# 24" Plus Bike?



## sfo423 (Oct 12, 2010)

For a six year old boys first gear bike, what is consensus on a plus? I just ordered the Scott Scale Jr. plus bike. Nice package, great $ and the dealer will swap out the grip shift for a trigger for free.









I figure I can always size down the tires (these are 2.6) if needed.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

Rolling resistance and heavy/draggy tires seem to be the major obstacle for kids. Kids can ride rigid and take the beating from roughness without even noticing. They'll feel their little legs burn though!

I think it's proportional. A 2.0 for our 11 year old is a huge tire that can be ran under 20psi. It's more tire to her than a big 2.35 is to me.

I'd be looking for some 1.95 or 2.0 tires. Even those are going to be super low pressure monster truck tires for a 6 year old.


----------



## POAH (Apr 29, 2009)

is that not a 20" bike ?

I looked at the scott scale Jr plus for my 7 year old but went for the spesh riprock instead as it has a better range of gearing - 30t front 11-34 at the back

your boy would be able to use the gripshift, its actually quite light to use. I thought about changing it but Samuel does fine with it.

hopefully a bit of sybling rivalry with spur both of them on lol


----------



## GSJ1973 (May 8, 2011)

sfo423 said:


> For a six year old boys first gear bike, what is consensus on a plus? I just ordered the Scott Scale Jr. plus bike. Nice package, great $ and the dealer will swap out the grip shift for a trigger for free.
> 
> View attachment 1103144
> 
> ...


I see these "kids plus" bikes as neighborhood bikes, not really a bike you would want to take on mtb trails anywhere climbing is involved. What does a bike like this weigh? Doesn't look light just by looking at the pic, and by making this bike a 1x only with a small cassette they are limiting the actual "MTB use" and lots of walking and pushing.

Think about it - if you were 50 pounds, riding a 28 pound rigid 1x with a 32 tooth front ring and an 11-36t cassette with 700+ gram 2.6" tires would you want to ride this bike uphill? But the bike looks cool, and my kid would want a suspension fork right away to make it look even cooler - and heavier.


----------



## sfo423 (Oct 12, 2010)

The bike is just under 25#. The boys currently ride 30#+ single gear bikes and this will be a huge upgrade. They do amazingly well on uphills and if the gear range is an issue, its easy to swap a cassette. But, I didn't want them on a bike w/two shifters. Plus, at their current rate of growth, these will last a year at the most.



GSJ1973 said:


> I see these "kids plus" bikes as neighborhood bikes, not really a bike you would want to take on mtb trails anywhere climbing is involved. What does a bike like this weigh? Doesn't look light just by looking at the pic, and by making this bike a 1x only with a small cassette they are limiting the actual "MTB use" and lots of walking and pushing.
> 
> Think about it - if you were 50 pounds, riding a 28 pound rigid 1x with a 32 tooth front ring and an 11-36t cassette with 700+ gram 2.6" tires would you want to ride this bike uphill? But the bike looks cool, and my kid would want a suspension fork right away to make it look even cooler - and heavier.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

GiantTurd said:


> You guys are so off base , do you even ride a plus bike yourself? These give kids tremendous confidence on rooty and rocky terrain, my son at 12 has a Scott Big Ed and a Heller Shagamaw and total destroys the trails on them, I doubt you could keep up.


I definitely dont ride a plus bike, on purpose!

I'm glad your kid rides well. I doubt your 12 year old is a fair comparison to his 6 year old. Or my 11, who has been riding a bike for a tiny bit over a year. Going down technical stuff is irrelevant if you can't get up a smooth climb.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

Ok. :lol: did you miss the part about the kid being six? Have you ever ridden with small kids? Crushing technical features isn't exactly part of it.


----------



## ETChipotle (Sep 20, 2014)

Lightweight fat tires for kids would be great on dirt trails, especially when we run into sand or soft dirt. Maybe a 24"x3.0 but I've given up on this, the earliest I'm going to get something like that for them is on a 26" bike that can take grown up tires.


----------



## Flamingtaco (Mar 12, 2012)

When my boys were 6, they were crushing technical on their single speed BMX bikes. Things work out great for the younglings when you let them move at their pace. 

My thinking on geared bike was: they want to ride, not get a workout. I stuck to what they could handle on their cheap bikes until they expressed interest in more. With trail riding an ingrained behavior, we geared up and started earning our descents.

At less than 100Lbs, there is no need for plus tires. 2.3's are plenty cush for young kids. My youngest made it to 120lbs before he was able to benefit from a suspension fork.

Yes, some kids get seriously skilled very early, but most are there to have fun, not drift the corners and beat their previous Strava. Choose accordingly.


