[Closed] 27.5+ tyre weights

[url= https://drj0nswanderings.wordpress.com/tag/27-5/ ]drjon on his blog has a few good write-ups on 27.5+ tyres[/url], there's also the [url= http://forums.mtbr.com/27-5-29/ ]27.5+/29+ thread on mtbr[/url]

I don't mean this to sound patronising but rim choice makes a good deal of difference to the spread of the tyre and its overall width.

I've a pair of Hugo rims and they have plumped up even a Trailblazer to the point that its not a great fit in my frame. A 40mm rim would probably have been okay.

Just pipe dreams at the moment - but I was looking at WTB i45 rims and proper 3.0 inch tyres.

But this was more about the bulk of the bigger wheels and tyres and trying to minimise it.

One thing that confuses me is the imaginary line between normal, plus and fat.. Is it just width, for example up to 2.4,2.4 to 3, over 3.

Or is it profile too and what internal rim widths are recommended.. I mean is there a universal standard or are the lines a bit blurred?

Apologies ..... Read the title as widths 😳

Mate has just changed from Kinesis 29er wheels with High Rollers to Spesh + wheels and NN 2.8" - the B+ wheels are lighter. There's no need for a weight penalty, unless you currently have weeny lite wheels.

Panaracer FatBNimbles are 695g on my scales.
Sorry, but I didn't weigh the Nobby Nic 3.0 before I fitted it 😳

My wheels are Pro2 Boost, DT Rev spokes and Scraper i45 rims. Front weighs 1106g, rear weighs 1230g

My wheels are Pro2 Boost, DT Rev spokes and Scraper i45 rims. Front weighs 1106g, rear weighs 1230g

With NN's?

I've just weighed a spare 27.5 x 3" Nobby Nic EVO TLE (tubeless easy/snakeskin) in Trailstar compound and it weighs 904 grams

[quote=boxelder ]

My wheels are Pro2 Boost, DT Rev spokes and Scraper i45 rims. Front weighs 1106g, rear weighs 1230g

Nah - just the wheels!

NN 3.0 Pacestar Snakeskin - 805g
NN 2.8 Pacestar Snakeskin - 850g

The 3.0 number is correct, I double checked it and the tyre is alot thinner build than the 2.8

Nah - just the wheels!

Must be the boost.......

Did someone mention Boost?

The 3.0 number is correct, I double checked it and the tyre is alot thinner build than the 2.8

Yes and I think the 2.8 is a better tyre because of it. Obviously it depends on what you want to do with them and I suspect the 3 inch is better for bumbling along but when you start to push it the tyre gets all squirmy and horrible but I'm a relatively heavy guy. Tempted to swap my 3 inch out and run 2.8s front and rear.

NN Tyres are quite reasonable (esp compared to the WTB ones) those wheels are quite weighty. My flow/arch 650b wheels are 1710g. So 2336g is very heavy for those wheels esp. posh DT revolution spokes

suspect the 3 inch is better for bumbling along but when you start to push it the tyre gets all squirmy and horrible but I'm a relatively heavy guy. Tempted to swap my 3 inch out and run 2.8s front and rear.

At what psi? Have you tried running a higher psi on the 3.0?

My flow/arch 650b wheels are 1710g. So 2336g is very heavy for those wheels esp. posh DT revolution spokes

Rik - Member
My flow/arch 650b wheels are 1710g. So 2336g is very heavy for those wheels esp. posh DT revolution spokes

I45s though. That's a 650g rim versus 420g for the Arch.

At what psi? Have you tried running a higher psi on the 3.0?

20 psi. Followed the dirt recommendation where they were faffing around with the specialized enduro (albeit they were using 2.8s) as the rider weight is close to being the same as is the intended use albeit I'm waaay behind in skill set. Either way though, certainly not a silly low pressure.

There was a good article on NSMB with the Specialized fattie with two contrasting opinions of the plus wheels. I'm not convinced by the wheels to be honest, still trying them out but gut feeling tells me I prefer my 29er wheels with 2.3 aggressive rubber.

Yes and I think the 2.8 is a better tyre because of it.

[img] [/img]

I think the issue with the thinner ones is the PSI. Im running 10 Fr/Rr in the 2.8s and it works well. Gives me something that a normal tyre doesnt. One the 3.0s thats not viable and in my mind defeats the point of the tyres. I run <20 in normal tyres.

Just noticed I made a mistake up there - it's Comps, not Revs I used.

One thing that has disappointed me slightly is how much smaller the OD is compared to a 29er wheel. I can see why but still....

And what frame would you be running those in ben? 😉

Plus is bascially a con... if you believe its anything like a proper 29er size. If you just want a big ass tyre its pretty cool.

Running in a Zero AM.

Gotama - Member
One thing that has disappointed me slightly is how much smaller the OD is compared to a 29er wheel. I can see why but still....

As Ben says, it's not a fatter 29er. In fact it's a skinnier 26"fatbike.

