I’ve been looking at a rigid B+ bike, fancy one for bikepacking and bimbling XC.

But I’ve been unsure about a full bike or a frameset that could run both wheel/tyre combinations

I’ve already got a 29er, a Scandal mk2, so could share the wheels possibly. Scandal is a reasonable build 2×10 with 100mm reba’s, more of an xc race bik, one bottle cage mount, limited mounts generally. I’d like steel for the bimbler anyway.

Then I got to wondering, is B+, in say claimed 2.8 (WTB) on a wide rim really that much different/better than a big(ish) 29er tyre? Like a 2.4 or thereabouts. I guessed that a lot of people riding B+ for these purposes now will have been 29er converts already?

I think if I went frameset/parts bin/shared wheels I could get rolling for £600. But there’s a complete bike going for £140 more with B+……….

The WTB TB 2.8” IMHO is quite a misleading B+ tyre.

The width of the tread, on a Hugo, is eclipsed by the width of the sidewalls and I would say the contact area isn’t much larger than a decent 2.35″ 29er tyre but you do get the volume.

A 3″ NN is a much more rounded tyre than the TB and the tread width is much wider than the sidewalls – again on a Hugo – as such it’s much bigger than say a 2.4″ Ardent on a Flow EX rim.

If you go the B+ route my suggestion would be go with a combo (rim, tyre, frame) that gives more options than simply running a 2.8″ TB or worse a 2.6″. ……. 😮

Thanks, I’m worried that 2.6 or 2.8 might simply be missing the point a bit and offer little over a 2.4 29er. At the same time, I’m not really sure I want a 3″ or bigger tyre, seems like it might just be heavy, slow and hard work in comparison. Full fat bikes don’t interest me.

Even 3″ tyres on 52mm rims are a fair way off a 3.8″ tyre on a 65mm rim.

I don’t have anything other than experience with the 2.8″ TB and 3.0″ NN but would agree that certainly under 2.8″ seems to be missing the point.

The volume should be greater on the plus set up of you have an adequate sized rim ( ooh er ) to make the most of it.

I suppose that’s where the benefit is, in the volume and pressure reduction rather than the tread width/contact area, though any increase is a happy consequence.

I know where theres a cannondale beast of the east in medium with 27.5 x 3″ tyres. Got RS forks though for close to 1k

I ended up preferring 2.4″ 29er on a 30mm rim to a 650 2.8-3.0 on 45mm rim overall but it’s all very subjective based on where you ride and what you want a bike to feel like. I don’t think bigger is better, only that there’s a balance to be had. There’s no free gains with MTB wheels.

would agree that certainly under 2.8″ seems to be missing the point.

Yes, just need to know what the point is, what you want out of the bike.

The WTB 2.8 has benefits imo, it adds volume without adding tread size / drag so makes a good back tyre. Not as good up front though.

Edit to add, you mention bikepacking – as soon as you load a bike there’s advantages to larger volume tyres.

Well I’m unlikely to ride in much (any) sand or snow, though I know they’re perceived as full fat bike territory, so that kind of takes away some of the need for plus tyres. But, I will hopefully be riding on the hills, so likely to be soft/boggy/draggy going, particularly in winter. Not sure if the larger volume/contact area is your friend then?

For bikepacking I suppose the larger volume permits lower pressures and more comfort for the same given load. Though tyre size in relation to rim width is probably nearly as important if you’re to keep the tyres seated and not squirming around like hell.

I find 29er quite different to b+ 29er faster more nimble plus is comfy. I have a ramin plus that I’ve altered the gearing on that’s great but tbh doesn’t get a look in now I have the Jones but they are quite different. I am debating selling it tho (stealth ad lol) but I’ve just bought some brand new stans flow 29er wheels for it too so not certain doh…

Jameso after riding the Jones half fat and looking at them side by side I’m half tempted to try a 29er 2.3 in the rear with the 3.0 bridger 27.5 up front on the ramin, and try the 27.5 trailblazer in the back of the Jones 🙂

core – I have a Pact that I built up to use either B+ or 29er wheels and will fit whatever I think is most appropriate for the route I’ll be doing. I did opt for full-on Plus (45mm rims and 3.0″ tyres) as it seemed slimmer rims and narrower tyres were sort of missing the point. I also have both rigid and suspension forks so there are quite a few permutations available (including mixing wheel sizes). One thing to watch if you decide to go down this route is BB height. You’ll drop a few mm with the Plus wheels, especially if you use smaller (e.g. 2.8″) tyres.

