(26 obviously ancient history now)

“The team at Charge have been riding 27Plus for some time and believe it’s a new and significant growth category for mountain bike. Riding a 27Plus bike means you measure your day in smiles not miles! They are fun to ride.

Bold, I wonder how many others will follow suit over next 18 months?

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/charge-ditches-29ers-and-650b-for-27-5-for-2016-mtbs/017948

Riding a 27Plus bike means you measure your day in smiles not miles!

ugh

Interesting. They have quite a small range though – it’s not like they’re converting across a large range of different applications.

Makes you wonder how long they will be a sponsor of Erlestoke if they don’t have an XC style bike in their range.

Riding a 27Plus bike means you measure your day in smiles not miles!

I measure my days in hours, minutes and seconds…

Interesting that they’re effectively “Downsizing” their range, might just be that charge are taking a strategic gamble on one specific wheel size niche…

Brave or foolhardy? It all depends on how keen to adopt yet another wheel/tyre size MTBists really are.

If it doesn’t make the trails come alive then I’m not interested

Umm wtf is 27 plus??

:? I use to really like Charge. I’ve had a Cooker, Duster, Iron and 3x Blenders and countless saddles. All great bikes and parts. Seems odd to jump on the ’27Plus’ thing and not offer any alternatives.

Umm wtf is 27 plus??

it’s a 650b rim, and a 3″ tyre.

‘some’ 29er frames have clearance for this.

Riding a 27Plus bike means you measure your day in smiles not miles!

I thought that was fat bikes?!

its 650b or 27.5″ with a shed load of mud clearance
or putting a big tyre on.

both my current bikes are 26+, so in the summer i can use massive tyres and in the winter i can use normal ones that dont rip the frame/forks apart.

its boring isnt it

I wouldnt say boring, but I have a feeling it makes naff all differnece int he real world and wish we could have stuck with 26..

Umm wtf is 27 plus??

More than 27 minus.

you can take your 26″ wheels, and chuck them in the pile with the 680mm bars and 100mm stems.

More than 27 minus.

Yeah – that’s next year’s trend.

Can I get directions to that pile. I need wider bars and some new wheels..

So if I’m going to buy a new bike in the next couple of months, what wheelsize do I buy whilst remaining confident the industry won’t have decided to make my bike obsolete in 18 months’ time?

Yeah – that’s next year’s trend.

When does 26+ become a thing?

Charge has released early images of its 2016 mountain bikes for a range that will solely focus on the 27Plus wheel size – there are no 26,29 or 27.5 inch models in the line at all.

Apart from all the 27.5 just with fatter tyres on….

This is getting more than a little bit boring now

This is getting more than a little bit boring now

+1.
Thanks Charge. Thanks for working towards making our bikes redundant…..again *slow clap*

All sounds good, could put 2.3″ tyres on it if you wanted with monster clearance or run 3″ for fun. With suprise me if 29″ wheels fitted in as well, damn you Charge for giving us options.

If it fits 29″ wheels, it’s a 29er.

Yeah – I’m not feeling their current line up, firstly no steel geared bikes, and by making their bikes only 27+, I think they’re missing a big part of the market. Given that the clearances for 27+ and 29 are similiar I would have thought they would have made their bikes compatible with both “standards”

My 650 ht fits 26+ but it’s not a 26+er, people get too caught up in labels. Bash a different size pair if wheels in, it’s only a bike.

miketually – Member

When does 26+ become a thing?

I’d bet money that within 3 years it’ll go full circle and 26″ will come back, only very slightly different to ensure that it’s “new” and nothing from a ‘old 26″‘ will be compatible.

Anyone heard if they are coming with ‘boost’ hubs, or just 100/135/142.

miketually
When does 26+ become a thing?

It’s been here a while- its called the Surly Instigator
We also have Surly to thank for the xPlus idea.

They’re forgetting that people aren’t feeling that wealthy at the moment – I suspect a lot of people just can’t afford to sell their current bike (now obsolete so worth very little) and buy a whole new one.

Innovation which allows us to incrementally upgrade existing bikes, ok. ‘Innovation’ which makes expensive existing bikes redundant, requiring a full replacement, not so good – not when people are short of cash…

I wouldnt say boring, but I have a feeling it makes naff all differnece int he real world and wish we could have stuck with 26..

And friction shifters and canti’s and quill stems.

Having said that I’ve never actually ridden a Charge bike I’ve actually liked. I liked the look of their XC bikes, but they rode horribly (tall BB, short TT, like they were designed to be weelie’d everywhere). So this news doesn’t bother me apart from the fact I’ve almost entirely ridden a fat bike this year so quite fancy a slightly more sensible alternative!

