Intense Tracer 275 Review
TESTED
Intense Tracer 275
WORDS Richard Cunningham
PHOTOS Ian Hylands
The Tracer Legacy
This test explores the attributes of the 27.5-inch-wheel version of the Intense Tracer - the latest chapter in the development of the Southern California bike maker's most popular aluminum-framed trail bike. Intense launched the Tracer in the year 2000 with Horst-link suspension, slacker frame geometry, and a more downhill-friendly cockpit than the typical XC bikes of the time. It could be argued that the birth of the Tracer marked the rebirth of the trail bike. Today's Tracer has VPP suspension, almost double the wheel travel of that first model, and its steering geometry is slacker than the downhillers of that era, but its purpose remains steadfast - to blend the traits of a good climber and descender into one bike that shreds all. With the adoption of 650B wheels, the Tracer 275 has the potential to take the classic trail bike to the next level, but before diving into a wheel debate, we investigate the back-story of Intense's latest shredder.
Intense now offers the Tracer in all three wheel diameters, so the 275 benefits from an evolutionary design process. Intense founder Jeff Steber was an enthusiastic early adopter of the 29er. After Steber had successfully honed the 29er version into the Tracer of his dreams, he was armed with the real-world information necessary to blend the velvety roll-over and in-the-bike feel of the 29er with the precise steering and snappy pedal feel which are attributes of a 26er. The seemingly rapid development of the Tracer 275 was made possible by the fact that Intense makes, welds, heat treats and finishes nearly every part of its aluminum frames in their Temecula, California, factory - so Steber, who still designs and constructs prototypes there, can make changes as necessary, regardless of how large or minute they may be. With trails ranging from pro DH to flowy XC within minutes of the building, Steber and his trusted hard men can immediately evaluate modifications in geometry or suspension and be back making new parts the same day. While the handling and performance qualities of 26 compared to 29-inch-wheel bikes are an obvious contrast, assessing the more subtle differences between those and the mid-size, 27.5-inch wheel would be difficult at best without the rapid prototyping and evaluation capabilities that Intense enjoys.
 |
 Intense G1 dropouts (left) are bolted onto the swingarm using aluminum chainring hardware - an arrangement that provides for all axle combinations and future geometry changes. A rubber seal protects the hose entry point for the Tracer's Reverb Stealth dropper seatpost (center). A look under the Tracer 275 bottom bracket shell reveals ISCG-05 chainguide tabs and grease ports used to service the rocker-link bearings. |
Tracer 275 Construction
The 275 frame is assembled on different tooling than 26 and 29-inch Tracer frames because its geometry is unique in order to maximize the attributes of its chosen wheel diameter. Tracers are primarily constructed from Easton 6000-series alloy taper-butted and manipulated aluminum tubes, although the top tube/seat tube strut is hydroformed from flat aluminum and then welded into an efficient, one-piece structure. Intense makes the frame's suspension rockers, dropouts, bottom bracket shell and shock mounts on its network of CNC machining centers. Even threaded bits like the adjustable suspension pivot hardware are made in-house. Tracer frames feature two travel options: 5.5 or 6 inches (140mm, 150mm) and are recommended for forks in the 150 to 160-millimeter travel range. The 275 is described by Intense as suitable for trail, all-mountain and Enduro, so the chassis is built tough enough to compete at the highest level of Enduro, as well as to handle the wide range of riding styles that all-mountain encompasses. Big-hit toughness, however, comes with a weight penalty. A medium Tracer frame with its Fox Float CTD shock weighs 7.8 pounds, which is competitive within the realm of AM and Enduro, but a pound off the mark for carbon-friendly XC/trail riders. Our medium-size Shimano XT equipped test bike weighed 30.7 pounds without pedals.
