks like it would barely turn?


Mulefut 50, so ya 50mm outer 45mm inner.


----------



## kryten (Mar 8, 2012)

Windigo said:


> Mulefut 50, so ya 50mm outer 45mm inner.


Are you successfully running this or was that just a test fit?


----------



## Windigo (Jul 24, 2014)

kryten said:


> Are you successfully running this or was that just a test fit?


Works great for me! :thumbsup:

Just compared it to my Bluto with Dillanger 5's and it has comparable clearance, so I would call that successful.


----------



## kryten (Mar 8, 2012)

Windigo said:


> Works great for me! :thumbsup:
> 
> Just compared it to my Bluto with Dillanger 5's and it has comparable clearance, so I would call that successful.


That is great news. I have Bluto with D5s now and that has ton of clearance. It sure does not look like it from your photo/angle though. If you happen to have more pics of the bike fork/wheel from different angles I would be very interested to see. Anyway, thanks again for this.

Now to figure out what is the largest tire Norco Torrent could fit in the back. Doing some research to see if I could downsize to 1 bike or if it has too many compromises. for my riding.


----------



## hoboscratch (Apr 26, 2005)

Anyone compare the Minion FBF vs Hodag back to back? Got some Minions with some wheels I just bought. The weather hasn't cooperated enough to run them yet. Maxxis says they're for looser conditions. I have primarily straight up hardpack. The Minions feel pretty heavy but I don't have Hodags on hand to compare them to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

yep. the Hodag is lighter, more supple, solid tubeless set up, and where I come from, cheaper. 

this is on trail - rock, roots, mud. no experience in snow.

In saying that, the more robust casing on the FBF allows running at lower pressures - which *may* be useful in snow. 

If i was bombing rocky trails i might also like the more robust sidewalls, but i'm not certain about that. 

In short, the Hodag would be my choice - and i will admit that that surprises me - i tend to choose maxxis over all other tyres - *but* they are both very good tyres. Traction for days, reasonable weights given the size, both seem robust.


----------



## hoboscratch (Apr 26, 2005)

Thanks for that. Pretty much what I was thinking as well. This would be a total dirt tire. Have a whole different setup for snow, and not many rocks where I live. That said, I apparently own the Minions now, maybe I'll just run those till they're dead...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## endo_alley (May 28, 2013)

I am considering getting some 27.5" fatbike rims to accommodate a 3.8" -4" tire for summer use or packed winter trail use. I am deciding between a 50mm rim width and a 65mm rim width. Which would be more optimal?


----------



## FatBike&SlenderWoman (Apr 1, 2016)

endo_alley said:


> ...I am deciding between a 50mm rim width and a 65mm rim width. Which would be more optimal?


Wider rim for more float and lower rolling resistance.


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

endo_alley said:


> I am considering getting some 27.5" fatbike rims to accommodate a 3.8" -4" tire for summer use or packed winter trail use. I am deciding between a 50mm rim width and a 65mm rim width. Which would be more optimal?


Summer trails pretty rocky or root infested? 50mm would yield better rim protection if so.


----------



## FatBike&SlenderWoman (Apr 1, 2016)

nitrousjunky said:


> Summer trails pretty rocky or root infested? 50mm would yield better rim protection if so.


Here are the two Xtremes...(pun intended)
(Click image to enlarge)

For roots and rocks...Xtreme Warrior on Velocity Blunt rim








For sand, snow and ice...same tire on 85mm Xtreme carbon rim


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

endo_alley said:


> I am considering getting some 27.5" fatbike rims to accommodate a 3.8" -4" tire for summer use or packed winter trail use. I am deciding between a 50mm rim width and a 65mm rim width. Which would be more optimal?


As far as I know nobody makes a 3.8"-4" in a 27.5" size. The Hodag is more like 3.5" or smaller. If I was going to be running Hodags I would go with a 50mm rim. I have a set of Barbegazis on a 50mm rim, which I happened to have because I was running a Trax Fatty 27.5 x 3.25 tire. I would rather have 65mm for the Barbegazis, but the 50mm works fine. I would definitely recommend the Barbegazis if they can fit on your bike.


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

My thinking was the 50 mm rims will allow you to use anywhere from 3" to 4" tires, while 65s would be better only for the larger tires. I really like the B+ for dirt conditions so I'm happy with that choice.


----------



## kyttyra (Mar 8, 2012)

dRjOn said:


> 45mm internal is good.


I'm kind of excited. I'm considering a summer wheelset to my Salsa Mukluk X7 (2016) and if I'm not totally mistaken, 27.5x3.8" should fit.

I've used 4.8" Bud with Marge Lite (its internal diameter has to be <60 mm) so 3.8" should be nice and round on 45 mm rims (and probably 3.5" wide if I've understood correctly).

Another option would of course be 29+ which would be somewhat lighter and I have a fear that should I choose 27.5 fat it will be more sluggish than good old 26 fat with, say, 4.4" JJ's.


----------



## lactatofilo (Jul 6, 2008)

dRjOn said:


> yeah true! ~
> 
> It's a real mix of 29+ roll over, but lower pressure and width. I was surprised going to a Hodag front from a chupa how noticeable the rollover is on a 29+. Really like the Hodag though- so this 4.5 has my interest piqued for sure!


Could you do a direct comparition between the hodags nd chupacabras. Pros and cons of each...
Thanks!!


----------



## the mayor (Nov 18, 2004)

lactatofilo said:


> Could you do a direct comparition between the hodags nd chupacabras. Pros and cons of each...
> Thanks!!


I'm not drjon....
But I do have 26 Hodags on 65mm rims, 27.5 Hodags on 52mm rims and 29 Chuppas on 35mm rims.
The Chuppas have great roll over and are about 1lb lighter...and roll a little better than the Hodags.
The 27.5 Hodags have better rollover than the 26s....and have more cushion than the Chuppas.
The 27.5 Hodags have become my go to set up.
This is on a Borealis Echo in rocky/rooty trails


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

hello - id echo the Mayor - the 29+ chupa rolls over trail 'guff' very easily and feels really light. it has reasonable grip but should be seen as a fast/low tread tyre rather than a slamming into corners in muck or rocks tyre. it is incredibly supple but seems durable.

the hodag 27.5x3.8 should be seen as a 3.5. it is 20mm or so smaller diameter than the chupa. but it rolls well in the rough- probably given its even lower pressure. you can tell its not a 29+ but it will roll over stuff better than a 29x2.4 of which it is a similar diameter. it has grip for days in almost every condition i have tried, its is incredibly durable and at just over 1200 g with a supple sidewall it is a great tyre.









the minion fbf 27.5x3.8 is similar dimensionally to the hodag, but has a much more rigid sidewall. i have not really found pros of that though id expect its durable in sharp rock and square edge impacts. i prefer the suppleness of the hodag. it also has grip for days, didnt like steep wet snow (what tyre does) and is heavier >1400g

in on the left field is the minion 29x3 dhf, which is a true 3" and is quite frankly , preposterous. massive roll over, massive grip and if you want 29+ in chunky terrain or mud (not mud specific, but best there is ime) its your go to.

HTH, and i've been clear on my thoughts? at presnet im really liking hodag front and ikon 2.8 rear on 45mm internal rims as my general preferred tyre, though minion 29x3 front and tomahawk 29 rear is hot on its heals...


----------



## Drevil (Dec 31, 2003)

dRjOn said:


> hello...(good reviews of tires)


Thanks for your always thoughtful responses! :thumbsup:


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

lactatofilo said:


> Could you do a direct comparition between the hodags nd chupacabras. Pros and cons of each...
> Thanks!!


I'm also not dRjOn, but I'll give you my opinion anyway, as I have some experience with the above tires. The Chupacabra is a great all around 29+ tire. It's one of the larger volume 29+ tires (Knard is still the biggest), rolls well, has decent grip, and is pretty light. It's not the fastest or the burliest or the lightest, but it just works for most of my riding. 29+ has great rollover compared to smaller diameter tires, it just motors through rock gardens and such where smaller wheels/tires get hung up. It obviously doesn't have the cush of the fatter setups, but for me, 3-3.25" is my prefered summer tire width.

I rode the 26x3.8 Hodag for a bit, and then decided to try the 27.5x3.8 Hodag on the same bike. I immediately sold the 26 fat setup! As mentioned, it's more like a 3.5" tire, but it blends (almost) the rollover of 29+ with the width of 26 fat into a great size. This is my preferred winter setup here in southern NY, where we get sporadic snow and I'm riding my normal summer singletrack trails. I've never weighed my wheelsets, but this is obviously heavier than the 29+ setup, and does feel slower, but the extra traction and cush are worth it this time of year. The above tires were ridden on my 2 custom Plus frames.

I've also put together a full fatbike that I keep in Vermont, and decided to go with 27.5x4.5 Barbegazi setup on that, with Jackalop wheels, which are around 80mm wide I think. It's a great setup, although I've never ridden 26x4.8 or bigger to compare.

I would also recommend looking into the Duro Crux tires. I have them in both 27.5x3.25 and 29x3.25 sizes. They are big meaty tires with big knobs. The 27.5 ones are my current go to tire on my trail bike for summer. I have not ridden the 29" version yet, but they are big and heavy, around 1200g I think. I have a feeling they will not fit in the back of some 29+ frames. I'm thinking about trying the Crux on the front with Chupacabra rear on my 29+ bike, should be a fun combo!

I hope that helps! Yes, I'm a tire whore


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

I've had my bucksaw built as a 27.5 for 14 months and had the Hodags for over a year. I just got to ride them in the snow for the first time today and am totally sold on them. I'll admit that I prefer plus most of the time, but after today, I'm sold on them for a winter tire. On tuesday, we got about 10 inches of snow, mixed with sleet. My first snow-ride on the Hodags was tuesday night, riding around my neighborhood in Philadelphia's river wards. The results were mixed. At pressures that were ideal for slush and plowed pavement, the tires had a tendency to ski, the front pushing in the snow and not hooking up; wheel flop was also a problem with the bucksaw's 67º hta. At lower pressures, probably 4-5 psi, traction was excellent, but there was a real risk of wheel strikes off of the snow pack, which was annoying. Granted, these were less than ideal riding conditions. Yesterday, I didn't feel like trekking across town in 25 mph headwinds at 20º, so I just rode around the neighborhood, running errands. I was pleasantly reminded how fast the tires were, cruising on paved streets at around 18 mph, keeping pace with traffic; good times. 

I got up this morning and rode across town to the Belmont Plateau to get in a little dan patrol ride before work. Riding across town was a chore, but I was rewarded with ideal singletrack conditions. The dense wet snow had frozen, creating a piste that was akin to slick rock: firm, with days of traction. The Hodags really shine in these conditions and my short little 14 mile ride was a complete blast. I'd been giving though to getting rid of the bucksaw for a dedicated plus bike, but after today, I think I may keep it a little while longer. Hopefully, we'll get snow more than once a year in the coming winter seasons, but I'm not confident on that count. Given the hassle of changing tires, I'll keep the Hodags on until race season and see if I like them on the dirt... I'd just put on a pair of 845g WTB Rangers, that I really like though, I'm not sure if I want to give up the acceleration, but we'll see. As for the tire size, I have no regrets about not building a set of 26 fat wheels and no interest in doing so. If anything, if i wanted a dedicated fat wheel set, I'd probably go with 27.5x65 or 80. 650B is the future of fat for me, I hope other tire makers jump on board; a 27.5x4 Schwalbe Jumbo Jim would be the Bee's Knees.


----------



## lactatofilo (Jul 6, 2008)

Many thanks to @dRjOn @bikeny @the mayor for answering my question. Really preciate the data you provided to me.
Big thanks!!


----------



## the mayor (Nov 18, 2004)

lactatofilo said:


> Many thanks to @dRjOn @bikeny @the mayor for answering my question. Really preciate the data you provided to me.
> Big thanks!!


One more bit to help or confuse you.
And again, it depends on where, what and how you ride.
Bottom bracket height: compared with the 26 Hodags, the 27.5 Hodags raise the b/b about 5 mm...and the 29+ Chuppas add another 5 to that.
On the other hand....if you put 27.5 3( like a Fat Trax) inch tires on....it lowers the b/b about 10 mm


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

I have not ridden Hodags, but I have ridden a few fat and plus tires over the years including Minions in 2.5, 3.0, 3.8, and 4.8.

The Floater was my fav 4" tire before I got the 27.5 x 3.8 Minions, now you can't pry them suckers outta my hands. Bomber construction, sticky on rock, good grip on snow, fast on firm, very predictable.

The 29+ Minions are not what I expected, perhaps it's because I like my 3.8's, or maybe the 29+ just felt tall in comparison, but after riding both, I missed the 3.8's.

I think the best part of 27.5 x 4 is the combination of height and width, it negates the need for 26 x 4.


----------



## hoboscratch (Apr 26, 2005)

I've done a lot of experimenting with tires/wheels on my Farley 5 over the past year+. 27.5x2.8, 29x3, 26x5, and now 27.5x3.8. I really liked the 27.5x2.8 on singletrack but it lowered my bb too much. 29x3 never felt right to me on those same trails, but as mentioned the rollover was great but really had to work that momentum. I think the Stache with the shorter chainstays might have made a difference. Anyway, sold both of those wheelsets. 

26x5 is what I ran in the snow this year and just got a 27.5x65mm wheelset for this summer and maybe winter next year. I'm giving it one more year to decide if riding fat year round is my thing. Seems there are just too many compromises to make it work for me year round. Might just suck it up and buy a dedicated summer bike. 

Thankfully the market where I live is full of used wheels/tires so I've been mostly able to get out everything I've put it when I turn around and sell stuff off. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jpfurn (Oct 21, 2014)

I listed a set with Hodags just now. I love this wheel combo on the fatty in summer, especially in rockier climates! I would love to stay with them, especially with all the tires coming in the new future in 27.5x 3.8. I have to decided to keep my fatty dedicated full fat and build a FS plus bike. May regret it, but experimenting is half the fun!

27 Nextie/Onyx 150/177mm - Buy and Sell Mountain Bikes and Accessories


----------



## fixgeardan (Aug 20, 2004)

Ok Ive skimmed thru the whole thread and maybe I missed it . Im looking for overall width and diameter of a Minion fbf 27.5x3.8 on a 45mm internal rim . A 50 mulefut.
Anybody know? Thanks much.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

*off the top of my head* it is about 93mm wide (knobs) and 747mm diameter on 65mm (external) rim. i can measure if it's critical.


----------



## fixgeardan (Aug 20, 2004)

Cool that will work thanks. Im putting the 3.8 Minion on the Jones with a 2.8 rekon on back and was concerned about toe overlap.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

i have a jones with a hodag on 45mm internal rim front (ti, truss fork) and ikon 2.8 on the rear (45mm internal) and it fits and works great.


----------



## fixgeardan (Aug 20, 2004)

That's great to here. Ive been running it with a 27.5 dirt wizard in back and a 4.0 nate on a 80mm rim in front. I think this setup should be a lot of fun and maybe a bit faster.


----------



## endo_alley (May 28, 2013)

I have seen 27.5" fatbike rims in widths from 45mm external, 50mm external, 65mm external all the way to 27.5" x 80mm external. Which 27.5" rim width is best for a 3.8- 4.00" tire? especially for trail use?


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

endo_alley said:


> I have seen 27.5" fatbike rims in widths from 45mm external, 50mm external, 65mm external all the way to 27.5" x 80mm external. Which 27.5" rim width is best for a 3.8- 4.00" tire? especially for trail use?


Somewhere in this forum (I think in this thread) Mikesee wrote that he had experimented with multiple rim widths and settled on 50 mm as ideal for 3.8" tires.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

radair said:


> Somewhere in this forum (I think in this thread) Mikesee wrote that he had experimented with multiple rim widths and settled on 50 mm as ideal for 3.8" tires.


That's true. But it's also worth mentioning that, in the context of 27.5" tires, the 3 currently available that are labeled 3.8" or 4" actually measure closer to 3.5".

If you had an actual 4" tire in hand you'd probably want a bit wider rim.

I've got 65mm wide rims for my 27.5 x 4.5" tires. No bueno for snow, great in washes, arroyos, etc...


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

endo_alley said:


> I have seen 27.5" fatbike rims in widths from 45mm external, 50mm external, 65mm external all the way to 27.5" x 80mm external. Which 27.5" rim width is best for a 3.8- 4.00" tire? especially for trail use?


As mikesee says, there aren't any actual 4" tires for 27.5. I have a set of 27.5 x 4.5 Barbegazi and really like them. They are on 50mm rims since that is what I had for running 27.5 x 3.25 tires and I feel that those are a little too narrow. They work okay but the tires are a little too rounded off and the cornering knobs aren't fully in play. If I was looking for dirt rims for Barbegazi I would go with 65mm. I personally use the flotation on occasion and would like 80mm rims and I don't think they would have any problem in the dirt as there is a lot of tire out there to protect the rim.

I have a 2014 Mukluk Ti and I don't have any clearance problems. I don't think I would have any with 80mm rims either. I do have a 1x11 drivetrain though.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Welnic said:


> As mikesee says, there aren't any actual 4" tires for 27.5. I have a set of 27.5 x 4.5 Barbegazi and really like them. They are on 50mm rims since that is what I had for running 27.5 x 3.25 tires and I feel that those are a little too narrow. They work okay but the tires are a little too rounded off and the cornering knobs aren't fully in play. If I was looking for dirt rims for Barbegazi I would go with 65mm. I personally use the flotation on occasion and would like 80mm rims and I don't think they would have any problem in the dirt as there is a lot of tire out there to protect the rim.
> 
> I have a 2014 Mukluk Ti and I don't have any clearance problems. I don't think I would have any with 80mm rims either. I do have a 1x11 drivetrain though.


What are the tire measurements, i.e. width & Diameter?


----------



## senor_mikey (Apr 25, 2009)

Has anyone mounted a 3.8 Hodag on an i40 rim? Curious what sort of overall width would be to see if they would fit in my custom fork. Running DT Swiss XM551's. 

mike


----------



## ttvrdik (Dec 28, 2004)

Picture, picture, picture
Please


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Mukluks take the 26 4.7 Barbagazi on 80mm rims without any real issue. 1x10 with aeffect crank and 11-42. Get a little chain rub on granny ring at pavement pressures when frame flexes under my 275lbs. Don't even anything besides 1x though lol.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

Gigantic said:


> What are the tire measurements, i.e. width & Diameter?


27.5 x 4.5 Barbegazi on 50mm (external) Nextie rims. Air pressure around 10 psi. 99mm at the carcass, 104mm on the knobs. Around 765mm in height, which was just a casual eyeball job. They are mounted tubeless and have been on there around a year.


----------



## Swerny (Apr 1, 2004)

bumping this. 

I just sold my Farley 7 that had 80 mm Mulefut's with 26 x 4.7 Barbegazi's. 

I'm looking at getting a 2017 or 2018 Farley 9.6 that has the 27.5 x 4.5 Barbegazi's. 

For winter/snow use.....has anyone compared those 2 directly?

Just wondering what (if anything) i will lose for winter riding

I run 29 x 3 Chupacabra's on 35 mm internal carbon rims for summer. 

I had a Bluto this year for summer use and while I preferred it to rigid, i didn't love it overall. I never did try it in winter mode although I had a Bluto on my previous Mayor as well. 

Thanks


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Get a Mastodon, no reason to buy Blutos any more. May need an EXT for the taller Barbe...



Swerny said:


> bumping this.
> 
> I just sold my Farley 7 that had 80 mm Mulefut's with 26 x 4.7 Barbegazi's.
> 
> ...


----------



## Swerny (Apr 1, 2004)

Nurse Ben said:


> Get a Mastodon, no reason to buy Blutos any more. May need an EXT for the taller Barbe...


I will if i decide I need suspension. Not sure i want to add that much weight to the front of a hardtail though.

Wondering more now about the 27.5 x 4.5 tire/wheel size for winter use.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

It's a tall tire, so maybe a high BB is a good thing in snow. It's a more comparable height tire to your Chupa. Make sure the rim width is sufficent to spread the tire out, 80mm.

If my Fatillac won't take a 4.8 Minion, I'll probably ditch the 26" and move that direction for my Wozo; it suffers from low BB pedal induced strikes...

There is some question whether the 2017 clears a Mastodon, check on it as that may be the change from 2017 to 2018.

Mikesee rides this tire.



Swerny said:


> I will if i decide I need suspension.
> 
> Wondering more now about the 27.5 x 4.5 tire/wheel size for winter use.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Swerny said:


> Wondering more now about the 27.5 x 4.5 tire/wheel size for winter use.


Depends on which -- you have Barbegazi and Gnarwhal to choose from right now.

Barbe is good -- fast -- on packed snow and especially if that snow has moisture. Like in the eastern ~half of North America.

Gnarwhal is awesome, aggressive, with big meaty knobs that can be studded. I don't have a ton of back-to-back time on them, but I think the B Fat Gnarwhal on an appropriate rim can be just as effective as Bud/Lou in western (light, dry, not well packed) snow. It really digs in and finds traction.

With only these two B Fat tires, any 26" tire smaller than 5.25" is dead to me for snow. And if a 4.8" or bigger B Fat tire comes out, _*all*_ 26" tires will be dead to me.


----------



## Swerny (Apr 1, 2004)

mikesee said:


> Depends on which -- you have Barbegazi and Gnarwhal to choose from right now.
> 
> Barbe is good -- fast -- on packed snow and especially if that snow has moisture. Like in the eastern ~half of North America.
> 
> ...


thanks Mike!

What are the weights of the Barbegazi vs Gnarwhal in 27.5 X 4.5 guys?

Edit:
I found the weight of the un-studded Gnarwhal at 1510 grams.

The Barbegazi is 1240 grams per the Trek site


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Swerny said:


> What are the weights of the Barbegazi vs Gnarwhal in 27.5 X 4.5 guys?


Tee hee.


----------



## tmbrown (Jun 9, 2007)

> Swerny
> 
> Wondering more now about the 27.5 x 4.5 tire/wheel size for winter use.


I rode a Bud/Nate combo for two years, last year I picked up a Farley 9.6, love the bike, but the Barbegazi up front in fresh snow, is pretty bad, compared to my Bud on my other bike, the Barbe washes out real easy, I don't have any experience with the Gnarwhal. As mike said they are good in hard pack, and it's a decent rear tire in fresh snow. I'm not sure what I'm going to run next winter, but I have no confidents with the Barbed up front, in fresh snow 3" to 5", I live in Michigan, so we probably have similar conditions.


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

tmbrown said:


> I rode a Bud/Nate combo for two years, last year I picked up a Farley 9.6, love the bike, but the Barbegazi up front in fresh snow, is pretty bad, compared to my Bud on my other bike, the Barbe washes out real easy, I don't have any experience with the Gnarwhal. As mike said they are good in hard pack, and it's a decent rear tire in fresh snow. I'm not sure what I'm going to run next winter, but I have no confidents with the Barbed up front, in fresh snow 3" to 5", I live in Michigan, so we probably have similar conditions.


Gnarwhal is the answer. Ordering a 9.6 and going to run studde gnar f and barb r


----------



## tmbrown (Jun 9, 2007)

> solarplex
> 
> Gnarwhal is the answer. Ordering a 9.6 and going to run studde gnar f and barb r


You'll love the bike, I'm not sure that the Gnarwhal is the answer&#8230; How does the Gnarwhal compare to Bud&#8230; 26" rims could be the answer, or maybe just a 26" up front.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

local fast guy ran unstudded gnarwhals on his farley 9.6 last winter, and he loved them. AFAIK, he will be doing the same this winter season.

i just joined the B fat club. Well, my wallet did. I hope to take delivery of some B fat goodness in a week or so.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

tmbrown said:


> You'll love the bike, I'm not sure that the Gnarwhal is the answer&#8230; How does the Gnarwhal compare to Bud&#8230; 26" rims could be the answer, or maybe just a 26" up front.


I've ridden Bud a lot since he was released.

I rode the Gnarwhal a decent bit last winter, on deep, marginally consolidated Colorado snow.

I'd rate Gnarwhal higher than Bud almost everywhere.

Put differently, for winter riding, I'd choose Gnarwhal pretty much every time over Bud.

Bud is a great, great tire. Gnarwhal, by virtue of it's tread pattern and overall height + girth, is better.


----------



## tmbrown (Jun 9, 2007)

> mikesee
> 
> I've ridden Bud a lot since he was released.
> 
> ...


That's good news, were you running those fore and aft.


----------



## mohrgan (Sep 12, 2013)

Mike, what rims are you using for the 27.5 Gnarwhal? I am still trying to decide what wheel setup I want for my Ice Cream Truck build...Thanks!



mikesee said:


> I've ridden Bud a lot since he was released.
> 
> I rode the Gnarwhal a decent bit last winter, on deep, marginally consolidated Colorado snow.
> 
> ...


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

95% of the time I'm building Jackalope or Wampa. The other 5% I use HED or Nextie or some other chibon.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

mikesee said:


> ....or some other chibon.


:cornut:


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

mikesee said:


> 95% of the time I'm building Jackalope or Wampa. The other 5% I use HED or Nextie or some other chibon.


Mike,

Contemplating some big and tall wheelwere for the Wozo, some Gnarwall 27.5 x 4.5 on Jackalopes. Do you have width and diameter measurements for that set up?

Thanks!


----------



## Swerny (Apr 1, 2004)

solarplex said:


> Gnarwhal is the answer. Ordering a 9.6 and going to run studde gnar f and barb r


I'm going the same route...placing my order this week for the 9.6. I'd like to run the Gnarwhal F&R though

Now i wonder if the LBS will swap the Barbegazi for the Gnarwhal. I only need the stock setup for winter use as I have 29+ setup for the rest of the year.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Nurse Ben said:


> Mike,
> 
> Contemplating some big and tall wheelwere for the Wozo, some Gnarwall 27.5 x 4.5 on Jackalopes. Do you have width and diameter measurements for that set up?
> 
> Thanks!


Here's what I wrote down back in January:

27.5 x 3.8" = 29.4" tall. Hodag, Minion.
27.5 x 4.5" = 30.25 to 30.5" tall, depending on rim/tire combo. Barbe, Gnar.
26 x 4" = 28.75" tall. I think I measured a Van Helga on an 80mm rim.
26 x 4.8" = 29.75" tall. Bud/Lou.
29 x 3.0" = 30.1" tall. Chupa, DHF.


----------



## Outsider (Jan 1, 2007)

Anyone tried a 27.5 x 4.5 (Gnarwhal) in a Surly ICT? With the correct MDS chip the 2XL on 100 mm rim fit quite well, but this combo could be even higher.


----------



## Bentpushrod (Nov 8, 2015)

Looking at 27.5 x 4.5 Gnarwhal's on 80mm Jackalope's for my '15 Fatboy. Anybody try this setup. I'm thinking front will be fine, bit worried about the rear. I'm running a 2x10, may have to lose the front derailleur and go 1x10 for clearance.


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

I've been running Hodags on 650B x 50 mm rims all spring and summer and have been surprisingly pleased with them. I ran 3.0 Dirt Wizards last summer and loved them. The Hodags have a very round profile while the DWs are much more squareish on the same rims.

One area where I find the Hodags sketchy is on wet rock. I had my highest pucker factor ever on some wet glacial polish while my friend on 2.6s was laughing his way thru it. I'm thinking the relatively low contact pressure causes super slippery low friction conditions where a narrower tire and higher contact pressure is more solid. Anyone else experience this? Definitely not my imagination as I had lots of lack of traction issues on rock on this particular wet day.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

radair said:


> One area where I find the Hodags sketchy is on wet rock.


I don't disagree with you, but in back to back comparisons I've found the B Fat DHF and DHR to be a solid level *worse* on wet rock than the Hodag. Not sure where to point the finger (compound? lack of siping?) but when running same pressures, same bike, same rims, the Minions let go much sooner. Hit the deck at ~15mph a few weeks ago, mid-conversation, on a wet slabby section of trail that didn't warrant mentioning, other than that I spilled some blood there.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Yeah, they're slippery. I stick much better with the Purgatory Grid, but of course those are "skinny tires".

