Dedicated bikepacking bike... to plus or not to plus?

[Richard G]

So I'm thinking of putting in an order for the frame that will replace old faithful, but I'm wondering if it's worth making it so that I can run 29"+ tyres rather than just standard 29".

I've never properly ridden anything bigger than a 2.5" tyre so I'm wondering if there really is any meaningful advantage for bikepacking or I should just stick to what I know? I'm also wondering if I should just make sure there's a bit more width available in the frame so that I could potentially throw in a 27.5+ wheelset as an option (this seems like the safer bet).

[Bearbonesnorm]

I think the 29" / B+ option is very worthwhile. I do like 29+ but find that it can get a 'bit much' on long days especially int' back ... saying that, many forks will happily accept 29+ which is probably where the greatest benefits lie.

As an example, my Stooge is like a different bike when swapping between 29" and B+. It's not that one is 'better' than the other - simply very different and suited to different things.

What you thinking of buying?

[ScotRoutes]

How tall are you?

Remember that bigger wheels will reduce the space for a saddle bag.

[Oli.vert]

Throwing my hat in the ring here as an interested party.

My experience on the WRT was that my 26b wasnt quite + enough for my liking. Having a max tyre size of 2.2" meant I was climbing well, but left for dust on many of the downhill sections, and finding it tough going on grassy sections so I'm thinking having a bit of Plus can only be a good thing for a pure bikepacking machine.

Stooge is one of the frames I'd be looking at, but interested in what Stu said about the b+ and 29 set ups riding so different.

[Mike]

For what it's worth I love 29plus up front 2.4 rear the stooge just eats the trails. Iv just done a loop in the peaks and I forgotten how bloody good the riding is up here and it's bone dry at the moment. Would be a great time to try and take that itt off Karl I'd say

Well if I weren't heading to the lakes that was and I hadn't got this bloody cold, oh and I was actually that fast. Don't worry Karl your time is safe

[Pirahna]

The only 29+ I've ridden was a Jones, I bought the normal 29 version, I think the thing that really put me off was the weight of the wheels. Something that might be important is flying with a 29+, you'll probably need 2 boxes, one for the frame and one for the wheels.

[Richard G]

What you thinking of buying?

Custom frame. Triton.

How tall are you?

Remember that bigger wheels will reduce the space for a saddle bag.

5' 9". To be honest, I tend not to struggle for carrying space these days as I've got much better at the whole TLS thing.

...and oh, sh*t. I guess realistically 29+ is out because there's not a chance in hell they'd fit in my bike bag. If I'm honest, I'd probably struggle width wise too so I think I'm going to have to borrow someone's 27.5+ wheel to try it!

[Moder-dye]

Bit of a thread hijack, sorry, but kind of related...

Possibly a stupid question, but can you get an off the shelf 29+ wheel with 9mm QR? Thought about getting a plus front wheel as there's plenty if space, but I've never seen one.

Ta

[whitestone]

Richard, I'm pretty sure that Ian Barrington had 29+ on the front and 29 on the rear when he did the Highland Trail in 2016, might be worth checking his blog. Phil Clarke went 29+ both ends last year on his Jones+.

I've got both 29er and 650b+ wheels for the Solaris. As Stu says, the bike feels a lot different with the B+ wheels, in some situations it's better in others it's worse. The B+ wheels feel much draggier when you've long flat or smoother sections or road but soak up the bumps better on climbs (great traction) and descents. The plus tyres are also much more sensitive to pressures than standard tyres.

Bike bag: the CRC bike bag takes a 29er or a fat bike no problem but I've not tried 29+ wheels/tyres in it. Deflate the tyres and the *should* fit.

Edit: You weren't spurred by this article were you? http://www.bikepacking.com/gear/29-tires-list/

[Richard G]

I've got this one: https://www.evocsports.com/products/bag ... -macaskill

Doesn't say anything about sizes, but I know my 29x2.5" trail bike tyres were a pig to get in there.

[ZeroDarkBivi]

Having ridden a 650b+ bike for a bit now (2.8F/2.6R) , my observations are much the same:

It makes riding rigid much more comfortable on long days in bumpy terrain - but I'm still not convinced rigid is so great in that kind of terrain, and a Lauf (which I have on another bike) is probably a better option for comfort.

If you get the pressure low enough, it does give a nice grippy feel, but also gets a bit pogo-bouncy on rough descents (as does the Lauf).