Tracers have ISCG-05 chainguide mounts at the bottom bracket and internal and external routing for a dropper seatpost. Out back, heavy duty G1 replaceable dropouts house a 142/12mm through-axle. As is the practice now, the G1's massively rigid hanger ensures that impacts to your rear derailleur will not bend the hanger and shove the mech into the spinning spokes. In most cases, it will be shifting properly when you return, or be dangling by its cable. The front changer has a direct-mount boss to place it correctly in space, as the seat tube is bent forward for tire clearance. On the subject of tire clearance, there is room for rubber up to 2.5 inches wide, although real estate is cramped near the top of the tread at both the seat stay and chain stay bridges of the swingarm. There are no bottle mounts to be found anywhere, as proper stand-over clearance and shock placement trumps most of the available space in the Tracer's frame. Serviceability is ensured by full-length housing and hose runs, a threaded bottom bracket shell and press-in headset cups, as well as adjustable angular-contact bearings in the suspension pivot locations. Grease fittings are installed on the vulnerable lower rocker link so the bearings there can be routinely purged of grit or moisture.
 |
Tracer 275 Suspension
Santa Cruz shares its patented VPP dual-link suspension with Intense, so the Tracer 275's shock tuning and suspension rate curves reap benefits from two design teams. What that means is efficient, firm pedaling at the sag position, with smooth, linear-feeling suspension through the mid-stroke and just enough of a rising rate towards the end-stroke to mute maximum events. Rocker links pivot on stiff, 15-millimeter shafts and angular-contact-type ball bearings. If any free-play develops in the pivots, it can be easily tuned out using collet-style adjusters at each location. Two mounting positions for the custom-tuned Fox Float CTD shock on the upper rocker link provide either 5.5 or 6 inches of rear-wheel travel. Switching to the shorter option firms up the feel of the suspension slightly, but does not affect the bike's bottom bracket height or its frame numbers. We rode most of the test intervals with the shock in the six-inch position.
 |
| Tracer 275s have about 1/4 inch (6mm) less suspension travel than their 26-inch-wheel siblings - presumably to circumvent potential tire-clearance issues. (Clockwise) Widely spaced bearings on the lower VPP link boosts the Tracer's lateral stiffness. The one-piece swingarm employs oversize tubes to further maximize the frame's rigidity. Two positions on the Tracer 275's lower shock mount determine rear-travel options. |
Intense paired the Tracer 275's 160-millimeter rear end with a 150-millimeter-stroke Fox 34 Float Kashima CTD fork. Armed with 'Climb - Trail - Descend' options on both ends, Tracer 275 riders have the ability to maintain the bike's ride height with three tuning combinations by matching the CTD selections on the fork and shock. The magic of the VPP suspension design, with its good balance of pedaling firmness and smooth suspension action was such that we rarely twisted either CTD dial. The notable exception was our preference for the nearly locked out 'Climb' option for long highway stints. Before you infer that the Tracer 275's suspension is bob-free under power, it is not. The Tracer's rear suspension is configured to remain effective both under power and while braking, so the shock will cycle slightly most of the time when pedaling.
Tracer 275 Standout Components
Once exclusively a frame builder, Intense now regularly ships complete bikes, furnished with a number of standard build kits. Our test bike is based upon the Shimano XT 'Expert' kit, which would normally result in a MSRP of $4800 USD, but our Tracer was upgraded with a RockShox Reverb dropper post and Sun Ringlé Charger Expert tubeless-ready wheels, so its sticker price would be significantly higher. Rolling out with a best-of class dropper is always a good thing - and Charger rims are licensed by Stan's, so you know that they will be excellent tubeless performers. Shimano XT Trail brakes with ICE rotors join the Tracer's best-of list, which is topped off by Kashima-coat Fox suspension and a sweet Cane Creek headset. The only questionable choice in the Tracer 275's near perfect all-mountain/trail component selection was its Shimano XT triple crankset. The only visible wear the teeth received on the 42-tooth chainring was inflicted by the rocks and logs we bashed on the trail. A two-by-ten drivetrain would have been perfection.
