or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Off-Season Sports & The Lighter Side › Cycling › Pondering a new bike (but I really shouldn't ... but hey, summer thread)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pondering a new bike (but I really shouldn't ... but hey, summer thread) - Page 5

post #121 of 135

^^^^ That is a seriously good looking bike

post #122 of 135


I am another reader coming to this "party" late. One of my best friends just bought a Yeti SB5C which is a very nice bike which he likes very much.

I myself, after demoing the Ibis Ripley, the Turner Czar, several Rocky Mountain models, the Yeti, and several Trek models. (these were trail rides, not just through the parking lot.)  I ended up buying the Specialized Camber Expert Carbon Evo 29r w/120mm of travel. I really liked the ride of the bike as well as the bang for the buck. Slacker angles, shorter stays, etc. really help the ride aspects.

 

As irrelevant as all this may sound, there are a couple of points to it, involved in this discussion. 

1st:  the bike has a head angle in the 68 degree range which makes for radical handling change compared to my Niner Air 9 RDO ,as well as, many other bikes. 

2nd:  the width of rims is 29mm internal measurement which is coming @ mtn bikers in big and bigger ways. helps facilitate bigger tires, lower air pressures, read as better traction, better control.

 

If you are a trail rider purchasing a mountain bike in the near future, I would suggest you research the "new" " 27.5 plus" bikes.

Scott, Specialized, and Trek and others are all investing heavily in "27.5 plus" in their 2016 lines. Scott's "27 +" bikes(available in both HT and FS) have rims that are 40mm width for 3" tires. (Scott and Specialized both have pretty good descriptions and videos on their websites.) Specialized has 2 FS styles,  a men's Stumpjumper FSR and the women's Rhyme FSR, using  a new design called "6 Fattie" in which they use the 30mm rim width with a 3" tire. Trek is making the 2016 Stache hardtail with a 3"(?) tire which has a different rear stay setup to allow for the large wheels and tires. Said to ride like full suspension smooth. Rocky Mountain is making their new Sherpa (adventure bike) with 95 mm travel in back and I believe 125 mm in front and again the enlarged rim width and tire size.

One thing all of these bikes all have in common is that they are recommending 14 to 20 psi for your tire pressures. They are also tailoring geometries, etc. for these rides. Most will also accommodate  29" wheels/tires.They are said to be amazing for climbing over rocks, roots, etc., great downhill control/handling, with little apparent increase in overall weight and handling resistance.

post #123 of 135
^^^^i think this is the right trend. Having spent a ton of time in the off-road world, it has been head scratching to me getting into MTB and seeing this constant talk about smaller tires, e.g. "I run a 2.1 in the back". I run 2.3's and prefer about 18-20 PSI. I'd go lower, but there isn't enough tire.

Higher PSI, and the tires become lost as a key suspension component and you need over the moon damping components. Which are always good, but from a pure design theory the tires should be doing much more than they do today, especially in the mid price points.

Have to see how it plays out, but at my eventual budget I am going to be all over pushing more of the performance envelope to tires. That is so tried and true in the off-road world that it seems inevitable...at least if people like the looks of the bikes.
post #124 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post

^^^^i think this is the right trend. Having spent a ton of time in the off-road world, it has been head scratching to me getting into MTB and seeing this constant talk about smaller tires, e.g. "I run a 2.1 in the back". I run 2.3's and prefer about 18-20 PSI. I'd go lower, but there isn't enough tire.

Higher PSI, and the tires become lost as a key suspension component and you need over the moon damping components. Which are always good, but from a pure design theory the tires should be doing much more than they do today, especially in the mid price points.

Have to see how it plays out, but at my eventual budget I am going to be all over pushing more of the performance envelope to tires. That is so tried and true in the off-road world that it seems inevitable...at least if people like the looks of the bikes.

 

Well your neglecting to take into account the fact that rolling resistance is also a much bigger deal when your under self power rather then having an engine to keep the wheels turning. This particularly true for racing MTB, both XC and Downhill, the riders are looking to maintain as much speed through the flats as possible. That's not even taking into account that an extremely low pressure tire doesn't handle landings from jumps and drops all that well regardless of how much tire you have. Though, I guess you could start trying to incorporate something like bead locks but that's extra weight.   

post #125 of 135
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonewolf210 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post

^^^^i think this is the right trend. Having spent a ton of time in the off-road world, it has been head scratching to me getting into MTB and seeing this constant talk about smaller tires, e.g. "I run a 2.1 in the back". I run 2.3's and prefer about 18-20 PSI. I'd go lower, but there isn't enough tire.

Higher PSI, and the tires become lost as a key suspension component and you need over the moon damping components. Which are always good, but from a pure design theory the tires should be doing much more than they do today, especially in the mid price points.

Have to see how it plays out, but at my eventual budget I am going to be all over pushing more of the performance envelope to tires. That is so tried and true in the off-road world that it seems inevitable...at least if people like the looks of the bikes.

 

Well your neglecting to take into account the fact that rolling resistance is also a much bigger deal when your under self power rather then having an engine to keep the wheels turning. This particularly true for racing MTB, both XC and Downhill, the riders are looking to maintain as much speed through the flats as possible. That's not even taking into account that an extremely low pressure tire doesn't handle landings from jumps and drops all that well regardless of how much tire you have. Though, I guess you could start trying to incorporate something like bead locks but that's extra weight.   

