27.5+

jjpptt2

I'm bored, so let's talk bikes.

I recently swapped out the 29x2.35 setup I had been running on my steel SS for a 27.5+. I lost about 3/4" in BB height, but saw no other meaningful changes in fit/geometry. While I did notice the lower BB height, it wasn't hard to account for, and didn't take long to get used to.

Even with a steel frame, the extra float took a noticeable edge off of rough trails. The extra traction is great, especially on off-camber stuff, but the WTB Bridgers make for a terrible rear tire, so overall traction is kind of a wash - much improved on dirt and hardpack, much less on rocks and especially roots, which we have a lot of where I ride.

All in all, I'm definitely sold on the 27.5+ platform, and my next N+1 will likely be a full squish + rig.

NorthCascades

I know I misread that. Did you say you rode a single speed mountain bike??

jjpptt2

Yep

NorthCascades

Your badass score just doubled.

Is wheel size supposed to be a factor of rider height, trail conditions, something else? I'm a roadie but want to get into more MTB.

jjpptt2

Wheel size is mostly based on trail type and bike purpose, though rider size/height can matter (I know a couple of taller guys who just never felt comfortable on smaller wheel sizes despite larger frames).

Larger wheels will typically roll faster/smoother, but smaller wheels will be a bit more nimble. I'm not sure if those differences are significant enough for an average rider to feel/notice, but that's what "they" say. I've got a 26" wheeled full suspension bike, and the bike above, which I've run with both 27.5 and 29" wheels, both with gears and without. I notice a huge difference between the bikes (mostly suspension vs hardtail and gears vs none), and I notice a difference between 2.35 tires and 3.0. But I can't say I notice a difference between 29" wheels and 27.5. Though, in fairness, I've never run them with the same tires, so it's not exactly apples to apples.