That said, I found the 3C Minion 2.8 were kinda slickery as well, so maybe it's a Maxxis thing?

I'd like to have a 3.8 that sticks better, might try a Hodag next or ??



mikesee said:


> I don't disagree with you, but in back to back comparisons I've found the B Fat DHF and DHR to be a solid level *worse* on wet rock than the Hodag. Not sure where to point the finger (compound? lack of siping?) but when running same pressures, same bike, same rims, the Minions let go much sooner. Hit the deck at ~15mph a few weeks ago, mid


----------



## gdb85 (Mar 4, 2017)

I run 26 x 3.8 Hodags on 65mm carbon wheels and think they work really well in all conditions. Rocks, roots, wet, dry don't matter they just seem to work in SW. Pa.

I run them 8-9 months until stud season.

I know it's not 27.5 but just saying...


----------



## Dr Feelygood ! (Jun 16, 2006)

Getting back to the OP's question, I was not excited at all at the prospect of 27.5 fat... ..

I was happy with my 26" Minions, JJs, and various Surly offerings.

Then saw a Trek Farley EX8 on ebay. It was a good price and near to where I live.

No-one else bid so I bought it.

It was set up tubeless with Mulefuts and Hodags.

What can I say other than Wow! 

As a trail bike it has become my go-to bike.

It feels quicker than my other Fat Bikes and rolls so well.

I'm a convert I have to say.

Cheers,

Dr FG :thumbsup:


----------



## Dr Feelygood ! (Jun 16, 2006)

1000 !


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Congrats Doc!

I think your experience is a common one: No one expects the B Fats to be _any_ better, much less _so much better_ -- until they try them, and then they have to ask themselves how they could be so wrong...


----------



## xenologer (Nov 1, 2016)

I'm 5'3" so for me, larger diameter wheels becoming a market focus is a bad thing.
means manufacturers investing their quality tech into rims and tires I can't use, potentially less attention given to those that I can.

I'd be really happy if 24" Fat would become more widely supported....


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

xenologer said:


> I'm 5'3" so for me, larger diameter wheels becoming a market focus is a bad thing.
> means manufacturers investing their quality tech into rims and tires I can't use, potentially less attention given to those that I can.
> 
> I'd be really happy if 24" Fat would become more widely supported....


If you tried a 27.5 bfat set up, esp one built up with light components, you'd probably find the height to be a non issue, but you'd need a frame designed around the wheel size, specd to fit a smaller person.

For example, a small Wozo with a Lauf fork, carbon rims, Hodags. It'd be sporty, agile, and fast.

I have a 24" fat muni, great size for muni, but few good rim choices, and only two decent tire choices. As a Muni rider, I've long seen the death of 24", it won't be back, sorry.


----------



## ChargeCookerMaxi (Oct 25, 2015)

Laugh Carbonhaha is a pretty cool fork no doubt.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Nothing like a phone for making corrections


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

I'm getting ready to mount up my B Fat wheelset again soon after a summer on 27.5x3.25 and 29x3.0. Once the leaves start falling and hiding the rocks and roots, it's nice to have some extra rubber between my rims and the ground! I've been very happy with the Hodag up until now, so will keep running them until they need replacement. Interested to see what will be available at that time, there are 2 more manufacturers that I know of releasing tires in the 27.5 x 3.8 - 4.0 size. I'll wait for others to try them first and give their feedback.


----------



## Jonboy99 (Jul 18, 2005)

Well, I'm going to risk being a total douche as I haven't read much of this thread. I've just taken the 650B/barbegazi 4.5" off my new farley 9-6 and put my old 26s with jumbo jim 4.8s back on. I gave the B wheels a good tryout but on my local trails, in combinations with the tires mentioned above, I find the 26/jumbo jim's to be comfier, roll quicker and to get me around my favourite fast laps a good bit quicker. Didn't really notice any difference in ease of rollover either.

I'd planned to use the 650b wheels for summer and the 26s as winter wheels with some D5s fitted, but I guess i'll just have to keep swapping tires.
I'm sure in many situations the 650Bs work well but for me there was really no upside.


----------



## DirtyHun (Jan 9, 2011)

26 x 4.8 and up is where my heart is. Never had more fun than on these jumbo tires, and I got rid of my 27.5 after two years of not falling in love with it.


----------



## FatBike&SlenderWoman (Apr 1, 2016)

There is only a 1/2" difference in radius between a 26 (559mm) rim and a 27.5 (584mm) rim so a 5" tire on a 26 rim is going to have essentially the same diameter with more float when compared to 4.5 Barbe.
The JJ5 and the Vee Apache Fattyslick both roll faster than anything currently available in a 27.5 fat. As far as off-road traction...I'll leave that for you to decide.


----------



## sazaks (Oct 5, 2004)

I`ve got my 2018 Farley 5 on order and unfortunately, an XD isn't available for these hubs. I`m going to build up a set of wheels on some Hope Fatsno 4 and I was wondering if anyone is riding these carbon rims from LightBicycle.com. 75mm external and 70mm internal. 580G.

https://www.lightbicycle.com/75mm-w...hookless-double-wall-tubeless-compatible.html


----------



## dirt-nerd (Aug 12, 2009)

Hey, for the people who tried both 26 and 27.5 fat wheels for tougher single track riding-

Which felt better to you or not enough difference to notice?

I have a carbon Beargrease with bluto (4.8 on front) and was thinking of trying the B Fat for my next bike...
Thanks in advance


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

dirt-nerd said:


> Hey, for the people who tried both 26 and 27.5 fat wheels for tougher single track riding-
> 
> Which felt better to you or not enough difference to notice?
> 
> ...


B Fat is both faster and more efficient than 26 fat, for the same reasons that the majority of XC and trail bikes these days run 29" wheels/tires instead of 26" or 27.5".


----------



## DirtyHun (Jan 9, 2011)

Everyone moves toward the next wheel size up. I went 26 to 27.5 to 29, and now I'm back to 26 fat. Next investment will be a set of Minions or JJs.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Not always, plenty of folks float around to different sizes, it really depends on tire width and terrain.

I'm all about 27.5 because the 3", 4", 4.5" tires suit my needs. And though I prefer a taller wheel like a 29er, find that too much height is not always ideal.

For example, I prefer to ride technical distance (all day rocky) with a 27.5 x 3", I didn't find the love with a 29+; I found it to ungainly and less agile. Maybe more cruiser XC riding would be fine on a 29+, kinda like I did with a tandem.

For real rock work, I can either ride the 27.5 x 3 or bump to a 27.5 x 3.8, just depends on my needs and the conditions.

I just bumped up from a 26 x 4.8 to a 27.5 x 4.5, taller wheels and more bb clearance for snow.

I can't honestly see a reason to run 26" wheels now. Even on my munis I either run 27+ for XC/flow or 24 x 4" for tech and loose soils.



DirtyHun said:


> Everyone moves toward the next wheel size up. I went 26 to 27.5 to 29, and now I'm back to 26 fat. Next investment will be a set of Minions or JJs.


----------



## DirtyHun (Jan 9, 2011)

Nurse Ben said:


> Not always, plenty of folks float around to different sizes, it really depends on tire width and terrain.
> 
> I'm all about 27.5 because the 3", 4", 4.5" tires suit my needs. And though I prefer a taller wheel like a 29er, find that too much height is not always ideal.
> 
> ...


I can: $$$$

That is just another reason. I love 26 fat, just came from 27.5, and plan to eventually buy a nicer set of 26" 80 mm wheels for off-road and commit the current hoops to street/urban duty. If I can score a set of lightly used 26" fat wheels cheap from someone going to 27.5, all the better!


----------



## Lars_D (May 24, 2011)

I am sticking with 26 until Schwalbe comes out with a 27.5 Jumbo Jim. The tire is that good.


----------



## Jonboy99 (Jul 18, 2005)

Lars_D said:


> I am sticking with 26 until Schwalbe comes out with a 27.5 Jumbo Jim. The tire is that good.


Me too. Except I'll also be waiting until there's a decent suspension fork out that clears the tire AND the downtube on my farley's frame.


----------



## DirtyHun (Jan 9, 2011)

I really like everything I read about JJs. No desire for suspension here (OK, with the exception of the Thudbuster).


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

There will not be a good fork that clears your frame.

We're lucky to have the Mastodon... I heart Manitou.

It'd be much easier to swap frames, esp when you can get a nice rigid fat frame for $600-800. I happen to have a large Wozo for sale 

Of course it's cheaper to buy a complete with a Mastodon... I think Trek is selling Farley's that way these days.



Jonboy99 said:


> Me too. Except I'll also be waiting until there's a decent suspension fork out that clears the tire AND the downtube on my farley's frame.


----------



## Jonboy99 (Jul 18, 2005)

Nurse Ben said:


> There will not be a good fork that clears your frame.
> 
> We're lucky to have the Mastodon... I heart Manitou.
> 
> ...


I was hoping that with the adjuster on the fork leg filed down, or maybe an adjuster redesign next year, they might fit. Trek is selling farley 7s (alu frame) with the mastodon, but the frame doesn't have clearance, they use a downtube bumper. It would seem like insanity to do that on a carbon frame though - bumper or not, one big wipeout could total the frame.

I'll probably just live with the bluto, I don't really ride that hard so it suits me pretty well, and feels amazing for lightish singletrack with the carbon farley. Be nice to have an upgrade option though.


----------



## Willum (Sep 2, 2012)

Really wish that Dillinger 4, Jumbo Jim, and an ultra-fat tire (e.g. Snowshoe 2XL) came in the 27.5 size. Probably lots of people sticking with 26 until their favorite tires are ported over. 27.5 version of Dillinger 4 is probably what's most sorely needed; every winter race is won on Dillinger 4 (with the exception of backcountry events such as ITI that sometimes require fatter tires).


----------



## Lars_D (May 24, 2011)

Willum said:


> Really wish that Dillinger 4, Jumbo Jim, and an ultra-fat tire (e.g. Snowshoe 2XL) came in the 27.5 size. Probably lots of people sticking with 26 until their favorite tires are ported over. 27.5 version of Dillinger 4 is probably what's most sorely needed; every winter race is won on Dillinger 4 (with the exception of backcountry events such as ITI that sometimes require fatter tires).


I am pretty sure that the ITI is won on Dillingers too.


----------



## Willum (Sep 2, 2012)

Yup, D5.


----------



## hoboscratch (Apr 26, 2005)

Willum said:


> Really wish that Dillinger 4, Jumbo Jim, and an ultra-fat tire (e.g. Snowshoe 2XL) came in the 27.5 size. Probably lots of people sticking with 26 until their favorite tires are ported over. 27.5 version of Dillinger 4 is probably what's most sorely needed; every winter race is won on Dillinger 4 (with the exception of backcountry events such as ITI that sometimes require fatter tires).


I think you nailed it. My 27.5+/29er bike suits me for 3 seasons and I've invested in 26" fat and am happy. 27.5" fat doesn't make sense as my 27.5+ can do what it does in the winter (hardpack) and 26x5 exceeds when it gets deep.

Edit: this applies for where I live and ride. MN

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PCT (Jun 29, 2009)

Minion 27.5 x 3.8 FBF/FBR on Scraper 50mm or Mulefut 50mm is tiiiight. Hodag was pretty bad but the FBF/FBR are a royal pain to take on/off. Any corroborating experience or advice?

Oh and would the 27.5 Barbegazi or Gnarwhal on a 50mm rim fit in the Mastodon Property Std?


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

PCT said:


> Oh and would the 27.5 Barbegazi or Gnarwhal on a 50mm rim fit in the Mastodon?


Yes, huge clearance.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

PCT said:


> Minion 27.5 x 3.8 FBF/FBR on Scraper 50mm or Mulefut 50mm is tiiiight. Hodag was pretty bad but the FBF/FBR are a royal pain to take on/off. Any corroborating experience or advice?


installed FBF/FBR on the scrapers last week. Took multipe airings to get the bead to seat. I have not dismounted them yet, so i cannot comment there. I can't image it will get any easier...


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Got my Hodags up and running (thanks Mikesee), great tires, much lighter than the Minions, sealed well on Duroc 50's.

It seems like the Hodag run firmer than the Minions, so I'm using lower pressures by a couple PSI. They stick well to rock, work fine in soft, probably should have got them first ... I hear Mike saying "I told you so".

It will be nice when more tires are available in this format, but the Minions and Barbes are a good start.


----------



## FitmanNJ (May 23, 2011)

mikesee said:


> Yes, huge clearance.


Mike, in your experience, is there a currently-available rim width on which a Barbegazi 27.5 might be too tight a fit if running a Mastodon Std fork? Something to stay away from? Thanks.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

FitmanNJ said:


> Mike, in your experience, is there a currently-available rim width on which a Barbegazi 27.5 might be too tight a fit if running a Mastodon Std fork? Something to stay away from? Thanks.


Any rim you'd want to run it on (60 to 80mm or so) it's still going to fit fine in the Mastodon. That said, not sure if it'll work in the STD, because of crown interference at bottom out. Pretty sure you'll need the EXT version.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Barbes on Jackalopes, 8psi, 1/8 crown clearance on a Mastodon STD. That's not a lot, but it's about the same as a 29+ Minion on a Bluto. 

Nice thing about the STD, you can add a 10mm spacer, keep your A-C and still get up to 140mm travel.

Gotta love the Mastodon, so versatile.


----------



## Super E (Nov 5, 2004)

I started with Hodag 3.8 on a Fatback Skookum on Duroc 50 rims only because I had a defective Panaracer. I’m really happy this happened since the Hodag has been the best. It measures out to 3.5” which makes the ride unbelievably smooth over the worst rock beds.


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

Wishing for more 27.5x4.5” options. Like a Dillinger for a front. The gnarwhal is too much of a beast and i dont want to grip stud my barb.


----------



## The_Mickstar (Apr 22, 2008)

I'm interested in the Rocky Mountain Suzi-Q -50 model. The narrow (for a fatbike) Q factor, more aggressive (again, for a fatbike) geometry, and 27.5 wheels interest me.

One way I could possibly see using the bike is for endurance gravel racing. Typically, the minimum tire size to race the fatbike class for gravel is 4".

Does anyone make an actual 27.5x4" tire (i.e. not something labeled 3.8")?

Follow up, what's the fastest rolling 27.5x4+ tire that will fit that frame (RM says 27.4x4.2 max)?

Thanks.


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Terrene has a 27.5 x 4.0 Cake Eater tire coming


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

The_Mickstar said:


> I'm interested in the Rocky Mountain Suzi-Q -50 model. The narrow (for a fatbike) Q factor, more aggressive (again, for a fatbike) geometry, and 27.5 wheels interest me.
> 
> One way I could possibly see using the bike is for endurance gravel racing. Typically, the minimum tire size to race the fatbike class for gravel is 4".
> 
> ...


I think most fatbike rules state 3.8 or wider tire, and I would think they go by the size listed on the tire, not by measuring. I could be completely wrong though!


----------



## ChargeCookerMaxi (Oct 25, 2015)

nitrousjunky said:


> Terrene has a 27.5 x 4.0 Cake Eater tire coming
> 
> View attachment 1163260


Yes they do, I've got one on order


----------



## spartan_msu (May 8, 2008)

Very interested in that tire. They say it only weighs 1293g.


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

nitrousjunky said:


> Terrene has a 27.5 x 4.0 Cake Eater tire coming
> 
> View attachment 1163260


I want this in a 4.5x27.5", the gnarwhal is too agressive for my liking.


----------



## david.p (Apr 11, 2011)

solarplex said:


> I want this in a 4.5x27.5", the gnarwhal is too agressive for my liking.


Barbegazi comes in 27.5x4.5 - http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/they-enormous-barbegazi-27-5-x-4-5-a-1058512.html


----------



## Engineer90 (Apr 10, 2015)

david.p said:


> Barbegazi comes in 27.5x4.5 - http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/they-enormous-barbegazi-27-5-x-4-5-a-1058512.html


I think it's funny when this thread started in 2015 27.5x4 was the biggest, now we have the 4.5 Gnarwals... only a matter of time (months possibly) until we see 27.5x5! The Trek Farley 7 can fit up to 27.5x5 as it says on their website... maybe they're hinting at 5" Gnarwals?


----------



## Swerny (Apr 1, 2004)

Engineer90 said:


> I think it's funny when this thread started in 2015 27.5x4 was the biggest, now we have the 4.5 Gnarwals... only a matter of time (months possibly) until we see 27.5x5! *The Trek Farley 7 can fit up to 27.5x5 as it says on their website*... maybe they're hinting at 5" Gnarwals?


It say it fits up to 5 inch tires, meaning 26x5.

There isn't a 27.5 x 5 tire in existence.....at least not yet.

https://www.trekbikes.com/ca/en_CA/...farley/farley-7/p/1064000-2018/?colorCode=red

Farley changes the game for fat bikes. With lightweight carbon or alloy frame options and the ability to accommodate 5" tyres and a variety of wheel sizes, Farley is the quickest and most versatile fat bike ever.


----------



## david.p (Apr 11, 2011)

Between Bontrager and Terrene there are a range of tire options, but I'm looking for more rims - wanting an aluminum 65mm. The Mulefut 65SL on the Suzie Q is a start; watching for retail availability.


----------



## Engineer90 (Apr 10, 2015)

Swerny said:


> It say it fits up to 5 inch tires, meaning 26x5.
> 
> There isn't a 27.5 x 5 tire in existence.....at least not yet.
> 
> ...


That's why I said maybe they will come out with 27.5x5", I did read on another forum that it could fit that size, not just 26x5", who knows.

But yes, the Farley does change the game. I'm even eyeing it and get different size wheelsets for that one, I rarely ride my 29er anymore


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Engineer90 said:


> That's why I said maybe they will come out with 27.5x5", I did read on another forum that it could fit that size, not just 26x5", who knows.
> 
> But yes, the Farley does change the game. I'm even eyeing it and get different size wheelsets for that one, I rarely ride my 29er anymore


I have both the 26x5.05 2XL's and the new Gnarwals in 27.5x4.5.
The tires are about the same height so if you went with a 5 inch for the 27.5 it would indeed be to tall to fit the 2018 Farley 7.
That said, I am thinking the longer contact patch of the 27.5 will make up for the narrower width.
It's snowing right now so I will find out soon enough.


----------



## Engineer90 (Apr 10, 2015)

headwind said:


> I have both the 26x5.05 2XL's and the new Gnarwals in 27.5x4.5.
> The tires are about the same height so if you went with a 5 inch for the 27.5 it would indeed be to tall to fit the 2018 Farley 7.
> That said, I am thinking the longer contact patch of the 27.5 will make up for the narrower width.
> It's snowing right now so I will find out soon enough.


I stand corrected. But it's good to know it can fit the 2XL size, definitely want to get it if I get the Farley.

BTW, the geo, does it help a lot? I've been comparing, seems like the Farley 7 has the shortest chainstay and wheelbase of any fat bike in the market right now.


----------



## mohrgan (Sep 12, 2013)

Engineer90 said:


> I've been comparing, seems like the Farley 7 has the shortest chainstay and wheelbase of any fat bike in the market right now.


A chainstay length of 440mm is pretty standard for fat tire bikes. There are some longer but there are a couple that are shorter with the Kona Wozo being what pops into my head first.


----------



## Engineer90 (Apr 10, 2015)

mohrgan said:


> A chainstay length of 440mm is pretty standard for fat tire bikes. There are some longer but there are a couple that are shorter with the Kona Wozo being what pops into my head first.


Very true, the Wozo has 420mm, but the wheelbase is longer at 1125mm vs the Farley at 1078mm... which is what I want too. My Alaskan has a longer wheelbase and you can feel it on the corners vs my 29er which is smaller.


----------



## spartan_msu (May 8, 2008)

david.p said:


> Between Bontrager and Terrene there are a range of tire options, but I'm looking for more rims - wanting an aluminum 65mm. The Mulefut 65SL on the Suzie Q is a start; watching for retail availability.


 About the closest you can get right now is the FatLab 55. There are a couple of carbon 65mm options too.


----------



## david.p (Apr 11, 2011)

mohrgan said:


> A chainstay length of 440mm is pretty standard for fat tire bikes. There are some longer but there are a couple that are shorter with the Kona Wozo being what pops into my head first.


Yep, the Wozo sliders adjust the chainstays from 420-440mm (just measured my frame). To run 27.5x4.5 like the Farley you end up at 440mm; smaller tires allow shorter stays.


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

david.p said:


> Barbegazi comes in 27.5x4.5 - http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/they-enormous-barbegazi-27-5-x-4-5-a-1058512.html


Thats what my bike has stock. They arnt stud-able:


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

Engineer90 said:


> I think it's funny when this thread started in 2015 27.5x4 was the biggest, now we have the 4.5 Gnarwals... only a matter of time (months possibly) until we see 27.5x5! The Trek Farley 7 can fit up to 27.5x5 as it says on their website... maybe they're hinting at 5" Gnarwals?


My 4.5" barbergazzis are 4.25" wide. They are damn close to the seat stays. I dont think you could go bigger than true 4.5"


----------



## Engineer90 (Apr 10, 2015)

david.p said:


> Yep, the Wozo sliders adjust the chainstays from 420-440mm (just measured my frame). To run 27.5x4.5 like the Farley you end up at 440mm; smaller tires allow shorter stays.


So at 420 mm maybe a 27.5+ would do fine then for pure summer use.


----------



## Engineer90 (Apr 10, 2015)

Even just looking at the Trek stock pics, the back tire does look close af to the seat stay. Can you post a couple pix of yours?


----------



## david.p (Apr 11, 2011)

I just started my Wozo build but Nurse Ben posted pics of the Wozo with Barbegazi's on 80mm rims.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Engineer90 said:


> Even just looking at the Trek stock pics, the back tire does look close af to the seat stay. Can you post a couple pix of yours?


Pretty close. Just as close as the 26 x 5.05 2XL's.
The rear drops are adjustable on the Farley as well if you run a smaller tire in the summer.


----------



## jtc1 (Apr 13, 2004)

When you mention the JJ's "That good" - are you referring to riding dirt or snow?? I am a Schwalbe fan boy - I even wrote to them and inquired about a 27.5 JJ - they said "not likely to happen". 

I find that my Bontrager Barbagazzis work fine of dirt - but do not work very well on snow.


----------



## Willum (Sep 2, 2012)

jtc1 said:


> When you mention the JJ's "That good" - are you referring to riding dirt or snow?? I am a Schwalbe fan boy - I even wrote to them and inquired about a 27.5 JJ - they said "not likely to happen".
> 
> I find that my Bontrager Barbagazzis work fine of dirt - but do not work very well on snow.


I'm not the guy you're replying to, but I agree with the general consensus on Jumbo Jim: on dry dirt/rocks, they're probably the best all-around tire available. Fast rolling, but with enough traction. On snow, I take em off and put on something studded and/or knobbier such as Dillinger, Bud, Snowshoe 2XL, etc. Note that all four of these tires are unavailable in 27.5 size. Although the Cake Eater looks like it might be a good Dillinger 4 competitor.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Has anyone fitted 27.5 x 4" to a Pugsley?

And if so was it worth it?


----------



## hoboscratch (Apr 26, 2005)

Took the plunge. Got some takeoff Mulefuts from a Farley 9.6 and opted for Gnarwhals since this will be my winter bike only. This is a Farley 5 with the dropouts all the way forward. Had to move them back about halfway to get the clearance I needed.









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PHeller (Dec 28, 2012)

Anyone put a set of calipers on a Hodag/FBR/FBF on smaller width rims, like 40s or 35s?


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Hodags on 45MM rims measure 3.5", I'd imagine that they'd be a hair smaller on 40's and would not recommend them on rims that small or smaller.


----------



## Rideon (Jan 13, 2004)

hoboscratch said:


> Took the plunge. Got some takeoff Mulefuts from a Farley 9.6 and opted for Gnarwhals since this will be my winter bike only. This is a Farley 5 with the dropouts all the way forward. Had to move them back about halfway to get the clearance I needed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is that 3.8 gnarwhals or 4.5? On a 27.5 rim?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hoboscratch (Apr 26, 2005)

Rideon said:


> Is that 3.8 gnarwhals or 4.5? On a 27.5 rim?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


27.5x4.5 Gnars. Takeoff Mulefut 27.5x80 from the new breed of Farleys. I have the dropouts about halfway for this level of clearance. 









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LBIkid (Mar 16, 2007)

Velobike said:


> Has anyone fitted 27.5 x 4" to a Pugsley?
> 
> And if so was it worth it?


Problem here is that there aren't any 27.5" rims that can be laced with the Pugsley offset. I looked into this a few weeks ago through Lacemine29 and we couldn't come up with an off the shelf solution. Mike mentioned that he's tried drilling offset holes into a rim, but the rigidity of the rim was less than optimal.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

It's November.... Where are the Terrene Cake Eaters?!?


----------



## the mayor (Nov 18, 2004)

Rodney said:


> It's November.... Where are the Terrene Cake Eaters?!?


November means late June in Bike Industry Speak.
Maxxis says it's new studded tires will be out in late January....so expect late August.


----------



## spartan_msu (May 8, 2008)

I got an email today that fyxation got the Cake Eaters in stock today.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

To answer the questions that are on many minds, here are some dimensions comparing the B Fat Gnarwhal and the 26" 2XL.

27.5 x 4.5" Gnarwhal, mounted on a ~79mm internal width rim, inflated to 10psi: 30.5" tall, 111mm wide. 

26 x 5.05" 2XL, mounted on a ~98mm internal width rim, inflated to 10psi: 30.9" tall, 124mm wide. 

Worth mentioning that the Gnarwhals are pretty new -- definitely haven't been ridden enough to stretch into their full width or height. These 2XL's have been ridden a full season, at silly low pressures, and are likely as stretched as they'll ever be.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

spartan_msu said:


> I got an email today that fyxation got the Cake Eaters in stock today.


The 27.5x4? you know if they are tough or light? i see they have a 10% off sale, comes out to $216 shipped...


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

LBIkid said:


> Problem here is that there aren't any 27.5" rims that can be laced with the Pugsley offset. I looked into this a few weeks ago through Lacemine29 and we couldn't come up with an off the shelf solution. Mike mentioned that he's tried drilling offset holes into a rim, but the rigidity of the rim was less than optimal.


Thanks. I hadn't considered the rim.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

LBIkid said:


> Problem here is that there aren't any 27.5" rims that can be laced with the Pugsley offset. I looked into this a few weeks ago through Lacemine29 and we couldn't come up with an off the shelf solution. Mike mentioned that he's tried drilling offset holes into a rim, but the rigidity of the rim was less than optimal.


Just to be clear, the Bontrager Jackalope can be laced offset for Pugs, but it's wide enough that there's some question about whether it would fit that frame.

WTB i35's can also be laced offset for Pugs, but they're too narrow (IMO) for any of the 3.8" nominal B Fat tires.


----------



## mohrgan (Sep 12, 2013)

Can't the 27.5 x 80mm Mulefut be laced asymmetrically? Maybe not for a Pugsley?


----------



## Willum (Sep 2, 2012)

mikesee said:


> To answer the questions that are on many minds, here are some dimensions comparing the B Fat Gnarwhal and the 26" 2XL.
> 
> 27.5 x 4.5" Gnarwhal, mounted on a ~79mm internal width rim, inflated to 10psi: 30.5" tall, 111mm wide.
> 
> ...


Great post, thanks. There's lots of misinformation about 27.5 is a longer contact patch" thanks to Trek marketing. Anybody who says that should be directed to this post. In order to get a long contact patch you need a taller tire, and the tallest 26 inch tires are taller than the tallest 27.5 tires. Bud and Lou are also very close to these numbers, correct?

The advantage to 27.5 is lower sidewall height, and potentially lower weight if executed correctly (you trade some tire for some rim, and rims are lighter than tires).


----------



## burtronix (Jun 5, 2006)

Willum said:


> In order to get a long contact patch you need a taller tire, and the tallest 26 inch tires are taller than the tallest 27.5 tires.


