27.5+ Tires - Taipei Show 2015

Mar 19, 2015 at 17:41
by Paul Aston  

Aside from Boost, 27.5+ seems to be the big talking point at the Taipei Show, and it's clear to see that this fresh snowball has started rolling with some momentum. There are 27.5+ tires and and rims everywhere, but so far we have only tracked down one bike with them fitted. The bike was surprisingly muddy, which might even be proof that's someone's actually ridden this latest wheel size.


This Panaracer FatbNimble will be available for 27.5+ and 29+. The former will be in a 3.5" width, but Panaracer say it comes up a little narrower in reality, towards 3.2". For the 29+ version, it's a 3.0" width. The 58a, single compound tire weighs only 730g, which is probably the lightest mid-fat of this bunch. Shipping in mid-April for $50 with wire bead, and $80 with a kevlar bead.

Mid-fat tire fury - Panaracer
Plenty of small, widely spaced knobs for Panaracer FatbNimble .
Mid-fat tire fury - Panaracer
I'm guessing that the B references to 650B+, incase you needed another name to add to your confusion about these new sizes.


I couldn't get much information from Duro about their tires, but they had this Crux 3.25" for 27.5+ and 29+, and the Miner 3.0" x 27.5+. The most aggressive tread pattern we've seen so far, and basically a scaled up version of a standard tire, whereas the other brands seem to be heading towards lower profile patterns.

Mid-fat tire fury - Duro
The Crux kinda reminds me of a Tioga Factory DH from 'back in the day.
Mid-fat tire fury - Duro
The Miner is the most aggressive 27.5+ so far.


This Kenda Havok 3.0" is low profile and comes with 'DTC' (Dual Trail Compound), 60a in the centre for faster rolling, and 50a side knobs for improved grip. Surely we will be getting plenty of grip due to this incredible new tire size anyways? No confirmed figures from Kenda yet, but they said they should be available in April.

Mid-fat tire fury - Kenda
Kenda have gone low-profile with their first Plus sized rubber
Mid-fat tire fury - Kenda
Dual Trail Compound for faster rolling speeds but softer edge knobs to get the grip

Vee Tire

Mid-fat tire fury -Vee Rubber

Vee Tire might not come to mind when thinking about high-end rubber, but they have an extended range of widths in their new Trax Fatty: 2.8", 3.0" and 3.25". The top of the line versions come with a 120TPI casing and a 'Silica Compound' rubber. Weighing from 800 grams up to 950 grams for the largest width, and priced at $110, $115 and $120 USD respectively. Vee Tire don't mention any specific 27.5+ sized bikes in their literature, but suggest you can retrofit 27.5 wheels a these tires to your existing 29er chassis. In fact, Vee had the only bike that we have tracked down at the show so far that actually had 27.5+ tires mounted, and it even had mud on it, proof that somebody, somewhere, has actually ridden an 27.5+!

Mid-fat tire fury -Vee Rubber
The 29" Pike fork on this Turner had average clearance with a 27.5" wheel and this 3.0" Trax Fatty.
Mid-fat tire fury -Vee Rubber
Not quite so much clearance at the rear.

Mid-fat tire fury -Vee Rubber
  This Turner Sultan was retro-fitted with 27.5+ tires, and is the only complete bike we have found so far in Taipei with the mid-sized fat tires on it.


  • 215 4
 I now present "Man not caring"
  • 64 5
 "This is a good idea!" - No consumer ever
  • 62 4
 We need to start referring to this size as B+.

As in:

"How was that party last night?"

"Meh. I'd give it a B+."


"How's the MTB industry doing at innovating these days?"