I do also have a fatbike (4.0″ tyres) to handle snow/beaches etc.

Not sure if the larger volume/contact area is your friend then?

Not ime of clay-based soil or the usual wet woodland stuff, even a 29×2.4 is poor there. If it’s a gritty sort of soft and wet it’d not be so bad. Heard good things about fat bikes for some wet conditions and going off-trail though so again, depends on where/how you’re riding. Or just the tyre tread. Maybe it’s just a question of how much of that bouncy cush/grip feel you like vs a ‘quicker’ or more ‘edged’ feel of a 29er.

Firestarter, they sound like good combos .. A while ago what I wanted to try out was a 650B x 3.5 front for my Jones, something with the same OD as the 2.4 Ardent on the rear. Never really find the 29er set up lacking unless I’m riding a few days of rocky stuff when a fatter front end appeals in the same way a hardtail does.

The WTB TB tyres are the ones that really kicked off the whole plus thing, if I remember correctly and for good reason. They are fun on dry trails, adding a bit more volume and decent grip for larking about. The problem came (at least for me) when the trails got wet and the TBs just weren’t up to the job. Anything that was up to the job just seemed to be so much more draggy than a 29er that I just ended up going back to 29.

They were also neither fish nor fowl, so I added a proper fatbike too 🙂

I’ve gone back to 29r from B+. I liked it, but found B+ to be just too fragile.

I’m surprised no-one has mentioned it, but one major advantage of B+ over large 29er for a bikepacking application is you can get B+ in fast rolling XC tread patterns. If you want a proper big 29er tyre you are generally looking at an allround or enduro tread which is too draggy for bikepacking imo

fifeandy, Ardent 2.4 EXO? Pretty much the biggest 29er casing and a great BP tyre for all-round stuff imo. Tough and rolls well enough off-road if used at lower pressures. The Ikon 2.35 is good if you want proper-fast treads, also a really big casing compared to most 2.3 labelled tyres.

I ride a 29

I also ride a B+ which has a Trailblazer on the rear. Despite its limitations, it does give a lot more traction and cushioning than a 29. It’s a very acceptable option as a rear tyre if you are trying to squeeze it into limited frame clearance.

I do worry about the tread ending where it does…rather like an 80’s flattop haircut in profile. I worry that leaning it over and the sidewall is exposed. That said, in 1100 miles of ragging it…not a single flat. (35mm internal width rim) – maybe I just don’t ride hard enough!

I’ve a 3.0NN on the front. I LOVE That tyre. So much grip and ability to carry silly speed into things (sometimes trees).

Does the weight of a sturdy B+ tyre compare to the drag caused by a biy lumpy 29er tyre though?

Jameso I currently have a 26 3.8 nate on the front of the Jones and a 29er 2.3 wtb breakout but the rear is a good 20mm bigger than the front wheel and a trailblazer on 27.5 is exactly the same size as the nate. With my eyes anyway lol

Does the weight of a sturdy B+ tyre compare to the drag caused by a biy lumpy 29er tyre though?

I’m surprised at just how rapid it is on the road. Ok…its’ no Racing Ralph…but despite the bulk it rolls along (albeit on a shallower tread) pretty well.

The Ikon 2.35 is good if you want proper-fast treads, also a really big casing compared to most 2.3 labelled tyres.

Yeah, the Ikon 2.35 is a monster and a pretty good choice, but thats a choice of 1, whereas in B+ you’ve got quite a range of options.

Having ridden both on an original genesis longitude, you do get noticeably more cushioning and grip from b+ 3″ tyre than 29er 2.4″