FOX Racing Shox has released details of their new 27.5+ compatible FLOAT 34, a sign that the 27.5+ movement is gaining momentum. What's 27.5+? If you take an extra-wide 27.5" rim and mount a wide tire to it, one that's in the neighborhood of 2.8" or greater, the result is what's being called 27.5+. The height of the wide rim / wide tire combination is almost the same as that of a 29" wheel, but with a larger footprint. The claimed benefits are greater traction and flotation, but without the sluggishness that a true fat bike has.
2016 FLOAT 27.5+ Details
• Travel: 110-150mm
• 15 x 110mm wide flange hub spacing
• New FLOAT air spring
• FIT4 closed cartridge damper
• Offset: 51mm
• Clearance for up to 27.5" x 3.25" tire
While it many cases it's possible to fit a 27.5+ wheel in an existing 29er frame, tire clearance is the biggest issue, which is why FOX's new FLOAT 34 uses a 15 x 110mm thru-axle as opposed to the current standard, which is 15 x 100. Why the change? That 10mm increase allows the hub flanges to be moved out 5mm on each side, in turn creating a better bracing angle and allowing for a stiffer wheel. This does mean that a different hub, not just an end cap swap, will be required to run a fork with 15 x 110mm spacing, due to the positioning of the brake mount. It's highly likely that other manufacturers will be following suit shortly - look for more news over the course of the next few months.
Said no one ever.
www.pinkbike.com/photo/8487384
- the rest of that memory was taking up too much space so I deleted most of it from my bucket... I can't remember the guy's name or the name of the mag he worked for. the few details I can remember was he was a cheap-ass-mo-fo because I think (in his mind) he was a celebrity and writing for a well known bike mag gave him the green light to expect free-bee's from everyone. I recall he tossed me a set of grips he demo'd once.. wuuup eeee!!! thanks bud. and I do remember the bike he was riding when I realized he was in over his head -- it was a carbon Scott of some sort. At the time, a prototype, said to cost something like $8k (or so he claimed), it was one of two he was given to test and review. I remember being nervous about working on it because it was so pricey. This of course was before I went for a ride with him. **** during the ride, he crashed a couple times doing some very simple log crossing type of stuff. That's when I made that infamous face like I just smelled a dog fart. I'm like...."wait, you're writing for XYZ Bike Mag and your riding skills are at an elementary school level?, something doesn't add up here".....
here's a couple that struck me as funny (looking back).
1. I used this auto product for cleaning tires on bikes -- it's a bajillion times cheaper than the stuff you buy that's bike branded -- does a great job for cleaning grease and making a bike look brand new -- I tell the kid to go clean a bike that was hanging in the rack. I'm occupied with something else on the computer ... for quite some time, I hear a hsssssssssssssssssssss, coming from the work shop area but it doesn't click what it is.. I just think he's letting air out of the tubes or something. then it clicks...
wait, what?!?! what are you doing?!?!? he had sprayed the entire bike with this cleaner stuff, including the brakes and rotors. AHHHHHHH!!!! just a squirt here and there, not the whole frikin' bike I yell
MEAT HOOKS ---
Syncros Meat Hook pedals ----
that's what they were which made it even funnier -- no wonder I couldn't stop laughing for the rest of the day ---- I remember I even busted out laughing late at night, while in bed, just before I fell asleep... my wife was ---- 'what's so funny". I remember my stomach muscle hurt that day from laughing so hard.
Not saying most of the product from that time were better than current offerings but then most of the stuff was designed for the rider, now it's stupid profit chasing that will only result in people loosing trust and stoping buying new products (hey, your fatbike is now obsolete, in 2 years you won't be able to buy tires for it, yaaay).
This is silly since it's a new fork standard only so you can basically run 2001 downhill gear on your enduro fatbike hemaphrodite. Go double wides and 3.0 gazzoldis. Next year xxxyzx forks for 3000$.
"Losing trust and stopping buying new products"?
That's me there. One of the reasons we all love to tinker with (buy new stuff for) our rides is that it is (used to be) possible to mix and match components and frames far more easily than it appears to be now. Once consumers predict increasing changes to standards and spacings, they are far less likely to make purchases unless they have a continuing supply of cash for their hobby.
"Riding a museum of MTB history" even though it is "only a few years old"?
That's me there. 9 speed, 73mm, 20x110, 10x135. And loving it still; every day.
"If they are better, I am excited for progress"?
That's me there.I enjoy reading about advances and all the great work the people at the likes of Sram, Shimano, RS, Fox, frame makers etc do; the efforts they put in to make things better. Go for it all of you. Never stop please.