"Oh, I dunno. I'd give them a B+ since there's some OK stuff occasionally, but mostly they are just trying to wring more cash out of us."
  • 24 40
flag mnorris122 (Mar 19, 2015 at 20:40) (Below Threshold)
 Or even "what's it like being conquered by Russia?"
"Not too good, B+"
  • 39 6
 I'm sorry.....
  • 47 3
 Still looks like a fat bike to me. Still not going to buy a fat bike. Next
  • 28 2
 i think being conquered by russia is like a D- at best.
  • 46 2
 I personally would give my money to Schwalbe's Procore tech instead of these things.
  • 16 1
 so hold up now , last year fat bike was 3.5 -4 , now fatbikes are 4-5 and there is this shit . no thnx m8
  • 2 2
 Nothing to do here...
  • 37 6
 Not cool @mnorris122 ... not cool at all.
  • 24 2
 I dated a fat girl once it was fun for a little while
  • 6 0
 So isn't a 27.5 with a "low profile" tire the same overall diameter as a 26 with a tall stiff sidewall? On my off-road shuttle truck I run a TRD Tundra with 18 inch wheels and 33 inch tires and my friends who bought big wheels and small tires are all switching. Thats because we are running our bikes and trucks off-road and NOT on pavement!
  • 4 0
 Are they gonna sell these plus size bikes/tires at Lane Bryant?
  • 3 3
 @mnorris122 you mean NATO ...
  • 5 5
 I was all for bagging out 275+ last week. I spent all day at the Taipei show today and the thing that struck me most was how samey it all was. I want to buy a new bike and I saw hundreds of beautiful bikes I'd love to have, but very few I would spend cash on. They look nice with their shiny frames, bright colours and fancy - but very similar - parts spec. There is no point spending money on a new bike that's going to do the same job in the same way as your current ride. So what was different? 275+, the Nicolai DH bike with a gearbox and belt drive, and e bikes. Put them all together and add some carbon into the mix and I'll be sold. The first company I see selling a carbon DH e bike with 27.5+ wheels an an 18 speed gearbox with belt drive, I'm buying one. Who cares if it's 25kg if you don't have to pedal to the top?
  • 139 5
 Hey Industry - F**k off.
  • 96 1
 F**k off +
  • 30 0
 F**k off +. The perfect balance between sh*t and tw*t, while still maintaining the lightness of f*ck off and the roll-ability of f*ckoff ++. Approved by @WAKIdesigns leaf suspension testing technology the lack of a rebound damper allows the spring to maintain its natural properties, allowing you to pop jumps like Brandon Semenuk. At the same time, our proprietary 90 degree head angle is a patented advance in geometry that allows you to turn on a time and roost like Aggy.
  • 3 1
 Hey Industry - Do you plan to produce 27.5+ rear triangles or will you f*** yourself with it?
  • 80 4
 how bout some 26+ to go on a 27.5 frame. good strong wheels at a decent price and then we get lots of new frame options. anyone?
  • 33 0
 No, that would make sense out of a nonsensical idea
  • 18 0
 I'm down with the 26+, that would be awesome.
  • 7 1
 What you want already exists. Surly makes a rad 2.75" 26er, and a decent 3.0" 26er that will fit in your 27.5 hardtail. Get on it! That said, I think B+ looks awesome! Can't wait for fat-bike-like performance on a frame with a symmetrical 135mm rear end and 73mm BB, so I can run an internal gear hub. More disappointing is that all the incoming B+ specific frames appear to be built for the "Boost" bullsh*t.
  • 4 2
 650b outer diameter is dead.
  • 10 1
 I miss NOKIAN Gazzalodi sooo much...
  • 1 0
 @ fracas