Define what you mean by taller - measured from where to where? It doesn't sound correct that 26x4 tires are taller than 27.5x4 any way you measure them. And contact patch correlates better to tire circumference, in which case Trek's marketing is correct.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## the mayor (Nov 18, 2004)

Suddenly it feels like 2007 and the early days of 29ers.....and the endless longer patch arguments.


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

mikesee said:


> 27.5 x 4.5" Gnarwhal, mounted on a ~79mm internal width rim, inflated to 10psi: 30.5" tall, 111mm wide.
> 
> 26 x 5.05" 2XL, mounted on a ~98mm internal width rim, inflated to 10psi: 30.9" tall, 124mm wide...


Those Gnarwhals don't appear to be shorter in either photo


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

mohrgan said:


> Can't the 27.5 x 80mm Mulefut be laced asymmetrically? Maybe not for a Pugsley?


Nope. And it's the same size as a Jackalope anyway.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

radair said:


> Those Gnarwhals don't appear to be shorter in either photo


That's why I measured -- tape is more accurate than camera.


----------



## KTMNealio (Jun 17, 2016)

burtronix said:


> Define what you mean by taller - measured from where to where? It doesn't sound correct that 26x4 tires are taller than 27.5x4 any way you measure them. And contact patch correlates better to tire circumference, in which case Trek's marketing is correct.


If you don't understand how tires are labeled then I could see how it doesn't make any sense. Bicycle tire "sizing" and labeling is about as non-scientific as anything I've seen.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Willum said:


> Great post, thanks. There's lots of misinformation about 27.5 is a longer contact patch" thanks to Trek marketing. Anybody who says that should be directed to this post. In order to get a long contact patch you need a taller tire, and the tallest 26 inch tires are taller than the tallest 27.5 tires. Bud and Lou are also very close to these numbers, correct?
> 
> The advantage to 27.5 is lower sidewall height, and potentially lower weight if executed correctly (you trade some tire for some rim, and rims are lighter than tires).


In order to arrive at a real conclusion, you have to be comparing apples to apples. My pics show a 4.5" tire compared to a 5.1" tire. And since that 5.1" is so massive -- so much bigger than any other 26" tire -- it sort of tilts the conclusions that you can draw.

Here's another pic to better illustrate the difference: Same new B Fat Gnarwhal, but this time compared to a well-used (aka fully stretched) Surly Bud. Both tires are on the same width of rim at the same pressure. Don't even need to measure in this case -- the difference is massive.


----------



## Kirkerik (Apr 21, 2016)

mikesee said:


> In order to arrive at a real conclusion, you have to be comparing apples to apples. My pics show a 4.5" tire compared to a 5.1" tire. And since that 5.1" is so massive -- so much bigger than any other 26" tire -- it sort of tilts the conclusions that you can draw.
> 
> Here's another pic to better illustrate the difference: Same new B Fat Gnarwhal, but this time compared to a well-used (aka fully stretched) Surly Bud. Both tires are on the same width of rim at the same pressure. Don't even need to measure in this case -- the difference is massive.


Clearly the difference is evident!

Surly's tire chart states the Bud's O.D. is 775.5mm (30.5") but at max tire pressure. Obviously, at running pressure Bud is considerably smaller than the previously measured 30.5" diameter Gnarwhal.

Would love to hear some first hand accounts of the difference between these two tires in fresh snow. We all know Bud has been very good.

The Gnarwhal is narrower but taller, hmmmm.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Kirkerik said:


> Clearly the difference is evident!
> 
> Surly's tire chart states the Bud's O.D. is 775.5mm (30.5") but at max tire pressure. Obviously, at running pressure Bud is considerably smaller than the previously measured 30.5" diameter Gnarwhal.
> 
> ...


I've run both. The Gnarwhal is as good or better than a Bud and Lou combo for traction. Mine are studded and 27 x 4.5. And they handle better with little self steer. They also roll faster on the hard stuff.
But not up the the 2XL however for float.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Kirkerik said:


> Clearly the difference is evident!
> 
> Surly's tire chart states the Bud's O.D. is 775.5mm (30.5") but at max tire pressure. Obviously, at running pressure Bud is considerably smaller than the previously measured 30.5" diameter Gnarwhal.
> 
> ...


If Gnarwhal is narrower -- and I'm not sure it is -- then it's not by more than ~2mm.

Agreed that Bud has been excellent. Arguably the best front tire made in 26 x 4.8", when it comes to soft snow.

My limited experience is that Gnarwhal gives nothing up to Bud in the soft, but outpaces Bud on the firm, and then (assuming you've installed studs in the Gnarwhal's stud pockets) just runs away when it comes to ice or mixed conditions.

It's snowing just to the west of here at this moment. Won't accumulate, but soon enough we can get back onto snow and start fiddling with and noting the differences.


----------



## Kirkerik (Apr 21, 2016)

headwind said:


> I've run both. The Gnarwhal is as good or better than a Bud and Lou combo for traction. Mine are studded and 27 x 4.5. And they handle better with little self steer. They also roll faster on the hard stuff.
> But not up the the 2XL however for float.


Thanks headwind.

Less self steer and better at firm or mixed condidtions. Could the Gnar be a quiver killer? I've been dreaming of a quiver of wheelsets w various tire sizes for various conditions. All ready to go! Ha! D4 studded for ice on 65's, Wrathchild studded on 80's for mixed conditions and something big on 100's for fresh snow.

Woe is me!

Would you say Bud and Gnarwhal float equally well or is one better than the other?

Probably splitting hairs here but... anyway.


----------



## Kirkerik (Apr 21, 2016)

mikesee said:


> If Gnarwhal is narrower -- and I'm not sure it is -- then it's not by more than ~2mm.
> 
> Agreed that Bud has been excellent. Arguably the best front tire made in 26 x 4.8", when it comes to soft snow.
> 
> ...


Thanks Mike. The stud pockets are definately a plus. The larger dia. could very well stomp down that fresh snow better too, I'd guess but may be hard to tell unless trying both setups back to back.

No doubt winter is coming! Wish i had the loot to try them all! Any 27.5 x 100mm rims available? Ha!

I probably would have invested in some more wheelsets already (26x80, 26x105, 29 +or 27.5+) but along came B-fat. Now I'm in a holding pattern.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Kirkerik said:


> Thanks headwind.
> 
> Less self steer and better at firm or mixed condidtions. Could the Gnar be a quiver killer? I've been dreaming of a quiver of wheelsets w various tire sizes for various conditions. All ready to go! Ha! D4 studded for ice on 65's, Wrathchild studded on 80's for mixed conditions and something big on 100's for fresh snow.
> 
> ...


I had an interesting ride tonight on a variety of surfaces. In my opinion, I think the Bud and Lou float may float a bit better than these Gnarwhals in the fine powdery snow I found tonight. I also think the Bud may have more traction in the powder but I never washed the front out tonight. The Gnarwhals have good traction though and if you are not careful you can sink the rear if you start hammering going slow uphill.
I got to ride the frozen creek and water traps tonight and the Gnarwhals were excellent. The studs bit in and I was flying along at 25kmh. At 3.5 psi rear and 2.5 psi front there was little or no self steering. Same on the icy road home. The Gnarwhals are easier to move than the Bud and Lou on the ice and hard pack at these low pressures. I can actually coast for some distance and unlike the big 2XL's I had to use my brakes to slow up when needed. The 2XL's seem to stop me on their own.
That said, I think I would like a 26 inch set of wheels to mount those big 2XL's and I'm going to see if I can find some with 80mm Mulefut rims. I do not feel the need to go back to the Bud and Lou.
One thing with these 27.5 x 4.5 is that they lose more pressure in the cold. I started with 6 psi in the rear and it fell to 3.5. The front was the same in pressure drop. It is more sensitive to temperature as there is less volume in the tire than those 2XL's.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Kirkerik said:


> I probably would have invested in some more wheelsets already (26x80, 26x105, 29 +or 27.5+) but along came B-fat. Now I'm in a holding pattern.


B+ is for kids, IMO. Just til they get tall enough to fit 29" or 29+. Vertically challenged adults may have to stick with B+.

26 x 4.8 is dead to me. Too small to float enough through soft snow, too slow to be worth it on hardpack.

I've got 29+ for dirt in all it's glorious variations, 26 x 105 for the deepest, softest snow, and B Fat for firmer snow, ice, and 3-season expedition use. 2 bikes, one spare wheelset = 4 seasons all-purpose quiver, for me.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

mikesee said:


> B+ is for kids, IMO. Just til they get tall enough to fit 29" or 29+. Vertically challenged adults may have to stick with B+.
> 
> 26 x 4.8 is dead to me. Too small to float enough through soft snow, too slow to be worth it on hardpack.
> 
> I've got 29+ for dirt in all it's glorious variations, 26 x 105 for the deepest, softest snow, and B Fat for firmer snow, ice, and 3-season expedition use. 2 bikes, one spare wheelset = 4 seasons all-purpose quiver, for me.


Mike, how are you finding these 27.5 x 4.5 in deeper powder? I pushed my bike up a few hills tonight that I'm sure the 2XL's would have crawled up.
They are faster on ice and hardpack though. As soon as this snow firms up then I guess I will see what kind of climbing I can do. Soft powder is a tough climb no matter what tires I guess.
They are no worse than a Lou for rear traction though in powder.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

headwind said:


> Mike, how are you finding these 27.5 x 4.5 in deeper powder? I pushed my bike up a few hills tonight that I'm sure the 2XL's would have crawled up.
> They are faster on ice and hardpack though. As soon as this snow firms up then I guess I will see what kind of climbing I can do. Soft powder is a tough climb no matter what tires I guess.
> They are no worse than a Lou for rear traction though in powder.


My experience on them was at the tail end of last winter. And if I thought the conditions were going to be uber-soft I took the 2XL's. We get so much snow and so little traffic that for most of the winter even the 2XL's can barely hack it.

Enjoying the last of fall for now. Will do all sorts of quantitative comparisons between Bud/Lou, 2XL, and Gnarwhal this winter.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

mikesee said:


> My experience on them was at the tail end of last winter. And if I thought the conditions were going to be uber-soft I took the 2XL's. We get so much snow and so little traffic that for most of the winter even the 2XL's can barely hack it.
> 
> Enjoying the last of fall for now. Will do all sorts of quantitative comparisons between Bud/Lou, 2XL, and Gnarwhal this winter.


Do you think I could go lower that 3.5 psi in the rear without it rolling off the bead? I ran my 2XL's at 2 or less and I'm not sure about these.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

headwind said:


> Do you think I could go lower that 3.5 psi in the rear without it rolling off the bead? I ran my 2XL's at 2 or less and I'm not sure about these.


Which rims? Tubed or tubeless? How much do you weigh all kitted out to ride?

Easiest way to know for sure is to keep going lower in a safe place -- like your front yard -- until you find the point at which the tire starts to peel. Keep in mind that hard cornering rarely happens in snow this soft -- thus you're most worried about straight-line riding peeling it off. Most likely place for it to happen would be starting from a dead stop, IMO.

I'd guess that ~2 is safe, and maybe even 1.5, but you should experiment and tell us. Do you have a reliable low pressure gauge?


----------



## Kirkerik (Apr 21, 2016)

headwind, nice to see you're getting out in the white stuff! Sweet! We had a hint of snow in the sky today.

Thanks both for the info/experience.

I have been thinking (here we go) for the deep soft stuff my 2XL is Bud/Bud and I'd mount them on 105's. The reason being, 2XL will not fit my frame, I'm light at 155, the casing is just too stiff on the 2XL (that i've heard). Prob not worth running the 2xl in the front alone.

29+ for dirt at this point seems intriguing, although I really been loving the 26 x 4 Vanhelgas on 65's. Here in the East we get some fairly rugged trail conditions most of the 3 seasons. Tight, twisty, rocky, rooty w/ washouts, usually wet. Always nice to have some meat. Not much flowy stuff. Maybe next year.

i'll probably go with some 8o/85 rims first. Question is will they be 26 or 27.5? Hmmm...I get the big diamter thing. I can imagine the benefits!

What are the drawbacks? I have not heard much of that on b fat.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

Kirkerik said:


> ...although I really been loving the 26 x 4 Vanhelgas on 65's. ....


i would kill for some VanHelga in 27.5x4... seriously, kill. I love the 26x4, and now that i have two fat bikes, both fitted with 27.5 wheels, if 45NRTH got off it's keister and built one, i would buy them ASAP.

We can dream, can't we?!? :skep:

Ordered some Terrene Cake Eaters to fill the void. Will report back when they show up.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

mikesee said:


> Which rims? Tubed or tubeless? How much do you weigh all kitted out to ride?
> 
> Easiest way to know for sure is to keep going lower in a safe place -- like your front yard -- until you find the point at which the tire starts to peel. Keep in mind that hard cornering rarely happens in snow this soft -- thus you're most worried about straight-line riding peeling it off. Most likely place for it to happen would be starting from a dead stop, IMO.
> 
> I'd guess that ~2 is safe, and maybe even 1.5, but you should experiment and tell us. Do you have a reliable low pressure gauge?


I'm running tubeless with the factory Mulefut 80mm rims. I weigh about 155 and I can add another 12-15 lbs of clothing to that depending on the weather.
I have a nice low pressure gauge. Maybe I will go go less than 2 psi and see what happens. The handling really hasn't deteriorated much at 3.5.
It was cold last night. Installing a tube in the dark with the wind blowing would not be a lot of fun.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Kirkerik said:


> headwind, nice to see you're getting out in the white stuff! Sweet! We had a hint of snow in the sky today.
> 
> Thanks both for the info/experience.
> 
> ...


The 27.5 x 4.5 Gnarwhals are big tires. Nearly as big as a 2XL. I would measure carefully to make sure you have enough room as far as height goes.
I think my ideal combo would be the Gnarwhals for winter and a set of Barbegazi for summer.
Along with some 26 inch rims and the 2XL's for powder.


----------



## endo_alley (May 28, 2013)

I haven't been following this post much this summer. But now that we have some fresh snow I am thinking fat again. Is there a consensus of which rim width is best for 27.5 fat? I have some 27.5" x 65mm wheels from last year (with 3.8" Hodags). How wide of a tire could I put on them? Were I to get some 4.5" tires for the 27.5" wheel, what is the best rim width?


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

endo_alley said:


> I haven't been following this post much this summer. But now that we have some fresh snow I am thinking fat again. Is there a consensus of which rim width is best for 27.5 fat? I have some 27.5" x 65mm wheels from last year (with 3.8" Hodags). How wide of a tire could I put on them? Were I to get some 4.5" tires for the 27.5" wheel, what is the best rim width?


I'm running Hodags on 50 mm rims so i would think you could easily run 4.5s on your 65 mm rims. For maximum float a wider rim is obviously better if it will fit in your frame. I'm not aware of anything bigger than 80 mm but it's only a matter of time.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Barbe's work great on 65's. The relatively massive tread blocks of the Gnarwhal are much happier being spread out/squared off on 80's or 85's. I haven't yet seen a B Fat rim wider than 85, but will jump at the chance when one presents itself.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

headwind said:


> I'm running tubeless with the factory Mulefut 80mm rims. I weigh about 155 and I can add another 12-15 lbs of clothing to that depending on the weather.
> I have a nice low pressure gauge. Maybe I will go go less than 2 psi and see what happens. The handling really hasn't deteriorated much at 3.5.
> It was cold last night. Installing a tube in the dark with the wind blowing would not be a lot of fun.


Ah -- you're relatively light. I think sub 2 psi will be fine: You'll start to notice a lot more resistance and handling weirdness to the tires before you're in real danger of peeling one off the rim.

At the risk of pedantry, be sure that 2 psi is measured when the bike has completely cooled to outside temps.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

I went out with 1.5 psi rear and 1 front. And now it crawls through the snow. We had more snow today and I rode up places I walked yesterday. 
The rear wrinkles up like a dragster but I had no problems with it, or the front popping off a bead. I even went and rode the staircase made out of railway ties a few times and it never came near hitting any rims as far as I could tell. I rode some side hills and the front grips a lot better now and I'd say it's as good as the bud.
On smooth ice and packed snow it still rolls nicely and I had little trouble getting up to 25 kmh. It steers a bit slow now but nothing like a Bud or a 2Xl does. Must be the shorter sidewall.
I think I will keep the 1 psi front and go 2 in the rear next time. The 50t big gear is fantastic. I can creep along so steady and slow climbing without burying the rear.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

headwind said:


> I went out with 1.5 psi rear and 1 front... now it crawls through the snow. We had more snow today and I rode up places I walked yesterday....The rear wrinkles up like a dragster..The 50t big gear is fantastic. I can creep along so steady and slow climbing without burying the rear.


cool! :thumbsup:


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

The rear had 3.5 psi in the house and dropped to 1.5. The front had 3 psi and dropped to 1 psi. This was at about -20.
Thinking about this more last night, The low gearing of the GX Eagle is well suited for snow. We all know about climbing in the loose stuff and you can feel the rear dig and slip every time a foot comes down. You can even see it in the tracks as there will be little pile of snow for every pedal revolution.
But by sitting back on the seat and using that 50t cog you can keep very steady traction. Far easier than with the 42t cog.
I would really like to try this gearing with those big 2XL's now.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

headwind said:


> But by sitting back on the seat and using that 50t cog you can keep very steady traction. Far easier than with the 42t cog.
> I would really like to try this gearing with those big 2XL's now.


This is part of the reason that I have a 24t chainring paired with a 10-44 spread out back. 17.45 gear inches.

Moving fast in the 24 x 44? No way. But still easier/more efficient than walking/postholing. More satisfying too.


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

mikesee said:


> This is part of the reason that I have a 24t chainring paired with a 10-44 spread out back. 17.45 gear inches.
> 
> Moving fast in the 24 x 44? No way. But still easier/more efficient than walking/postholing. More satisfying too.


That is deep gearing. I think I figured mine out to around 19 or so. That bike must crawl like crazy.
I like the slow technical parts of snow riding as much as the high speed.
Creeping up and down blown in drifts and cornices in creek beds is fantastic. Kind of like snow trials riding.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

headwind said:


> That is deep gearing. I think I figured mine out to around 19 or so. That bike must crawl like crazy.
> I like the slow technical parts of snow riding as much as the high speed.
> Creeping up and down blown in drifts and cornices in creek beds is fantastic. Kind of like snow trials riding.


Yep. We simply don't get high speed snow, so the bike is geared toward what we do get.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

headwind said:


> I went out with 1.5 psi rear and 1 front. And now it crawls through the snow. We had more snow today and I rode up places I walked yesterday.
> The rear wrinkles up like a dragster but I had no problems with it, or the front popping off a bead. I even went and rode the staircase made out of railway ties a few times and it never came near hitting any rims as far as I could tell. I rode some side hills and the front grips a lot better now and I'd say it's as good as the bud.


Cool that you've broken through a previous mental barrier and found that you could go so much lower and still reap rewards. You should go lower to be sure, but typically the point of diminishing returns is right around 1psi. Below that rolling resistance and deflection increase drastically, but float only gets a _little_ better.

I push the little Meiser ~$20 low-pressure gauges on my local customers all the time, trying to get them to understand how important even a _quarter of a psi_ is in these scenarios. Very, very few are interested.

And then I cross paths with them on the trail, they're walking and postholing and making a mess, we're riding right over their tracks, and they still don't get it. If I can convince them to ride my bike, even if only for 50', then light bulbs go off.

But usually they continue pushing their bike with ~10psi in the tires, muttering under their breath...


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Velobike said:


> Has anyone fitted 27.5 x 4" to a Pugsley?
> 
> And if so was it worth it?


I wanted to update this. An expected rim order didn't arrive via UPS this morning, thus I had a spare hour to lace and tension a wheel and find a real answer to this question.

And the answer is: It fits, easily.

Ingredients: Medium Pugsley frame, Bontrager Jackalope 80mm rim, well-used (stretched) Bontrager Hodag 27.5 x 3.8" tire. Pumped it to ~15psi, tubeless, and the casing measures 95mm/3.74".

Pics tell it all -- plenty of clearance. Wheel is all the way forward in the dropouts as pictured. You'd gain yet more clearance by bumping it back ~7 or 8mm.

Tension balance on the wheel is good. Not perfect, but better than a mere "acceptable". I'd ride it. Well, since this is my chassis, I *will* ride it...


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Update: I installed the 27.5 x 4.5" Gnarwhal on this 80mm rim and stuck it in the Pugsley fork. No dice. Huge clearance for the 3.8" Hodag or Minion tho.

Then for giggles I stuck the B Fat Gnarwhal into the frame, and sat there shaking my head when it actually fit. Barely.

Something like 3mm of clearance per side, and that's with an unstretched tire. Not going to work for long -- maybe a week at best.

*Thus, the conclusion is that 3.8" or 4.0" B Fats fit fine in a Pugs frame and fork, on 80mm rims.*


----------



## headwind (Sep 30, 2004)

Found the limits tonight and went right over the bars when I plowed into one stiff drift going downhill. One thing about snow riding that makes it so much fun is the crashing doesn't hurt.


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

Anyone have a decent place online to get 27.5x3.8” minions?


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

solarplex said:


> Anyone have a decent place online to get 27.5x3.8" minions?


I got my B fat minions from mikesee... Lace Mine 29 - Big Bicycle Wheels


----------



## gigrob (Sep 10, 2015)

solarplex said:


> Anyone have a decent place online to get 27.5x3.8" minions?


365cycles has the best prices and free shipping. Having said that, I'm still not convinced that they are a better tire than the Bontrager Hodags they replaced. I'm still working through different pressures so the verdict is still out. I bought the 120 tpi with the EXO sidewalls. The sidewalls are very stiff and not really pliable. I'm thinking the non-EXO version might have been a better choice for me. So far that stiffness seems to have robbed me of some grip, especially in the wet. But like I said, I'm still trying out different pressures.


----------



## the mayor (Nov 18, 2004)

gigrob said:


> 365cycles has the best prices and free shipping. Having said that, I'm still not convinced that they are a better tire than the Bontrager Hodags they replaced. I'm still working through different pressures so the verdict is still out. I bought the 120 tpi with the EXO sidewalls. The sidewalls are very stiff and not really pliable. I'm thinking the non-EXO version might have been a better choice for me. So far that stiffness seems to have robbed me of some grip, especially in the wet. But like I said, I'm still trying out different pressures.


I agree with you here.
I found the Minions to be slower rolling and worse wet traction and heavier than the Hodags.....which are a solid tire everywhere I ride.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

the mayor said:


> I found the Minions to be slower rolling and worse wet traction and heavier than the Hodags.....which are a solid tire everywhere I ride.


Mostly agreed.

The problem? Hodag's are vaporware right now. Next batch due at Trek in March.


----------



## the mayor (Nov 18, 2004)

mikesee said:


> Mostly agreed.
> 
> The problem? Hodag's are vaporware right now. Next batch due at Trek in March.


Well....that makes them even lighter and less rolling resistance than the Minions!
And the term "March" in the bicycle industry means "August"....which is the perfect time for fat tires!


----------



## paul.knight (May 14, 2007)

Finally got an "official" reply on availability of 27.5 x 3.8 Gnarwhals.
- from the Trekbikes.com site - FAQs for the Gnarwhal tire...

Q
Will Bontrager produce a 27.5 x 3.8 Gnarwhal? (I own a 2018 Farley EX 9.8, and would like to have some option for a studded rear tire.)
Verified Reply - Chris at Trek
Yes, we will have a Bontrager Gnarwhal in a 27.5x3.80" size, we are expecting them to be available for purchase through TrekBikes.com the week of 1/08/2018.


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

paul.knight said:


> Finally got an "official" reply on availability of 27.5 x 3.8 Gnarwhals.
> - from the Trekbikes.com site - FAQs for the Gnarwhal tire...
> 
> Q
> ...


Nice!!


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

that *is* nice. i was a little concerned 27.5x3.8 would disappear down the evolutionary plug hole and in my experience it is a superb option....love the hodag, the minion fbf a little less, so will be interested in the gnarwhal


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

paul.knight said:


> ...Yes, we will have a Bontrager Gnarwhal in a 27.5x3.80" size, we are expecting them to be available for purchase through TrekBikes.com the week of 1/08/2018.


MC, if you get an early release of these (w/o studs) please put me down for a pair.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

radair said:


> MC, if you get an early release of these (w/o studs) please put me down for a pair.


I'm showing an ETA of 1/1/18.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

Got the Terrene Cake Eater 27.5x4 Lights today. One is 1330 grams and the other is 1310 grams.


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

Rodney said:


> Got the Terrene Cake Eater 27.5x4 Lights today. One is 1330 grams and the other is 1310 grams.


Would love to get some width measurements of these. Seeing my barbergazi is 4.25" wide. If these are true 4" they might work. Do you have 80mm rims?


----------



## JohnJ80 (Oct 10, 2008)

Rodney said:


> Got the Terrene Cake Eater 27.5x4 Lights today. One is 1330 grams and the other is 1310 grams.


Looks pretty good. What's the plan for riding these? What kind of terrain?


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

solarplex said:


> If these are true 4" they might work. Do you have 80mm rims?


no, they are going to be mounted on nextie 65's. i had my minion FBF/FBR before, and those measured 3.74" iirc.



JohnJ80 said:


> What's the plan for riding these? What kind of terrain?


terrain will be very aggressive new england singletrack. rocky, rooty, shaley and techical.

i have two wheelsets, so i will not be studding the Cakies. plan is to use them on the muddy, sloppy snow days then switxh to my studded Wrathchilds when needed on the big snow or ice days.


----------



## Willum (Sep 2, 2012)

JohnJ80 said:


> Looks pretty good. What's the plan for riding these? What kind of terrain?


Cake Eater's place in the market will be as a winter racing tire. Prior to Cake Eater the Dillinger 4 fully owns that segment, as the fastest-rolling studded fat tire by a significant margin and the tire that is ALWAYS* on the bikes winning competitive races in the snowbelt. Think about the other studded options: Wazia, Narwhal, and Wrathchild all have tread optimized for loose snow and gnarly conditions, not so much quick rolling. The Cake Eater is the closest thing to a D4 competitor we have seen, and is particularly noteworthy for being available in 27.5 (unlike the D4).

*Edit: some of the longer races through less-reliable conditions aren't won on the Dillinger 4, they're won on the Dillinger 5... see Iditarod Trail Invitational.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

Verdict is in. Cake Eater 27.5x4 is essentially the same size as a Minion 27.5x3.8... :skep: I was hoping for a *little* wider/taller, but all well... 

Both sets of tires on the same Chibon 27.5x65mm (58mm internal) hoops.

Minions (worn in, set to 10psi)










Cake Eaters (20psi, fresh mounting)










Wednesday Winter "skinny" mode


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

Rodney said:


> Verdict is in. Cake Eater 27.5x4 is essentially the same size as a Minion 27.5x3.8... :skep: I was hoping for a *little* wider/taller, but all well...
> 
> Both sets of tires on the same Chibon 27.5x65mm (58mm internal) hoops.
> 
> ...


Damn. Was hoping too. Fingers crossed for a wider 27.5" for next year.


----------



## 2:01 (May 10, 2010)

Rodney said:


> Verdict is in. Cake Eater 27.5x4 is essentially the same size as a Minion 27.5x3.8... :skep: I was hoping for a *little* wider/taller, but all well...


Nice Wednesday. Curious how much it weighs? Thanks.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

today, in current not weight weenie trim (has 2 heavy a55 seatpost clamps, sunrace steel cassette...) it weighed 29.3 lbs.


----------



## Chugach Skier (Aug 6, 2007)

Rodney said:


> Verdict is in. Cake Eater 27.5x4 is essentially the same size as a Minion 27.5x3.8... :skep: I was hoping for a *little* wider/taller, but all well...
> 
> Both sets of tires on the same Chibon 27.5x65mm (58mm internal) hoops.
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting this. Would you mind reporting a diameter measurement as well?


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Rodney said:


> today, in current not weight weenie trim (has 2 heavy a55 seatpost clamps, sunrace steel cassette...) it weighed 29.3 lbs.


Not bad!


