But I'm digressing.
Because now, the bicycle industry is embracing another new trend -- and yet another narrow marketing segment: "plus size" bicycles.
 |
| The Surly Krampus is what some might call a 29+ with its 3-in. tires on 50-mm wide 29er rims. (photo from Surlybikes) |
One of the earlier examples has actually been available for a couple years now - the Surly Krampus, which has 3-in. 29er tires on wide 50mm rims. More of the bigger companies are now releasing plus-size bikes and tires built around wider 27.5 wheels (called 27+ which should not be confused with the old 27-in. wheels common to many older "ten-speed" bikes), and around 29er wheels (called 29+).
Of course, one can't just shove wider tires into any old frame, so if someone wants to experience the latest thing in mountain bikes, it most likely means buying yet another new bike. I've read that some of the 27+ tires/wheels might fit into some existing 29er frames, but don't count on it.
 |
| The new Trek Stache 29+ manages to fit plus-size tires with short stays and an extra-wide rear triangle. (photo from Trekbikes) |
The other issue is that of incompatible standards (there's that troublesome - and meaningless - word again). Putting such wide tires into a frame often necessitates some frame-geometry gymnastics. Longer wheelbase. Wider-spaced chainstays. Wider hub spacing. Any/all of the above. So for rear wheel spacing, we now have the "old" standard of 135mm, or newer 142mm (for thru-axles), or the still newer "Boost 148" standard, which is wider not only across the axle end caps, but also across the hub flanges.
The latest thing in mountain bikes is getting hyped pretty breathlessly. You know the story. You haven't experienced anything like it. You have to experience it for yourself. It will transform your rides. More specific claims are that the massive tires give more grip and stability, like their fat-bike counterparts, but without the extra weight and truck-like handling (seems kind of obvious). Trek says on their site "The wide 3-in. tires grip relentlessly, amplifying all the benefits of 29ers . . . You'll be amazed at how the capable, unshakable 29+ tires immediately allow you to corner harder and faster without breaking loose." We'll all just have to rush out to buy another bike.
With yet another narrow segment introduced to the bicycle marketplace (and a couple new "standards" to boot), it makes a person wonder whether the industry comes up with things like this out of a desire to innovate, or a sense of desperation.
Just a couple of weeks ago while waiting at a LBS, I talked to the Western States Jamis rep who was prepping bikes for a show 'n' ride here in ABQ the following weekend. In his stand was a model whose name I forget, but it was one of these new "27.5 PLUS" models with the new 3" tires and 148 rear OL spacing. The schtick was that it could handle "fat" tires and yet have a standard sized bb shell and use standard bb axle and bearing assemblies, and maintain a less than egregiously huge "Q".
ReplyDeleteI don't know about the 148 rear spacing, but having ridden in our area's sandy soil, I have to say that I can very easily see a useful niche for a mtb that can take 3" tires while not requiring fat bike widths. I doubt this requires a new formal marketing typology; IMO, a decent "twenty sixer" frame with enough space between fork blades and stays for a 70 mm/2.8" would do just fine. But I do have to say, having ridden 65 mm tires in our bosque sand, that I expect 3" wide tires can indeed be worth more than marketing hype. The 65s were good for sand as much as 3" deep, though 3" required downshifting and considerable effort; deeper and it was time to walk. I daresay 76mm/3" tires would handle 3" of sand with aplomb.
Tho' again, I don't see the need to go even wider in the rear.
You make it sound much more reasonable. But I guess when ya' really get down to it, I'm just really not a mountain bike guy.
DeleteI really like 29+ (this coming from a guy with tattered copies of the classic Bridgestone catalogs that still bear my college dorm room addresses). The extra float and cushion is a big step up from a regular 29er, giving my rigid bike some of the benefits of full suspension, without the cost, complexity, and maintenance of a full sus bike. And smartly designed bikes--like the Krampus--take standard parts. Boost, unfortunately, is spreading beyond the plus size market.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I'm not a mountain bike person, what Bertin says actually makes sense. The issue I have is when bike makers convince people who ride mainly on the local bike path that they need a "plus size" bike--or whatever some company comes up with.
ReplyDeleteI recently read somewhere that the bike market isn't actually growing in the US; that it's mainly the same people buying different stuff. Maybe that's the reason why the industry keeps on coming out with new genres of bikes and parts and convinces people they "need" those things.
What you said about the bike market not growing -- I've read that too. The way I understand it, the last big "boom" in U.S. bike sales was when mountain bikes were introduced in the 80s. Suddenly, lots of people who hadn't been interested in bikes were buying bikes. The industry has been looking for the same kind of thing ever since, but each new "latest greatest" just divides the existing pie into smaller and smaller pieces.
DeleteI've found a 26x2.3-2.5 covers all the bases. Heck a quality 26x2.0 travels on sand in a more fun fashion. All these new things are just like the auto industry..... It takes the skill out of the rider.
ReplyDeleteWhen the sand is 4 inches deep and extends for half a mile and is dry and churned up by horses, skill isn't going to get you through on 2" tires, even good quality ones (I run 52 mm Furious Freds on my Fargo at 17/20, down from 65 mm Big Apples at 12/15 psi). It will require such torque and energy expenditure as will ruin your ride. True, a good 2" tire will handle most riding, and that's what I choose (though in 700C size) but I either avoid or walk through the worst sandy patches.
DeleteThis sort of endless "innovation" is what caused me to lose my enthusiasm for mountain biking back in the 90's. Seemed like you needed to be spending at least three grand a year just to hang out with the cool kids at the local singletrack. And you could forget about buying replacement parts for anything over three years old. The guy behind the counter at your LBS would look at you and laugh and then launch into a spiel to sell you a whole new system when you only needed one part. Come to think of it the same situation exists for road bikes now. I want to see you walk into a bike shop 4 years from now and ask for a tire to fit your 3in mid fat bike. The salespeople will roll their eyes and say "dude,that is so 2015".
ReplyDeleteI've always found this particular brand of innovation—going further off-road, by whatever means—to be privilege masquerading as utility. Where are all these creek beds and swaths of public land, and who has the time to explore them on the perfect tire? Kidless dynamos with access to compressed air to seat the supple tubeless beauty that will help them "shred," then Instagram the alleged shredding? World Bicycle Relief helps set people up with a pair of 26x2-point-something, and they manage to cart their livelihood everywhere they need to. And these are not too far off from the balloon-tire specials that paperboys used in the '50s. I tried out a friend's fat-tire bike, a nice one, over a short test track of cross-country "technical" yadda yadda. The sensation is a little like stomping on ants, if you like that sort of thing. That said, I think letting air serve as a dampener is vastly superior to using mechanical suspension, so if all this is a way for young people to give themselves permission to simplify without feeling too much like grandpa, then I salute them, provided they don't ride on my lawn.
ReplyDeleteI am retro grouchy but also like exploring in the woods. I also have a small budget and value simplicity. I built up a Swamp Moss Green (I love that name) Krampus just as you have pictured. It also my early middle aged body to ride trails that beat the snot out of me before. I crash less and also can climb any hill even at 2 mph because of the excellent grip. It is really heavy but I only notice when putting it on roof racks. Having a super simple bike that can ride over most anything without making my unable to feel my hands the next day is a real treat.
ReplyDeleteI probably wouldn't be in the market for one of these myself -- but what you mention about simplicity is always a good thing in my book. That's actually one of the things that I like about Surly bikes in general, even though I don't own one.
Delete