The duro leopard is still quite available in 24 and 26 x 3.0, and while I haven't tried the gazz, the duro similar and possibly even better (more round). I use the duro's on my hardtail for some types of riding.
  • 1 0
 @kyle thx for this. I'll check it
  • 67 1
 This is the "never go full 'tard" of the mountain bike world.
  • 5 0
 Best comment here! Ha!
  • 1 0
 You sir, made me laugh!
  • 46 1
 So how is this introduction of Mid-Fat going to affect Endurability?
  • 33 1
 "endurability" is my new favorite word.
  • 6 0
 Put that word straight into the Oxford English. Now.
  • 40 3
 Is there nothing innovating at Taipei this year? Come on pinkbike, show us something that us as riders actually might need..!! And not gear that's been forced down our throat through marketing..
  • 10 0
 come on..we have introduced new standards to stand up to the new ones....wait....um........move on, nothing to see here, yet again.
  • 5 15
flag norcal77 (Mar 19, 2015 at 18:49) (Below Threshold)
 You're compliant is the exact reason companies feel the need to change their designs ever year. So you think that the new technology is something you can't live without. There is always something new and it's not alway's going to be developed by the bike builders. Look at company like Santa Cruz bikes, who I think is the best mtb builder. When they release a new frame it usually wont change much or at all for several seasons. I'm sure there is a new hip bag this season with a lipstick holder your going to need.......
  • 19 1
 Dude, hand bags already have lipstick holders... Maybe your next gen Santa Cruz might have one to match your misunderstanding of my comment..
  • 5 1
 PB staff have got to be fcuking with us. They're reading all the comments laughing away. Then they'll come out with the articles with the cool stuff. Egg on our faces! Not mine but the collective pb haters clubs.
  • 3 2
 VitalMTB has a little more from the show, at this point in time.
  • 1 0
 I think the sub-plot here is that pinkbike are telling us only one bike has these silly tyres. No frame support for them at all yet. So no need to worry just yet.
  • 1 3
 Taipei is more a new product model release show and its pretty much limited to things produced in Taiwan (which is why Shimano doesn't do a lot of unveiling there as most of their high-end stuff is still made in Japan) and that's why you see so much from SRAM right now and all these tires. For bikes you want to either look at the NAHBS or Sea Otter.
  • 2 0
 there's plenty of innovation and fun products, but they are hard to find... This show is about local Asian markets and OEM relationships. lots of cool things get shown behind closed doors to project managers, but not to journalists... No trumpets sound for English speakers who lust after bikes on the internet... Eurobike is the big show for the western markets and western companies... Taipei show is mainly a supplier side thing...
  • 34 2
 26, come home please, we miss you
  • 27 1
 hey pinkbike you are about 12 days early for april fools.... because this cannot be serious
  • 26 4
 I've heard that industry pricing includes mark-up to cover "research and development". Here's an idea, stop researching and developing shit we don't want. Sure we can vote with our wallets but when the new becomes obsolete within a year, it's hard not to buy whatever option is available. Long live the PB buy & sell.
  • 2 0
 I second that notion for the pb buy and sell!!
  • 1 0
  • 25 3
 I love how positive all of the comments here. maybe the industry will take notice... no, no they won't
  • 23 1
 What is going on with the bike industry these days?!?!?!?
  • 1 0
 Who's to say ?!
  • 2 0
 Tim Cook tookover the industry
  • 19 0
 can we just go back in time , to 150 mm axles , 83mm bb for dh , evrything thread in bb etc. tires were 2.5 max unless you were an idiot and there wasnt 4 different hub sizes for a trail bike ? thanks
  • 9 0
 "tires were 2.5 max unless you were an idiot" - I lol'd
  • 20 1
 Can someone explain this new fad? I get going wider to an extent but really after like 2.5 doesn't it just hinder performance?
  • 25 1
 yes. yes it does. but who cares, manufacture a market demand and there are enough suckers who will buy into it.
  • 8 0
 all they have to do is get you to try it. even if it is dumb, guess what? you already paid them either way.
  • 1 2
 I haven't ridden them so I can't comment. You can't compare them with old tires/rims as we have tubless and far lighter rims these days. People I know who have ridden them say they're another world grip wise and similar rolling resistance to a normal 29" wheel as the OD is close to 29"/2.3". I have no problem with it as it makes a lot of sense in that you can have one bike with two sets of wheels (one 650b and one 29") and have a very versatile bike.