|  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TRAIL REPORT:
Riding the Tracer 275
The most noticeable improvement that the larger wheels bring to the ride is a precise feel over the faster sections of the trail. | Regardless of intent, our first rides aboard the Tracer 275 were going to be heavily colored by preconceptions based upon the bike's 650B wheels. Were we weighing the performance of a familiar bike, adapted to a new wheel size, or were we riding a completely new design to be judged upon its own merits? Much of that mystery was put to rest during the roll-around check rides required to get the suspension and cockpit dialed in. Turns out, the Tracer 275 feels a lot like a contemporary trail bike. |
Suspension Setup: The suspension rate-curve that Intense chose for the 275 requires a good deal of pressure in the shock-spring. Use the push-on-the-saddle method to assess its spring pressure and you would swear that it is way too stiff, but under saddle, the suspension settles into its ride height and the shock then feels quite plush. Set the shock at 30-percent sag and the Tracer will deliver the smoothest ride over the chatter without bottoming on larger impacts. That worked out to 200psi for a combined rider and gear weight of 175/180 pounds. We pressurized the Fox 34 fork to about 75 psi. The result was a good fore-aft balance with a little extra stiffness in the fork to keep the Tracer riding level on the downhills.
Pedaling/acceleration: Weighing in at a touch over 30 pounds and with slightly heavier rolling stock than a 26-inch trail bike, the Tracer 275's rate of acceleration falls between that of a snappy feeling all-mountain and an overweight XC bike. That said, the 275 feels quick enough at the cranks to pepper a long-day's ride with maximum efforts, and its weight is seldom noticed, as the Tracer's balanced cockpit and easy handling allow its rider to quickly forget about the bike and get to the business of shredding. We tried various combinations of 'Climb-Trail-Descend' on the fork and shock during early testing and decided that, unless we were rolling on pavement, the 275 pedaled well enough to leave it wide open on 'Descend' the whole day. For the rare, smooth, flowing XC/trail ride, choosing 'Trail' mode with the pedaling platform set somewhere in the middle of the range made for a brighter, slightly firmer feel under power. Running both ends on 'Climb' raised the bike's ride height on trail, which eroded its feel to some degree.
Climbing:. The first clear indicator of the 275's handling with regard to its wheel diameter was that the bike's front end stayed put and steered well while grinding up steep, technical trails. Unlike 29ers, which due to their long chainstays are comparatively heavy up front, the Tracer maintains a better balance. Little or no attention is required to keep its rear tire biting, and its front tire can be easily lightened to clear steps or roots without an exaggerated weight shift. In similar situations, a typical 26-inch-wheel trail bike's front wheel would be skipping all over the place unless its pilot took corrective action. As a result, the Tracer 275 redirects energy and concentration that would normally be wasted maneuvering the bike, towards the more important task of pedaling to the top of the hill. Like most bikes that fall near the all-mountain category, the six-inch-travel 275 climbs most efficiently while its rider is seated. We learned to maximize the effects of our out-of-the-saddle efforts by choosing the most opportune moment to throw-down on a climb.
Descending/technical performance: When pressed hard, there are many moments when the Tracer acts much like a regular mid-travel 26-inch AM/trail bike. There is no sense when jumping that the 275 is unusual, and if you make a mistake, it can land controllably from odd angles. The Tracer's steering is accurate, it is easy to manage under maximum braking, and both its feel and lean angle in the corners are equivalent to what one would expect from a good 26er trail bike with modern, slacked-out geometry. Descend a fast, nasty section of singletrack at full tilt, however, and the Tracer 275 shows a clear advantage over all comers. It can get from hard right to hard left and back again with a quickness that a 29er does not match - and it can easily hold a line where an equivalent 26er would be starting to struggle. The 275 also feels confident when handling parallel ruts and off-camber situations. To what degree those traits belong exclusively to the Tracers's wheel selection or to its frame metrics is speculation. There is no doubt, though, that the 275 likes to go fast.
 |
| The Tracer 275 can hold a tight line in the rough and it is a smooth jumper - both are attributes that play well for hard-charging trail riders. |
Component Report:
• The Fox Float 34 fork was initially too stiff in compression in the mid-stroke (typically, our complaint is that the Float 34 fork blows through the mid-stroke), which was a concern until the bushings eventually broke in and the sliders smoothed out. With added control in the mid-stroke, precise feeling at the handlebar and lighter weight, the 34-platform is emerging as the go-to for the AM/trail category.