I'm enjoying B+ on my Solaris but that's probably at least partly due to the fact that the BB was a bit high for my liking with 120mm forks anyway.

What bothers me is that we seem to be heading for a phase of manufacturers offering 29/27.5+ bikes. How's that supposed to work then? Unless there is some sort of geometry changing chip the BB will either be higher than optimum for the 29er or too low for the 27.5+ My guess is that they'll go for the latter then we'll have to put up with journalists raving about how much better the bike feels with the 27.5+ wheels.

I haven't mentioned this several times on this here forum

But you see when something shiny and new appears all I read is blah blah blah blah..... :-)Fortunately the bike I bought them for has adjustable dropouts so it can be largely sorted by putting those in high with a slackset to put the head angle back where it started. Think specialized just stick a longer fork on the front.

Some bikes have adaptable dropouts to handle the BB drop (Trek?)

I'm happy with a high BB for my riding so designed my Pact with 29 in mind, dropping a little to B+ (but using some of the biggest B+ tyres)

There are indeed ways to do it properly and that's fair enough, but I'll bet that we get a few manufacturers trying to sell us boost 29/27.5+ bikes with no adjustment for the different wheels. So, we're supposed to believe that a couple of mm on the hub width makes all the difference but you can change the BB height by 7mm and that doesn't matter!

If you are running a 2.4" 29er and switch to 2.8 Trailblazers you'll be dropping a lot more than 7mm.

I guess some folk will actually prefer the lower BB though.

I presumed that you would need a 3 inch tyre to truly feel the difference over something normal/big like a maxxis ardent 2.4?

If you are running a 2.4" 29er and switch to 2.8 Trailblazers you'll be dropping a lot more than 7mm.

About a 17.5mm drop would be more like it!

I presumed that you would need a 3 inch tyre to truly feel the difference over something normal/big like a maxxis ardent 2.4?

Yes and no. If you run the 2.8s at 'normal' pressures they are very normal tyres - drop them to 10PSI and suddenly they start making more sense as you get something that you don't on a normal tyre. Ive never pinched one at 10 which of course would be impossible on a 2.3/4, and I don't feel that they are particularly squirmy. They are however slow as **** on roads/firetrails (I run Pacestar to compensate a little but its still like driving a tractor on the road) and I think the tread could do with a bit more bite, but they are good in many ways. I like.

Aye, but there are threads full of folk putting 2.8" tyres on narrow rims and claiming they've set up B+ on their 29er.

How much do you weigh Ben? I appreciate I'm not the most graceful rider but I'd be smacking rims left, right and centre at 10psi on plus wheels.

Aye, but there are threads full of folk putting 2.8" tyres on narrow rims and claiming they've set up B+ on their 29er.

Pretty much endorsed by Cotic albeit I don't blame him from trying to make a few extra quid selling the frame as b+ with an i29 rim on the rear.

Hatching plans at present to convert my 29FS (Spectral) to 650B+. I use pretty small tyres (Shorty) at present, and am for getting a set of 45mm rims with 2.8 NN's.

The BB height on the Spectral is pretty high, I can't recall ever having a pedal strike on it (unlike my SB66!) so the drop down from 29 shouldn't affect it much, in my mind anyway!.

Looking forward to doing some test riding on familiar local stuff, and changing between wheels as well.

As I said, it'll suit some folks riding (aren't low BB's the new fashion anyway?). I just think folk should be well informed before jumping in.

12Stone if I am being generous to myself....

Just checked the pressures I was running yesterday with my possibly somewhat accurate Topeak Digi gauge - 12PSI - probably more likely than the 10 my compressor gauge showed. I basically kept dropping it until the tyres stopped feeling like space hoppers.

Pretty much endorsed by Cotic albeit I don't blame him from trying to make a few extra quid selling the frame as b+ with an i29 rim on the rear.

To be fair, I think their testing showed that the frame could handle the 45mm scraper rims OK, they just felt that i29 rear and i35 front worked a bit better. It's all on their blog somewhere I think.

there have been a few Cotic posts/emails about B+
might as well start here…

[url= http://www.cotic.co.uk/news/2015/newsolaris275plus ]cotic.co.uk/news/2015/newsolaris275plus[/url]

Does the 2.8 Nobby Nic measure up as a true 2.8 (on 45mm scraper rims) as I've heard it's small for its size???

If the sidewall is thinner on the 3.0 sounds like it would be better on the front with a stiffer 2.8 on the rear. You'll end up with a slightly slacker head angle as well.

Does the 2.8 Nobby Nic measure up as a true 2.8 (on 45mm scraper rims)

Saw some measurements on the fat bike forum at 72mm - 2.83" Rik.

Cheers boys - what rim is that tyre on Stu?

The Nobby Nics are nearly 2lb lighter a pair than some of WTBs plus sized offerings

Anyone in the Peterborough area got B+ tyre (on a no boost wheel) I can try for size in the back of my bike?