The problem I have is the BS axle standards that aren't really required to un 2.8" which is apparently the optimum.
  • 4 4
 The new hub standards are related though, which is why they're being written about now that the tires are being announced. #1 The wider flange spacing increases the wheel stiffness/strength for the 29er wheel setups and #2 the greater axle spacing allows for frames/forks to be constructed with greater tire width clearance for 650B+ wheel setups. The bikes/forks coming down the pipe are going to do something fat bike owners can already do. Allow people to buy ONE bike that can be ridden more ways simply thru a tire/wheelset swap for whatever riding their day/environment brings. 20x110 and 12x150 wouldn't have have done the #1 thing at all and would have required even more extensive R&D work to accomplish the #2 thing. In the long run these new standards (and the two wheelset / one bike concept) will save owners money. Pity most folks here can't see that for themselves.
  • 2 1
 Actually the current Pike 29" is fine with 2.8" tires as is the clearance on many frames. I've ridden bikes that have chainstay/seatstay contact issues and that's only going to get worse with wider axles.
  • 2 0
 Problem is that 2.8" is actually the small end of the 650B+ tires coming, and again with the WTB as the leading example that's measured at the mid-point of the casing, not at the tread.
  • 2 1
 Yes and measured at the casing there is even more clearance with current bikes. 2.8" is apparently the sweet spot weight/grip.
  • 1 0
 Well its the sweet spot if you're converting something existing but I'd rather an actual 2.8 tread than an extra cushioning 2.3, which is why I'm going with Vee tires instead of WTB.
  • 22 2
 What do you do with 365 used rubbers? Make a tire and call it a good year.
  • 1 10
flag richierocket (Mar 19, 2015 at 18:35) (Below Threshold)
 Cute, real cute.
  • 25 8
 This stuff is garbage. Please stop covering it. We don't need the over pussification of shitty equipment designed at dumbing everything down. History repeats itself.
  • 12 20
flag richierocket (Mar 19, 2015 at 18:34) (Below Threshold)
 Then don't click on it. Just saying
  • 19 2
 Look more crap no one wants to buy!
  • 13 0
 Some of those tires weigh 1,500gram and the 27.5+ wide rims are 750grams. Makes for SUPER FAST trail riding..........

They have kind of wasted their time and energy on this 27.5+
  • 13 0
 People bought 650b ! I understand manufacturers. Why not trying ?!
I bought two new 26ers in the last 6 months , I'll buy them as long as I can, and I'm pretty confident it will not disappear anytime soon.
  • 4 3
 I can still buy parts to support mountain bikes from the 1980s... I'm not worried about something produced last year.
  • 14 0
 Hey 2001 called and said we did this and it was slow and exhausting with the 3.0" tire

But I agree 26+ makes way more sense
  • 2 1
 Wheelsets from then didn't weight under 1500g, & gazzolodis didn't weight 700-900g. this is more like pushing normal DH wheels ten years ago.
  • 7 1
 True, but given the overall volume of the tire, 700 - 900 grams seems like they probably made some significant compromises in terms of tear and puncture resistance of the carcass. My 26" EXO DHF weighs more than that, and I'd be hesitant to go much lighter quite frankly. But lets face it, dentists have money and someone needs to take it...I actually sort've respect the mtb industry for identifying a relatively new market and creating products specifically for the 7 mph club.
  • 1 0
 Haha.. Good one @jackalope Not sure many people will get that one.. Like showing up for at a drag race with a mining truck.. It'll do 55mph, but...
  • 5 0
 26+ makes no sense at all. No one would have to buy a new bike again...
  • 13 0
 Love the Backpedaling of the MTB industry.
*Makes 29r*-"No wait guys we made it too big" *makes 650B*
*makes fat bikes* "No wait guys we made it too big *makes mid fat*
  • 13 0
 This article is a great reminder why I don't care the slightest bit, and am still having a great time on my boring old 26 wheeled bike.
  • 3 0
 Here! Here! Well said..
  • 15 2
 Really and truly I could not care less about this preposterous new "standard".
  • 15 1
 Both my bikes have 26"
Am I doing.something wrong?
  • 16 0
  • 3 0
 I only have one :'(
  • 3 0
 Wish I had 2
  • 4 0
 I've got a 24", that makes me double extra wrong
  • 4 0
 I have 2 26er's too (and a 29er I keep in my closet. Shhh!) and keep waiting for the day when I think,"There has to be something better than this 26 inch wheel".
  • 8 0
 i have a 29er too... i call it road-bike though...
  • 9 1
 "i am sick to death of 3+" fat discussions. I think I will never ride one nor buy one after all the fluff and crap over an old idea that sucked. Please show us 2.0-2.35" Tyres. Thank you.
  • 13 3
 If this catches on I'll eat my beanie.
  • 15 0
 U mean a toque?!?
  • 1 0
 Ball cap?
  • 9 0
 I found the first major defect with a 3+ inch tire... Major poop magnet

Gotta love the dog shit on the rear tire!! lol
  • 6 0
 First, max tire width on a pike is 2.7". Ya, it's a smaller wheel on a 29er fork, but that only takes care of the tire height issue. The tire width is the tire width regardless of what size wheel. So basically we got a new tire size, but not any bikes (but a rigid surly or the like) to fit them on yet and really only one suspension fork that will work, a 32mm stanchion Bluto.