• The Sun Ringlé Charger Expert wheels went the distance and were easy to convert to tubeless, thanks to their Stan's NoTubes influence. We burped the rear tire once at low pressure on a rocky off-camber descent, but otherwise it was green and go for two months in the boulders. We never touched them with a spoke wrench.
• It is great to see Kenda back 650B with a classic tire like the Nevegal, but it is a bit dated. We'd love to try a similarly aggressive tread pattern on a more supple, high-volume casing. Presently, there are a lot of tire options for 650B with more just around the corner.
• Shimano's triple-ring XT crankset performed beautifully, but the two chainrings we used most - the 24-tooth granny and 32-tooth middle ring - are redundantly close. A wider-spaced two-by crankset, like a 24 x 36 or 38 would be better suited to the Tracer's appetite for quickly changing technical terrain. We bashed the XT's 42-tooth big ring more times than we shifted onto it.
• Funky external hoses and housings - no. RockShox Reverb Stealth - Yes.
• Fox CTD: Granted that there are many riders who need three pedal settings for their rear suspension, but the fact that the 'Trail' option has a widely adjustable pedal platform begs for the elimination of the 'Climb' setting - at least for longer-travel designs. Two options would make it quick and sure to switch from 'open' to 'platform' on-the-fly - and would be more useful for fast-paced, technical riding styles.
Making a Case for 650B
No review of a mid-sized wheel bike can go forth (at least for the time being) without some discussion of the merits of 650B and its place in the scheme of 26 and 29-inch standards. The either/or choice between a 26-inch or a 29-inch wheel bike is clarified because, beyond their unique handling and feel, the two designs also look dramatically different. Show up on a 29er and everybody knows what it is. Ride all day with a group on a 650B bike and, unless somebody reads the hot-patch on the tires, chances are you will never be singled out. It's not an easy sell.
If you are big-wheel curious, the 29er is the logical choice because it offers the extreme experience - all the good and all of the bad aspects of larger wheels in one easy-to-understand package. If you want to fast-track your mountain bike skillset, then 26 is the choice, because for over 35 years, every trick in the mountain bike book has been written for 26 inch wheels. The mid-size wheel lacks the flash value of either extreme. The evolution of 650B is more of a logical step that unites proven attributes of the two accepted standards, and it makes the most sense in the long-travel trail bike realm, where small-wheel bikes could use a boost in rolling efficiency and attempts to mate long-travel with big wheels results in missing chromosomes.
For all-mountain/trail riders, the promise of 650B is a performance package that sacrifices some of the 29er's roll-over qualities and a little bit of the 26er's nimbleness in order to focus the lion's share of those attributes into a bike that is more versatile than either of its parents - one with just-right cockpit ergonomics, familiar handling characteristics and uncompromised suspension action. The takeaway of a well-designed 650B bike is defined by hundreds of small events over the entire ride that compound the experience, rather than a few shining moments. The wider the variety of terrain, the more one begins to appreciate the concept. An 'ah-ha' 650B moment on the first ride? Probably not, but after few good laps, the advantages start to pop and the 650B begins to feel less like a hybrid and much more like a whole new animal.
Pinkbike's take:
| Judged purely upon its performance and ignoring any reference to competing wheel sizes, the Intense Tracer 275 is the real deal for those searching for a hard-charging descender that is bright enough on the climbs to stay in the game all day long. At 30 pounds and some change, the 275's weight is probably not going to capture the imagination of Mister Strava P. Spandex, but Intense has always played to a harder crowd. The 275 is tough, its suspension is deep, and its capable geometry is built around the larger fork platforms that are the staple of both all-mountain and the emerging crop of Enduro riders. And 650B? We would be remiss to say that every PB test rider loved the feel of the mid-sized wheels. Intense dedicated the frame and steering metrics of the Tracer 275 exclusively to 27.5-inch wheels, and riding it to full advantage requires a slightly different sense of timing which takes a while to acquire. Is it the right bike for you? The 275 was brought to life by a group of knowledgeable, experienced bike handlers who wanted to go big and take advantage of larger wheels. If you count yourself among them, the Tracer 275 delivers the goods. - RC |
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
650B is really interesting too. If it can capture the "feel" of a 26" but roll as a 29" it's probably where I'm heading!