However, I may never get to ride any of it. Shame really, still, I have a small stable of soon to be museum pieces from HT to DH and that'll do me just fine thanks!
Enjoy the weekend all.
I buy a ton of my stuff for my bike. My Banshee Legend is 5 seasons old but I changed the damper in my fork. I have 5 wheels for it, 30 tires, 3 stems and a ton of other stuff because I like to tinker and try new stuff on my bike. This trend means I will be unable to do so. It shows that the industry decided that we all need to buy complete bikes even in the 2k$+ market. So what we get are apple bikes with shorter lifespan.
Hell I will probably switch to 27.5 for my dh bike but because of the new standard every year idea I won't do it this year. I will wait 2 more years for the industry to calm down and so geometry can standarise a bit. I really feel like it's 2001. Geometries are all over the place, we get crazy new standards and 3.0 tires are back in fashion. They really need to reinstate skinsuits.
I hear you. I am racing tomorrow morning and it has been raining today with sun forecast in the morning tomorrow. I will be choosing between a Stanton Slackline 853 or a Banshee Spitfire depending on what the course ends up looking like. I will be faced with a choice of Ardent, Maxxis Semi-slick (I did say museum pieces right!), or Continental Mountain Kings.
All 26 inch, 20mm front hubs. I can't consider replacing all my stuff. It'd cost me too much.
In it to win it? No, luckily! In it for the fun of it and can't wait! Enjoy the weekend!
scandalon.com/2009/06/motorcycle-front-axle-diameter-chart
Oh wait, Marzocchi used EXACTLY that back in 2003 on the QR20/QR20+ lowers. They called it a "20mm DH" spacing: 20x110mm but with the caliper mounts on the fork lower spaced out an additional 5mm. You could use their hub that had the rotor spaced out the additional 5mm or you could run 5mm spacers between the IS caliper mount and the post adapter.
I think the extra clearance isn't really needed anyway to get a 2.8" tire in there.
scandalon.com/2009/06/motorcycle-front-axle-diameter-chart
Is how 15mm was used in the 90s. At any rate, their axles and forks are completely different and stiffer because they don't have the weight considerations. It's not really comparable, as the entire package would need to be evaluated as being substantially lighter and more flex prone.
motocross.transworld.net/1000162476/features/first-look-2015-yamaha-yz-model-line
I'd rather have 20mm as the clamp size is stronger, its not nice snapping fork lowers which is another thing fox used to do too..
Here's a bit of info you 20x110 fanboys just don't collectively seem to know, or want to ignore maybe instead.
20 x 110 hubs were designed to lace to the same rims that 9 x 100mm hubs laced to, and 15 x 100mm followed suit the same way. Rims where the spoke hole offset is tiny, maybe 2mm from one side to the other. But all Fat Bike and now Mid-Fat rims (and some Trials bike rims too btw, which is where a lot of Mid-Fat rim designs come from) use spoke holes that are offset apart significantly more, and using them with a regular mountain bike front hub would reduce the pulling angle for the spokes, weakening the wheel.
To use these existing wheelsets in a conversion you'd need to also own a 29er frame with a lot of tire width clearance, as well as a 29er fork with the same criteria. So far the early adopters of these tires who've tried them have found they don't fit more than a handful of frames (out of hundreds of 29er models produced) and only then if you use smaller width rims to squeeze the tire casing. You can JUST get the WTB 650B 2.8s to fit into some existing 29er fork models because they're actually a 2.8 casing with a 2.3 tread width. But not any of the Vee 650B+ tire with tread widths that actually match the size claimed especially not the 3.25, unless its an inverted model (so a DVO or a Rockshox RS-1, or a Lefty) or an actual Fat-Bike fork like the Rockshox Bluto or a Carver Trans Fat, and four of those require specific hubs to be used.
www.bikerumor.com/2014/12/19/2016-axle-standards-part-1-rear-148mm-thru-axle-coming-fast-its-about-more-than-just-better-wheels
The what?
