turbojet-megafred RichardCunningham's article
Feb 1, 2017 at 10:34Feb 1, 2017
Intense ACV: Foundation Build - Review
I agree that many plus tires make it a pain to find the sweet spot for tire pressure, and the initial round of plus tire sidewalls were like paper. However, the current crop of High Rollers, DHF/DHR, and Dirt Wizard options are durable even when compared to their non-plus sized competitors. The real question I'd like to see asked with plus tires is what is the best volume for different ranges of rider weight. I weigh around 200 lbs (90 kg) and a 27.5x3" tire stops bouncing at 13 psi in the front and 15 in the rear, but the wheel is vulnerable to rim strikes at those low pressures. I need to run a 2.8" casing tire to get the pressures high enough to keep from hitting the rim on a regular basis. My wife weighs much less, and Maxxis Rekon tires with casings that measure 2.7" (listed as 2.8's) needs to run 9 psi in the front to keep from getting bounced around. Stiffer sidewalls are simply not an option for her at those volumes, and at that low pressure she'll smash her rim to pieces in the first few minutes of a ride. A 2.5" casing is the largest she can ride based on the low pressures needed for her weight. At some point maybe the conversation will change to riders to picking tire volumes based on their weights. Most of us have specific pressure we like to run (around 17 psi for me), and we'll pick a tire size that behaves progressively enough at that pressure to keep from smashing rims or bouncing us around like superball.
turbojet-megafred vernonfelton's article
Aug 31, 2016 at 11:12Aug 31, 2016
Devinci Marshall Carbon - First Ride
I can't speak for the Carbon Marshall, but my 2015 Aluminum Hendrix fit a 200x57mm Cane Creek DB Inline as a replacement for the 200x50mm RockShox rear shock, which bumped the rear travel up to 135mm from 110 and matches with the 140mm Lyrik that I swapped onto the front. There's still 6mm of frame clearance when the rear shock is fully compressed, so there doesn't seem to be an issue with the change. This bike can really shred the downhills, and there is an option to bump up the travel to match its geometry. Just something to consider if you're in the market for one.
turbojet-megafred mattwragg's article
Feb 23, 2016 at 18:49Feb 23, 2016
From the Top: Daniel Berger of DT Swiss
In the same way that many people with a 29ers are currently cramming 27+ tires into their frames to make them more fun, people buying the current crop of 27.5" bikes will probably try to cram 26"+ tires into their frames when they become available. The 29 to 27+ swap works out well because 2015/2016 model year BB heights are often 10-12mm lower than equivalent models from 2012/2013, so the smaller wheel diameter ends up giving older fames more modern geometry (except for reach). I expect there will be some problems with the 27.5 to 26+ transition because lowering a modern bike's BB by 12mm is going to cause pedal clearance issues unless a trend towards shorter crank arms also takes off to compensate. But it looks like the most future proof option right now might be a 27.5 bike from 2012.