Don't take away the "C" mode just for RC!
(sorry RC; only time I'll disagree w/ you)
As far as I can tell, a really well sorted 26 -- Yeti SB 66C or Ibis Mojo HD come to mind -- seem to be ideal for having fun on the trail.
BUT - I also love my HD because I can ride it as a 6'er or a 650b'er with minimal effort (but I fear it takes more than minimal coin). That's kick ass IMHO.
As far as the Tracer's cost - that is a lot of money. But I'm American, and I'd be proud to ride a bike made by hand IN America. There aren't many of those these days.
BUT! Why stick with the same old concepts if there are better options? Both the bikes and what we use them for has changed drastically since 26" was decided as the standard, so why not try different wheel sizes as well?
29" is not for me. I see the point and the advantage, but I feel that the disadvantages (for me) are greater. Maybe the 650B is the perfect combination that will make me happy. Who knows?
Just remember, that no one is forcing anyone into buying something that they don't want. So there is no need to get all frustrated and anxious about bike manufactures trying out new ideas.
Btw, also middle aged, started out on a Univega, have a 650b compatible bike and see nothing that's "needs" to be improved in the 26".
Moreover, in the BMX wheel size has NEVER replaced the other!
MTB, attempts to replace wheel size by another, which is not the case in BMX. Mountain biking, if a new size wheels arrive, it must be done IN ADDITION, not a replacement.
If you and others do not like this sort of trend from bike companies... you need to start voting with your wallets and BUYING the bikes that they're discontinuing to show manufacturers there is sufficient demand to justify continued production of them.
People with jobs buy them. And the reason bike parts cost more than car parts is number one, production quantities and number two, cars are actually sold at losses or very little profit because the brands know that they'll make it up in long term repair/maintenance costs several times over. If you added up the replacement part prices for the stuff that goes into a car... it'll be three to five times what the complete car sells for. With bicycles, the parts versus complete ratio is maybe 1.3 to 1.5 times as much. The Porsche 959 was one of the first "supercars" twenty plus years ago, and Porsche sold every single one of them at a financial loss. But most every one of them is still running and still being maintained by their owners, with pricey parts. My own car is a 1990 Saab 9000S. Its got about 340,000kms on the engine, transmission and even original clutch. To get a replacement ignition module I had to go looking on ebay to find a used one two years ago and it cost me $150 for what is essentially a little magnet with a wire coming from it that measures the crank speed and tells the direct ignition system when to fire the plugs. A NEW one, ordered from sweden would have been $600, and this for a car that if I tried to resell I would have a hard time getting a thousand for. But if I parted it out on ebay or kijiji to other saab owners, I could probably make three or four thousand.
Brake Pads for my bike with XT = £25 (for one set)
Brake Pads for my bike(s) with Hope = £12 (for one set)
I am a little miffed by how much more i pay, for what is essentially the same sintered pad.. only a HELL of a lot less of it.
I also might like to add, that I get through pads on my bikes a damned sight quicker than i do on my car..
i've owned my car for over a year now.. changed the pads once.. i've owned my bike with XT for 6 months.. I'm on my 3rd set of pads! (not to mention the hope equipped bikes).
I'm aware that winter conditions are mostly to blame.. and I'm also aware that this story has nothing to do with brakes.. but i saw what EllioMoose said and felt the need to vent.
Apologies.. carry on!
Marketsaturation is a problem, industry tries to solve it by declaring 26 bikes obsolescent and introducing 29 - which failed - and now try the schtick with 650b. Pinkbike is playing the obsolescence game. That is what they are paid to do.
Our commentssection is an important tool for a marketresearcher, probably the most important and accurate trendmeter in the whole industry.. They now have to come to grips that they need to partner with the customer (right, that guy/gal who actually has the cash) because the customerbase is getting to a point where they do not buy (part with their cash) underengineered and overpriced stuff. This is an elite driven buying decision - and the marketeers are in for a steep learning curve or the elite will just not buy from them - as Spec, Trek and some other brands find out - it is a demand driven industry rather than a market.