----------



## GSJ1973 (May 8, 2011)

GiantTurd said:


> You guys are so off base , do you even ride a plus bike yourself? These give kids tremendous confidence on rooty and rocky terrain, my son at 12 has a Scott Big Ed and a Heller Shagamaw and total destroys the trails on them, I doubt you could keep up.


Yes, I owned a Surly Krampus for 3 years and sold it back in June. Sure it's a lot of fun and was fun while it lasted but it was also a 30 pound rigid bike. So much of the weight is also rotating, which is completely the wrong spot and compounded when you are smaller with less skills. I could feel it climbing. It sure does inspire confidence, but (my opinion, which sfo423 was looking for) is a 6 year old would benefit better from something with better climbing prowess and less mass in the wheels. Your 12 year old crushing it on a 26" fat bike is a different situation completely!


----------



## BullSCit (Mar 26, 2004)

Hopefully this will be helpful, as my daughter is currently a 8 year old biking beast. When she was 6, she was just starting to ride a 24" wheeled bike with Rocket Rons (24x2.1), and I tried to find her a fat bike to ride during the winter. Didn't have much luck, so I bought a pair of Schwalbe Fat Alberts (24x2.4). The different in lateral width is definitely more than 0.3 inches between these. She rode the Rons at 12-15 psi, and the Alberts at 7-8 psi. Winter came and went, and I thought I'd leave the Alberts on, as wider is better, right? We live in Park City, and our trails are a combination of loose sand and rock, with lots of climbs. She was really slow compared to how she was biking the previous Fall. Just assumed she needed to build up her endurance again, but she wasn't having fun and she was getting tired way too fast. After a week, decided to change back to the Rons on the next ride, and she was back to her normal trail ripping ways. 

So my advice is, unless you are trying to get a little more flotation, or just riding to the school and back, go with a more normal sized tire. Extra total and rotational weight is not good for kids, especially on trails when you can't keep your speed more consistent. The fatter tires look cooler and have great grip, but normal tires at lower psi grip well for kids, just make sure to set the tires tubeless (unless you like patching tubes).


----------



## Steve-XtC (Feb 7, 2016)

BullSCit said:


> Hopefully this will be helpful, as my daughter is currently a 8 year old biking beast. When she was 6, she was just starting to ride a 24" wheeled bike with Rocket Rons (24x2.1), and I tried to find her a fat bike to ride during the winter. Didn't have much luck, so I bought a pair of Schwalbe Fat Alberts (24x2.4). The different in lateral width is definitely more than 0.3 inches between these. She rode the Rons at 12-15 psi, and the Alberts at 7-8 psi. Winter came and went, and I thought I'd leave the Alberts on, as wider is better, right? We live in Park City, and our trails are a combination of loose sand and rock, with lots of climbs. She was really slow compared to how she was biking the previous Fall. Just assumed she needed to build up her endurance again, but she wasn't having fun and she was getting tired way too fast. After a week, decided to change back to the Rons on the next ride, and she was back to her normal trail ripping ways.
> 
> So my advice is, unless you are trying to get a little more flotation, or just riding to the school and back, go with a more normal sized tire. Extra total and rotational weight is not good for kids, especially on trails when you can't keep your speed more consistent. The fatter tires look cooler and have great grip, but normal tires at lower psi grip well for kids, just make sure to set the tires tubeless (unless you like patching tubes).


We (my 7yr old) are currently running the RR 2.1's at "not enough PSI to measure"

The only times grip is an issue is on the front wheel when its not touching the track...because he's climbing a 1:3 or 1:2

Although I can see how a fat tire can help in this why not just attach some lead divers weights to the front of the bike instead?

The only other time is when a rock dislodges as he's climbing....

Equally we can do a whole days worth of climbing, descending and cycling between trails on firetrails at 15 mph...

Don't know exactly what he weighs but something about 17kg which is less than double the weight of the bike... about 10kg

I weigh 75kg and my bike weighs slightly less with 650B 2.4 ... (about 9kg)...

He's nearly always rides up... even when 50% of adults are pushing ... given my XC bike its not really surprising I can ....

We both got passed by a plus bike last weekend though at least on the first trip. (Climb to the top of Hope Line at Gisburn forest) but we pasted the bloke on his second climb when his battery was flat and he was pushing.

(Yes a bit tongue in cheek but the point is the bike wouldn't have approached half the adults weight with the battery and motor)

as for decending I'm finding increasing times it's hard to catch up.... these are specifically on tracks that were designed for 26" wheels and the days of narrower bars! His shorter wheelbase and smaller wheels are just more agile

As once pivot said 2.1 for a 6 yr old is already pretty big and 2.4 is approaching monster truck...