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Looks like Vee is joining in on the B Fat size with a 27.5 x 3.8 option-
https://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=93299


----------



## Rideon (Jan 13, 2004)

Willum said:


> Cake Eater's place in the market will be as a winter racing tire. Prior to Cake Eater the Dillinger 4 fully owns that segment, as the fastest-rolling studded fat tire by a significant margin and the tire that is ALWAYS* on the bikes winning competitive races in the snowbelt. Think about the other studded options: Wazia, Narwhal, and Wrathchild all have tread optimized for loose snow and gnarly conditions, not so much quick rolling. The Cake Eater is the closest thing to a D4 competitor we have seen, and is particularly noteworthy for being available in 27.5 (unlike the D4).
> 
> *Edit: some of the longer races through less-reliable conditions aren't won on the Dillinger 4, they're won on the Dillinger 5... see Iditarod Trail Invitational.


For what it's worth, I sent an email to 45NRTH recently inquiring whether they'd be coming out with a 27.5(b-fat) tire and they replied "not at this time." Not sure that they'd spill the beans with any Joe consumer though. I did tell them I'd no longer be buying 26" fatbike tires. Love Me some B-fat!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hoboscratch (Apr 26, 2005)

I recently converted to B Fat and am also not going back. I have to assume that QBP is testing the waters with the new 27.5 Beargrease option and its successful adoption will drive whether or not they release any tires. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mohrgan (Sep 12, 2013)

Rideon said:


> For what it's worth, I sent an email to 45NRTH recently inquiring whether they'd be coming out with a 27.5(b-fat) tire and they replied "not at this time." Not sure that they'd spill the beans with any Joe consumer though. I did tell them I'd no longer be buying 26" fatbike tires. Love Me some B-fat!!


I would venture a guess that 45NRTH are working on a 27.5 FAT tire. Sister companies Salsa and Whisky are testing the waters with the format on the '18 Beargrease and a new 27.5 x 80mm carbon rim.


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

mohrgan said:


> I would venture a guess that 45NRTH are working on a 27.5 FAT tire. Sister companies Salsa and Whisky are testing the waters with the format on the '18 Beargrease and a new 27.5 x 80mm carbon rim.


Other than ditching surly wheels and 45nrth tires for mulefuts and maxxis tires on almost all 2018 bikes? Even the 26" wheels.... would have thought the muckluks would have stayed surly and 45nrth.......


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

nitrousjunky said:


> Looks like Vee is joining in on the B Fat size with a 27.5 x 3.8 option-
> https://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=93299


cool! looks like decent tire. Curious how soft the compound is.


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Rodney said:


> cool! looks like decent tire. Curious how soft the compound is.


I like the looks of the tread too. I also would like to know how soft it is.


----------



## Rumblefish2010 (Mar 29, 2012)

nitrousjunky said:


> I like the looks of the tread too. I also would like to know how soft it is.


It is Silica rubber and I think the durometer is 57. That makes it the softest fat bike rubber in the market. I have been using the Vee gem Crown in 27.5 x 3.0 last season and it is the best tyre ever ridden. Tried almost all other in the Plus category. Hope these B fat Gem Crown is like the skinnier one.


----------



## Lars_D (May 24, 2011)

Rumblefish2010 said:


> It is Silica rubber and I think the durometer is 57. That makes it the softest fat bike rubber in the market. I have been using the Vee gem Crown in 27.5 x 3.0 last season and it is the best tyre ever ridden. Tried almost all other in the Plus category. Hope these B fat Gem Crown is like the skinnier one.


I wonder how durometer correlates (if at all) to rolling resistance.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Lars_D said:


> I wonder how durometer correlates (if at all) to rolling resistance.


There is a correlation, but when you have to factor in big temperature swings the target keeps moving.


----------



## carbonguy (Dec 12, 2012)

Hi, I feel that I can help shed some light on this.

- Softness can be measured by Durometer.
- Rolling resistance can be measured by the Coefficient of Restitution.

The 2 are completely unrelated and can be tuned via small chemical differences. A fun physics demo is this: https://www.evilmadscientist.com/2006/happy-and-sad-balls/

I can't find a great video of both balls rolling down an incline, but the end of this video gives you the idea:





This basically shows how tires with the same Durometer would ride, but with very different coefficient of Restitution: one would bounce like crazy and roll fast, the other has high rolling resistance but with lots of dampening. DH guys love the latter since they probably don't care about rolling resistance (see e.g. Maxxis Maxx grip Compounds | Maxxis Tires USA
).

Companies love to use different compounds at the inner/outter tread vs sidewalls. YMMV greatly between a Vee Snowshoe and a JumboJim 

Grip/traction on hard surface _is_ closely related to Durometer, unless riding in very soft conditions where lugs/blocks are needed to dig into the mush (in which case those lugs can be very hard). Tire siping is also highly effective at increasing grip without increasing rolling resistance.

Upshot is, you gotta try the tires in the conditions that you use (temp, surface cond). Or trust others to do that for you. There is a lot of marketing BS about the tread patterns to watch out for.

Cheers!


----------



## jpaa (Oct 2, 2014)

Here is mine - Crazy monster! Specs: 27.5''/4.5''...









Huge update because of the Gnarwhal spikes! I had 26er with the JJ tires so the update feels like a night and day difference. The bike is enormous monster!

I would say it's easier to go over things, more stable, better steering and great in deep snow. So very positive update but rolling is very bad because of the Gnarwhal tires. The carbon wheelset makes it so much better though. The nextie wheels with the I9 hubs - oh my gosh!

I'm still thinking about that I should have to get the 26er carbon rims but hey - I still have the 26'' original setup with the JJ and I can change if needed.

I will change hodags or barbiez for the summer...

The bike feels better day by day though!


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

I had a chance to compare studded B Fat Gnarwhals to JJ 4.8's last week. Pretty much what you'd expect: JJ's rolled faster on hardpack and didn't have enough bite in corners to maintain all the speed they were able to carry. Very vague on high speed flat sections. Gnarwhals rolled a bit slower but were *right there* whenever you needed them -- standing to burst up a short stinger of a climb, laying it into a corner without touching the brakes, and -- my favorite -- _controlled_ drifting through long sweepers. I *loved* that you could feather the line between a drift and a carve for 60, 70, 80 feet at a stretch. So much confidence, so much fun.

Tried the same thing on the JJ's and just blew right off the trail. Fast, yes, but not nearly as much fun.


----------



## Rideon (Jan 13, 2004)

mikesee said:


> I had a chance to compare studded B Fat Gnarwhals to JJ 4.8's last week. Pretty much what you'd expect: JJ's rolled faster on hardpack and didn't have enough bite in corners to maintain all the speed they were able to carry. Very vague on high speed flat sections. Gnarwhals rolled a bit slower but were *right there* whenever you needed them -- standing to burst up a short stinger of a climb, laying it into a corner without touching the brakes, and -- my favorite -- _controlled_ drifting through long sweepers. I *loved* that you could feather the line between a drift and a carve for 60, 70, 80 feet at a stretch. So much confidence, so much fun.
> 
> Tried the same thing on the JJ's and just blew right off the trail. Fast, yes, but not nearly as much fun.


4.5 or 3.8? And did you use all the studs for the tires or some other pattern?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Rideon said:


> 4.5 or 3.8? And did you use all the studs for the tires or some other pattern?


Had a set of each on this trip to the midwest. No real preference between them, because we had a solid base underneath. Back here in CO I'd always opt for 4.5.

All stud pockets filled on both sets. Not that we needed them very often, but it was nice that they were there when suddenly the need was real.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Community opinion:

I have Hodags in Duroc 50, great tires, fairly fast, durable, no complaints.

I want a beefier B Fat tire option:

Gnarwall
Cake Eater
Crown Gem
Others?


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Any live weights out there?



Rodney said:


> cool! looks like decent tire. Curious how soft the compound is.


----------



## david.p (Apr 11, 2011)

Nurse Ben said:


> Any live weights out there?


1387g


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

So how do they ride on the 3.8? Do you have any other tires to compare to?

What rim are you using and how wide do they measure?



david.p said:


> 1387g


----------



## david.p (Apr 11, 2011)

Sorry, not running them myself. Weight is from the article linked in that post, which also has measurements and compares several B-fat tires.


----------



## KTMNealio (Jun 17, 2016)

That Crown Gem looks like the kind of tire I've been waiting for...

If the sidewall is anything like their 26 fat tires though I wouldn't necessarily call it "durable". I have the Snow Avalanche and it has a super supple casing. The silica rubber feels more pliable than any other tire I have (Hodag, Minion, Bombolini, Rougarou). The Minions and Hodags feel like plastic in comparison... 
Also that Snow Avalanche rolls amazingly well.


----------



## david.p (Apr 11, 2011)

Interesting. Given the size and weight I had lumped it the same bucket as the Minion and haven't really paid it much attention.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

David, thanks for linking the article, I forgot about it.

I like choices, just need to decide if getting a nother set of tires will really do anything different than what I have now (Hodags). 

Hodags are really good tire, so far I have no complaints, though more knobbies and stickier rubber wouldn't hurt


----------



## KTMNealio (Jun 17, 2016)

Nurse Ben said:


> Hodags are really good tire, so far I have no complaints, though more knobbies and stickier rubber wouldn't hurt


This is exactly what I was thinking


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

KTMNealio said:


> This is exactly what I was thinking


And you're both waiting for what, exactly?!


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

mikesee said:


> And you're both waiting for what, exactly?!


Well, I'm waiting for my banker to be distracted...


----------



## david.p (Apr 11, 2011)

If the Hodag isn't enough and the 3.8 Gnarhwal is overkill, the unstudded Cake Eater may fit the bill.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

david.p said:


> If the Hodag isn't enough and the 3.8 Gnarhwal is overkill, the unstudded Cake Eater may fit the bill.


not if you ride a lot of snow...


----------



## david.p (Apr 11, 2011)

Sure, but that's not the use being discussed. Start reading at this post.

Try to keep up, Rod.:winker:


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

The funny thing about B Fat, a fewyears ago when 4" was the max tire width, we would have been satisfied with these tires on snow.

I think Rodney's still got some of that ole 26" fat bike junk. Ya gotta ditch that stuff, it's "only" good for snow 



david.p said:


> Sure, but that's not the use being discussed. Start reading at this post.
> 
> Try to keep up, Rod.:winker:


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

Nurse Ben said:


> I think Rodney's still got some of that ole 26" fat bike junk.


damn skippy. wrathkiddos crush it in the snow. 27.5x4 for the rest of the 3 seasons for me.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

david.p said:


> Try to keep up, Rod.:winker:


i hear that often, usually on group rides...


----------



## KTMNealio (Jun 17, 2016)

mikesee said:


> And you're both waiting for what, exactly?!


A bike to put them on, nice weather to ride said bike...


----------



## david.p (Apr 11, 2011)

I converted my Wozo to B-fat; Gnarwhal 4.5 front, Cake Eater 4.0 back. The sidewall rotation arrows on the Cake eater indicate that it should be reversed in the rear to maximize drive traction, which confirmed my thoughts from looking at the tread.

Based on a quick ride in conditions ranging from packed trails to a few inches of loose snow to snow over ice, I'm pretty happy with the setup. It certainly rolls. The Cake Eater doesn't have the same climbing traction that Edna did in loose snow but is great on packed snow and icy spots. 

In some cases I found the Cake Eater slipping (in loose snow combined with certain turns or off camber sections) but if I leaned the bike it would hold a line and the big side lugs would grab. Once I got the hang of this it became pretty fun.

Overall it's a good compromise for my trails, though I can see the bigger knobs of the 3.8 Gnarwhal helping with loose snow traction. Once they become generally available I may get one for the back, move the studs from the Cake Eater over it it, and keep the Cake Eater for a three season front tire paired with a Hodag rear.


----------



## Back2MTB (Jun 4, 2014)

Just wanted to chime in and say that the 27.5 fat category has been a serious revelation, the rollover is incredible!

FWIW I got a set of 27.5 x 4.5 Gnarwhal's from sunrise cyclery with a 20% off promo and free shipping. $192 shipped and ~$70 in studs.. much cheaper that $450+ MSRP!

Also have Hodag 3.8's for muddy, sloppy late Fall and early Spring. Gnarwhal's in couple inches of snow over a lot of ice have been an absolute BLAST!


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Ordered some Crown Gem 27.5 x 3.8, will try them on Jackalopes and Duroc 50, review to follow.


----------



## hoboscratch (Apr 26, 2005)

Nurse Ben said:


> Ordered some Crown Gem 27.5 x 3.8, will try them on Jackalopes and Duroc 50, review to follow.


Looking forward to it!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

david.p said:


> ...keep the Cake Eater for a three season...tire


good to know someone else echo's my opinion of the 3.8 cakie. :thumbsup:


----------



## david.p (Apr 11, 2011)

Of course since I wrote that we haven't had fresh snow in over a week and with several freeze/thaw cycles the trails are more characteristic of southern NE - lots of ice and packed snow, some dirt patches. The studded Cake Eaters have been very good here.


----------



## calzonical (Aug 30, 2005)

Preparing to mount 27.5 x 4.5 Gnarwhal tubeless on rear wheel. To achieve maximum traction should the tire be mounted with Direction Arrow going forward or Reversed?

Prefer response(s) based on Real world experience.

I have mounted prior Fat Rear tires by direction arrow only to have the tire dig holes. But once tire was remounted in opposite direction of arrow the tire would actually find traction.


----------



## Back2MTB (Jun 4, 2014)

calzonical said:


> Preparing to mount 27.5 x 4.5 Gnarwhal tubeless on rear wheel. To achieve maximum traction should the tire be mounted with Direction Arrow going forward or Reversed?


 definitely suggest riding them correct rotation direction and seeing if you need more traction before reversing them. Reversing them will make a fairly slow rolling Tire even worse


----------



## calzonical (Aug 30, 2005)

Back2MTB said:


> definitely suggest riding them correct rotation direction and seeing if you need more traction before reversing them. Reversing them will make a fairly slow rolling Tire even worse


Do you have actual experience with the Gnars?

As for Slow rolling tire rolling slower - not really an issue since I'd be rolling slowly anyways.


----------



## Back2MTB (Jun 4, 2014)

yes I have a set on my Farley 9 but couldn't imagine needing to reverse direction for even more traction


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

FYI, Bontrager has a HUGE order of 27.5x3.8 Gnarwhal's coming in Monday, 1/29. I have reserved a set for myself...


----------



## mohrgan (Sep 12, 2013)

First short ride on Jackalopes and studded Gnarwhals(27.5 x 4.5) on my Ice Cream Truck. Thank you Mikesee for putting together a great package! It is stupid easy to set these up tubeless with a floor pump and after seating the bead, I inflated the tires to about 15 psi and dedicated a solid hour to stud each one. I was a little concerned that I might have to change the dropouts on the ICT to the sliding type because of the larger diameter but didn't have to. Relative to Bud and Lou on 80mm rims the increase in diameter is 1/2" but feels like more. After a short spin, I found that roll over and traction on ice and hard snow is amazing!!! I am eagerly awaiting new, unconsolidated snow so I can compare the grip to Bud and Lou but am thinking that possibly this is the winter tire to rule them all!


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Vee Rubber Crown Gem 27.5 x 3.8:









Side by side with a Hodag:









Weighed ~1380gm as advertised. Went up tubeless with a little fuss, had to strap em, but they spin round and true, tight like a drum.

Knobbies are a little taller and tighter than the Hodag, 120tpi vs 67tpi, supposedly a soft durometer, casing feels pretty tough. The only "pro review" I found said they didn't auto steer, but that's to be seen; V patterns tend to auto steer.

Gonna have to be pretty good cuz the Hodags don't suck.

Looking for a more stable ride at speed, less rubbery wallowing, like the Minions but a tad more resilient; picky huh 

Mixed condition ride tomorrow on the Fatillac, alpine crusty to firm DG, wifey gets the Wozo and Barbes 

BTW, I have for sale: A set of Minion 3.8 and possibly some Hodags (if I like the Gems)

EDIT: Took a nice 10+ mile ride on a mix of snow and dirt, snow riding was ~the first four or so miles, up to a foot deep in drifts, some unbroken, lots of post holes, crust, slush, Sierra cement. Dropped pressure early on cuz it was a bit slimy due to really warm conditions, no pressure gauge but I'd estimate 4-5psi, 1.5 wrinkles on the Mikesee scale.

The Gems worked fairly well, hard to compare them to Hodags as I never ride Hodags in the snow. In snow performance I'd put the Gems on par with most 4" fat tires, though the Gem is a tad narrower than 4", esp on a 50mm rim. Mud, dirt, the Gem had decent grip, on par with something like a Purgatory.

The Gem is fairly robust tire, even at low pressures it keeps it's shape; nice supportive sidewalls. Even aired down, the Gem wasn't that sloppy, though it had some "heavy steering", not quite autosteer, more of tracking thing; either wants to be going straight or carving a turn.

Once I cleared the snow, I aired up to a moderate ~8psi and finished the remainder of the trail at speed, getting some air and shredding the hero dirt. All in all the Gem is a nice all around tire, certainly grippy on loose soils, really kicks up the sand and mud; wear glasses and run a fender!

Need some time on rock and firm dirt, but so far I like it.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

what's the price on the Crown Gem? I've probably got a couple more seasons on my Hodags, but if they're comparable and cheaper, I'd give them a try.


----------



## pOrk (Jan 16, 2015)

27.5 fat and racing? 

I did the fat bike worlds fun race (3 laps) in CB this weekend and had a great time. I finished mid-pack and am by no means competing for the podium, but I couldn't help but wonder if a 27.5x4 would have made any difference in my times. I've never ridden a b-fat, so I'm just applying the whole bigger diameter 29vs26 in my head. 

Are there even rules for 27.5x4 vs 26x4 for fat races like the whole 4" minimum requirement? Thoughts?


----------



## jnroyal (Sep 25, 2008)

Ben - now that it's been a couple of days can you measure the knob to knob (max) width, i.e. is it still ~87mm like in the pic you posted earlier?


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

It's only been one two days, give it a couple days, but I suspect it won't grow that much.

What are you looking for?

There was a pretty good review n these tires and others, dimensions and all.

Expect them to be around 3.5-3.75"



jnroyal said:


> Ben - now that it's been a couple of days can you measure the knob to knob (max) width, i.e. is it still ~87mm like in the pic you posted earlier?


----------



## KTMNealio (Jun 17, 2016)

Ben, 

The silica rubber on my snow avalanche also picks up a lot of sand and tosses it up in my face.


----------



## jnroyal (Sep 25, 2008)

Thanks, Ben. I'm hoping for less than 90mm, preferably closer to 87, to fit a fork I already have.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Gotcha. I'l check again, maybe a narrower rim would help you out?

Take a look at that article comparing B Fat tires, I think there was one that was narrower than the rest.

Eyeballing the Hodag and Crown Gem side by side, the Gem appear shorter and narrower.

I'll get some more rides on the Gem this week, but I didn't dislike it, seemed more stable at speed than the Hodag. The Hodag is a nice tire, but ridden fast it felt squirmy, not unlike a typical 4" tire.

My goal is to find a tire that rides as well as the Minions, but lighter, more durable, and a bit stickier.



jnroyal said:


> Thanks, Ben. I'm hoping for less than 90mm, preferably closer to 87, to fit a fork I already have.


----------



## KTMNealio (Jun 17, 2016)

Thanks for the updates Ben


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Crown Gem:

So, it’s an interesting tire, sticks well, fairly fast, no complaints about ride quality, but handling is “unusual”. Under power the tire rides well, stays on line, well behaved, but start heading down and the tire demands a lot more attention as it can wander and it can get a little loose. 

Driven hard with a lot of weight on the front end, the tire handles like a DH tire, but back off a little and start plying the front brake and things get dicey. It reminds me of skiing a high end slalom ski with a short radius, get in the backseat and it’s over.

I’m running 10psi back and 8psi front, reduced the front to 6-7 psi to see if handling improved, but there was no significant change. The quirky front end handling was also present at low pressures when I was riding in mixed conditions. Handling appears to settle down on loose surfaces, sand, snow, mud, quirkiness is most obvious on firm surfaces.

I may try running the tire backwards or not, I’ll probably ride it and see if I get used to it, though I’m already contemplating a retry with the Minions 

It is a burly tire and is supportive at low pressures, sticky rubber too. I’d be curious to see how it rides on a wider rim; mine are mounted on Duroc 50.

I have no complaints with the Crown Gem as a rear tire, so now the question is what tire up front to improve grip/carving? That’s why I was thinking g Minion.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Well, I pulled the front Crown Gem, reinstalled the FBF, hit a couple rides in, feels pretty good though the FBF is a bit of a brick, but the tracking and handling are solid.

The BFat Crown Gem makes a good rear tire, solid traction in a variety of conditions, not bouncy or “rubbery”, seems to be pretty durable. I would not use the Crown Gem as a front tire, the steering is kinda scary, really.

So, got two, keeping one for the rear, selling the extra, pm for deets.

Also got a set of Hodags in good condition and an 120tpi FBR that’s in good condition with one sidewall patch; runs tubeless fine.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Nurse Ben said:


> so now the question is what tire up front to improve grip/carving?


The answer is 4" Gnarwhal. The bummer is that you can't buy one in this moment.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

I'd try one, FBF is kinda meh. When are they available? What tpi will they come in?



mikesee said:


> The answer is 4" Gnarwhal. The bummer is that you can't buy one in this moment.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

mikesee said:


> The answer is 4" Gnarwhal. The bummer is that you can't buy one in this moment.














Nurse Ben said:


> When are they available? What tpi will they come in?


GnarDag is 120tpi and availability is as follows:

West Coast: mid March 2018
East Coast: late March 2018

But, we got screwed before... so WTF knows...


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

120tpi? Hmmm, might be intetested after all, but gawd I’m becoming a tire whore. 

Will someone please help a guy out?

I’ve got a couple lovely little Hodags, fresh as a newborn chick... we’ll, they’re not that fresh, but they’re in good condition, no damage, lots of tread left.

Also got an FBR that’s in good shape other than a sidewall patch.

And of course I’m selling one of my Crown Gems. Kinda surprised no one has seized on it, nice rear tire, nice and grippy.

Also got a fresh Bluto 100mm fork with all the trimmings, just $350 shipped.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

Nurse Ben said:


> 120tpi? Hmmm, might be intetested after all...














Nurse Ben said:


> 120tpi? Hmmm, might be intetested after all, but gawd I'm becoming a tire whore.


becoming? you sure you were not already there?


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

So you already got one?

Looks nice, but not as knobby as I'd hoped, a little V to the pattern, curious if it'll auto steers. Once you get it mounted can you take a pic side by side with another tire, Hodag or similar?

At that weight I'll probably stick with an FBF front, Criwn Gem rear.

FYI: Hodag pair, $150 plus $15 shipping. Tires are fresh.
FBR with one patch, good condition, best offer or trade or ??
Crown Gem, $80 shipped



Rodney said:


> becoming? you sure you were not already there?


----------



## ChargeCookerMaxi (Oct 25, 2015)

Nurse Ben said:


> So you already got one?
> 
> Looks nice, but not as knobby as I'd hoped, a little V to the pattern, curious if it'll auto steers. Once you get it mounted can you take a pic side by side with another tire, Hodag or similar?
> 
> ...


Nopers, Rod does not have one. He stoled that picture from an article floating around the interwebbers.

I will be a nice guy and post the link 

https://www.bikerumor.com/2017/12/2...ew-27-5-fat-bike-tires-measure-up-against-26/


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Nurse Ben said:


> At that weight I'll probably stick with an FBF front, Crown Gem rear.


Why's that?


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

FBF is a known quantity, it's durable, fast, and holds an edge. My only complaint is weight. Do I want to spend s $100 to save 50gms? Not really. Now if I needed stud pockets, yeah, maybe.

The 3.8 Gnar is probably a really good tire, 120tpi should settle down the bounce, but it's in the same group as a Cakeater or Crown Gem. I was bummed that the Gem was so scary as s front tire, but as a rear tire it's a winner.

I didn't dislike the FBR, it ran me through a bunch of granite at high speeds, but after it holed I decided I needed a tougher tire cuz now I'm riding though a lot of open country with tons of baby head lava. The Hodags are very tough, never had an issue, but they're bouncy at speed on firm.



nitrousjunky said:


> Why's that?
> 
> View attachment 1182221


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Nurse Ben said:


> FBF is a known quantity, it's durable, fast, and holds an edge. My only complaint is weight. Do I want to spend s $100 to save 50gms? Not really. Now if I needed stud pockets, yeah, maybe.


Gotcha, I completely understand that.

I haven't ran a FBF myself yet. DHF is by far my favorite 29er tire, however I've heard several bad reports about the FBF. Seems like the compound isn't the best for wet east coast rocks & roots. However the FBF sounds like the perfect tire for your type terrain. 
The Bonty tire line has been great for me. Was running 26" Hodag rear and 26" Barbegazi front for well over a year. Currently have B Hodags and I'm pretty excited about a Hodag/Gnar combo in the near future.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

nitrousjunky said:


> however I've heard several bad reports about the FBF. Seems like the compound isn't the best for wet east coast rocks & roots.


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

Looking to do a second wheel set for my farley 9.6. I have gnarwhals on the stock wheels with a dt rear hub. Was thinking of going 65mm with the stock barbs for a summer wheel and i could use them for a couple races if the conditions dont need the gnarwhals. They are light, roll fast, the 65mm rim would round them more in the summer and lessen the self steer.... just not sure on nexties or trying to source some 65mm mulefats. Im thinking you have to buy full wheels from rocky.


----------



## david.p (Apr 11, 2011)

I gave up on trying to get 27.5x65mm rims and went with 80mm winter wheels and 50mm summer wheels with 3.8-4s. Rodney's thoughts on 65mm rims makes me think this is the right choice for where I ride.


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

david.p said:


> I gave up on trying to get 27.5x65mm rims and went with 80mm winter wheels and 50mm summer wheels with 3.8-4s. Rodney's thoughts on 65mm rims makes me think this is the right choice for where I ride.


If i was to go 50mm rims i would just go 29+ and ditch fat for summer all together. I kind of want a half way for winter speed and summer fat. My summer bike is a top fuel so this wouldnt be my main summer bike.


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

Ive decided im going to go with some 80mm carbons. Was riding yesterday and the gnarwhals are quite the chore on groomed double track, would be nice to switch from the gnarwhals for pow and ice to the barbs for groomed and races. Ill get more use out of them than i thought.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

solarplex said:


> If i was to go 50mm rims i would just go 29+ and ditch fat for summer all together.


i am not a 29+ fan. IMHO, for where i ride, 27.5x4 works better than 29x3, even w/ both on 50mm rims. YMMV.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

4.5" Barbes are not going to be all that different from a 4.5 Gnar, same casing dontcha know, so you might get a slightly faster rolling tire, but not a tire thay is much good for anything other than soft surfaces. I got a set of Barbes on Jackalopes now, trust me, they are not all around tires.

What Rodney is saying is that the 50mm rims would be for B Fat, which is ~ the ideal rim width for a 3.5" tire.

Half way between your Top Fuel and 4.5 tires is B Fat.



solarplex said:


> If i was to go 50mm rims i would just go 29+ and ditch fat for summer all together. I kind of want a half way for winter speed and summer fat. My summer bike is a top fuel so this wouldnt be my main summer bike.


----------



## Way2ManyBikes (Aug 24, 2011)

solarplex said:


> Looking to do a second wheel set for my farley 9.6. I have gnarwhals on the stock wheels with a dt rear hub. Was thinking of going 65mm with the stock barbs for a summer wheel and i could use them for a couple races if the conditions dont need the gnarwhals. They are light, roll fast, the 65mm rim would round them more in the summer and lessen the self steer.... just not sure on nexties or trying to source some 65mm mulefats. Im thinking you have to buy full wheels from rocky.


I have a set of 27.5+ WTB Scraper rims wheels on my Farley and love them. I am also running the 3.5 Fat B Nimble and to be honest they are really only 3" wide at best. But man are they a fast fun combo.