I agree with the improtance of a real job. I have been in the same field for 20 years, and can afford nicer equipment as well. I drove used cars for many years. keeping them up to 500,000km before replacing. I do not feel it is inappropriate that a middle aged intermediate rider (me) spends a good chunk of coin on nice equipment. I can afford it and enjoy it.
I have been around for long enough to know 650b is a good idea, and was intrigued when I read of Kirk Pacenti having a tire made for the size years ago. It just made sense that this is the way forward, and once I tried it, it felt better than I could imagine.
High end bicycles are not marketed or intended to be purchased by the young, they can't afford them. When we look at all hobbies enjoyed by young males, we see a resurgance of money spent when those people hit middle age, where the kids are leaving home, the mortgage is paid off, the promotions/raises have come in etc. These are the people spending big money on their passions. Some will be swayed by gimmicks, but those who have been successful enough have some disposable income have some ability to not get taken in. Unfortunately, the only way to learn these skills is to live life, and do so for many years with hundreds of thousands of experiences.
It would be more accurate to say that "the test bike fit the rider well, and he had no trouble on climbs and ripped the descents, and we wished we had a Tracer in the other wheel sizes so we could see which one was the most fun".
I have read in another Article that this is maybe the effect of the Rider being lower between the Wheel-Axles, due to the lower BB-Height and therefor lower Center of Gravity. The downside might be more Effort/Momentum to lift the Front or to manual because of that, depending on Geo some Brands put on their 650Bs.
Like I said these are "Boutique" bikes that are not focused at the lower price point of the market even with "whats going on all over the world with the economy" we still sell a number of $5000 + Santa Cruz 29er's I hope the same will be said with the Intense 27.5" beautiful bike!
It's like these people troll the internet, looking for people who they can tap violently in the forehead with their index cyber finger whilst loudly repeating "Think like me! Think like me!"
Going on like 650b... and anything that isn't Apple.. are the cures to all forms of cancer and the particularly aggressive strain of Feline AIDS.
Chill the fuçk out yo... and go ahead! Roll around on your big ass wheels with your big ass phones.. not gonna make your dick any bigger, but i guess you've figured that out by now.
'Look out lads! This one's a biter!'
I liken you to Jehovah's witness'
I know you're there, and I have absolutely no problem with you, after all.. variety is the spice of life... But as I read through this thread, I can see that you're the type of JW that stops me on the street, or knocks on my door.. preaching the gospel of 650b... and I have no time for your condescending demeanour.
I have also read in this thread, how you're talking to these 'kids', who truth be told, would most likely be able to ride circles around you. I'm 30 and I still race.. and I know for a fact that these 'kids' are getting much better, and going much bigger than they did when i was a nipper... it doesn't get any easier the older you get.
You also don't know what it's like to walk in another persons shoes, whether they be 13, 30 or 300... So you don't pass judgment on people.. because you diminish yourself.
I myself have ridden a 650b.. and felt absolutely no way about it.. one of my frame's can accommodate 650b wheels.. but i've stuck with 26". Not because I'm resistant to change, or because I'm young and inexperienced.. but because I found myself to be indifferent to the difference.
Oh and BTW, my next bike is likely to be a rigid single speed 29er... but I'm sure you'll have something to say about that also.
My point (which you seem to have missed) is that you behave like scientologists do when threatened.. only, no-one's really being as aggressive or even as petulant as you..
Hence the "^ Case and point ^" comment earlier... your response was set up, by me, to make a point... The point being: RELAX. If you're so desperate for people to think like you, and you believe wholly and completely in the superiority of 650b.. then stop ramming it down peoples throats. Most people are probably less likely to try it because of an encounter with your attitude.
My argument (again, which you seem to have mis-read or more than likely, not read) is not about the pros or cons of 650b.. it is about YOU, the ACTIVIST... and how much you remind me of a Jehovah's Witness, or Scientologist
The religeaous zealots do not require evidence for their opinions, nor do the 26" activists. The comparison is flawed.
