[Closed] So is + faster?

[img] [/img]

He /she who has most fun, wins.

matt_outandabout - Member

He /she who has most fun, wins.

No. I want to remove any sensation that I am riding off road or on loose surfaces.

Things mountain bikers say: "is that 27.5 or 27.5+?" "You deffo want + on here, the larger contact patch really shaves time of the dusty patch when your not pedalling."

You know what would have been even faster? My 26" HT, from 2001.

So i take it jimjam rides a rigid bike with 1.75 tyres then? 😛

Ride whatever type of bike you want.
No one else gives a shit.

To answer the OP's question.
I've never had a 27.5 bike so no idea.

Yes and no.

HTH

What a very unscientific way of confirming that wheel size makes little to no difference.

I love these videos. They are a perfect example of how you can prove anything you like with a badly designed experiment (and a reminder of how hard it is to do proper science).

When 29ers hit the market we had the same folk proving that the bigger wheel was faster. Then when 27.5 came out they managed to prove that smaller was actually faster after all. Now bigger (on a smaller rim) is the fastest. All good stuff as long as nobody takes it seriously.

I'm with singlespeedstu, I've got three bikes with all sorts of different sizes.

Dunno which is the fastest, fitted a stem captain clock on one of the bikes, it was the only thing that was fast.....

29+, 26 x 4, and 27.5

I like them all.

The ones we have lots of in stock and are having trouble selling are the fastest

from personal experience i've only ridden a b+ eMTB (at 38psi!) so speed isn't something i can comment on because the magic buttons help with that, but the traction available compared to a traditional 27.5 or 29er is fantastic, noticable on loose terrain particularly when climbing.

I've never understood the traction argument. It's mostly a consequence of lower pressures rather than being intrinsic to the wheel, but also, there is a huge variation in traction between the different tyres on the market. Much bigger than the difference due to the different wheel (in my experience). So, if you want more traction, just fit a stickier tyre.

I love these videos. They are a perfect example of how you can prove anything you like with a badly designed experiment (and a reminder of how hard it is to do proper science).

I quite like GMBN. It's steeped in broscience, but still fun to watch.

Would have been nice if he had done a dozen or so runs on each and given an average time.

Everyone knows it just what you like to cycle that matters.

so people are fitting wider wheels to give them more support and/or wider tyres.

but when someone come along with a really wide tire its rubbish?

Would have been nice if he had done a dozen or so runs on each and given an average time

But then he'd have got tired, so the order of the tests might be a significant factor and conditions may have changed.

I've been riding a 26" full-suss (Five) and a 29er HT (Solaris) for over a year now and have got loads of data on segments that have been ridden a dozen or more times on each bike. The tests obviously aren't blind (I know what bike I'm riding) but since I wasn't actually trying to compare the bikes when I did the rides they are as close as you'll get. I've tried running some stats on the results and the only conclusion I can come to is that "some days I'm faster than others".

There are smooth fireroad climbs where the HT is faster (as you'd probably expect), but other smooth fireroad climbs where the best time on the Five is almost 10% faster than the best time on the Solaris. There are rocky descents where the Five is faster, but others where the Solaris wins. Even trying more complicated tests using the whole data (rather than just which is faster) fails to show anything significant.

The bottom line is that the variance in my own performance is much higher than any difference between the bikes, so in order to get a significant result I'll need a lot more data. That's comparing two pretty different bikes. I'd hate to think how much data you'd need to detect a difference in just one component.

Interesting side benefit of the Plus sized Genius is that it takes 29er wheels

http://www.mtb-mag.com/en/bike-check-remy-absolons-scott-genius-plus/

so people are fitting wider wheels to give them more support and/or wider tyres

Wider rims yes, but you don't really need wider hubs, the "boost" thing is the real new standard for no reason thing

roverpig - Member

I've never understood the traction argument. It's mostly a consequence of lower pressures rather than being intrinsic to the wheel,

Aye, but big tyres allow for lower pressures so it's not really seperable.

Which one brings the trail alive though?

Real world though, the test was as scientific as it needs to be. An experienced rider rides the same track on two bikes and compares the times. Then discusses his feelings about how each bike rides. All the data in the world pumped into a computer isn't going to generate anything more meaningful.

Er... actually, yes it could.

Two runs is miles away from what you need for any kind of accurate assessment unless the difference in results is so huge that there's no way they could converge on other attempts.

his feelings

Human perception is notoriously bad at judging what is better from a performance pov.

I thought I was going to learn something from this,

alas no

Interesting variable...

His bike was 1 second slower than a different bike. he should know the exact ins and outs of his bike so I'd knock more off the b+ time... if I cared two hoots, which I dont

Well I thought it was quite useful at least showing that the two bikes are in the same ballpark.

Anyone else have preferred to see 29in vs B-plus though?

I like GMBN too, and donoghue, but that video is just a rider sponsored by scott saying the new scott bikes are great and the new wheelsize is great too.