My buddy also has the same combo on his Farley and loves the 27.5+ just as much as I do.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Nurse Ben said:


> 4.5" Barbes are not going to be all that different from a 4.5 Gnar, same casing dontcha know, so you might get a slightly faster rolling tire, but not a tire thay is much good for anything other than soft surfaces. I got a set of Barbes on Jackalopes now, trust me, they are not all around tires.
> 
> What Rodney is saying is that the 50mm rims would be for B Fat, which is ~ the ideal rim width for a 3.5" tire.
> 
> Half way between your Top Fuel and 4.5 tires is B Fat.


I have to disagree with you Ben. I think a set of Barbis on 65mm rims would be a great setup for packed snow riding/racing, as well as for non snow riding. The Barbis are the same weight or lighter than all of the 27.5x3.8 options and roll great, and stll allow silly low pressures when needed. They would also keep the BB height the same as stock. A 27.5x3.8 setup on 50mm won't be much faster(depending on tires of course) and will lower the BB which may be an issue. A 29+ setup would be a great summer setup, faster and lighter, but not really usable for snow riding.


----------



## tmbrown (Jun 9, 2007)

bikeny said:


> I have to disagree with you Ben. I think a set of Barbis on 65mm rims would be a great setup for packed snow riding/racing, as well as for non snow riding. The Barbis are the same weight or lighter than all of the 27.5x3.8 options and roll great, and stll allow silly low pressures when needed. They would also keep the BB height the same as stock. A 27.5x3.8 setup on 50mm won't be much faster(depending on tires of course) and will lower the BB which may be an issue. A 29+ setup would be a great summer setup, faster and lighter, but not really usable for snow riding.


^^^+ 1
Yeah the Barb's are fast rollers, unlike the Gnarwhal's, I'm also looking for another set of wheel's&#8230;


----------



## 14EVOHT (Jan 21, 2014)

tmbrown said:


> ^^^+ 1
> Yeah the Barb's are fast rollers, unlike the Gnarwhal's, I'm also looking for another set of wheel's&#8230;


I have a new takeoff wheelset from 2018 Farley 5 I would sell, they were taped at the dealer and have stems. The rear has the Shimano 10/11 driver, but Bontrager does sell an XD driver for this hub (part # W330365). I'm located in Michigan, send me a PM if interested.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Wheels are sold


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Nurse Ben- Now that the Crown Gem has had some time to stretch, can you give us some updated numbers?


----------



## CrLapp (Sep 13, 2017)

I am looking into up grading my stock farley 9 wheels. I have read a lot on this forum about guys running 27.5 x 50mm wheels with 3.8 tires. I will probably get my local shop to build them. What rims are people running? Also would you recommend switching to 29+ instead. I live in eastern Pennsylvania and mostly ride rocky single track with the occasional snow ride in the winter. Does anybody run 27.5x 3 on a fat bike or would that drop the bb to low. I am in the process of switching my bluto from 100mm to 120mm.


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

CrLapp said:


> I am looking into up grading my stock farley 9 wheels. I have read a lot on this forum about guys running 27.5 x 50mm wheels with 3.8 tires. I will probably get my local shop to build them. What rims are people running? Also would you recommend switching to 29+ instead. I live in eastern Pennsylvania and mostly ride rocky single track with the occasional snow ride in the winter. Does anybody run 27.5x 3 on a fat bike or would that drop the bb to low. I am in the process of switching my bluto from 100mm to 120mm.


I run 50 mm Nextie rims. I have run 27.5 x 3.0 Dirt Wizard tires and loved them. I did not notice the lower BB at all. Last year I ran 3.8 Hodags and was surprised how well they worked, so much so that I didn't mount the DWs. If I lived in CO or CA I might go with 29+ but for me living in the east I think 27.5 is more responsive.


----------



## LargeMan (May 20, 2017)

I used the 27.5 x 3.8 over the last few months and hate it. Everyone seems to really like the setup, but it is not for me. Dropped some serious coin going that route and it has been one of the most disappointing changes I have done. Switched to 26 x 4.8 and love the bike now. 

Anyone else experience that?


----------



## Swerny (Apr 1, 2004)

LargeMan said:


> I used the 27.5 x 3.8 over the last few months and hate it. Everyone seems to really like the setup, but it is not for me. Dropped some serious coin going that route and it has been one of the most disappointing changes I have done. Switched to 26 x 4.8 and love the bike now.
> 
> Anyone else experience that?


i think you need to elaborate on what surface and what type of riding.

If you're saying for deep snow, then sure that makes sense.


----------



## LargeMan (May 20, 2017)

No snow, eastcoast singletrack. I am almost 2 mph faster on each ride since switching.


----------



## david.p (Apr 11, 2011)

Well there are likely a bunch of factors at play besides the wheel size. East coast weather has varied a lot over the past few months and trail conditions now are not what they have been. Also what tires on each wheelset?


----------



## LargeMan (May 20, 2017)

david.p said:


> Well there are likely a bunch of factors at play besides the wheel size. East coast weather has varied a lot over the past few months and trail conditions now are not what they have been. Also what tires on each wheelset?


Maxxis DHF,DHR vs Jumbo Jim , the main issue was suppleness and rollover. The 27.5 felt like it got stuck on everything but the JJ just roll over the same trail.


----------



## Espen W (Feb 4, 2012)

LargeMan said:


> Maxxis DHF,DHR vs Jumbo Jim , the main issue was suppleness and rollover. The 27.5 felt like it got stuck on everything but the JJ just roll over the same trail.


JJs have very low rolling resistance: https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/fat-bike-reviews/schwalbe-jumbo-jim-liteskin-2016

Close to MTB racing tires on hardpack and (very) likely better than them on softer/bumpier stuff.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

LargeMan said:


> Maxxis DHF,DHR vs Jumbo Jim , the main issue was suppleness and rollover. The 27.5 felt like it got stuck on everything but the JJ just roll over the same trail.


You do realize you're comparing probably the slowest 27 Fat tire to the fastest 26 fat tire, right? 27 fat is obviously not for everyone, but that's really not a fair comparison.

I'd also like to hear what exactly you didn't like about them. Also, what rims and pressures were you using for each setup?


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

LargeMan said:


> Maxxis DHF,DHR vs Jumbo Jim , the main issue was suppleness and rollover.


No wonder you like the 26" setup better then. You should have tried some 27.5 Hodag tires.


----------



## LargeMan (May 20, 2017)

nitrousjunky said:


> No wonder you like the 26" setup better then. You should have tried some 27.5 Hodag tires.


No offense, but cannot use any TREK product.


----------



## david.p (Apr 11, 2011)

LargeMan said:


> No offense, but cannot use any TREK product.


Oh, well that eliminates half the current B-fat tire options right there.

I'd suggest the Terrene Cake Eater if you want something more supple.


----------



## amadkins (Jun 19, 2008)

LargeMan said:


> No offense, but cannot use any TREK product.


Just curious; why is that?


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Because some people see the world in black and white, other's see shades of grey.

It's his choice, no reason to beleaguer him; his loss too 



amadkins said:


> Just curious; why is that?


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

Nurse Ben said:


> 4.5" Barbes are not going to be all that different from a 4.5 Gnar, same casing dontcha know, so you might get a slightly faster rolling tire, but not a tire thay is much good for anything other than soft surfaces. I got a set of Barbes on Jackalopes now, trust me, they are not all around tires.
> 
> What Rodney is saying is that the 50mm rims would be for B Fat, which is ~ the ideal rim width for a 3.5" tire.
> 
> Half way between your Top Fuel and 4.5 tires is B Fat.


340g per tire heavier. Same casing but those big spaced out knobs will for sure drag more than the smaller tighter ones.

My gnarwhals are studded too, so not going to use them other than winter anyways


----------



## Rumblefish2010 (Mar 29, 2012)

LargeMan said:


> I used the 27.5 x 3.8 over the last few months and hate it. Everyone seems to really like the setup, but it is not for me. Dropped some serious coin going that route and it has been one of the most disappointing changes I have done. Switched to 26 x 4.8 and love the bike now.
> 
> Anyone else experience that?


Almost same experience for me. My experience with B-Fat (only tried Hodags and Minions, but consider other tires in same category to be in the same size range), is that they need as wide rim (tried 80mm Nexties) as possible to be considered useful on soft snow, even then it was not useful for me on snow. 
For rocky terrain/ hard ice surface it is the opposite, you need to go narrower, to avvoid rim strike. I found 50mm Nextie rims to be a good width, you might go even down to 40mm? 
For me it is better also to go for 26" wider tires, and to use 3" Plus tires on hard surface.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

...and i am excited again! just got my GnarDags from Mikesee. scaled em up, 1320 grams for both of them. #wouldbangagain


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Nope. I used to have some 26 x 4.8 Minions, slow and heavy, okay for snow and mud, but crap for anything else. I ride 26" day in a variety of set ups, never felt fast or agile, and I would not consider them as a daily driver.

As for 27.5 x 3.8, had a bunch of set ups, no complaints, not a true sniwctire, but it also functions better on non snow surfaces than a 26 x 4. The biggest ahah moment for me was when I found myself choosing to ride dirt on my Wozo with the 27.5 x 3.8 wheelset over my Fatillac with 27.5 x 3".

My guess is you either misunderstood the purpose behind BFat; ie multi purpose, and need a snow tire or you don't ride fast enough to appreciate the difference. Either way, as long as you're riding happy, all is good.

We all make mistakes. I just bought and sold a 27.5 x 4.5 Jackalopes/Barbe/DT Swiss wheelset at a loss, only rode it a handful of times. I'd purchased it with plans to ride them more, but it's just now happening.



LargeMan said:


> I used the 27.5 x 3.8 over the last few months and hate it. Everyone seems to really like the setup, but it is not for me. Dropped some serious coin going that route and it has been one of the most disappointing changes I have done. Switched to 26 x 4.8 and love the bike now.
> 
> Anyone else experience that?


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Rodney said:


> scaled em up, 1320 grams for both of them.


Awesome, will be one of my next purchases!


----------



## dbauer (Jul 15, 2009)

*Gnarwahl*



Rodney said:


> ...and i am excited again! just got my GnarDags from Mikesee. scaled em up, 1320 grams for both of them. #wouldbangagain


Mikesee has these in stock? I need a set!


----------



## jonm1211 (Aug 29, 2017)

I need a low rolling resistance 27.5x4 tire. Most these treads look aggressive as hell. Cake eater? Currently have minions.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

dbauer said:


> Mikesee has these in stock? I need a set!


No idea if he has any left. Need em? Lace Mine 29 - Big Bicycle Wheels 



jonm1211 said:


> I need a low rolling resistance 27.5x4 tire. Most these treads look aggressive as hell. Cake eater? Currently have minions.


for lower rolling resistance bfat, i would say first and foremost, Hodag. Following the Hodag, the CakeEater.

Both the hodag and cakie have ~4mm center knob height. The Cakie has much larger edge knobs.

The Gnarwhal has ~6mm center knobs... :thumbsup:


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Front and rear?

The Minion FBF is a good tire, if you're running it now I'm not so sure you can do better. I ran a Minion FBF, Hodag and tried the Gem up front. Hodag was a good all around tire but kinda "bouncy", Gem was terrible up front due to autosteer, and the FBF was the fastest and best handling so I run it now.

In back I've run the Minion, Hodag, Gem. The Minion wasn't bad, but I found it to be a tad slow and fragile. The Hodag is a good tire, but again I found it bouncy. I'm running the Crown Gem, it's like a Hodag but more aggressive knobbies, 120tpi, not slow, good traction, sticky rubber. and so far quite durable.

Maybe start with the rear tire and see how it goes, you could get a Gem, Hodag, Cake or Gnar. All of these tires will probbaly roll faster than a FBR.



jonm1211 said:


> I need a low rolling resistance 27.5x4 tire. Most these treads look aggressive as hell. Cake eater? Currently have minions.


----------



## jonm1211 (Aug 29, 2017)

Yeah, FBR rear. I kind of deduced this to be the case. Thanks for your thoughts. I think to get a truly (and relatively) fast-rolling tire I may need to go 29+. Always an option, just $$$. 

By the way, people, don't get me wrong--I'm with ya--B fat is dope. Just planning on some pavement riding w/the fatty.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

jonm1211 said:


> B fat is dope. Just planning on some pavement riding w/the fatty.


wifey got a new bike, a mid fat. Yesterday, after work she wanted to ride it on the road/paved rail trail to get used to it.

i pumped up my Cakeeater 27.5x4 to 20 psi, and followed suit. although it clearly wasn't the most efficient setup, there were no issues whatsoever. #bFATRULES


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

To conclude that the Barbe is a good year round tire based in it's weight alone is to ignore the sheer size of this tire.

The Barbe and Gnar are high volume tires with not a lot of structure, they have more autosteer than a smaller tire and they bounce a fair bit. Before I owned s set, I was considering them for bike packing, but now I know better.

If someone considers the Snowshoe XXL a year round tire, then you'll feel the same way about the Barbe.



tmbrown said:


> ^^^+ 1
> Yeah the Barb's are fast rollers, unlike the Gnarwhal's, I'm also looking for another set of wheel's&#8230;


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

85mm casing, 90mm knobs
Duroc 50, ~8psi

Overall I'm really enjoying this tire, good traction on dirt and rock, predictable handling, and surprisingly good traction on snow.

Not a tire I'd run up front, but it's a gem out back. I'm running a Minion FBF in front.



nitrousjunky said:


> Nurse Ben- Now that the Crown Gem has had some time to stretch, can you give us some updated numbers?


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Nurse Ben said:


> The Barbe and Gnar are high volume tires with not a lot of structure, they have more autosteer than a smaller tire


"structure"?!

autosteer is a function of size + pressure. not just size. run *any* tire too low and it will autosteer.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

dbauer said:


> Mikesee has these in stock? I need a set!


Just got another batch in...


----------



## mohrgan (Sep 12, 2013)

Nurse Ben said:


> The Barbe and Gnar are high volume tires with not a lot of structure, they have more autosteer than a smaller tire and they bounce a fair bit. Before I owned s set, I was considering them for bike packing, but now I know better.


I disagree with your thoughts on this regarding use on snow. I have been using the Gnarwhal 4.5 for the last few weeks in many different types conditions and have not encountered any auto steer. Granted I've only run as low as 3 psi but if I run a Jumbo Jim or any other 26" tire at that pressure I always get auto steer. I have been very impressed with the Gnar in almost every scenario except deep, dry snow where I feel that Bud and Lou have a slight advantage.


----------



## tmbrown (Jun 9, 2007)

Nurse Ben said:


> The Barbe and Gnar are high volume tires with not a lot of structure, they have more autosteer than a smaller tire and they bounce a fair bit. Before I owned s set, I was considering them for bike packing, but now I know better.


I haven't noticed any autosteer traits from either tire, what I do notice; they tend to roll slower when under inflated&#8230;

I have a Gnar up front now with a Barb on the rear, I like this setup with changing trail conditions.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

We're not talking about snow, we're talking about NOT snow.

The Barbes definitely have some autosteer on dirt; at speed they can have a mind of their own, not as bad as some tires, but enough that I wouldn't consider them a year round tire.

They are certainly great tires for softer surfaces and they hit way above their size, super low weight and quite durable.



mohrgan said:


> I disagree with your thoughts on this regarding use on snow. I have been using the Gnarwhal 4.5 for the last few weeks in many different types conditions and have not encountered any auto steer. Granted I've only run as low as 3 psi but if I run a Jumbo Jim or any other 26" tire at that pressure I always get auto steer. I have been very impressed with the Gnar in almost every scenario except deep, dry snow where I feel that Bud and Lou have a slight advantage.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

They autosteer on hard surfaces at all pressures, somewhat worse at higher pressures, I played with pressures quite a bit.

I was thinking that the same tire with a thicker casing might be better, but then they'd weigh more.

Essentially what I'm saying is this is not a daily driver for year round use, which of course makes sense as there is limited need for such a tire in the summer unless you're riding sand or something boggy of some sort.

To each their own, in the summer I ride plus tires, but I have seen folks riding 4" tires on dirt in the summer, kinda crazy...



mikesee said:


> "structure"?!
> 
> autosteer is a function of size + pressure. not just size. run *any* tire too low and it will autosteer.


----------



## Back2MTB (Jun 4, 2014)

mohrgan said:


> I disagree with your thoughts on this regarding use on snow. I have been using the Gnarwhal 4.5 for the last few weeks in many different types conditions and have not encountered any auto steer. Granted I've only run as low as 3 psi but if I run a Jumbo Jim or any other 26" tire at that pressure I always get auto steer. I have been very impressed with the Gnar in almost every scenario except deep, dry snow where I feel that Bud and Lou have a slight advantage.


Gnarwhal doesn't self steer at all IME though my Hodag 3.8s sure do... We thought winter was over in my parts but now 8-12'' coming and with Gnarwhals Im a tiny bit happy.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Interesting, I had no self steer with Hodags, mainly ran them on dirt, found them a touch bouncy is all.



Back2MTB said:


> Gnarwhal doesn't self steer at all IME though my Hodag 3.8s sure do... We thought winter was over in my parts but now 8-12'' coming and with Gnarwhals Im a tiny bit happy.


----------



## Back2MTB (Jun 4, 2014)

On flat rock more than anything, off camber, uneven, pretty wild actually.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

LargeMan said:


> I used the 27.5 x 3.8 over the last few months and hate it. Everyone seems to really like the setup, but it is not for me. Dropped some serious coin going that route and it has been one of the most disappointing changes I have done. Switched to 26 x 4.8 and love the bike now.
> 
> Anyone else experience that?


that's odd, my experience has been the exact opposite. 27.5 Fat is noticeably faster than 26" and better for east coast rocks. I've come to hate 26" fat.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Gigantic said:


> that's odd, my experience has been the exact opposite. 27.5 Fat is noticeably faster than 26" and better for east coast rocks. I've come to hate 26" fat.


More or less my experience, too.

Still, to each their own. At least he tried it.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

For anyone who is B fat curious, I may have a set of wheels to sell. I sold off the frame that these were used on, and not sure if it will be replaced. They are DT Swiss 350 Big Ride hubs, 197 rear and 150 front, laced to Bontrager Jackalope 27.5x80mm rims, built to perfection by Mikesee. Wheels currently have Bontrager Barbegazi 27.5x4.5 tires mounted tubeless and without sealant, and they hold air for weeks! Wheel and one tire have about 30 miles on them, the other tire about 50 miles, so basically brand new. PM me if you're interested in them.


----------



## Back2MTB (Jun 4, 2014)

LargeMan said:


> I used the 27.5 x 3.8 over the last few months and hate it. Everyone seems to really like the setup, but it is not for me. Dropped some serious coin going that route and it has been one of the most disappointing changes I have done. Switched to 26 x 4.8 and love the bike now.
> 
> Anyone else experience that?


I'm looking for another set of 27.5 fat wheels if you are selling?


----------



## nowhereyonder (Nov 29, 2016)

Bump.

Recommended (spare) tube size for 3.8s on 50mm rims? Maxxis' tubes go up to 5.0 which seem very overkill.

Thanks.


----------



## burtronix (Jun 5, 2006)

nowhereyonder said:


> Bump.
> 
> Recommended (spare) tube size for 3.8s on 50mm rims? Maxxis' tubes go up to 5.0 which seem very overkill.
> 
> Thanks.


Yet another reason to go tubeless.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

nowhereyonder said:


> Bump.
> 
> Recommended (spare) tube size for 3.8s on 50mm rims? Maxxis' tubes go up to 5.0 which seem very overkill.
> 
> Thanks.


i use bontrager 26x2.5-2.8 and it works well.... https://www.evanscycles.com/bontrager-standard-26-x-2-5-2-8-inner-tube-presta-valve-EV168727


----------



## nowhereyonder (Nov 29, 2016)

burtronix said:


> Yet another reason to go tubeless.


They will be tubeless.

However, I would like to take two spares on a trip out to the middle of nowhere in case things go awry....


----------



## nowhereyonder (Nov 29, 2016)

dRjOn said:


> i use bontrager 26x2.5-2.8 and it works well.... https://www.evanscycles.com/bontrager-standard-26-x-2-5-2-8-inner-tube-presta-valve-EV168727


Perfect, thanks!


----------



## senor_mikey (Apr 25, 2009)

*new Lithic rim?*

got an email back from Otso that they were hoping to have a 70 mm Lithic rim in 27.5 this fall. Been waiting for something like this to use on my Ritchey Commando. Pretty sure a 27.5 4" wheel and tire will fit with at least a cm of clearance in all spots.

mike


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

senor_mikey said:


> got an email back from Otso that they were hoping to have a 70 mm Lithic rim in 27.5 this fall. Been waiting for something like this to use on my Ritchey Commando. Pretty sure a 27.5 4" wheel and tire will fit with at least a cm of clearance in all spots.
> 
> mike


Unless you're riding deep, soft snow full-time, I can't think of a reason to stick with 26".


----------



## senor_mikey (Apr 25, 2009)

mikesee said:


> Unless you're riding deep, soft snow full-time, I can't think of a reason to stick with 26".


No snow here in So Cal. My use is the desert canyons and washes in Anza Borrego and Death Valley.

mike


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

senor_mikey said:


> No snow here in So Cal. My use is the desert canyons and washes in Anza Borrego and Death Valley.
> 
> mike


Then you are well and truly on the right track.


----------



## Hobine (Jun 16, 2004)

So I just built up a set of 27.5 x 65 Nexties and shod them with 3.8” Hodags. 
I’m kind of shocked how dead and slow they feel. Even though my total wheel/tire combo is 1/2 pound lighter, I feel like I’m working a lot harder than with my former 26 x 4 Jumbo Jim’s. 

Any better riding 27.5 x 3.5 to 4.0 tire suggestions?


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

i found a hodag on the rear to be quite slow rolling. i wonder if breaking out a tyre cutter and doing some judicious trimming would work - it has an abudance of traction, so can afford to lose some in certain terrains...but i have not tried it yet...


----------



## farleybob (May 22, 2012)

I rolled a pair of 4.5 Barbie's across the state of Iowa, all on the road, for our annual RAGBRAI exursion. They rolled quite well! I think I had 12psi front and 15 rear to support my 200+ pounds. No self steer or other quirks. Obviously not what they were intended for but it was a fun week!


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

Got my 26 X 5'' for snow 

Got my 2.4'' for summer

650B ?
Yep , a good gimmick to make you buy new stuff all over again.
Last time I checked 650 is only 75mm more in circumference than 26......


----------



## Lars_D (May 24, 2011)

Hobine said:


> So I just built up a set of 27.5 x 65 Nexties and shod them with 3.8" Hodags.
> I'm kind of shocked how dead and slow they feel. Even though my total wheel/tire combo is 1/2 pound lighter, I feel like I'm working a lot harder than with my former 26 x 4 Jumbo Jim's.
> 
> Any better riding 27.5 x 3.5 to 4.0 tire suggestions?


Yeah. Nothing really compares to jj tires.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## mohrgan (Sep 12, 2013)

Lars_D said:


> Yeah. Nothing really compares to jj tires.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


I so want Schwalbe to make a Jumbo Jim in 27.5 somewhere in between a "3.8" and a "4.5". I run both 26 and 27.5 fat and absolutely love the JJ on dirt and sand. However, I hate being locked into limited options for the 27.5 platform.


----------



## hoboscratch (Apr 26, 2005)

My LBS said to expect a Vanhelga and Dillinger in 27.5 this winter. If true, there’s hope yet that there will be wider adoption across other manufacturers 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

hoboscratch said:


> My LBS said to expect a Vanhelga and Dillinger in 27.5 this winter. If true, there's hope yet that there will be wider adoption across other manufacturers
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Awesome! I emailed them a while back, asking for a 27.5 Vanhelga and they seemed interested in the idea at the time.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

hoboscratch said:


> My LBS said to expect a Vanhelga and Dillinger in 27.5 this winter.


that would be choice. I wanted a 27.5x4 vanhelga as soon as i tried all the other 27.5x4 tires... my current favorite is the fbf/fbr with 4 hours of siping added....


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

Hobine said:


> So I just built up a set of 27.5 x 65 Nexties and shod them with 3.8" Hodags.
> I'm kind of shocked how dead and slow they feel. Even though my total wheel/tire combo is 1/2 pound lighter, I feel like I'm working a lot harder than with my former 26 x 4 Jumbo Jim's.
> 
> Any better riding 27.5 x 3.5 to 4.0 tire suggestions?


Terrene cake eater. 120tpi and like a d4 close lug pattern down the middle with big turning knobs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

solarplex said:


> Terrene cake eater. 120tpi and like a d4 close lug pattern down the middle with big turning knobs.


gotta watch those, they are only good at 100psi and above. Anything less and they fall off the rim... 

*Kinda joking, but not really*... I didn't have luck with the bead staying put at anything less than 13psi.


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

Rodney said:


> gotta watch those, they are only good at 100psi and above. Anything less and they fall off the rim...
> 
> *Kinda joking, but not really*... I didn't have luck with the bead staying put at anything less than 13psi.


That "blows" good to know

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## in the trees (Mar 24, 2005)

I’ve had no problems with Cake Eaters 27.5 x 4.0 since very early spring. Running them on Dirt Components Porcupine rims. Forgot to check the rear tire pressure and rode about 8psi the other day and started to feel some rim strikes (oops!). No bead rolling though.


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

I really want to know why the F i cant get 65mm mulefuts. Looks like nextie black eagles it is. 

Barbs on the 65mms for summer and groomed races.

Studded Gnarwhals on the 80mm for winter trail riding.

Sucks switching tubeless tires in winter. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

solarplex said:


> I really want to know why the F i cant get 65mm mulefuts. ...


i have a set.... i christened them "unicorns" because they are rarely seen in the wild. 









even installed the unicorn rim strip...


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

5" johnny? vs the new 4.5"x27.5" cake eater

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

Hey everyone, I don't own a fat bike but can I ask how tall (diameter) a 26 x 4.0 measures? And if anyone has measured the diameter of a 27.5 x 4.0? I'm guessing they would be around 29 and 31 inches high, respectively, or is that off by a lot?


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

solarplex said:


> 5" johnny? vs the new 4.5"x27.5" cake eater


27.5x4.5 cake eater? haven't heard about that one yet...

it would hilarious if the above pic was the 27.5x4 cake eater...


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

Rodney said:


> 27.5x4.5 cake eater? haven't heard about that one yet...
> 
> it would hilarious if the above pic was the 27.5x4 cake eater...












No chuckles for you

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

solarplex said:


> No chuckles for you


darn, i really wanted some too...  I stand corrected on the 27.5x4.5 cakie. THanks for the pic.

I don't understand the Terrene tire line, is the wazia going away then?


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

richj8990 said:


> Hey everyone, I don't own a fat bike but can I ask how tall (diameter) a 26 x 4.0 measures? And if anyone has measured the diameter of a 27.5 x 4.0? I'm guessing they would be around 29 and 31 inches high, respectively, or is that off by a lot?


Most 27.5x4.0 tires are coming in around 29.5". If I remember correctly, my 26x3.8" Hodag was 29.125" on 80mm Mulefut.


----------



## Jefflinde (Mar 26, 2015)

Dillinger 4 and vanhelga have been announced in 27.5. Info on their website


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Jefflinde said:


> Dillinger 4 and vanhelga have been announced in 27.5. Info on their website


Finally!! Been hoping they Vanhelga would make it to the 27.5 size.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

Jefflinde said:


> vanhelga have been announced in 27.5. Info on their website


yay!


----------



## redwarrior (Apr 12, 2007)

I'm excited about this wheel size! I've been off my bikes for a couple of years due to loss of passion from injuries, life changes, etc. Last injury was herniated L4 & L5 discs which had a tendency to make life hell after a good ride. I really like the cushy feel of my 2016 Spec Fatboy but it weighs a lot & the 4.6 tires are overkill for non-snow riding. I was looking at 29+ offerings but am not sure a 3.0 tire will provide the softer ride I'm looking for. Enter 27.5x4ish. I'm really thinking about building a bike around a 27.5 wheelset with 50mm or 65mm rims. Been looking at the CL197 frameset & it *almost* fits the bill. I'd really like the ability to run an EBB so I can run singlespeed but I haven't really looked into other frames at this point. Been riding primarily SS since 2007 so if I could keep that option open, it would be great. On the other hand, the geo & price of the CL197 are perfect. Think I'd end up running a 10sp set up with 32T chainring & an 11-36 cassette. This will be a project for winter so I've got a lot of research to do!