Schwalbe= Rob/Ron/Nic/Ralph and Dampf
Kenda= Nevegal
Hutchison= Cobra/Cougar and Toro
Maxxis= Ardent and Crossmark
Conti=?
Ritchey= Shield
WTB= Wolverine
Interloc= Fire XC
Pacenti= Neo-Moto and Quasi-Moto
Vredestein= Black Panther-TLR-XTRAC-Extreme and Spotted Cat
This time last year, there was a total of SEVEN tire models to choose from six brands, and we're now up to two dozen models and growing from over a dozen brands.
If you take a look at those of us who did conversions to are 26" bikes a large majority used Fox Float 36 160. Why Fox and Shimano Has pushed this 15mm trail axle into the 150mm + range just seems stupid to me when a 20mm thru can be made to have the approx the same weight with better stiffness then the 15mm trail axle!
Attention Fox RockShox Manitou etc...make a 27.5" fork with 20mm thru axle, 35/36mm stanchions and 160mm travel!
Like I said myself and many others run Fox Float 36mm 26" fork(although without mods some will buzz the lower crown) it would be nice to have a 27.5" version to replace it with when I get a new bike this year. If Fox and RS would just look at what the majority of 150mm to 160mm 27.5" converted bikes are running they would see what they are putting out is just not adequate
Yes and no I started with that fork but I had arch clearance issues so rather then grinding the arch I ended up getting a Fox....but even the fox I still get a occasional stuck rock and I had to shorten the travel 5mm so I actually have a Float 155mm
You are missing the point we need more 27.5" specific forks in the 160mm + travel range that use a 20mm thru axle....
I don't refuse to run their products I work at a shop that does not carry or service their products and I try to run what we carry and since I voided the warranty on my forks running a 27.5" I would like to be able to perform service in house. Just like when customers ask about my non specific 27.5 bike I tell them Do not carry out the mods that I have done, however it rides great ...blah blah blah and when you have a chance to ride a 27.5" specific bike do it.
Where the hell did I say I wanted instant response? How am I whining when I say look at what is already being done make something for that? Like you stated the X-Fusion has a LT 20mm and many 27.5" conversions are LT 20mm thru so make that not a 140/150 15mm trail fork.
It seems bike manufactures are focusing on converting 26" guys to bigger wheels more than trying to convert 29" guys to a smaller wheel and most of the the 26" guys run 20mm thru and for a frame like this longer travel. The Frame manufacturers here states "the chassis is built tough enough to compete at the highest level of Enduro" and it has a trail fork a really good fork but still a trail fork.
If you have one segment making longer travel All mountain/Enduro bikes to bring up 26" guys and fork manufacturers making 15mm thru trail forks that the 29" and trail guys are running it just seems like a mismatch to me.
But that is why I just ride the bikes and don't market them!
Actually my boxxer is said max tire size 2.7 and a 2.3 kenda 27.5 will not fit! I wish it were that simple the axle to arch height as well as its shape comes into play. If you live were there is heavy clay type mud and gravel you may not be able to run a 2.3 in the winter even with clearance you will have to drop to a smaller tire.
"The Fox 36 and 40s are specifically NOT rated for 650Bs"
NO 26" specific fork from RS, Fox or any other manufacturer is meant to run a 27.5 and if you ask them for info to run one they will not give it.
That said the Fox has one of the best crown clearance out of the 26" non specific forks and if you make sure the tire does not "Buzz" the crown you are all good. I also ran a RockShox Revolution XX 29" with a 20mm thru but because of its A to C and flex was not the best choice compared to the Fox 36
As far as the bikes, the only reason prices are so High, is that there is too much innovation going on, it's worst than computers, every year, something new and expensive coming out, and there is a lot of "got to have it" consumers out there. It's capitalism. It would be bad if we did not have less expensive options, but we do.