Wonder what happens when you crank down hard on that turner with a little side to side lean while climbing or take a corner wrenching down on the inside handle bar and outside pedal with no tire clearance, and 27.5" wheels that have more flex than the standard 26". I can hear the tire rub just thinking about. Might not be an issue for the average weight rider just pussyfooting around on that bike, but ride hard and your going to have some serious safety issues. For a clyde like me, 6'4 240lb those tires would be screaming with tire rub every time I leaned in for a turn, pedaled hard or hit some chunk.
  • 11 2
 Now another way to pick a wheel/tire size and be a d*ck about it.
  • 2 0
 ewww is that a 2.5" tire?? they suck
  • 9 0
 No one cares about 27.5+. Where's Ratboy?
  • 5 0
 Boost hubs are only really going to be useful for making conventional wheels stronger; Potentially reducing the weight of conventional wheels. This I have no problem with, especially considering that this is what TREK seemed to intend with their boost 148...

27.5+ tyres though..... What the industry isn't telling us is that these tyres weigh between 1.3 kg and 1.5 kg with adequate sidewall strength and puncture resistance. Who in their right mind is going to drastically increase rotational weight and rolling resistance for more traction?
  • 10 2
  • 2 0
 Cause big ass heavy wheels take more energy to spin. If you were riding a 29er XC bike would you want your riding partner to be on a fatbike? There are always gonna be stronger riders who can make anything go fast, but from my own experience really big grippy tires can really zap you of energy. There are always enough issues with mechanicals etc. to keep a group ride moving slowly, but having the trendy guy at the back dying on steeper and/or longer climbs isn't ideal. Just wonder if there is a point of diminishing returns with tire size, at least for XC trail riding.
  • 6 0
 vitalmtb shows all kinds of new things from the show, pinkbike shows all kinds of hub sizes, come on
  • 4 21
flag deeeight Plus (Mar 19, 2015 at 20:05) (Below Threshold)
 Vital members don't lose their shit over new things like pinkbike members so their staff at the show are given better treatment and access.
  • 3 0
 you saw that nicolai ion 20 effi, that things wicked
  • 3 0
 Hahaha, I'll be sure to ask the guy from Vital, that I see every once in a while at events, if he gets better access because of the comments on any website, see how hard he laughs, that's a good one. Also, +severalmillion on that ion 20 effi. You can get them finally in the US, but they cost 5 grand for frame & gearbox, BTW.
  • 3 0
 As "fun" as this tire size might be, I have a feeling those who adopt it will be riding at the back of the pack. 1000Gram tires and 650+ gram wheels are not gonna make for a speedy rider. Hell, I remember putting a Nevegal 2.35 26" on my stumpjumper and feeling like it was torture on my hardpacked trails with a 450 gram rim. I have to try it, but I feel like these tires are gonna be for screwing around, and people who wanna put in serious km and any kind of speed wont' adopt this new trend. If I'm proven wrong I won't be sad. 3" inch tires do look rad. .
  • 5 0
 Hmmm, for the second day in a row my usual trip to the pinkbike homepage to read a few articles has left me baffled and annoyed that this stupid sh*t is still happening. :-(
  • 6 0
 I should be more specific, I'm baffled and annoyed at the mtb I industry, not pinkbike ;-)
  • 4 0
 hmm.. vee did a good job making all their tires have the exact same pattern, just spacing the knobs differently! i will stick to standard 26x2.35 tires. more fun times ahead!!
  • 6 0
 Why can't the bike industry actually start to focus on gearing. For example, light robust hub gearing?
  • 1 0
 Interestingly, it has,(Effigear, Pinion, both mid drive solutions) but no one will put their money where their mouth is. There is not going to be development for IG hubs because it places too much mass (3-4 lbs) at the end of the swing arm which fouls the suspension action.
  • 7 0
 dear bike manufacturers stop
  • 6 0
 Who is the target market for this?
  • 9 1
  • 3 0
 What they aren't telling us is that these tyres weight between 1.3 kg and 1.5 kg... Beyond making conventional tyre widths and rims stronger, these plus size tyres are going to flop.
  • 1 3
 Not true. Most of the 650B+ tires are going to be under 1kg, but Maxxis in particular are producing ones with much stronger casings for the aggressive riding owners. They're looking at owners of 29ers with 150-160mm wheel travel.
  • 5 0
 Oh yes I've been dreaming of a 27.5+ wheel size and finally it's here......Said no one ever!!
  • 2 0
 Is APPLE giving the bike and bike parts manufacturers business tips? You know, on how to milk every penny from every Toms, Harry, dick, I mean Tom ,dick and Harry. By selling the half way mark of actual industry leading technological advancements?