----------



## fewg8 (Oct 25, 2013)

Hodag on i40 rim for front for summer setup? Any thoughts?


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

fewg8 said:


> Hodag on i40 rim for front for summer setup? Any thoughts?


imho, it would not be ideal. if given a choice, i would not run a 3.8/4" tire on anything thinner than a 45mm internal hoop.


----------



## fewg8 (Oct 25, 2013)

That's what I keep reading. Have a spare front wheel laying around and thought I might experiment if I come across a used hodag


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

fewg8 said:


> That's what I keep reading. Have a spare front wheel laying around and thought I might experiment if I come across a used hodag


No harm in experimenting. IMO 45 to 50mm internal is ideal for summer use.


----------



## Mk3Rider (Dec 7, 2008)

Those vanhelga's are gonna look nice on my blue Suzi q this winter!


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

Mk3Rider said:


> Those vanhelga's are gonna look nice on my blue Suzi q this winter!


Ill trade you some barbergazis 4.5" hahah...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

I am loving the 27.5x3.8 vanhelga! The only problem with it is I need one for the back now...


----------



## Mk3Rider (Dec 7, 2008)

Barbagazis are marginal for loose snow. I run them in the 4.7 version on my 907. Vanhelga's just flat out work well. Granted they are no bud and Lou. They are one of the best 4" tires out there for snow. Can't wait for the snow to fly so I can mount them up.



solarplex said:


> Ill trade you some barbergazis 4.5" hahah...
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SoFat (Dec 22, 2016)

solarplex said:


> 5" johnny? vs the new 4.5"x27.5" cake eater
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Any measurements on that 27.5 x 4.5 cake eater?


----------



## Hobine (Jun 16, 2004)

Rodney said:


> I am loving the 27.5x3.8 vanhelga! The only problem with it is I need one for the back now...


Be sure to check for clearance in the back first. The 27.5x4.0 Vanhelga doesn't fit in the back of my Mutz. It's taller than the Hodag and Minion 27.5 x 3.8s.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

Hobine said:


> Be sure to check for clearance in the back first. The 27.5x4.0 Vanhelga doesn't fit in the back of my Mutz. It's taller than the Hodag and Minion 27.5 x 3.8s.


not what i needed to hear... :O I did notice it was much taller, as i have hodag/minions mounted up on other rims. #ohnoes


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Hobine said:


> Be sure to check for clearance in the back first. The 27.5x4.0 Vanhelga doesn't fit in the back of my Mutz. It's taller than the Hodag and Minion 27.5 x 3.8s.


How much taller than the Hodag? By chance have an actual measurement? I'm curious if I can fit it in my B+ Magnum or not.


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

What would be the benefit of going to a hodag from a barbergazi for fall riding? Barb is just as light. Would it be better handling? Rougher? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

nitrousjunky said:


> How much taller than the Hodag? By chance have an actual measurement?


i can get a measurement in a few hours. what is the best way to do this?

i have VH, hodag, fbf, and fbr here all mounted on 50's.



solarplex said:


> What would be the benefit of going to a hodag from a barbergazi for fall riding?


the barbie is just a big hodag. I would think if you swapped to a VH or gnarwhal, your braking would be better on leaf cover. well, that is what i do.


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Rodney said:


> i can get a measurement in a few hours. what is the best way to do this?
> 
> i have VH, hodag, fbf, and fbr here all mounted on 50's.


I always put a carpenter's framing level across the center of the tire and measure floor to the bottom of the level. You also can use a ruler or such against a wall and eyeball it level, then measure with tape or yard stick.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

okie, done. i did my best to level and square the wheels to the floor. all of them measured in the same spot. all tires mounted on 27.5x50mm rims. various inflation pressures from 10 to 13 psi.

*VanHelga was 30 3/8"
*
*every other 27.5x3.8* i have (FBF, FBR, Hodag, Cakeeater & Gnarwhal) measured *29 1/2"* , give or take.

so, 27.5 vanhelga is *almost* and inch taller... 

i measured the FBR on the rear of my fatillac, and on the top arch (the smallest clearance area measured) i have exactly 1/2" of clearance. SO the VH will probably hit.... :madman: :madmax:

*sorry, no pics. i did not have 3 hands, otherwise i would have taken pics... *


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Yep, the VanHelga isn't fitting in this fork!! :madman:
I had a feeling it might be bigger, that's the only reason I hadn't ordered one. Now I need to decide how badly I want a VanHelga for the front.

My Hodag measures exactly 29.5 as well.


----------



## Hobine (Jun 16, 2004)

The VH fits in the Fox 34 on 65mm external rims. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mohrgan (Sep 12, 2013)

Maybe the Van Helga might actually be a 4.0" tire on 80mm rims?


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

Hobine said:


> The VH fits in the Fox 34 on 65mm external rims.


i would think it would be too tall for a Fox 34... must be no mud clearance, correct? you are definitely referring to the 27.5x3.8 VH? you have a pic?



mohrgan said:


> Maybe the Van Helga might actually be a 4.0" tire on 80mm rims?


doubt it, width is the same as every other 27.5x3.8~4 tire. 3.6xx" on a 50mm rim.


----------



## Hobine (Jun 16, 2004)

Rodney said:


> i would think it would be too tall for a Fox 34... must be no mud clearance, correct? you are definitely referring to the 27.5x3.8 VH? you have a pic?
> 
> doubt it, width is the same as every other 27.5x3.8~4 tire. 3.6xx" on a 50mm rim.


Yes I'm referring to the 27.5 x 4.0 VH on the Fox 34. Mounted to a 65mm Nextie rim there's more than 1/4" to the arch. Would be tighter with a 50mm rim. Rode today in plenty of mud without issue. 
On the 65mm rim, I get 3.65" wide at 9psi.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

ok, cool! 



Hobine said:


> On the 65mm rim, I get 3.65" wide at 9psi.


the nexties have slightly less ID than the mulefut 65's. i was able to squeak 3.7x" out of the 27.5x3.8's vs my nexties.


----------



## zebster (Nov 16, 2016)

Need some advice for a well rolling studded tire for Farley with 27.5" Jackalope rims. 

Last winter I had a studded Gnarwhal in rear but found it very slow rolling as compared to Hodag. There is a place for Gnarwhal but it is absolutely not for me. Since Farley is my one and only bike, I use it also to ride to work every day, throughout the year. Partially trails, partially pavement covered with ice. And now that our company moved, my everyday trip to work is longer than before. So Gnarwhal is very much out of the question.

Hodag is the best tyre I have experienced so far, very low rolling resistance. Seasons outside winter snow conditions, those are my 1st choice. I am extremely happy with them. I also have Minion FBFs and have a self made studded version of it in front and plan to continue with that but only in front.

So I have basically two studded options for winter (as a rear tire): Terrene Cake Eater 27.5x4 or Dillinger 4 (also 27.5"). Both are available here in Finland. Comparing these two, which one has lower rolling resistance? Both are very expensive so would like to hear your opinion before buying one.

I am not riding deep snow but find myself very often also in trails with varying snow conditions. But, the rolling resistance is now the most important. If I could get close to rolling resistance of Hodag, that would be great .


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

zebster said:


> Need some advice for a well rolling studded tire for Farley with 27.5" Jackalope rims.
> 
> So I have basically two studded options for winter (as a rear tire): Terrene Cake Eater 27.5x4 or Dillinger 4 (also 27.5"). Both are available here in Finland. Comparing these two, which one has lower rolling resistance? Both are very expensive so would like to hear your opinion before buying one.


given those two options, I would recommend the Dillinger 4. The Dillinger is the best all round tire, you cannot go wrong with them. :thumbsup:

I cannot recommend the Cake Eater, specifically the 27.5x4, as the tire is just a piece of garbage. I had three of them, and all the same issues (poor bead retention and growing under pressure). Maybe i got early production runs, but i could not recommend the Cake Eater especially compared to a proven winter performer like the Dillinger.

Good luck!


----------



## zebster (Nov 16, 2016)

Rodney said:


> given those two options, I would recommend the Dillinger 4. The Dillinger is the best all round tire, you cannot go wrong with them. :thumbsup:
> 
> I cannot recommend the Cake Eater, specifically the 27.5x4, as the tire is just a piece of garbage. I had three of them, and all the same issues (poor bead retention and growing under pressure). Maybe i got early production runs, but i could not recommend the Cake Eater especially compared to a proven winter performer like the Dillinger.
> 
> Good luck!


Thank you very much Rodney for your sharing your experience 

Will get the Dillinger 4, I dont want to get into same trouble as you with the Cake Eater. Safe and good, that is what I value.


----------



## david.p (Apr 11, 2011)

Just to provide another data point - I ran a Caker Eater studded on the rear of my bike last year and had no trouble with bead retention or burping even at sidewall wrinkling pressures (Jackalope 80mm rim).

After the snow left I picked up a Gnarwhal 3.8 for this coming winter but only because I wanted more drive traction.

I de-studded the Cake Eater and moved it to a 50mm rim with pressures from 7-10psi for spring riding and after spending most of the summer on 29x3 wheels, the Cake Eaters and 50mm rims are back on the bike now.

I haven't run the Dillingers so can't compare them, but I wouldn't hesitate to run the Cake Eaters in winter again if I wanted less rolling resistance than the Gnarwal.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

david.p said:


> Just to provide another data point...
> 
> ...I wouldn't hesitate to run the Cake Eaters in winter again if I wanted less rolling resistance than the Gnarwal.


Agreed completely. I love the Gnar's but sometimes you need a faster rolling tire. CE's are great tires.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

david.p said:


> Just to provide another data point - I ran a Caker Eater studded on the rear of my bike last year and had no trouble with bead retention or burping


when i got mine, a year ago, i posted up my issues. others reported the same thing. most likely they had issues with the early production runs.

the lackluster, no care attitude from Terrene is what soured my opinion of the brand. I had them on nexties, scrapers, and a few different width mulefuts, all with the same end result. They blamed the mulefuts, saying they were not in tolerance and were known to have issues blah blah.... I then contacted the local Terrene rep, met with him and brought a bunch of wheels with me. I showed him first hand the issues, and he gave me a contact at Terrene. Never got a response despite multiple attempts. so, imho, Terrene is a sh!t company.


----------



## mohrgan (Sep 12, 2013)

Rodney said:


> I then contacted the local Terrene rep, met with him and brought a bunch of wheels with me. I showed him first hand the issues, and he gave me a contact at Terrene. Never got a response despite multiple attempts. so, imho, Terrene is a sh!t company.


This blows my mind...you met with a Terrene Rep...and then he gave you a contact at Terrene. The rep should've been all over your issue and handled everything him/herself. That IS poor customer service.


----------



## Mk3Rider (Dec 7, 2008)

I was planning on putting 27.5 x 3.8 gnarwals on this bike, but couldn't find any in stock at the time. 45N came through with the wonder Vanhelga's. These are set up toobless with stans on mulefute 65's. I might be looking into some carbon 80mm rims in the future for a second wheelset.

Copying this over from the Suzi Q thread

Did a 10 mile test ride tonight with the vanhelga's. Maybe an inch of snow on a kinda frozen ground. Wish I ran more pressure tonight as I felt slow. Keep in mind the trail/ground is soft also. Everything works as advertised. The tires are taller than the minion fbf so you tend to run a gear higher on the cassette. Traction is excellent and am looking forward to a decent snowfall now. I will put another 15-20 miles on tomorrow in some colder weather and report back.

I started 10psi front 15 psi rear at 70f inside. Temp was 21f while riding. My guess is they dropped 3-5 psi in the cold. Not as much volume as the 26x4.7s I am use to running.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Mk3Rider said:


> I was planning on putting 27.5 x 3.8 gnarwals on this bike, but couldn't find any in stock at the time.


Dohp. I've had them in stock continuously since last winter...

New VH's look very good indeed, but their lack of stud pockets will keep Gnarwhals on my bike all winter.


----------



## Willum (Sep 2, 2012)

What’s the fattest 27.5 rim? Largest advertised width I’m finding is Nextie at 85mm, they don’t specify if that’s internal or external.


----------



## AKCheesehead (Apr 30, 2008)

Willum said:


> What's the fattest 27.5 rim? Largest advertised width I'm finding is Nextie at 85mm, they don't specify if that's internal or external.


The new Enve rims are the widest at 94mm external 85mm internal..


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

AKCheesehead said:


> The new Enve rims are the widest at 94mm external 85mm internal..


they also require the widest wallet to purchase too...


----------



## Jaker (Jan 27, 2004)

Between the 27.5 hodag and the 27.5 vanhelga what is a better overall summer tire?

Any appreciable difference between the 60 tpi vs 120 in the vanhelga?


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

Jaker said:


> Between the 27.5 hodag and the 27.5 vanhelga what is a better overall summer tire?
> 
> Any appreciable difference between the 60 tpi vs 120 in the vanhelga?


hodag would be better rolling and it has a thinner sidewall than the VH. Personally, i get a flat every ride with a hodag, so it is VH for me. you have to make sure you have clearace for the VH, as it is almost an inch taller then every other 27.5x3.8/4 out there.

regarding the 60 vs 120 tpi, i have not had the 60 in my possession, so i cannot comment accurately.


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Jaker said:


> Between the 27.5 hodag and the 27.5 vanhelga what is a better overall summer tire?
> 
> Any appreciable difference between the 60 tpi vs 120 in the vanhelga?


Terrain dependent, but for western NC..... Hodag all day long. Then I'd throw the VH on when the leaves start falling (if you have a fork it would fit in).


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Rodney said:


> hodag would be better rolling and it has a thinner sidewall than the VH. Personally, i get a flat every ride with a hodag


JRA on crushed limestone rail trail, right?!


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

mikesee said:


> JRA on crushed limestone rail trail, right?!


no, i usually ride on down feathers...


----------



## Back2MTB (Jun 4, 2014)

Hodag on toothy rocky trails is a liability for me too, seems like a smooth, snow or sand tire IMO.


----------



## Bentpushrod (Nov 8, 2015)

Just a heads up. Modern Bike has a sale going on 45NRTH tires. Just placed an order for some D4’s 60 tpi studded in 27.5x4 for $128 a tire. The 120 tpi are going for $168 a tire.
Going to run these on 80mm Jackalope’s on my Fatboy.


----------



## mxer (May 27, 2006)

Hobine said:


> Yes I'm referring to the 27.5 x 4.0 VH on the Fox 34. Mounted to a 65mm Nextie rim there's more than 1/4" to the arch. Would be tighter with a 50mm rim. Rode today in plenty of mud without issue.
> On the 65mm rim, I get 3.65" wide at 9psi.


This is good news! Should clear the crown at full compression also. Will need to order one for my factory 34 and my factory 36. Thanks for the pic!


----------



## PCT (Jun 29, 2009)

Comments/reviews on 27.5 VanHelga vs. FBF etc.? Sounds like it's about the same width as all the other 3.8's. The 26x4 VanHelga is a great tire so interested to hear how the 27.5 version performs.

Currently running FBF 27.5x3.8 on 50mm rim with Fox 34 27.5 Boost Plus fork. Want a little more float in the front but from the numbers all the wider (4.5-ish) options are too tall.


----------



## Mk3Rider (Dec 7, 2008)

Here is a limited review for the Vanhelga vs FBF:

- Suzi q -70 on 65mm mulefuts. Tubeless both sets of tires.

The FBF is a decent tire for dirt, though the ride is a bit harsh on a carbon bike. The sidewall is much firmer that the 45N tire. I have no real complaints about the tire for 3 season use and will be going back on the bike in the spring. It is a solid tire for general use.

The Vanhelga 120 TPI tire feels great so far on the lightly snow covered river bottoms. The sidewalls flex nicely and soaks the small bumps with ease. The width of the tire on 65's is the same as the FBF's ~3.65" at the widest. The thing to note w/ the VH is the tire is much taller that the FBF. This slows down acceleration of the wheel and does not feel as lively. It also has a nice round profile on a 65mm rim.

I will be using the Vanhelgas for a snow tire for the next 4-5 months here in MN for hard pack to loose trails when wanting to go a little faster. Trail blazing will be with the 2xl tires on a Mayor. And general fatbike fun will be on a 9:zero:7 w/ babagazis.



PCT said:


> Comments/reviews on 27.5 VanHelga vs. FBF etc.? Sounds like it's about the same width as all the other 3.8's. The 26x4 VanHelga is a great tire so interested to hear how the 27.5 version performs.
> 
> Currently running FBF 27.5x3.8 on 50mm rim with Fox 34 27.5 Boost Plus fork. Want a little more float in the front but from the numbers all the wider (4.5-ish) options are too tall.


----------



## jerrduford (Sep 14, 2015)

Getting some 27.5 wheels for my ice cream truck today. Comes with 4.5 barbegazi which I'm psyched to try, but will probably want a second set of studded. I ran 26 wrathchild all last winter.

Any thoughts on cake eater 4.0 vs dillinger 4.0 vs cake eater 4.5? I like the idea of ce 27.5 x 4.5 "just because I can", I know it's monstrous but I generally like tall wheels and love 29+ on this bike. They're a bit taller yet than my chupacabra 29x3, so I hear.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

Looks like the new 27.5 Lithic rim is now available.

https://otsocycles.com/collections/lithic/products/lithic-rhyolite-27-5-aluminum-fat-rims


----------



## rushman3 (Jan 24, 2009)

Has anyone measured the Cake Eater 27.5 x 4.00 mounted?


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

bdundee said:


> Looks like the new 27.5 Lithic rim is now available.
> 
> https://otsocycles.com/collections/lithic/products/lithic-rhyolite-27-5-aluminum-fat-rims


THANK YOU!

I've been waiting and watching this thread since the first mention of 27 fat, for an alloy 65mm-ish rim. (That a manufacturer will actually sell to customers, that is.) Kind of wierd how Trek chose to initiate this whole thing in a cart-before-horse manner, but no matter now. Looking forwsrd to hearing some reviews, but i probably need to jump in anyway.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

rushman3 said:


> Has anyone measured the Cake Eater 27.5 x 4.00 mounted?


yeah a year ago... same width as all the other 27.6x3.8 (3.6" on a 50, 3.7" on a 65) and same OD (29.5") as the others, save for the most recent odd ducks from 45nrth (dillinger 4 and vanhelga).



bdundee said:


> Looks like the new 27.5 Lithic rim is now available.
> 
> https://otsocycles.com/collections/lithic/products/lithic-rhyolite-27-5-aluminum-fat-rims


sweet! i want! but i cannot think of a reason of why i need them, but i still want em...


----------



## mxer (May 27, 2006)

So are all the 3.8/4.0 tires coming in at 3.6-3.7?


----------



## Captain_America1976 (Mar 15, 2005)

mxer said:


> So are all the 3.8/4.0 tires coming in at 3.6-3.7?


The Vee Crown Gem comes up a little narrow for a 3.8. I will put a caliper on it tomorrow. I currently have them on Mulefut 80mm rims. I have VanHelgas and Barbagazi sitting here that I will try on that rim. I also have a new set of wheels being built that will have the Light Bicycle 75mm carbon rims. Once those are done I will ride going forward.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

So can someone recap the width of all of the current 27.5x3.8/4.0 tires? Sounds like all of the new tires are around the same width as the original Hodag, with the Van Helga being a good bit taller?

I've been very happy with my Hodags, but I wouldn't mind something a bit wider.


----------



## Jefflinde (Mar 26, 2015)

Sorry if this has been answered but does anyone know the weight of the new 27.5 Dillinger 4? either studded or un-studded. 

thank you.


----------



## CucMan (Dec 18, 2018)

I got 1380g and 1390g for mine - unstudded. Went through half dozen or so to get those. They were all fairly close, couple were a bit higher. Sort of a let-down as my CE's were 1335g average and I hoped these would be under that.

Have not mounted or studded them yet - waiting for a bit more user feedback.


----------



## d3ftone (Oct 20, 2015)

Does anyone know of a tire that's a little smaller than the crop of 27.5x3.8 tires, that will fit in the new Lyrik RC2/Yari fork? I think height-wise they're fine but a little too wide. Need something closer to 85-87mm I'm thinking. Will be running a Duro Crux 27.5x3.25 on the rear and wanted something a little bigger up front. Was also considering just running the Crux up front and a Vee Trax Fatty 27.5x3.25 on the rear, if I can't find something bigger that will fit up front. Front rim will be a Mulefut 50 and rear a Scraper i45. This is my first time dealing with fat tires and snow riding. I realize this combo is not ideal for snow but didn't want to go the full fat bike route, just want to swap in a different wheelset for winter. 

Thanks


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

bikeny said:


> So can someone recap the width of all of the current 27.5x3.8/4.0 tires? Sounds like all of the new tires are around the same width as the original Hodag, with the Van Helga being a good bit taller?
> 
> I've been very happy with my Hodags, but I wouldn't mind something a bit wider.


sorry, all the 27.5x3.8/4 tires are the same width. as mentioned earlier, the 45nrth variants are taller, but essentially the same width as every other one. the only step up is going to be the 4.5 barbie, gnarwhal etc.


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

Cole House (a fatbike racer from Green Bay) doesnt like 27.5”

Hes says 27.5 is close to a lb more per set than 26”...

dillinger 5 is 1518g studless
Dillinger 4 1275g studless
Dillinger 4 27.5” 1390g studless 
Wrathchilds are close to d5s 

Plus 60g for studs

So the 4 27.5 is lighter than a 5....

For sure its heavier than 4”x26 but it would for sure be. 

His other complaint is the short sidewalls are hinder the ability to ride low pressure for on snow. 

I ride 27.5x4.5”

Ive loved every aspect of it. My 4.5” tires float well, roll fast, there is next to no self steer vs 26” 

For sure there can be a weight penalty. But not really.

My 4.5 gnarwhals are 1525g studless

barbergazis are 1240g

So other than my wheels are a bit heavier really... 3.8 and 4.5 27.5 is lighter than or comparable to 26x4.6”

The one argument is tho on the side walls of 27.5x3.8”

26x3.8 thats closer to 4 for sure is lighter and would have larger sidewalls for lower pressure and float on snow. 

27.5x3.8 is measuring 3.5-3.7 and has short stiff side walls. It feels fast... like a mtb tire. 

Havent road 27.5x3.8 but i just got some and im pumped to try them out, going to be my summer set anyways



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Saskrider (Jun 30, 2016)

I've ridden 26 barbs beists and wrathchilds. 27.5 barbs, gnars and I just gave up the gnars for some D4s that should be here by the end of the week.

The studded 4.5 gnars are a great tire but my region just doesnt get the snow it used too. I I definetly could of kept riding them but find myself on more groomed or hardpack ice conditions that dont require the big paddle lugs of the gnars. I definitely dont need the float %99 percent of the time at 165 lbs. 

The gnars allowed me to pull away hard from my buddies on barbs that are crashing in all conditions. Would I want to race against some one on barbs in an all flat long distance event? No. They definetly take more work to turn but if you're okay with that they're like velcro.

Hoping the studded D4s provide the momentum and less braking effect that I miss when riding 4.5 barbs. The 4.5 gnars lost momentum in our pitchy single track soo fast it's like you're dragging an anchor.

I ride the exact trails as solarplex

Ride report soon


----------



## hoboscratch (Apr 26, 2005)

Saskrider said:


> Hoping the studded D4s provide the momentum and less braking effect that I miss when riding 4.5 barbs. The 4.5 gnars lost momentum in our pitchy single track soo fast it's like you're dragging an anchor.
> 
> Ride report soon


Yep, wish I hadn't invested in studded gnars last winter now that the 27.5 D4s are out...

Like you I don't need the float most of the time here in MN but have plenty of ice the past few years

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

I had the chance to ride a Farley the other day with 27.5 x 4.7 tires on it.

There was zero excitement generated vs. my 26 x 4.6 tires.

Not sure what all the hub bub is about regarding 27.5 Fat.


----------



## Saskrider (Jun 30, 2016)

As some one who rides a 29er xc race bike all summer coming off 27.5 I could never go back. 27.5 just feels like a children's bike compared to a 29er. Same went for going 26" to 27.4 fat bike. Could never go back the 26 it just feels horrible after spending extended periods on a 27.5 bike. It's not about what other people say its about how it feels for you. 27.5 trail/xc and 26 fat is dead to me.

If you're a smaller guy it probabaly wont feel right.

Sold my 27.5 studded 4.5gnars for concave studded D4s. 1st test ride tonight on 2" of fresh fluff on packed groomed singletrack and they were just as fast as 4.5 barbs with zero braking effect. I do not miss the 4.5 gnarwhals in the conditions I ride. 


Just sold my 4.5 Barbs to get some 3.8 hodags for the summer. Looking forward to testing them out.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

Looks like Maxxis entered the 27.5x4.5 market with the Colossus...

Oem on the Giant Yukon
https://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/yukon-1


----------



## rushman3 (Jan 24, 2009)

Nice find, didn't know Giant made Fat bikes.

The specs on their carbon fork says fits up to 27.5 x 5.00 ? Are there 27.5 x 5.00 tires now?


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

rushman3 said:


> Nice find, didn't know Giant made Fat bikes.
> 
> The specs on their carbon fork says fits up to 27.5 x 5.00 ? Are there 27.5 x 5.00 tires now?


No, says fits up to a 5" so probably like the xxl vee

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## timsmcm (Dec 23, 2007)

I wonder how that big colossus tire will work?


----------



## mohrgan (Sep 12, 2013)

timsmcm said:


> I wonder how that big colossus tire will work?


Looks like small knobs like a Barbegazi.


----------



## david.p (Apr 11, 2011)

Here's a recent "review" that compares the 26" Colossus to Barbegazi in snow. He puts them between a Barbegazi and Bud/Lou in terms of rolling resistance and grip in snow (not terribly surprising) but does say they worked in 4-6" fresh snow.


----------



## telejefe (Mar 28, 2007)

Does anybody know if a 27.5x4.0 Vanhelga fits a Bluto fork? I am digging it in the rear and want it in the front too (I don't have the bluto yet - considering a used one)!


----------



## 650B-RUSH (Apr 13, 2010)

telejefe said:


> Does anybody know if a 27.5x4.0 Vanhelga fits a Bluto fork? I am digging it in the rear and want it in the front too (I don't have the bluto yet - considering a used one)!


I tried it with 80mm internal rims and it's really tight. There's only about 3mm to spare at the arch.


----------



## Saskrider (Jun 30, 2016)

650B-RUSH said:


> I tried it with 80mm internal rims and it's really tight. There's only about 3mm to spare at the arch.


By the sounds of that a D4 wouldnt fit either


----------



## 650B-RUSH (Apr 13, 2010)

Saskrider said:


> By the sounds of that a D4 wouldnt fit either


Yeah, I don't think an extra 2mm will be enough.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

telejefe said:


> Does anybody know if a 27.5x4.0 Vanhelga fits a Bluto fork?


works fine in reality. This past November, I installed a pair 27.5x4 VH on my buddies Wozo (which has a bluto). He has ~200 miles on them with no issues.



Saskrider said:


> By the sounds of that a D4 wouldnt fit either


no personal install experience with the D4, but in theory the D4 should have more clearance then the VH because of it's smaller knob height.


----------



## telejefe (Mar 28, 2007)

Thanks for posting that pic! Well - being that I have been stuffing big rubber in my bikes for the last few years... This does not look that bad, looks similar to my hodag in magnum fork. Might give it a go to see. Don't have the funds for a mastodon...also putting on a wozo.


----------



## telejefe (Mar 28, 2007)

*vanhelga*

Info sharing.

I have been running a Vanhelga on 50i hugo rim. It has been a much needed upgrade to the hodag for soft snow conditions. I also just built up (but not ridden till I change forks) a set of mulefut 80's.