29ers got called 29ers...with a 24.488" bead seat diameter rim, because the first "true" 700C mtb tire that was over 2" wide, the WTB NanoRaptor 2.1, measured out coincidently enough at 29" diameter. There had been 700C mtb tires before in the early 90s when hybrids were first introduced/developed, such as the Panaracer Smoke in a 700C x 1.9 size, but they were small casing/wider tread tires and really inflated were at best in the 28"-ish range. The Bontrager Jones XR came in such a size only five years ago, labeled 29 x 1.8, again narrow casing/wider tread, inflated they're about 28.4" diameter. I think MBA recently did a survey of tires they had in their fleet of test bikes, where they gave the average diameter of the tires and the average for the 29er sizes was only 28.9".
Calling 650B something else isn't just a recent largely american thing though, in canada in the 1940s/50s it was called 26 x 1 1/2 (written as a fraction, not a decimal). 590mm bead seat, which is the 650A size is often seen marked as 26 x 1 3/8 on tire sidewalls.
If you look at in in context it seems the 650B designation is more confusing then the 27.5
Here is a quote from Mr. Brown
In the French sizing system, tires are designated by a three-digit number, which may be followed by a letter. The number is the nominal outside diameter of the tire the rim was originally designed for. The absence of a letter indicated a narrow tire; "A", "B" and "C" indicated increasingly wider tires."A" was originally a tire about 30 mm wide, so the 650A rim is pretty large, 590 mm. If you add the top and bottom 30 mm tire thickness to 590, you wind up with the 650 mm tire diameter.
The 650C size was originally intended for a quite wide tire, about 40 mm wide. Top and bottom 40 mm tire plus the 571 mm rim size again bring you to a 650 mm outside diameter, even though the rim was smaller.
With time, however evolutionary processes have led to different widths of tires being applied to the rim, so the nominal 650 mm designation is now more theoretical than practical.........you can read the rest here sheldonbrown.com/650b.html
But no... while 650B and 700C came from french cycling, 27.5 and 29" had nothing to do with trying to seperate road and mtb culture and everything to do with trying to name something relative to the inflated diameter of the tires in inches. In europe, germany especially, trekking 700C tires (things around 40-50mm width) were called 28 inch tires. Continental still to this day labels many of their tube models as 28". 29er tires got called that because that's what they were closest to. 650B offroad tires have been called 27.5 because the first ones while bigger, were closer to that than they were to 28" (and there was already stuff being called 28" tires) so it made more sense to round down than round up. If mtbr's search feature worked better, I could probably find exactly WHO said it first in the forums. It was probably Kirk Pacenti but it could have been any number of people. Sheldon included it in his article on 650B about a move to call the 27 1/2 but he died after Kirk Pacenti first started offering 650B tires for sale, and the article was largely about road bike conversions from 700C down to 650B and had nothing to do with converting 26er mountain bikes to something bigger.
Yes exactly that's my point trying to get it away from European sizes and into something us dumb mountain bikers can understand....You can put a 700c road tire on a 29er rim and ride it around but we don't call it a 700c or 700D or 700 small medium large XL that is not how MTB is measured we already had 24",26" so OD is close to 29"...done. Same with 650B measured out close to 27.5" 28" already used...... done 27.5" I own one so I am good with it I honestly don't care!...call it 120 farts 1 poop and a beer..... as long as it is the same.... something we are all familiar with and stick to it!
Without changing the entire system its what we have. Really it should be changed to how MC and Automotive wheel and tires are sized with wheel size/ tire width and aspect ratio we are all pretty familiar now with 225/50-17 and with that information you can figure out what the O.D. of the tire is.
I think you should just calm down smoke a bowl calling people lazy just makes you sound like a elitist a*shole I would much rather spend my time trying to get more support behind it. More frames built more wheel choices we really need better tires and more fork choices. I would rather bitch to the companies about that then to bitch about what the hell they decided to call it 650B....27.5.... 22 farts 1 poop and a PBR.....just make it and make more of it
Discuss.
*sits back with a bag of popcorn*
Discuss.
*sits back with a bag of popcorn*
rofl I like it!.....I'm gonna go ride my bike instead
So don't worry, we will have only 2 standards left pretty soon
You have to decide where you ride mostly ...AM or DH or once in a while a little stroll through the woods you get a 26" or mostly XC then you get a 29er.
There is no need for 650b !!!
BTW...that colour is hideous!