Are they just 27.5 rims with bad ass wide tyres?

basically but with frame/fork clearance to match. 2.8 – 3″ seems to count as ‘+’ without being ‘fat’.

Yes but.

Expect 27.5+/B+ frames to have the new, wider axle standard and use different Q Factor cranks.

Welcome to a year ago: http://twentynineinches.com/2014/05/19/wtb-pushes-b-wheel-size-with-new-tirerim/

I like the look of the Genesis taken on it. Won’t be available to buy till near end of the year though they say

Next up will be 26+ for long travel applications when all your 27.5 bikes have been consigned to marketers obsolescence.

Oh the **** great manatee.

Is this true?
I’m due to buy a new bike and was thinking about 27.5 but should I wait for this me walls ongoing all dancing wheel, mmm… Where have I heard all this befo

I wouldn’t really bother, it’s main application will be for shorter travel bikes and hardtails. If you’re looking for a 150-170mm bike, 27.5 will probably stay the norm or move to 26+.

Unless that is…. you like long travel 29ers…. however despite Specialized’s best attempts people haven’t bought them up in any near as large quantities as 27.5 bikes.

These new 27.5+ bikes have the same contact patch area as a 29er (the 2.8 tread patterns are no wider in reality) they just blow up taller and fatter. Think of it as undamped suspension – a little bit pointless.

Boost uses same Q factor cranks. But 3mm further out chainline, to match the 6mm wider hubset.

so would that mean than on a geared on, with say a 10 speed cassette, the line would be quite acute in high gears ?

What’s happening with 29+?
I’ve been burying my head in the sand until we get a delivery date for the Rooster, so unaware of any developments, but is this wheel size now obsolete?

Boost uses same Q factor cranks. But 3mm further out chainline, to match the 6mm wider hubset.[/quote]Aye, sorry. I was trying to think of a short way of describing it whilst typing in on a phone 🙂

I’m being a bit thick here, but surely with same q factor, and a wider hub, the chain at the axle, when in a low gear, is much further out from the centreline of the bike, therefore chainline between front rings and smallest sprocket is more acute than with a conventional hub ? 😳

just re-read brant’s bit about the chainline at the front end being wider….

I’m sure that’s a big, (half) fat yes!

Or there’s this
https://www.traversbikes.com/store/p8/Rudy_Fat_29__Frame.html

And there you have the real benefit of + sizes- they look awesome

That was the Turner Khan (Fatbike) not the 29er. I stood next to that this time last week 🙂 But it is awesome.

Let me guess, you’d recommend Procore instead 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆

Those 3 inch tyres just seem idiotic,

Thanks for that, but I don’t ride long travel bikes. Softer, 3 inch tyres have their pros and cons. It’s not as simple as ‘slower’; they roll better in certain situations, despite the additional weight.

Brant – I’ll drop you a line. I’ve seen the Travers Rudy Fat and the Carver Gnarvester but neither is, off the peg, quite what I’m after.

Edit: I guess you might have been referring to the Turner… That’s not my thing, but I’m happy that such bikes exist. Here’s another bike that made me smile to see, but you will hate: http://www.lenzsport.com/detail.php?prodID=37

Having ridden 2.5″ supertacky High rollers and 4″ Floaters almost back to back, the floaters roll better, and grip better.

And I’ve said it before it’s not 4″ of undamped travel, well it is, but you’re never likely to use it, it take the same force to compress a 4″ tyre 2″ as it does to compress a 2″ tyre 2″ at twice the pressure, which is about what people run them at (20someting PSI in a 2.2 vs 10Psi in a 4″). That 2nd 2″ is just in reserve, sure you could compress it, but that would take double kind of force that gives a double snakebite. What you do get is a really supple tyre that deforms over smaller trail detrious, and as it’s half the pressure (c.f. spring rate) of a conventional tyre it would only need half the damping anyway.

Just had to google what boost is.

Could they really not achieve that by telling the manufacturers to offset the existing rear hub by 3mm and even out the DS/NDS spoke tension in the process? The cranks fine, but everyone else could just have run the chainring in the outer rather than middle position.

And 110mm hubs? What does that help? 100mm<3″, the tyres would (and did, see the insitigator) have fit.

The bike industry really does seem to be heading down Motorbike route of buying a complete bike, with only a few interchangeable bits.

I’ll believe it when I’ve ridden one

You’re keen to believe other things when you’ve not ridden them

Yes

It adds 5mm per side clearance at the “slider bearing” area on the fork leg sliders. Gets a bit tight side-to-side otherwise.

The XT crankset is saying Sultan to me. But I swear it had an 100mm BB shell and “fatbike wide” rear hub. I stood next to it in a meeting 🙂

Jetlag.

Do you realise what this is doing to poor, innocent quokkas?

As if killing kittens wasn’t bad enough!