Why does any of this matter? 
Well it matters to us because when he can ride we have a much more enjoyable day.... if he has to push then I have to stop or get off... if we only go 10mph on firetrails we lose a lot of the day between trails...


----------



## POAH (Apr 29, 2009)

at the end of the day samuel chose the bike because he like the big tyres, I couldn't care less if he would be a bit faster on a much lighter bike as thats not whats its about. The bike is lighter than the BMX I had at his age and I rode that everywhere all day long.


----------



## sfo423 (Oct 12, 2010)

Wow. Such diverse opinions. Thanks for the feedback. This helps me to remember the basics; a six year old boy gets his first gear bike. it could be a 40# POS and he'd still be happy as ever. But, he gets a kick ass Scale with big tires. Even better! 

This reminds me to get out of the way and let the kids have fun. Nit picking on the 'fastest' or the 'best' or 'lowest rolling resistance' is not in the equation for a six year old.


----------



## Steve-XtC (Feb 7, 2016)

sfo423 said:


> Wow. Such diverse opinions. Thanks for the feedback. This helps me to remember the basics; a six year old boy gets his first gear bike. it could be a 40# POS and he'd still be happy as ever. But, he gets a kick ass Scale with big tires. Even better!
> 
> This reminds me to get out of the way and let the kids have fun. Nit picking on the 'fastest' or the 'best' or 'lowest rolling resistance' is not in the equation for a six year old.


True but when my kid was 6 (last year) they had an election at school.... outcome was luckily for 1 day.... the party that won had videos all day and dinner was icecream.

No harm for a day ....

or when he was 5 and his choice coming back from a trip out was ice-cream on top of orange juice before getting into the car ... play on iPad in car ... which was then vomit up ice cream/orange juice curdled mixture ... again no harm done esp[ecially as it was not my car ...

It's all good learning... like "your going to fast" ... (crash)

However ... we'd be daft to let the 6yr old decide the menu for the next year etc. or do the double black with a 20" no choice jump over the road....

Buying a bike is going to be for months or we hope 1yr +.... so a little coercion in the right direction isn't a bad thing.... if every time there is a big hill they do what tired 6yr old do ... and have a meltdown/sulk etc....

Too many of those and the day is ruined...


----------



## JPaul (Sep 18, 2010)

+1 to POAH's comments above (general case -> I don't know samuel)

OP, as someone who bought a Fatboy 20 for my daughter a few months before 24+ bikes showed up, I think you are absolutely on the right track. Was in the middle of writing a novel on why, and realized I wouldn't want to read it myself, so TL;DR:

- The 24"x2" is too squirrely on steep and loose surfaces; so we didn't ride trails together
- The 20" fatbike overcomes this; now our frequent rides are limited only by her endurance. Bike weight not an issue climbing, improved traction/lack of washouts is.
- I'm interpolating that the 24"+ bike will allow us to go further until her endurance runs out; expect traction gains of fatbike with less weight and better flatland performance
- Holy crap do we have lucky kids!

Enjoy the bike,
P


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

Everyone's kids are different. When I was 10 we were already building ridiculous ramps and I was competitively racing. I would have been fine on a fat bike. Or a normal 24. Or anything, I liked bikes a lot. Loose, steep, rutted or whatever, we did it all on BMX bikes with small tires.

Well, some of us. Tons of friends bailed when it got hard.

Now we're adults and we have friends and it's the same. After doing some kids rides, some kids don't care and have a blast. Some kids really get discouraged with the hills, and it's obvious their boat anchor bikes with inappropriate gearing is a big factor.

Its just hard to imagine that a few years ago we all rode 2.1s just fine. The guys who wanted "huge" had 2.4s... And we all gloated about how much traction we had. These days it's made out like a 2.1 will slide right out under you! That's still a lot of tire for a small kid.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

sfo423 said:


> For a six year old boys first gear bike, what is consensus on a plus? I just ordered the Scott Scale Jr. plus bike. Nice package, great $ and the dealer will swap out the grip shift for a trigger for free.
> 
> View attachment 1103144
> 
> ...


Likely too big. My 6 year old rides a 20" Riprock and could not go to the 24". She is 4'2".


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

moved.


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

*Plus bikes for kids*

First off:
let's tone it down a bit here people. No one is insulting you, they just have different ideas. let's be respectful and civil.

My kids both enjoy riding the plus/fat bikes. Plus and fat bikes offer control, stability and confidence to riders, something that's especially useful for kids. Some of those features could also be achieved with frame design and suspension, but there isn't very much choice in that for little kids.