I have an answer
LEAVE THE WHEELS ALONE! , and design me a pair of gloves that won't fall apart after a few rides! Or a fork that doesn't require re-builds every 40 miles!
  • 2 0
 There is nothing wrong with Boost or the trend to wider tyres and wheels but the problem with 27.5+ (and 29+ and 26 fat) is precisely the failure of these tyres to correspond to the "low profile" hype. Profile in the relevant sense is all about sidewall height i.e. part of the overall tyre circumference. And, experience with motocross tyres and all forms of racing tyres has shown time and again that low profile (reduced sidewall to rim ratio) is broadly the right approach to improved traction and sidewall stability. 27.5+ goes in the wrong direction increasing sidewall height! That is why 27.5+ can't be used on 27.5in bikes and oddly is only suitable for 29ers. But it would be better by far to just widen a standard profile 29er tyre producing a genuine 'low profile' tyre that with a carefully designed sidewall structure could offer real improvements in traction. For the same reason 29+ is also just another ill considered dead end. Also, fitting tyres that have significantly different profiles than those that the bike was designed to use is as a rule a bad idea (assuming the bike was well designed to begin with).
  • 4 0
 But I don't want a fat bike... I'm just gonna stick with my 2.4's and wait for all this to blow over.
  • 5 4
 Do you boneheads think that Fox would go to the trouble of releasing a specific fork for this if the bikes weren't coming in droves? (The Rocky Mtn Sherpa Prototype 27.5+ was out last year at this show) Pay attn! ...no one is trying to wring cash out of the consumer, the act of buying is completely voluntary. The reason that people hate having so many choices is that they can't make a decision, most of todays buyers are not coming from a dirt background, they have no point of ref. for how things work, what wheel size and tires sizes do for you, suspension set up etc.. They just want to show up at the Group trail ride -cough- with the right gear to be cool.-without the integrity. Stop the whining and be glad for another choice. This one may be where it all settles as a true ATB, for real riders that can utilize the size.(Panaracer Fatnimble has the right idea, you simply don't need big knobs with this much surface area)
  • 3 1
 I think most riders are ready and willing to accept another choice. What we're not happy about is every new innovation seemingly reducing the # of choices available.
  • 1 2
 We have that problem locally with fat bikes. A rather vocal minority of fat owners had zero winter trail riding experience prior to buying a fat bike (but were the folks to buy $3-5k non-winter bikes with the usual snobbery that brings), and yet they insist that they get to dictate how narrow the trails are to be groomed because they wanna slot car race around tight/narrow singletrack without any sort of passing zones or anything for any other trail users and nevermind what all the other riders want, many of whom were winter trail riding on regular mountain bikes for DECADES before they ever set foot in a forest in the winter (without skis, snow shoes or a sled being involved). Oh and who cares about the casual/recreational riders just out to have fun and don't want to constantly worry that they're gonna not be able to hold a narrow strip of ground before they crash out into a couple feet (or meters) of snow that's covering over a lot of rock that leads to injuries all the time in the summer).
  • 3 0
 So glad I have other things to occupy my mind other than this ridiculous MTB industry. Looking forward to spring so I can ride my obsolete worhtless 26" wheeled investment.
  • 3 0
 So what I can see is that we are trying to now get 26" wheels stiffness with the rollover of a 29" all on a 650b rim... Seems interesteing....
  • 3 4
 No... 26" wheel stiffness on a 29" wheel is what they're trying to get (with the new hub standards). The 650B+ tire widths is to offer those 29er owners who buy those new bikes (with the new hub standards) a second wheelset option that will really change how their bike can be used. Here perhaps some examples of early adopters conversions will help explain it better...