 

The people I know who have bikes with fat tires, use them specifically to increase the amount of effort involved in the climb. (Baffling!) My DH bike with 26" wheels lost a couple of pounds just going from beefy 2.5s to leaner 2.3s ... 

 

I have to admit that the *look* of fat tires is hard for me to get past. I'm always behind the curve because when something new comes on the scene, I'm slow to accept/adapt.

post #126 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonewolf210 View Post

Well your neglecting to take into account the fact that rolling resistance is also a much bigger deal when your under self power rather then having an engine to keep the wheels turning. This particularly true for racing MTB, both XC and Downhill, the riders are looking to maintain as much speed through the flats as possible. That's not even taking into account that an extremely low pressure tire doesn't handle landings from jumps and drops all that well regardless of how much tire you have. Though, I guess you could start trying to incorporate something like bead locks but that's extra weight.   

Most of us aren't racing, and long travel suspensions have significant downsides. It's not like the talk is "fat bike" - a 3" tire isn't huge, and if you can drop PSI by 5 and start reducing excess suspension travel, you might gain some tire traction while keeping efficiency balance. Why did tires go from 1.9 to 2.3-4? What makes a certain size optimal in the geometry equation?
post #127 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by bounceswoosh View Post

The people I know who have bikes with fat tires, use them specifically to increase the amount of effort involved in the climb. (Baffling!)

People also keep reducing gearing options, all the way to fixed gears. Riding a fixie is all about simplicity in exchange for extra rider effort. Wanting a 1x11 vs. 3x10 - isn't there going to be extra effort from losing the granny low gears?

Your tire diameter is just one of your gear ratios - adapting ring gear ratio for tire size is one of the easiest mechanical adjustments available. If it was so critical, why is everybody eliminating gears going 2x20 or 1x11 smile.gif?
post #128 of 135

The wide rim stuff is interesting. But we've already been there 15 years ago and come back. I used to have Sun Doublewides and 3" Gazzalodis. World Cup downhills are still being won on 23mm wide rims. It doesn't always work how you think it will. The only 27.5+ bike I've ridden so far was the Rocky Mountain Sherpa which actually felt pretty normal climbing. Not slow. But it had no grip cornering and braking. I think with the tires being so wide, the individual knobs had no pressure to make traction with the ground.

post #129 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post

Your tire diameter is just one of your gear ratios - adapting ring gear ratio for tire size is one of the easiest mechanical adjustments available. If it was so critical, why is everybody eliminating gears going 2x20 or 1x11 smile.gif?

 

Because Enduro.

post #130 of 135
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bounceswoosh View Post

The people I know who have bikes with fat tires, use them specifically to increase the amount of effort involved in the climb. (Baffling!)

People also keep reducing gearing options, all the way to fixed gears. Riding a fixie is all about simplicity in exchange for extra rider effort. Wanting a 1x11 vs. 3x10 - isn't there going to be extra effort from losing the granny low gears?

Your tire diameter is just one of your gear ratios - adapting ring gear ratio for tire size is one of the easiest mechanical adjustments available. If it was so critical, why is everybody eliminating gears going 2x20 or 1x11 smile.gif?

I don't think so. It depends on the 11 gears you choose. I don't use full granny often, but second to granny is my friend.

post #131 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post


Most of us aren't racing, and long travel suspensions have significant downsides. It's not like the talk is "fat bike" - a 3" tire isn't huge, and if you can drop PSI by 5 and start reducing excess suspension travel, you might gain some tire traction while keeping efficiency balance. Why did tires go from 1.9 to 2.3-4? What makes a certain size optimal in the geometry equation?

 

True but that's what drives most of the innovation and trends. Also like I said lower PSI creates issues for the bike going airborne and I would imagine creates some cornering problems too. The low PSI will help on the way up but not nearly as much as on the way down.

post #132 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonewolf210 View Post

True but that's what drives most of the innovation and trends. Also like I said lower PSI creates issues for the bike going airborne and I would imagine creates some cornering problems too. The low PSI will help on the way up but not nearly as much as on the way down.

I hope that the ultimate market target here is people stuck between buying a high end hardtail or a low end FS in terms of budget. There is a gaping hole in bikes that meet the needs of these people. Having less tire and less damping quality while still dropping $2K is a problem.

Mid level bikes are crazy expensive. Lessening the requirement for super high end and longer travel damping with moderately larger rubber designed to work at lower PSI could be directed at this underserved trail riding market who aren't racing or doing enduro riding.

I'd conceptually even consider a hardtail within that budget point. Just going from 2-2.3 made a huge difference, based largely on better ability to fine tune PSI.
post #133 of 135

Apparently, part of what makes this whole concept work is having a wider rim that spreads out/"flattens" the tire so that the negative effects you are discussing are not the factors they are with a narrower rim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post

I'd conceptually even consider a hardtail within that budget point. Just going from 2-2.3 made a huge difference, based largely on better ability to fine tune PSI.

The Trek Stache and the Specialized Fuse(?) are two hardtails that they maintain really smooth the ride with out the expense of full suspension.  If you read "MTB Review" online, they have different articles/blogs on the concept.

post #134 of 135
post #135 of 135
Thread Starter 

Just to close the loop on the whole new bike thing - I'm definitely not getting a new bike this season, but next season, when presumably my shoulder is all healed, I'm going to take advantage of that Yeti factory demo.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Cycling
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Off-Season Sports & The Lighter Side › Cycling › Pondering a new bike (but I really shouldn't ... but hey, summer thread)