On the hugo the tire feels okay, but I still need 8 psi even for soft snow in cold temps. The tire measures about 90mm casing and 93mm lugs.

On the muelfut 80 the tire has a lot more volume and measures at 97mm casing and maybe 96mm lugs.

Quite a bit more volume and now looks similar to my old nates and true fat tire. Look forward to riding and hoping for a wider sweet spot.

Here are a couple photos. Vanhelga on 50mm internal rim and 75mm internal rim. Also the 75mm rim and vanhelga comapred to a hodag on 50mm rim.














Sorry for the orientation. I rotated but insert keeps going back to the bad orientation.


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Thanks for those pics! Answers some questions I had on the VH and rim widths for my use.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

I just ordered up a pair of 27.5 Vanhelga to try out as a replacement for my hodags.

Ended up finding a great deal on the 120TPI version at REI. They are on sale right now for $92.93 each, and there is an extra 25% off on them right now, bringing the price down to $69.69 each! Free shipping, but I had to pay tax. I also found out I still had about $32.00 in dividends in my account!

Under $118 for 2 new high quality fat bike tires, can't beat that!


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

Bikeny, good job on the REI find. I just looked, and no 27.5 VH, only 26x4. I guess they sold out!


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Rodney said:


> Bikeny, good job on the REI find. I just looked, and no 27.5 VH, only 26x4. I guess they sold out!


That's a bummer they're gone already! I got a shipping confirmation so hopefully I'm good. And yes, specifies 27.5!


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

tires have arrived! Ordered Thursday, had them Monday, not bad! Only problem now is I'm in NY and the bike is in VT! I'll be back up this weekend though. I guess they didn't have many as they sold out quick.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

bikeny said:


> tires have arrived!


Those tires suck, you got ripped off... I feel bad, I will take them off your hands so you don't have to look at them every day as a reminder that you got bamboozled... 

seriously though, congrats. you got a wicked deal. :thumbsup:


----------



## Oylerz (Nov 16, 2018)

Great deal bikeny! I just bought some FBF/FBR 27.5x3.8 tires for my Farley. Got them for $90 CAD (approx. $67.50 USD), but if I could have got VanHelgas at that price I would have.

I'm running the FBF/FBRs as my summer dirt tires with the occasional commute on asphalt thrown in (when my gravel/road bike is in the shop) and I'm liking them so far. I just got the Farley last November and I've discovered why people who have Fat Bikes love them. I studded up the Gnarwahls that came on the Farley, but 4.5 studded tires are not fun to run when there is no ice or snow. The FBF/FBR will be adequate for me.


----------



## telejefe (Mar 28, 2007)

Anybody else notice the 27.5 Vanhelga is stamped 27.5x3.8? At least theyare on the pair I got from rei. No biggie to me. They measure 100mm at 8 psi on my mulefut 80’s. These are best fat tire I have ran for winter riding on Colorado’s front range. Just perfect.


----------



## rueger007 (Nov 2, 2007)

telejefe said:


> Anybody else notice the 27.5 Vanhelga is stamped 27.5x3.8? At least theyare on the pair I got from rei. No biggie to me. They measure 100mm at 8 psi on my mulefut 80's. These are best fat tire I have ran for winter riding on Colorado's front range. Just perfect.


hey telejefe are you running these 27.5 van Helgas on your xl Wozo with a Bluto?


----------



## telejefe (Mar 28, 2007)

rueger007 said:


> hey telejefe are you running these 27.5 van Helgas on your xl Wozo with a Bluto?


Hey. Yes in the rear. Dropouts back about 10mm less than held way back. Haven't ran in the front yet. No bluto - running a magnum. About to switch to a cheap renegade and they clear the vanhelga. Was running Hodag and the vanhelga is just great compared to that.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

telejefe said:


> Anybody else notice the 27.5 Vanhelga is stamped 27.5x3.8? At least theyare on the pair I got from rei. No biggie to me. They measure 100mm at 8 psi on my mulefut 80's. These are best fat tire I have ran for winter riding on Colorado's front range. Just perfect.


I haven't even unpacked mine yet! I know the package says 27.5x4.0, but haven't looked at the tire itself yet.

I'm not sure if I'm even going to mount then this season still, winter is coming to a fast end around these parts. I may mount the back one to make sure it fits though. That bike is going back to summer mode very soon, Fox suspension fork and 27.5x3.25 tires.

Good to see somebody else here took advantage on the REI sale!


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

bikeny said:


> I haven't even unpacked mine yet! I know the package says 27.5x4.0, but haven't looked at the tire itself yet.


correct, 27.5 Vanhelga package says 27.5x4, but the tire is stamped 27.5x3.8...

the tire is the same width as every other 27.5x3.8/4 tire, but is almost an inch taller than the rest making fitment difficult on many frames.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Rodney said:


> correct, 27.5 Vanhelga package says 27.5x4, but the tire is stamped 27.5x3.8...
> 
> the tire is the same width as every other 27.5x3.8/4 tire, but is almost an inch taller than the rest making fitment difficult on many frames.


I should be OK on the extra height as my frame has adjustable chainstays, we will see.


----------



## telejefe (Mar 28, 2007)

Rodney said:


> the tire is the same width as every other 27.5x3.8/4 tire, but is almost an inch taller than the rest making fitment difficult on many frames.


On Mulefut 80's it is much wider than the hodag. It is almost 4" wide (100mm at casing). On my hugos they are about the same width (around 90mm casing and 93 mm knobs)


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

telejefe said:


> On Mulefut 80's it is much wider than the hodag. It is almost 4" wide (100mm at casing). On my hugos they are about the same width (around 90mm casing and 93 mm knobs)


I'm running 65mm Nexties, which aren't much wider internally than Hugos. I'll get one mounted and see how it measures up.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

telejefe said:


> On Mulefut 80's it is much wider than the hodag. It is almost 4" wide (100mm at casing).


well, you are outside than the norm. didn't you have rim problems? I remember something about you posting with sealing issues or something.



bikeny said:


> I'm running 65mm Nexties, which aren't much wider internally than Hugos. I'll get one mounted and see how it measures up.


i have 27.5x50 (mulefut & scraper, 46mm internal), 65 (nextie 58mm internal & mulefut 60mm internal) and 80's (mulefut and jackalope 76mm internal). everyone of the 27.5x3.8/4" i had measured the same width on the same rims. Only the vanhelga bucked the trend with the taller OD. i measured 3.6" on 50, 3.7" on 65 and 3.8" on 80mm.

i did not purchase the 27.5x4 D5 yet, but i had the rest of the Bf4t tires.

fyi, the 26x4 vanhelga measure 4" on the nose on an 80mm rim.

i have posted up pics before, but my flickr account canned most of them. i have to find the pics and rehost... :madman:


----------



## telejefe (Mar 28, 2007)

Rodney said:


> well, you are outside than the norm. didn't you have rim problems? I remember something about you posting with sealing issues or something.... :madman:


Yep. Vanhelga held fine on Hugos. Looks like I got the bead to seal on Mulefut, but leak around the stem (assuming so - air coming out around cut outs near stem0 - getting about 20 minutes of ride in before pumping. Sucks. Hopefully, get fixed this weekend. This is my first experience with cutout rims - other than denting my hugos they were great with the hodags and would seat with a floor pump and a little message around the dents....

The biggest point is, this is the first time my bike has felt like a fat bike. The 27.5 Vanhelga on a mulefut is an actual fat tire.


----------



## Heavenknows (May 27, 2019)

Hey sorry for bump this guys 

Its ok to run 3.8 on 148 boost hubs? I would like to try these tires but im worried about stiffness

Thanks!


----------



## nowhereyonder (Nov 29, 2016)

Heavenknows said:


> Hey sorry for bump this guys
> 
> Its ok to run 3.8 on 148 boost hubs? I would like to try these tires but im worried about stiffness
> 
> Thanks!


What do you mean by "stiffness?" Can your frame take the extra width if designed around a boost hub?

I ran 3.8s on i45 rims on 135qr symmetrical fatbike, but I ran it with a shortened cassette- 8 cogs out of 11 with a stack of spacers. Worked fine, albeit not ideal.


----------



## Heavenknows (May 27, 2019)

nowhereyonder said:


> What do you mean by "stiffness?" Can your frame take the extra width if designed around a boost hub?
> 
> I ran 3.8s on i45 rims on 135qr symmetrical fatbike, but I ran it with a shortened cassette- 8 cogs out of 11 with a stack of spacers. Worked fine, albeit not ideal.


Lets be more simple

Its ok 3.8 on a 148 hub?


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

Heavenknows said:


> Lets be more simple
> 
> Its ok 3.8 on a 148 hub?


Ok, let's be even more simple.... A tire doesn't care what hub it is on. 

What you should be asking is will the 27.5x4 fir whatever 148 hubbed bike you are thinking about. And if the tire clears the frame, will the chainline work? Ie have clearance in 1st or 2nd gear?


----------



## Heavenknows (May 27, 2019)

Rodney said:


> Ok, let's be even more simple.... A tire doesn't care what hub it is on.
> 
> What you should be asking is will the 27.5x4 fir whatever 148 hubbed bike you are thinking about. And if the tire clears the frame, will the chainline work? Ie have clearance in 1st or 2nd gear?


Well, you know, 3.8 is already more fat than plus territory and fat bikes normally run bigger hubs ... but if it's bigger for the given clearance or because rim/tire stiffness Is what Im asking

Sorry I'm no native English it's my fault ...


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

It is likely you would get a better answer if you mentioned your weight.
We have been there for a few years but info is scare and BS is plenty.
Different 29, 27.5, 26 are all good but are they real good for you?
For me a 135 pounds rider up north i need at least 2 bikes for year round.
- 4 white months 26x4.8 Bud/Lou studded on 90 mm.
They simply offer more hours riding.
- 27.5 x 3.0 HT on 40 mm better acceleration, less drag than a fat with 120mm suspension
- since i do not have a car i also have a 21 pounds 29x2.3
Having a few used bikes is superior to 1 new bike.
Most riders who use a fat year round in my area are over 190 pounds.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

33red said:


> Most riders who use a fat year round in my area are over 190 pounds.


----------



## Bumpyride (Jan 2, 2014)

Most riders who use a fat year round in my area are over 190 pounds.

The friend that I ride with, we're both riding fat year round, has suggested that I be forced to carry an extra 20lb weight because I'm 40 lbs less than him and faster (I do get regularly passed by good riders). I'm at 135 and he's at 175+. 

We see a lot of fat riders here in Duluth, but that only pertains to their tires. Don't think I've ever seen one that would tip the scales 190, but that's only in my mileage. I'm seeing more and more kids that would be hard pressed to break 80lbs on 24" fatties riding with their parents who are also on fat. I think here's it's more of a cult here.

I just found a set of 65mm multfuts 27.5 with 3.8 FBR and FBF to try instead of the Jumbo Jim at 4.8 and 4.4 26". Will get back and let you know what I think on rocky single track.

Ride on.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

I'm only 180... Am I doing this fat bike thing wrong?


----------



## mohrgan (Sep 12, 2013)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I'm only 180... Am I doing this fat bike thing wrong?


You and me both! I'm at 170 lbs. so apparently I am violating some protocol...


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Bumpyride said:


> I just found a set of 65mm multfuts 27.5 with 3.8 FBR and FBF to try instead of the Jumbo Jim at 4.8 and 4.4 26". Will get back and let you know what I think on rocky single track.


Apples to oranges with those tires.


----------



## Bumpyride (Jan 2, 2014)

mikesee said:


> Apples to oranges with those tires.


Figured as much, but for $200 for a complete wheelset off a 2019 wozo including tires and cassette with about 40 miles on them, it would allow me to try different tires on the 27.5 rims if I didn't like them. Besides, I don't have to swap out the Gnarwahl studded tires I picked up from you, So I guess I'm excited. :idea:


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Bumpyride said:


> Figured as much, but for $200 for a complete wheelset off a 2019 wozo including tires and cassette with about 40 miles on them, it would allow me to try different tires on the 27.5 rims if I didn't like them. Besides, I don't have to swap out the Gnarwahl studded tires I picked up from you, So I guess I'm excited. :idea:


You scored. Once you figure out how heavy/slow the FBF/FBR are, sell them to a bludgeonist like Rodney and experiment with the lighter/faster stuff.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

mikesee said:


> Once you figure out how heavy/slow the FBF/FBR are, sell them to a bludgeonist like Rodney and experiment with the lighter/faster stuff.


----------



## Bumpyride (Jan 2, 2014)

mikesee said:


> You scored. Once you figure out how heavy/slow the FBF/FBR are, sell them to a bludgeonist like Rodney and experiment with the lighter/faster stuff.


Hey Mike,

Best suggestion for a 3.8 or wider for sharp rocked rooty trail riding?

I see Rodney has resembled that remark, and now if I can only get him to spend $1k for those tires.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Bumpyride said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> Best suggestion for a 3.8 or wider for sharp rocked rooty trail riding?
> 
> I see Rodney has resembled that remark, and now if I can only get him to spend $1k for those tires.


I ride Hodag's. I think they're the best all around tire in this size, and also the most overlooked/underrated.


----------



## Bumpyride (Jan 2, 2014)

mikesee said:


> I ride Hodag's. I think they're the best all around tire in this size, and also the most overlooked/underrated.


Thank you sir. Very much appreciated.


----------



## tablatom (Feb 8, 2018)

*Hodag - Surly Edna combo*

Been looking at this thread for sometime and got much from it.
I have owned 2 fat bikes for the past 4 months. I have sold all my other bikes including a 29'er. Loving Fat bikes.
The Salsa Mukluk pictured in the attachment (sorry it came out sideways) shows it with a 27.5 Hodag rear and a 26 Surly Edna front.
They have an almost identical Outer diameter. 
The combo came about as I didn't like the Hodag as a front tyre when I first got them with the 27.5 wheel set second hand. (80mm Mulefut).

At first I didn't like the Hodag as a rear tyre either, I hadn't found the PSI sweet spot. With the low profile (around 3.2 inches tall) and my 90kg weight I kept getting rim strikes with the tyre bottoming out on rocks and roots while trying to get low enough PSI for good off road grip.

Now, after some time I have found a good running PSI 8.5. 
The Hodag offers great rear grip, much better than a Jumbo Jim, buts its not that much slower than a JJ either.
I think I will use the Hodag till its worn out then get a Barbegazi for the rear as it should give the same speed and grip but much more float.

The Surly Enda is an amazing front tyre. Brilliant lateral grip, great breaking and as a front tyre rolls well.


----------



## tablatom (Feb 8, 2018)

mikesee said:


> I ride Hodag's. I think they're the best all around tire in this size, and also the most overlooked/underrated.


Mikesee, Have you compared Barbegazi's to Hodags? The only thing that maybe a minus for the Barb's is I have read somewhere that the tread depth is the same as the Hodag's?

As it seems to be a rule of thumb with tyres, that, wider tyres with the same tread depth as a skinnier tyre don't offer as much grip as their bigger volume makes them float and not dig.

I can see by pictures that the tread pattern is slightly different.

I should add that my Hodags that came with my wheels are on 80mm Mulefuts. 
And I think yours are on 55mm? 
The 80mm rims make the Hodag sidewalls short, so the tyre feels very stable, if not a little dead.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

tablatom said:


> Mikesee, Have you compared Barbegazi's to Hodags?


Yep, quite a bit.  I see them as serving very different niches, because their volume differs so greatly.

Neither is good in/on soft snow.

Hodag is excellent on dirt, rock, chunk, roots. Fine tuning pressure is important. It has a fairly broad sweet spot, but I think most people still run it too high. More than ~10 and it becomes fairly meh, if not harsh.

Barbe is light and fast when float is needed on sand or mixed sand/cobbles or (more or less) anywhere off-piste in non-snow months. It's good for riding washes. I've never ridden Barbe on dirt trails because I don't want (or need) a tire that big on trail. The snow in my backyard is light and soft and needs larger, more aggressive knobs than what Barbe has, so I don't use it on snow.

Barbe is more or less ideal for this: Big Wheel Building: Alpine Style, the movie.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

I would highly recommend running Vittoria Air Liners if running 3.8 tires on dirt. I have zero experience riding on snow, but on dirt, the Vittoria inserts allow lower pressures while keeping the bead tight on the rim and preventing rim strikes. It also minimizes tire bounce and just feels good. Heavier, though.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I would highly recommend running Vittoria Air Liners if running 3.8 tires on dirt. I have zero experience riding on snow, but on dirt, the Vittoria inserts allow lower pressures while keeping the bead tight on the rim and preventing rim strikes. It also minimizes tire bounce and just feels good. Heavier, though.


How low do you need to go on dirt?

Honestly curious. I run 3.8 Hodag's for most dirt rides. I'm ~200# geared up, and I run ~8psi max.

Do you go lower than that? For what sort of terrain?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

On my 509 steel hardtail with Wren fork, 45mm internal rims and Hodag tires, I am running 9 psi front and 11 psi rear. I weigh about 185 and ride a wide variety of trails. I didn't know how low to go on the i45 rims, but those pressures feel pretty good to me. Any higher started to feel harsh with less traction. Lower started to feel a bit unsupported on faster corners with a rim hit once in a while. I dropped pressures with the Vittoria inserts on i45 rims about 1 psi front and rear from what I was using on Bontrager Jackelope rims.


----------



## tablatom (Feb 8, 2018)

mikesee said:


> Yep, quite a bit. I see them as serving very different niches, because their volume differs so greatly.
> 
> Neither is good in/on soft snow.
> 
> ...


Thanks Mikesee.
I try to ride off-piste as much as I can, so I love float. But as I have a perfectly good pair of Hodags, think I'll run them till their finished, then put on the Barbie's. Loving the Hodag as a rear, very good grip considering the knob's aren't that tall.
Loving the movie BTW. Wish I was close to nature that big. Thats a blessing.


----------



## adumb (Nov 29, 2009)

tmbrown said:


> I haven't noticed any autosteer traits from either tire, what I do notice; they tend to roll slower when under inflated&#8230;


I am running the barbs that came on my Farley 9.6 and the tires are really good for summer riding I have run them down to 6.5ish and they do feel pretty slow at that pressure. I think for me the happy summer pressure is 8-8.5 ish on a normal ride and if it is going to be a smoother day I will run 10.

no selfsteer for me until I got under 7.5 and even at 7 or a little less it was still ridable and fun. I absolutely hate that self steer trait so I may be a little pickier than other. When I can feel it, it is seems to be the only thing I can think about.


----------



## Gendy (Feb 24, 2018)

Does anybody know if there is a Chinese carbon frame that would fit a 27.5 fat?


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

adumb said:


> I am running the barbs that came on my Farley 9.6 and the tires are really good for summer riding I have run them down to 6.5ish and they do feel pretty slow at that pressure. I think for me the happy summer pressure is 8-8.5 ish on a normal ride and if it is going to be a smoother day I will run 10.
> 
> no selfsteer for me until I got under 7.5 and even at 7 or a little less it was still ridable and fun. I absolutely hate that self steer trait so I may be a little pickier than other. When I can feel it, it is seems to be the only thing I can think about.


Self steer seems to be a common trait of thicker walled, heavy tires. 
With the most supple, pliable casings, self steer is lesser. Rim width has a major effect of lessening self steer as well


----------



## Captain_America1976 (Mar 15, 2005)

I have been on 2 different B-fat setups. It's the same bike with different wheel sets, fork, and drivetrain. Going forward I will alter setup based on time of year. 
#1 Salsa Mukluk frame with 27.5 x 3.8 VanHelga on Nextie 40id rims with a Fox 34 27.5+ fork set up single speed.








#2 Salsa Mukluk with 27.5 x 4.5 Barbegazi on Light Bicycle 70id rims with a Salsa carbon fork. 








Both setups are awesome, and very different. Love the rollover, the diameter is taller than my old 29+. The weight on both is low(28 lbs) and there is a few oz difference between the two.


----------



## Gendy (Feb 24, 2018)

Nice! I checked LB and they didn't have any 650b fat wheels listed, do you happen to have a model name? Only Chinese carbon I've found so far were Nextie


----------



## El_Topo (Jul 26, 2018)

Gendy said:


> Does anybody know if there is a Chinese carbon frame that would fit a 27.5 fat?


Since you didn't get any direct replies to your question so far, I will try to answer it based on my internet research so please take this with the appropriate grain of salt as I don't own my fat bike yet as the Farley EX I am trying to get ahold of isn't that easily available in central Europe for a decent price (see my signature).

Most if not all Carbon Chiners, even the full suspension ones, should be able to run a 3.8" tire as they are around the same diameter as a 26"x4.6" tire (750mm), 4" should be only marginally taller than 3.8". If you want to run the 4.5" flavour of 27.5" (between around 770mm for Barbegazi/Gnarwhal and close to 790mm for the Cake Eater) the *CS-197* should accommodate that size because it can also run a Vee 2XL which is around 790mm in diameter and is a well received frame.

Regarding 27.5" rims, have a look at BTLOS, they have very competitive prices and regularly run promotions with decent discounts. The ones I am looking at for myself are the 85mm double wall for the 4.5" tires and the 50mm ones if I decide to get a second wheel set somewhere in the future for 3.8" tires.


----------



## Stahr_Nut (Nov 7, 2006)

Gendy said:


> Does anybody know if there is a Chinese carbon frame that would fit a 27.5 fat?


My bro-in-law had an iMust Malamute for a while and he ran 27.5 Hodags on it no problem.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

So, it seems my favorite friggin tire evar, the 27.5x4 vanhelga 120tpi is discontinued? If i had any idea, i would have bought a **** ton of them.

If anyone has a line on them, let me know. Thanks!!


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Rodney said:


> So, it seems my favorite friggin tire evar, the 27.5x4 vanhelga 120tpi is discontinued? If i had any idea, i would have bought a **** ton of them.
> 
> If anyone has a line on them, let me know. Thanks!!


What?!?!?! Are they discontinuing the tire completely or just the 120 TPI version?


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

nitrousjunky said:


> What?!?!?! Are they discontinuing the tire completely or just the 120 TPI version?


no idea. Dealers cannot order the 120tpi bfat vanhelga, it is no longer an option. the 60tpi version is an option still and is readily available.


----------



## Captain_America1976 (Mar 15, 2005)

Gendy said:


> Nice! I checked LB and they didn't have any 650b fat wheels listed, do you happen to have a model name? Only Chinese carbon I've found so far were Nextie


https://www.lightbicycle.com/75mm-w...hookless-double-wall-tubeless-compatible.html


----------



## adumb (Nov 29, 2009)

are you guys seeing the 27.5 tires on treks site? when i click on all the tires i am only seeing the 26 versions in the drop down menu and only getting the stats on the 26 inch tires.

the reason why i was even going on there is i am already trying to prepare for winter a little bit and and hoping i won't need to do anything. I am on the barbs 27.5x4.5 now and was hoping they will be able have good float so i can just run them through the winter also.


----------



## Gendy (Feb 24, 2018)

Thinking about pulling the trigger on the CS-197, and checking out wheels currently. BTLOS and LB came close in price. This would be a primarily snow bike i think, so would you guys recommend an i70 (580g) or i79 (660g) ? Not quite sure on tires yet, but thinking i might start with Barbs or 4.5" cake eaters.


----------



## timsmcm (Dec 23, 2007)

Just built up some 65mm btlos the wheels. Just great to deal with from start to finish, and a really top notch product.


----------



## Captain_America1976 (Mar 15, 2005)

adumb said:


> are you guys seeing the 27.5 tires on treks site? when i click on all the tires i am only seeing the 26 versions in the drop down menu and only getting the stats on the 26 inch tires.


Hodag is the only one I see. I hope they are just out of stock.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Captain_America1976 said:


> Hodag is the only one I see. I hope they are just out of stock.


Hodag and both sizes of Gnarwhal are in stock -- both in my shop and at Trek. Barbe's are sold out ATM but due back in on 9/16.


----------



## manteufel (Oct 27, 2017)

Rodney said:


> So, it seems my favorite friggin tire evar, the 27.5x4 vanhelga 120tpi is discontinued? If i had any idea, i would have bought a **** ton of them.
> 
> If anyone has a line on them, let me know. Thanks!!


I just tried the 60 TPI version for my summer/fall tires. They are awesome! Tons of grip but yet faster than my 4.5 gnarwhal.


----------



## Sir Surly (Aug 7, 2012)

*Snow is coming soon !*



mikesee said:


> Yep, quite a bit. I see them as serving very different niches, because their volume differs so greatly.
> 
> Neither is good in/on soft snow.
> 
> ...


Awesome movie ! Thanks for posting it 
Makes me want to try this someday.

Is the Gnarwhal your 27.5 tire of choice for snow ❄ ⛄ ? I'm getting excited for the season !


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

I didn't see it here, but Framed has a few 27.5 fat bikes, including this full-suspension model. https://www.framedbikes.com/collect...beartrax-carbon-full-suspension-fat-bike-27-5

There is also the Alaskan, which in many versions incuding a 27.5x4 carbon and a 29+ carbon drop bar model with the lauf fork. I know a bit blasphemous in this section, but I kind of like the drop bar lauf variant.


----------



## Captain_America1976 (Mar 15, 2005)

Funoutside said:


> carbon and a 29+ carbon drop bar model with the lauf fork. I know a bit blasphemous in this section, but I kind of like the drop bar lauf variant.


I like Framed bikes. I have one of their carbon road bikes. This build is just an odd choice for them. The number of people who ride dropbar MTB is tiny, and then they add a Lauf fork? I can't see these selling very well.


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

I could see a purpose for the bike it had more mounting points for adventure/bike packing crowd, but it doesn't. I get the lauf fork as I've seen bike packers say it's better than regular shock fork as the extra weight of packing equipment doesn't compress the fork down. If I had the money I kind of want to try it, but with wider tires, maybe 27.5x 3.8(if it fits).


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

FYI, i called 45nrth regarding the 120tpi 27.5x4 vanhelga being discontinued. they told me there is a redesign coming out in the next few months. i know this is third hand info, but that is what the guy who picked up the phone told me... we shall see!


----------



## Hobine (Jun 16, 2004)

Rodney said:


> FYI, i called 45nrth regarding the 120tpi 27.5x4 vanhelga being discontinued. they told me there is a redesign coming out in the next few months. i know this is third hand info, but that is what the guy who picked up the phone told me... we shall see!


I wonder if their going to make it a bit shorter so it fits most of the target market bikes?


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

Hobine said:


> I wonder if their going to make it a bit shorter so it fits most of the target market bikes?


i sure f hope not.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Hobine said:


> I wonder if their going to make it a bit shorter so it fits most of the target market bikes?


No need, they already fit the Sergeant V3...


----------



## nowhereyonder (Nov 29, 2016)

Hobine said:


> I wonder if their going to make it a bit shorter so it fits most of the target market bikes?


Also hoping not. A front 27.5 Vanhelga has been a perfect pairing with a 29x3 on the back for those times I want float and speed.

I tried a hodag on the front, but then the bike had a stinkbug look to it.


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

How much heavier is 27.5x4 vs 26x4?


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

26x4 vanhelga 120tpi is 1290grams, whereas a 27.5x4 vanhelga 120tpi is 1360 grams.


----------



## Sandman29 (Jan 22, 2009)

What are the light weight trail/gravel/urban 3.5" to 4.0" tires for the 27.5.

I was riding with a freind of mine, he has a Trek Farley with 27.5 in rims and he was riding the stock tires. I was riding the my Surly Wednesday 26 Fat bike with Kenda Juggernauts 4.0. We were riding gravel, some trails and some semi paved trails. Huge difference in knobs on the stock tires on the Farley vs. Juggerauts. Those big knobs are really not needed in the summertime.

Have any of the lighter weight tires like the Juggernauts or Jumbo Jim anounced that they will be coming out in a 27.5"?

My Juggernaut Pro 4.0 which I use as a back tire only weighs 840 grams. I think my front tire which is a Juggernaut Sport 4.0 is about 1200 grams.


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

Are there 27.5x3.5 tires or does that size not exist?