  • 3 0
 Behold, the FUTURE of mountain biking!

Now compatible with IMBA's 'Flow trails'.
  • 2 0
 I really don't get it !! Since when do you need a 3 inch tyre on a 5 inch trail bike. 2.3 is more than enough for anything you want on that bike. On a good trail bike 2.2 is plenty especially for uphills.
  • 3 0
 It's a lil bit niner A lil bit tweener A lil bit fatty It's a little bit of everything that's bullshit in the mtb industry
  • 1 0
 Vee?! What. The. F**k. ?!

$100+ for a tire?! A BICYCLE tire?!!!

But it's not April 1st.

.....I recall Nokian, Arrow, IRC AND Maxxis ALL had 3.0 tires for under $90. In fact, I even paid low as $55.
  • 1 0
 I have never ridden a + size tire so I will withhold my comments until then.I say that because I thought fatbikes were the dumbest thing ever and then I rode one, I then realized they are awesome.
  • 3 1
 I knew this fat thing was going to catch on. Wait its tires, not my weight? I'm going to ride my bike...
  • 4 1
 wheres my 26" plus, to fit my 27.5" frame...
  • 1 1
 Surly makes them already.
  • 1 0
 instigator. it's a bike. you ride it for fun.
  • 7 0
 How about 29 minus? Oh wait, that's a road bike...
  • 2 1
 Surly Dirt Wizard 26 x 2.75 (850g with kevlar bead)... surlybikes.com/parts/wheels/dirt_wizard_26

Surly Knard 26 x 3.0 (875g with kevlar bead)... surlybikes.com/parts/wheels/knard_26x3

Both designed for minimum 35mm width rims, optimal rim width is 50mm.
  • 2 0
 Give them to World Cup DH and Enduro riders. Run the watch, see how the times pan out. The clock doesn't lie.
  • 1 0
 Honestly what is this shite? Who is ever going to ride with these?

Everyone knows streetcred is everything these days.........
  • 1 0
 Finally those early 2000s huck bikes upgraded to 27.5. Maybe it should be faster than 24s? Lol
  • 2 0
 I believe that is dog shit on the turner tires, not mud!
  • 2 0
 Time to bring back the king of big tires, Nokian Gazzy
  • 2 1
 3.2" for a 29er?
You would have to have legs like Chris Hoy to get it moving.
  • 2 2
 If my 110 pound girlfriend can get a 26 x 4.8 tired fat bike that weighs 32 pounds moving quite quickly (and that's effectively a 29.5" diameter tire so larger than any of these 650B+ models), then anyone else should be able to manage fine.
  • 1 0
 Do we have to call the Spank Stiffee 40 a 26+ and it's the hottest shit now?? I'm confused...
  • 1 0
 As Mike K says as long as you can still get old shit whats the harm. Time will be the decider.
  • 2 0
 so no bikes exist, then who is asking for this shit?
  • 2 0
 How about a 27.5 x 2.5 Minion already? Are you listening Maxxis?
  • 2 0
 What is it that tire manufacturers seem to have against side knobs?
  • 1 0
 I think I am gunna build up a 26+ front wheen for my 27.b enduro bike. Is there much reason to go + size in the rear?
  • 1 0
 It's only the people who recently upgraded to 650b. ; )
  • 1 0
 maybe you can check AXMAN (k0816)
  • 2 0
 Tha wurst.
  • 1 0
 That second Kenda looks strangely Continental.
  • 2 1
 I quit bikes forever this gave me aids why does this exist
  • 3 2
 Awesome, more tyre choices for my Krampus. 29+ is the way forward.
  • 1 0
 Why not just buy a fat bike? Or am I missing the point completely?
  • 2 1
 Where's the WTB love???!
  • 1 0
 And 26 + ???
  • 1 2
 Answered above already but to repeat...

Surly Dirt Wizard 26 x 2.75 (850g with kevlar bead)... surlybikes.com/parts/wheels/dirt_wizard_26

Surly Knard 26 x 3.0 (875g with kevlar bead)... surlybikes.com/parts/wheels/knard_26x3

Both designed for minimum 35mm width rims, optimal rim width is 50mm.
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment

You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.030514
Mobile Version of Website