I was going to buy a Remedy 8 27.5 until i heard about the new axle standard (boost 14 , and wondered if it would come to the 27.5. After seeing this fork i'm hoping that with 'boost' and 15x110 you'll be able to run (with the right rim/hub) either 2.35 tires or 2.8. That might be sweet. It might make the right bike (Remedy?) very versatile.
forums.mtbr.com/27-29
Considering axle stiffness itself is futile because axle is a part of the system. There are more things that make up the stiffness of a whole fork: the way the crown is made, steerer tube and it's connection to crown, arch of lowers, bushing overlap, stanchion diameter and when talking axle, we must consider the way the axle is clamped. If you hold a long stick horisontally, it plays a major role whether you keep it with whole hand or with two fingers. 4+1 bolts, or thread of Maxle - you catch my drill Ultimately one must consider the relation between stiffness and tracking - while stiffer fork allows to enter a section of terrain in a more precis manner, when you get into the rockgarden, it plays at your disadvantage because large objects will bounce you off your line more than when on a fork that can deflect - it is counterintuitive but at the sae time fork can be too flexy. off course. Most of standard forks won't have this issue. Considering such number of variables axle diameter is not as important. However changing dimensions all the time is undoubtedly fkd up and makes speccing a custom, non-complete bike into a nightmare.
NO.
The issue is only in naming, if Fox and Shimano would call this fork and hub as 275+, there would be no problem what so ever. But now we will get 34 150 275+ among 34 150 26, 34 160 26, 34 275 34 29 and so on. Then SLX front hub 110x15 among 100x15m 110x20, 110x9. There is no wondering that 275+ is a completely different animal, s why not run a new series of components with less confusing names.
The rest is completely moot and not worth discussing. You bring up several examples of areas that affect stiffness and none of them were part of the discussion or point. Of course they affect things. That's other areas that would be designed in concert with the axle system. But, again, not the point at all. The point is why not stick to an already existent 'standard' that's inherently better at it's job.
I really think the industry needs to take a chill pill and let people enjoy their bikes and rear axle spacings. Things move too fast often at the expense of game changers which are a sack of poop (35m bars?!)
Why not just ship it with two little 5mm metal spacers, or taper at the hub?
#toiletseatengineering
Marketing: "It's all the things you want, with none of the things you don't"
In reality, the industry is trying to tell you: "You need to buy a new bike, since we have a new hub, a new tire width, which will require a 27.5+ specific frame"
You don't even work for the Industry.
No kidding, this guy always does the same thing.
They dream of being industry insiders.
forums.mtbr.com/27-29
Lawsuit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The question is... am i willing to pay out of my ass for this when there is PIKE???
Only if it comes with a blowjob Il buy it haha
And we wonder why the buy in for mtb is so high?
The industry painted themselves in a corner with the 27.5 thing since a 26" x 2.7" tire (Gazzalodi JR circa roughly 2000) measures 27.5 on a Velocity Blunt 35 rim. The Nokians are brutally heavy so instead I run 2.5 Maxxis DHF (2.5" Trail Kings are a known super-high-volume aggressive tire as well) tires that measure about 27.2" The way they handle is night and day versus a narrow rim and smaller volume tires in terms of flat resistance, conforming to the terrain, and they don't roll off the side of the rim at low pressures in high-grip cornering. Not to mention they have astounding grip for rocky and technical climbing.
Now everything is standardized for 27.5" when 27.5+ is just 29" with a big heavy tire...
My only complaint is that the Velocity rims are the only ones available with that amount of width at a reasonable weight. As a result, I have dented the bead to complete shit given my aggressive (careless) and abusive (too tired to lift) riding style. The beauty of alloy is that I have repaired them and they still take the abuse. Someone needs to create a zero-hook aluminum rim to avoid the tendency hooked rims have to fold in on themselves.
Carbon sucks, it can't be recycled or repaired and the cost of entry is just plain obscene.
These higher volume tires will require lower running pressures, probably somewhere in the range of 17-23psi depending on the overall tire size. Less sluggish than a true fat bike but far slower than a 27.5x2.35-2.5 set up.
Who is this tire size really for? Maybe this is an ideal set up for dads who want to give MTB a go but lack skills. Maybe this is for mobbing down the boardwalk at the beach like SoCal bros and their lifted F150's. Beyond than, I struggle to identify a bike that goes slower but boasts more traction.
www.pinkbike.com/forum/listcomments/?threadid=168721
Fox should be focused on producing a product that will blow the Rock Shox Pike out of the water instead of trying to re-invent the wheel.
When FOX finally produces a fork that is an improvement over the Pike, please send them my way.
Real question...
What problem dos the plus bike solve?
@feeblesmith, they'd have to make a different adapter for every style of hub. Not practical at all when one caliper adapter would do the trick. A new hub is not a better solution for the millions of wheelsets that are out there.
Bring in fat ikes!
Wait till you see what shows up at Sea Otter...it's going to be the 27.5+ kickoff event.