Innovation which allows us to incrementally upgrade existing bikes, ok. ‘Innovation’ which makes expensive existing bikes redundant, requiring a full replacement, not so good – not when people are short of cash…

If it’s not better than what it replaces then why bother innovating. Either it’s better, and people buying new should have the choice of whatever is the best available (if they didn’t you’d be back complaining that companies had been drip feeding change to keep you upgrading). Or it’s not better, and why would that bother you as if it was you wouldn’t change.

Think of it this way, no one bats an eyelid that car wheels on most are almost all in the region of 24″, but you can get anything from a 15″ and a Maxxis trepadoor 4X4 tyre to a 20″ rim with a 2″ strip of tyre for a track day car, one’s fun (and fast occasionally) the other’s fast, and probably wouldn’t last too long off road. 650b+ in theory with enough width could fit in anything from a fat bike to a 29er without a substantial change in diameter. No one’s forcing the change, you could buy one of these charge frames and probably stick 29er wheels in there.

I’ve a regular 650b bike that’ll take maybe a 2.4″ tyre. It’s pretty awesome. I shan’t get round to 27.5+ probably, but I like the idea of the sheer hugeness of 29+.

All this stuff is new, and it’s fun for those who do change bikes quite a lot. I’ve yet to see much evidence that anyone is genuinely struggling to source parts for their 26ers. It seems just to be (quite high-pitched) internet noise.

:-)

Riding a 27Plus bike means you measure your day in smiles not miles!

Too tiring and slow to ride those fat tyres too far presumably

They’re forgetting that people aren’t feeling that wealthy at the moment – I suspect a lot of people just can’t afford to sell their current bike (now obsolete so worth very little) and buy a whole new one.

In theory, reality is bike shops cant get enough stock to satisfy demand. Cycling really is the new golf, people buy new bikes and discard old ones. ‘Upgraders’ are not the market force they once were.

And friction shifters and canti’s and quill stems.

WOW. So an extra 24mm on the wheels or 12mm on tyre width offers as much difference to a bike as disc brakes?
Erm….no.

I can answer my own question, not Boost, according to the STW article on the front page.

Also;

As is contemporary, the head angles are slackened off slightly over last year’s 29ers, the front centre is slightly longer and the stems, slightly (10mm) shorter. With the WTB 27+ tyres being around 14mm shorter than 29ers, this isn’t a direct port of the 29er frame into a 27+. The chainstays have been shortened and the BB height adjusted to take into account the shorter tyre too.

No 29er backwards compatibility (probably) due to being designed for smaller tyres, also as designed for 2.8 the ability to run 3.0 or 3.25 is questionable.

Kind of gone off them now.

wrecker – Member
Thanks Charge. Thanks for working towards making our bikes redundant…..again *slow clap*

It’s not Charge, it’s the industry.

And you’ll be able to get many 26 & 29″ spares for years to come.

So they’re ditching 650b for…..650b with a bigger tyre…? Why (apart from fat bikes) would you want a tyre bigger than 2.35?

So they’re ditching 650b for…..650b with a bigger tyre…? Why (apart from fat bikes) would you want a tyre bigger than 2.35?

Why would you want a 2.35 over a 2.00? same answers apply.

All this stuff is new

But is it? I mean really, genuinely New???
It all feels more like a bit of a marketing formula given the last few years of MTB wheel “Development”…

Pick an existing Rim size, 622mm, 584mm, whatever, take a tyre profile not previously used on that particular rim; mash the two together and give it a bit of branding. Make minimal reference to any similarities with the other stuff already fitted to peoples bikes, make sure MBR/MBUK are on-message, and get busy selling!

You can’t help but be a bit cynical about these things now, I’m sure there are genuine merits to “27Plus” but as wheels they are still round, so it’s hardly a quantum leap over and above what you could buy before…

genuinely New???

For a couple of decades, there wasn’t any serious buggering about with wheel sizes at all. Now we’ve had a huge explosion of innovation, or at least, experimentation, with using different wheel sizes for different applications.

You don’t have to try each one – sitting it out and checking back in in 5 years, or just plumping for one and not worrying about it are all sane enough. Presumably it’ll settle down a bit at some point and the enthusiasm for experimenting with wheel sizes will move on to something else with some sort of consensus established about what works best.

:-)

This is a lot of fuss over a manufacturer promising to make their tyres slightly wider