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Funoutside said:


> Are there 27.5x3.5 tires or does that size not exist?


Bontrager Hodag's are 27.5 x 3.8". On a ~45 to 50mm rim, at reasonable (10 or so psi) pressures, they come out to ~3.5".


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

Interesting. But, nothing really between 3.2 and 3.8 that is labeled/marketed as 3.5 or so?


----------



## nowhereyonder (Nov 29, 2016)

Funoutside said:


> Interesting. But, nothing really between 3.2 and 3.8 that is labeled/marketed as 3.5 or so?


The industry is still trying to figure out Wide-Trail-B-Fat and how to best market it.

Coming to you at a trade show on an ebike soon.

(In all seriousness, I would love a 27.5x3.5 surly extraterrestrial. Need? No.)


----------



## HOJ (Apr 30, 2020)

Bumbing an old thread. Any comparison between Hodag 27.5x3.8 and Van Helga 27.5x4.0, especially on dirt singletrack? Does Van Helga work on 45 mm internal width rims?


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

HOJ said:


> Bumbing an old thread. Any comparison between Hodag 27.5x3.8 and Van Helga 27.5x4.0, especially on dirt singletrack? Does Van Helga work on 45 mm internal width rims?


The manufacturer will tell you the target rim. I would use about 60-65 or 80 for snow.


----------



## HOJ (Apr 30, 2020)

Yes, recommendation is 64-94 but has anyone tested in real world? Lot of people using 3.8" on i45 rims so does 0.2" make a big difference?


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

HOJ said:


> Yes, recommendation is 64-94 but has anyone tested in real world? Lot of people using 3.8" on i45 rims so does 0.2" make a big difference?


Tires are a huge subject and you can hear/read all kinds of things.
Many say that x average tire is the best!
It is just the best they ever used.
Many have a limited budget so they compromise.
Many are limited by their frame.
I guess you get my point.


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

HOJ said:


> Bumbing an old thread. Any comparison between Hodag 27.5x3.8 and Van Helga 27.5x4.0, especially on dirt singletrack? Does Van Helga work on 45 mm internal width rims?


I haven't ran the VanHelga personally yet, have one waiting to go on a new front wheel. However several of my contacts (Rodney above being one) are running them on i45 rims, they work great on those rims. They measure the same width as all the other B 3.8s on i45s. Keep in mind the Gen 1 VH is about 30.25" OD though and Gen 2 is about 29.75" OD, so taller than all the other 3.8s (including the Hodag which is 29.5" OD).


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

HOJ said:


> Yes, recommendation is 64-94 but has anyone tested in real world? Lot of people using 3.8" on i45 rims so does 0.2" make a big difference?


I have had em mounted on i45's. It will work but I abhor stupid narrow rims with stupid wide rims due to foldover at my target air pressures, not to mention piss poor tire profile.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

nitrousjunky said:


> I haven't ran the VanHelga personally yet, have one waiting to go on a new front wheel. However several of my contacts (Rodney above being one) are running them on i45 rims, they work great on those rims. They measure the same width as all the other B 3.8s on i45s. Keep in mind the Gen 1 VH is about 30.25" OD though and Gen 2 is about 29.75" OD, so taller than all the other 3.8s (including the Hodag which is 29.5" OD).


My only experience is between a Hodag and a Gen 1 Van Helga on 65mm rims. The VH was significantly taller than the Hodag, as mentioned. I don't remember how much, but I needed to move my sliders back to accommodate it. It was also around 5mm wider on the 65mm rims. I don't know how that translates to smaller rims though. I used the Van Helgas for snow rides in the beginning of this past winter in VT, and the exctra traction and float over the Hodag was much appreciated. They barely fit on that bike though, and I ended up picking up a proper Fatbike that now runs 27.5x4.5. For my main bike, I've now gone with the Hodag(replacing the previous Duro Crux 27.5x3.25) on 50mmish rims as a full time setup, finally got the proper Fox fork yesterday to finish the setup, can't wait!

For my uses, the VH would be way overkill for non-snow rides, which is why I sold them(to somebody on this thread!). IMHO, the VH is too big for a 50mmish rim and also not suited for dirt riding. I'm guessing it would be really slow condidering the knob size and soft compound. For dirt riding I would look into the Hodag, Cakeater, and even the Vee Crown Gem.


----------



## nowhereyonder (Nov 29, 2016)

HOJ said:


> Bumbing an old thread. Any comparison between Hodag 27.5x3.8 and Van Helga 27.5x4.0, especially on dirt singletrack? Does Van Helga work on 45 mm internal width rims?


Compared to the Hodag, the Van Helga has a lot more grip but feels slower on pavement. The 60tpi casing isn't really that supple but it's burly. I have not used one as a rear but it's great as a front tire, especially in sand & loose surfaces, even on an i45 rim.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

HOJ said:


> Any comparison between Hodag 27.5x3.8 and Van Helga 27.5x4.0, especially on dirt singletrack? Does Van Helga work on 45 mm internal width rims?


i have both VH on i45 rims and i66 rims. i45 feels lighter, especially off the ground. the i45 rounds the profile and the tire carves better. Some people think it has vague steering, but i love it. all i ride is rocky/rooty singletrack.



HOJ said:


> Yes, recommendation is 64-94 but has anyone tested in real world? Lot of people using 3.8" on i45 rims so does 0.2" make a big difference?


i use my i45 year round and they are my go to setup. i use my i66 for rain/mud rides.



bikeny said:


> For my uses, the VH would be way overkill for non-snow rides.... IMHO, the VH is too big for a 50mmish rim and also not suited for dirt riding. I'm guessing it would be really slow condidering the knob size and soft compound. For dirt riding I would look into the Hodag, Cakeater, and even the Vee Crown Gem.


gen 2 VH on dirt is great, but it is going to be a slow roller compared to most other fat tires. fits a 50mm od rim just fine. i would not go any narrower though.

hodag is the king for the least rolling resistance, but it has a paper thin sidewall. Cake eater is a great tire, but i have had no luck with the bead retention. Vee crown gem is has a hard/odd compound and it didn't work at all for me.

all depends on what your goals are. :thumbsup:


----------



## adumb (Nov 29, 2009)

bikeny said:


> finally got the proper Fox fork yesterday to finish the setup, can't wait!
> 
> .


you found a fox fork that fits 27.5 x 4.5? that sounds very interesting.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

adumb said:


> you found a fox fork that fits 27.5 x 4.5? that sounds very interesting.


Nope, not what I said. I now have a Fox fork that fits the 27.5x3.8 Hodag.


----------



## adumb (Nov 29, 2009)

bikeny said:


> Nope, not what I said. I now have a Fox fork that fits the 27.5x3.8 Hodag.


my bad, I got mixed up reading your post. I saw some key words and got tunnel vision.


----------



## matt4x4 (Dec 21, 2013)

"27.5X4 Who's excited? Who's not?"
if 26" fat equates to roughly 29" dia, then whats the 27.5" equate to, 31" dia.

Very Interesting


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

matt4x4 said:


> "27.5X4 Who's excited? Who's not?"
> if 26" fat equates to roughly 29" dia, then whats the 27.5" equate to, 31" dia.
> 
> Very Interesting


They have a range.
My 26x4.8 are a bit taller on 80mm than on 90mm.
Obviously the 27.5x3.8 are not as tall as the 4.5
Than from brand to brand you will see variations.
I demoed some 27.5x3.8 on snow they need firm snow
compared to my 26x4.8 so less float.
Go to 4.5 than a small frame will have your toes in contact with your studs.
That is why upnorth we prefer the 26 and also more
tires and rim choices.
Any fat is about TIRES, the right ones for our use
with the right PSI for the surface.


----------



## HOJ (Apr 30, 2020)

Thanks for answers, probably going with Hodags then.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

matt4x4 said:


> "27.5X4 Who's excited? Who's not?"
> if 26" fat equates to roughly 29" dia, then whats the 27.5" equate to, 31" dia.
> 
> Very Interesting


It doesn't just depend on the rim diameter, it depends on the tire width as well. A 26x5.05 tire(widest available) is going to be quite a bit taller than a 26x3.8. With 27.5, the widest current tire is 4.5. And, as mentioned, it also depends on rim width somewhat.


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Has anyone had their hands on the 27.5 Maxxis Colossus to get any thoughts and/or measurements off of it?


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

nitrousjunky said:


> Has anyone had their hands on the 27.5 Maxxis Colossus to get any thoughts and/or measurements off of it?


Wut? TireJunky, where?


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

BansheeRune said:


> Wut? TireJunky, where?


https://www.worldwidecyclery.com/products/maxxis-colossus-tire-27-5-x-4-5-tubeless-folding-black-dual-exo


----------



## matt4x4 (Dec 21, 2013)

The same price as a trucks tire.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

matt4x4 said:


> The same price as a trucks tire.


Matt, I remember Bud/Lou at 170 each without studs...


----------



## Swerny (Apr 1, 2004)

Funoutside said:


> Are there 27.5x3.5 tires or does that size not exist?





Funoutside said:


> Interesting. But, nothing really between 3.2 and 3.8 that is labeled/marketed as 3.5 or so?


Fat B Nimble is labeled as 27.5 x 3.5 but it's a fair bit smaller than advertised, just like the 26' version


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

Do you have some of the 27.5x3.5 FBNs? I'm after something this size too and was thinking about getting some. I'd like to know if they are truly undrersized as people assert, or if they're just "narrow." I have the 29x3 FBN and 26x4.8 big fatty (same thing from same mfgr., chao yang, but labeled differently) and, in both cases they're true-to-size or even bigger than many similarly-labeled tires AS MEASURED IN THE VERTICAL DIMENSION, but significantly narrower as measured in the width dimension. Since overall diameter is what I'm after this works well for me. Tire still deforms to provide good float and traction. I could see the sidewalls being a bit squirmier in hard cornering with the tall/narrow shape, but that's not a big issue for me on this bike. If you have some, is there any chance you could share some measurements of the overall diameter?


----------



## Swerny (Apr 1, 2004)

iamkeith said:


> Do you have some of the 27.5x3.5 FBNs? I'm after something this size too and was thinking about getting some. I'd like to know if they are truly undrersized as people assert, or if they're just "narrow." I have the 29x3 FBN and 26x4.8 big fatty (same thing from same mfgr., chao yang, but labeled differently) and, in both cases they're true-to-size or even bigger than many similarly-labeled tires AS MEASURED IN THE VERTICAL DIMENSION, but significantly narrower as measured in the width dimension. Since overall diameter is what I'm after this works well for me. Tire still deforms to provide good float and traction. I could see the sidewalls being a bit squirmier in hard cornering with the tall/narrow shape, but that's not a big issue for me on this bike. If you have some, is there any chance you could share some measurements of the overall diameter?


I don't have the 27.5 version, i did have the 26x 4 and it was very narrow not to mention fragile. I tore a sidewall in the first week i had it.

I only knew the 27.5 existed when i saw it last week while looking for summer rubber for my fat wheels. I blew the hub on my 29+ setup and didn't want to roll the studded Gnarwhals on dirt.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

27.5 version is 2.8...


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

Wait which tire is 27.5x2.8? Panaracers site says FBN is 27.5x3.50 & 29x3.0.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Funoutside said:


> Wait which tire is 27.5x2.8? Panaracers site says FBN is 27.5x3.50 & 29x3.0.


Tire label says 3.5, my caliper says 2.8 on i45's.


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

Damn that's bad. Reminds me of the WTB Trailblazer that says 2.8 but measures out to 2.45. So If I have i40 wheels & fork can hold a max of 3.0, I could use this tire & not worry about clerance?


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Funoutside said:


> Damn that's bad. Reminds me of the WTB Trailblazer that says 2.8 but measures out to 2.45. So If I have i40 wheels & fork can hold a max of 3.0, I could use this tire & not worry about clerance?


I felt like they hosed me right in the ass. Emailed em on it and they didn't take kindly. Maybe they should pay for 20 gallons of gas and receive 13...

VH, mounted on AlexRims Blizzerk 27.5 x 70 rim (i64) Pressure maintained at 12 PSI for two weeks for stretch. 
Height measures 30" with no load.

Intention of use: Loose forest animal trails and other fatbike centered riding. At the moment 8 PSI will be the max pressure and 5-6 for most riding.


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

I feel you as I've been there. I was so crestfallen too when I found out the tires are mis labled. A 3.5 tires that measure out to 2.8 in fact that could be an issue depending on the tim size. Had someone tell me 2.45 tire on a i40 rim, the tire is on the narrower side of things.


----------



## tablatom (Feb 8, 2018)

Been riding Jumbo Jim 4.8 on the rear and Gnarwal 27.5x4,5 on the front here in the UK for the past 2000 miles. Excellent combo. JJ 4.8 on the rear has great speed and float and decent grip in the mud at low psi’s. 
And the Gnarwal on the front is the roll over grip monster. 
The OD of the JJ 4.8 is slightly less than the Gnarwal so I guess it’s slackened the steering a tad.

This is on a 2017 Mukluk. My favourite setup so far.


----------



## Staktup (Jan 21, 2016)

So what is the minimum clearance from center knob to arch you’d feel comfy with? I just mounted a 27.5x4 Van Helga studded 120 tpi tire inflated to 7 psi on to a 650bx53mm wide carbon wheel and have 6-6.35mm clearance from the center knob to the arch. 

I am not confident that there is enough room for mud & snow, but if anyone can tell me from real-life experience I should run this...


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Staktup said:


> So what is the minimum clearance from center knob to arch you'd feel comfy with? I just mounted a 27.5x4 Van Helga studded 120 tpi tire inflated to 7 psi on to a 650bx53mm wide carbon wheel and have 6-6.35mm clearance from the center knob to the arch.
> 
> I am not confident that there is enough room for mud & snow, but if anyone can tell me from real-life experience I should run this...


Mud is something I try to stay away from but mud/snow are not the considerations. I take into account the gravel the treads grab and throw at you. When the clearance is tight, a chunk can fly like a bullet.

6mm is plenty of clearance to ride however, I would prefer more.


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

BansheeRune said:


> Mud is something I try to stay away from but mud/snow are not the considerations. I take into account the gravel the treads grab and throw at you. When the clearance is tight, a chunk can fly like a bullet.
> 
> 6mm is plenty of clearance to ride however, I would prefer more.


You have to watch. Under the sun tires do expand and from nowhere you will start earing your studs touching the frame. My studded tires are not out until mid november or about when ice appears. Some complain about loosing studs on roots or rocks. I just switch from my fat to another bike each great on different ground.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

33red said:


> You have to watch. Under the sun tires do expand and from nowhere you will start earing your studs touching the frame. My studded tires are not out until mid november or about when ice appears. Some complain about loosing studs on roots or rocks. I just switch from my fat to another bike each great on different ground.


While this is true to some extent, consider clearance with max inflation or well stretched tires that don't change dimension with pressure any longer.
I run my plusser in snow BMX with friends every winter. It is a chore to prep the track but worth every minute spent! Run the Mayor all winter cause fat works very well. Ice is not really abundant but champagne powder is.


----------



## Staktup (Jan 21, 2016)

I doubt I would ever inflate this tire more than 12
psi...


----------



## oobaa47 (Sep 14, 2016)

Just curious, for everyday trail riding through rocky, rooty, single track, what are everyone's preferred tire pressures for a 27.5 x 3.8 tire on a 80 mm rim? Obviously it's dependent upon rider weight, but I was wondering what ranges everyone is using. Thanks


----------



## Thaumaturge (Feb 25, 2006)

oobaa47 said:


> Just curious, for everyday trail riding through rocky, rooty, single track, what are everyone's preferred tire pressures for a 27.5 x 3.8 tire on a 80 mm rim? Obviously it's dependent upon rider weight, but I was wondering what ranges everyone is using. Thanks


We don't have overly rocky or rooty terrain, but 11 psi at each end (with a suspension fork) seems to be what I've settled on.

EDIT: I now realize my rims are 65mm. Oops!


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

oobaa47 said:


> Just curious, for everyday trail riding through rocky, rooty, single track, what are everyone's preferred tire pressures for a 27.5 x 3.8 tire on a 80 mm rim? Obviously it's dependent upon rider weight, but I was wondering what ranges everyone is using. Thanks


It 's dependent on a number of factors including rider weight, tire and rim in question, trail type, riding style, etc.

Unless you are very heavy, i'd say 10psi is a good starting point. Try 10 and then drop 1/2 psi for the next ride. Keep doing that until you go too low, and then go up 1/2 psi again. You'll know you're too low when the tire rolls in corners, bottoms out, or just feels like it 'wallows'. 11 psi seem pretty high to me, I've settled at around 7-8 with Hodag on 50mm rims, 200lb rider.

Also, hopefully you're using a quality pressure gauge and not relying on the gauge on your pump, which is wildly inaccurate at these low pressures.


----------



## Swerny (Apr 1, 2004)

nitrousjunky said:


> Has anyone had their hands on the 27.5 Maxxis Colossus to get any thoughts and/or measurements off of it?





BansheeRune said:


> Wut? TireJunky, where?


They are stock on the Giant Yukon


----------



## elandy (Apr 14, 2011)

Has anyone measured the heigt of vanhelga 27.5 x 4.0 tyre and barbegazi 27.5 x 4.5 tyre on the same rim?


----------



## CanuckMountainMan (Oct 29, 2018)

elandy said:


> Has anyone measured the heigt of vanhelga 27.5 x 4.0 tyre and barbegazi 27.5 x 4.5 tyre on the same rim?


No height measurements, but I'm guessing the Barbegazi would be taller based on the bead-to-bead measurements:

*27.5" B-Fat tires Flat bead to bead:*

Gnarwhal 4.5" = 245mm
Gnarwhal 4.0" = 210mm
Barbagazi 4.5 = 255mm
Hodag 3.8" = 210mm
Dillinger 4 = 230mm
Dillinger 5 = 241mm
Van Helga 4 = 229mm
Cake Eater 4.0 = 217mm
Cake Eater 4.5 = 260mm
FBF 3.8 EXO = 210mm
FBR 3.8 EXO = 210mm

Source: https://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/definitive-b-fat-tire-thread-now-moar-numbers-1119845.html


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

elandy said:


> Has anyone measured the heigt of vanhelga 27.5 x 4.0 tyre and barbegazi 27.5 x 4.5 tyre on the same rim?


I had a 60 TPI Barbegazi on a Mulefut 65 and now have a Gen 1 120 TPI VanHelga on a Lythic 70. If I remember correctly, they are within a 1/8" of each other on height. My Gen 1 VH is 30.7" tall new sitting at 15 psi after a couple days to stretch. Seems like my Barbi was 30.6" tall on my Mulefut 65, but I can't remember the pressure it was at when I measured.

Keep in mind also that the new Gen 2 27.5x4 VanHelga is around 29.75" tall after the redesign.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

I think they discovered that they gave us too much tire and had to downsize it some and make it seem like they were getting one over on us! (For those that don't know what sarcasm is...)


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

BansheeRune said:


> I think they discovered that they gave us too much tire and had to downsize it some and make it seem like they were getting one over on us! (For those that don't know what sarcasm is...)


Right!? Dang those manufactures complaining about it being too tall!!!


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

nitrousjunky said:


> Right!? Dang those manufactures complaining about it being too tall!!!


That height redux also trimmed the fatness... :/
Glad I got the hookup at the LBS on a pair of Gen 1 of the VH's.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

BansheeRune said:


> I think they discovered that they gave us too much tire and had to downsize it some and make it seem like they were getting one over on us!





nitrousjunky said:


> Right!? Dang those manufactures complaining about it being too tall!!!


that was me that put that out there. or, well, on this forum anyway...

I spoke with numerous people at 45nrth, then finally got a guy that knew what i was talking about. i don't remember his name, i have my notes at work... i did ***** to him that i had a bike built around the gen1 VH, and they changed the damn tire... then he told me the manufacturers bitched, and they matter and i don't... thus the Gen2 VH!


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Rodney said:


> that was me that put that out there. or, well, on this forum anyway...
> 
> I spoke with numerous people at 45nrth, then finally got a guy that knew what i was talking about. i don't remember his name, i have my notes at work... i did ***** to him that i had a bike built around the gen1 VH, and they changed the damn tire... then he told me the manufacturers bitched, and they matter and i don't... thus the Gen2 VH!


Maxxis' FBR is notably smaller volume than the gen 1 VH. Rubber compound is meh with the FBR. Would love to see an Escalator 180 TPI for snow return to the lineup.

On another front, we as plus bike owners and consumers couldn't care less about 2.6 but the manufacturers think we all have a boner for 2.freakin6. Frankly, I have zero interest in minus tires for my plussers. 
The mid fat is really designed around 4.0 and here we go again, minus being shoved up the orifice they choose!


----------



## nitrousjunky (May 12, 2006)

Rodney said:


> that was me that put that out there


Yep, think you informed me of that through FB messages


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

I am glad to still be on my 20 speeds 2017 Specialized on 26.
Lots of rims and tire options.
The old proven shines compared to many new ***a la mode***
The new is made to generate sales not for consumers too often.
I love the 4.8 for suspension, for traction and flotation.

On 27.5 the 2.8/3.0 has lots of potential after the snow/ice season


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

33red said:


> I am glad to still be on my 20 speeds 2017 Specialized on 26.
> Lots of rims and tire options.
> The old proven shines compared to many new ***a la mode***
> The new is made to generate sales not for consumers too often.
> ...


Your post -- and perspective -- summarized into photo form:


----------



## CanuckMountainMan (Oct 29, 2018)

mikesee said:


> Your post -- and perspective -- summarized into photo form:


LOL!

I suspect Red was a child of the late 50's/early 60's when a 14"/15" car/truck wheel was the gold standard.
I was too, but all my vehicles today run on at least 20's and I have grown with advances in technology.

I even remember when car/truck tires once had inner-tubes, 
and when Bias Ply tires were the norm until steel belted radials became standard equipment.

Keep moving forward or get left behind like a turd from the herd.

26's will be around for a good while yet, not going to argue that at all.
But the 27.5 (and 29er +) list grows more every year as more bike builders jump on the latest trends.


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

CanuckMountainMan said:


> LOL!
> 
> I suspect Red was a child of the late 50's/early 60's when a 14"/15" car/truck wheel was the gold standard.
> I was too, but all my vehicles today run on at least 20's and I have grown with advances in technology.
> ...


Yes i remember these days when we learned to write and add.
Now they are so much improved that they need smart phones.
What a shame.


----------



## CanuckMountainMan (Oct 29, 2018)

33red said:


> Yes i remember these days when we learned to write and add.
> Now they are so much improved that they need smart phones.
> What a shame.


Technological advancements are not always a bad thing. 
Your smartphone analogy is a strawman argument, but I'll bite,
...Try making an emergency call on a remote trail from one of these in your backpack...


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

CanuckMountainMan said:


> Technological advancements are not always a bad thing.
> Your smartphone analogy is a strawman argument, but I'll bite,
> ...Try making an emergency call on a remote trail from one of these in your backpack...
> 
> View attachment 1344343


exactly my point.
We are not depending on stuff.
Look around you, most pop pills, pharmacies, doctors, clinics at each corner,
na i do not call that better/progress.
No cell phone = no bill = smart guy.
You cannot say the planet is in better shape than 40 years ago.
The average weight is higher not the IQ.


----------



## CanuckMountainMan (Oct 29, 2018)

33red said:


> exactly my point.
> We are not depending on stuff.
> Look around you, most pop pills, pharmacies, doctors, clinics at each corner,
> na i do not call that better/progress.
> ...


What did your Fat Bike look like 40 years ago?

You know you could probably avoid coming across as a total hypocrite 
by selling your computer/laptop and cancelling your internet subscription too. 

For someone who considers themselves so "smart" and values higher IQ, 
you have the among the worst grammar, syntax and diction I've witnessed on this forum.


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

CanuckMountainMan said:


> What did your Fat bike look like 40 years ago?
> 
> You know you could probably avoid coming across as a total hypocrite
> by selling your computer/laptop and cancelled your internet subscription too.
> ...


Are u offering me 10$ for my 8 years old laptop?


----------



## CanuckMountainMan (Oct 29, 2018)

33red said:


> Are u offering me 10$ for my 8 years old laptop?


Even Better, I'm offering you a straight trade for a pair of crappy old 26" fat tires, 
...and if you cover shipping, I'll throw in a box of screws from the local hardware store for your Quebec Winters.

:lol:


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

i use Bud/Lou with grip studs.
Like u said, my safety is in my hands/tires at minus 30.


----------



## one piece crank (Sep 29, 2008)

CanuckMountainMan said:


> ...the late 50's/early 60's when a 14"/15" car/truck wheel was the gold standard.
> I was too, but all my vehicles today run on at least 20's and I have grown with advances in technology.


Regarding vehicles, my argument here is that smaller truck wheel sizes had higher aspect ratio tires. I prefer 16" wheels and minimum 75% aspect ratio. Higher aspect gives more cushion, and better ability to modulate pressure and resulting traction/flotation. Modern "advances" to larger wheel sizes have reduced off-road performance/usability and transmit more on-Road NVH (to the vehicle, occupants, etc.).

Back to fat bikes, for the same reasons I prefer the fattest 26" tires I can run.


----------



## bikemad1 (Jun 15, 2014)

Hey folks,it seems some of you are running 3.8 tires on 80mm wide rims with success.I have recently seen a very good deal on a pair of Sunringle Mulefats for about 300$US(brand new) so im thinking of buying them to go on my new Fatillac frame.Im just wondering how wide can you go with a tire on a 80mm rim with a 177mm rear axle width? Cheers


----------



## Bumpyride (Jan 2, 2014)

Am running Gnarwahl 27.5 x 4 for winter.


----------



## Rodney (Dec 17, 2006)

Bumpyride said:


> 4.4 Jumbo Jims on 80mm, 177 wozo


bumpy, please don't confuse things. bikemad was referring to 27.5 tires, as the thread title states... 

with the clearly larger than advertised 45nrth variants, you are not going to get anything wider then a 3.8/4" tire on the back of a Fatillac.

Personally, I run 4" on a 27.5x70 rim and 4" on a 27.5x50 rim on my fatillacs. 80mm is too wide for a 4", especially around here. they literally get destroyed. YMMV.


----------



## Jefflinde (Mar 26, 2015)

The limiting factor in what tire you can run will be your frame not your rim width. on an 80mm rim you could run a 2.6 or a 4.5. both will fit and both will work, albeit the 2.6 will end up crushing your rim on rocks and the profile will be all wonky. Personally I like to have more tire width than rim for protection against the aforementioned rocks. 3.8 on an 80mm rim is just asking for rim damage. if this will be a purely winter setup then it may work but 3.8 is a poor choice for most winter conditions. if you are set on running 3.8's I would look at a 65mm or even 50mm rim if this is going to be a summer setup.

Just for kicks here is a 2.2 race king on a 80mm wheel set


----------



## Bumpyride (Jan 2, 2014)

Rodney said:


> bumpy, please don't confuse things. bikemad was referring to 27.5 tires, as the thread title states...
> 
> with the clearly larger than advertised 45nrth variants, you are not going to get anything wider then a 3.8/4" tire on the back of a Fatillac.
> 
> Personally, I run 4" on a 27.5x70 rim and 4" on a 27.5x50 rim on my fatillacs. 80mm is too wide for a 4", especially around here. they literally get destroyed. YMMV.


Sorry, missed the 27.5


----------



## bikemad1 (Jun 15, 2014)

Cheers Rodney.I just spent a good while going through your fatillac thread and watching your videos so im stoked you jumped in so quickly and responded.Im not set on 80mm wide rims,I actually allready have a set of 55mm 27.5 that I run with 3.8 minions.But it is such a good deal for the wheel set i thought it might be worth persueing.I just need the rear hub fixed on my 27.5 rear wheel.Im running a set of Dice ollie x26x55mm with a 4.6 dpesh ground control currently on my rock candy that has a 177mm rear axle width,which just fits in side the chain line.The fatillac will definately be an upgrade after reading how well the fatillac rides


----------



## CanuckMountainMan (Oct 29, 2018)

...............


----------