My oldest daughter was riding a lightweight 24" bike with Rocket Rons and the RST air fork. She usually preferred the rigid 907 fat bike with a 26x3.0 Knard in back and a 26x4.0 Dillinger in front.



One Pivot said:


> Rolling resistance seem to be the major obstacle for kids.


True, but plus tires usually have less rolling resistance than narrower tires offroad.[SUP]*1*[/SUP]



> heavy/draggy tires seem to be the major obstacle for kids.


True, But who says these tires are heavy and draggy? The 20x2.8 tires on my daughters Riprock are no heavier than many 20" tires, and wider tires usually have less rolling resistance than narrower tires[SUP]2[/SUP].



> Kids can ride rigid and take the beating from roughness without even noticing.


I have seen the same thing. But comfort isn't the only reason. It's about control. Not crashing is a big deal.



BullSCit said:


> She was just starting to ride a 24" wheeled bike with Rocket Rons (24x2.1), I bought a pair of Schwalbe Fat Alberts (24x2.4). The different in lateral width is definitely more than 0.3 inches between these. She rode the Rons at 12-15 psi, and the Alberts at 7-8 psi. She was really slow compared to how she was biking the previous Fall


Useful observation. I suspect that for a large part this was due to the much higher weight and rolling resistance of the Alberts vs the Rocket Rons. Similar tires will have lower rolling resistance when they are wider, and are not that much heavier.



One Pivot said:


> I think it's proportional. A 2.0 for our 11 year old is a huge tire that can be ran under 20psi. It's more tire to her than a big 2.35 is to me.
> I'd be looking for some 1.95 or 2.0 tires. Even those are going to be super low pressure monster truck tires for a 6 year old.



I disagree on the 'proportion' part. True, kids can run the same pressure in a small tire as we can in a larger one. However, it is not the low pressure itself that results in the handling improvements, it's the results of that pressure:
A *larger contact patch*, *more tire deformation* around obstacles in the ground and a *softer spring rate*.
The contact patch is partly determined by tire pressure, and partly by casing size [SUP]*3*[/SUP].
Tire deformation and bump absorption are factors of the spring rate of the pneumatic tire and the riders weight.
It might help to think of the tire as a suspension fork:
Let's say, a kid can run 10 psi in a small tire, the same as you run in a fat tire.
Now make the same statement about a fork:
Kid and adult both put the same pressure in their fork. Who will have a harsher ride?
Or think about it this way:
Kid and adult both set their tire pressure so the tire completely 'absorbs' a 2" root.
Adult is on a 3.0" tire, kid is on a 2.0" tire. What happens when they both hit a 3" root?

I agree that there is a tradeoff to ever wider tires, and for a certain size kid, lightweight, fast rolling 24x2.3 tires on a wide rim might make the most sense, but those are hard to find.

The promise of plus bike tires is that they can bring similar traction and control as much heavier, knobbier tires with a narrower casing, thereby reducing rolling resistance while maintaining grip and control [SUP]*1*[/SUP] .

The way I look at it, the rigid or hardtail plus bikes offers kids many of the advantages of suspension, in a lighter, cheaper, easier to maintain package.


My daughter's rigid 20+ Riprock weighs 21 lbs, going to a 2.0 tire and narrower rim might save 1.5 lbs. No way I could add suspension for that weight (let alone cost).

Another reason to choose 20"+ tires is total wheel size diameter.

20x2.0:
406+100=*506mm diameter*
20x2.8:
406+140= *546mm diameter*
24x2.0
507+100=*607mm diameter*
24x2.8:
507+140=647 mm diameter
26x2.0:
559+100=659mm diameter

As you see, the plus tire size is right between 20 and 24" wheels. So if, like mine, your kid is bigger than needed for a 20" bike, but not really big enough for a 24", 20+ offers an in-between size.

[SUP]*1*[/SUP] 27+ vs 29, which is faster?

[SUP]*2*[/SUP] Wider is faster

[SUP]*3*[/SUP] contact patch vs tire width


----------



## Tjaard (Aug 17, 2007)

ETChipotle said:


> Lightweight fat tires for kids would be great on dirt trails, especially when we run into sand or soft dirt. Maybe a 24"x3.0 but I've given up on this


I don't know about 24" tires, but my specialized Roller 20x2.8 are lighter than most of the other 20" tires in my garage, except for a 20x1.8 Smallblock8.
They are also very supple, so rolling resistance and grip should be excellent.


----------



## Steve-XtC (Feb 7, 2016)

Tjaard said:


> First off:
> let's tone it down a bit here people. No one is insulting you, they just have different ideas. let's be respectful and civil.


Gotta agree .... you'd think people who are giving their opinion/experience were asking for someone to give up their first born!


----------