At the same low pressures, it feels super slow on the road, and I can also feel the weight/inertia difference when accelerating, very slowly...

I'd not consider 29+ as it would be disproportionately large and heavy (I sometimes struggle with normal 29, and I've been riding that for 4 years).

So, as always, the answer is - it depends. Primarily what type of terrain you will mostly be riding, but also where you ar happy to compromise. For me the rigid plus bike was about simplifying everything for expeds into remote areas, where speed was not a big concern, hence the Rohloff, Jones bars, etc. What I have ended up with is a bike which is also slow and heavy!

Bit of a tangent, but I am really liking my new 'gravel bike', and think this style of bikepacking is more to my liking - rough back roads with a little bit of trail - keeping it all light for alpine ascents, and making good progress on longer trips. Multiple wheel/tyre combos also make this a very flexible option.

[Richard G]

Yeah, I don't want to add more weight if I can avoid it. Sounds like 29" with an option for 27.5"+ (ish) might be where I go.

[NorwayCalling]

29+ (Trek Stache) was a right laugh and wonderful to ride BUT I could not get a wheel set to stay round/true no mater what I did. Just too much mass for rocky Cwmcarn style riding and they weight of bikepacking in rocky trails (for me).

650B+ (Trek Rosco) fantastic ride and overall the most fun on a bike I have had in a long time - love it.

What did I take to the WRT? 29er on 2.2 as I wanted on road speed, dual track and single track climbing ease and maybe lost a few % of the fun factor on the decent (so still had fun...except on the Wayfarer where toys came out of the pram on the decent over badyhead rock and 4x4 cocks)

Life is about compromise, if i was whippet weight and road gravel riding all day - 29+ all day long - but you wont find a "mud" tyre for that size. 650b+ lots of options for tires but just a compromise. Check out all the pictures between a 29er 2.4 and a 650b 3.0 - hard to tell the differenc- in width just a load more un dampened mass with the b+ option. Whilst 29 "standard" 2.4 is a good place... but not as much full on fun as b+.....

[Charliecres]

I’m a big fan of 29 rear / 29+ front. Have it on both a Stooge and a Swift and it seems to me like the best compromise between drag and bounce.

[voodoo_simon]

Some reading here
http://www.bikepacking.com/gear/29-tires-list/

[fatbikephil]

Depends what you want as usual. I like 29+ on a rigid bike as it helps to smooth out the bumps thanks to the big wheel diameter as much as the big tyres. I don't run low pressures - 15 - 20 front and 20-25 rear. If your a weight weeney it doesn't stack up but light weight bikes are grossly overrated in my view and comfort and fun are much more important. I've ridden mine over some pretty rough terrain and the only thing I avoid is big drops and jumps but thats probably as much down to my age as the bike. I've properly tw*tted both wheels many times and never bent one yet. 29+ tyres are still a bit limited but chupacabras are a great all rounder and light. Chronicles are like DMS - lots of bounce and bomb proof and minions will re-define what you know as grip.

The wheel weight is not noticeable unless you switch bikes. The slow acceleration of a heavier wheel likewise not noticeable or a problem.

Most importantly, they look cool

[lune ranger]

29+ unless you want to race/break ITT records.
You can go on a rigid simple bike and still not be bashed about by the terrain.
I love the roll over anything feeling and find DH on my fully loaded Krampus an absolute hoot.
I've settled on Chronicles for most riding and Dirt Wizards for the gloop. Dirt Wizards are a perfectly good mud tyre in the 29+ version. I winter bikepack on Dartmoor and Exmoor with them and that is definitely muddy.

[ScotRoutes]

A couple of other points to consider;

1/ there is a much wider choice of tyres in 29 and B+ than there is in 29+

2/ when comparing 29 and B+ also consider whether the former would more likely have you running suspension forks and then take that into account in overall weight.

[Richard G]

It almost certainly wont be rigid, and I'll definitely be trying to beat some records at times.

[sean_iow]

Do you ride anywhere muddy on a regular basis? The only 29+ bike I've seen in real life struggled in southern mud as the chain to tyre clearance was too small in the lowest gears and the chain scraped all the clag off the rear tyre all over the cranks/front mech. This was 2x10 though, 1x might not suffer as much.

Locals here with 650B+ don't seem to have the same issue but I couldn't say if that's the slightly smaller wheel or the fact that they are 1x and there is just that bit more clearance.

[Stevemorg]

If you are looking for a 29+ I've just put my Rooster in the classifieds

[wriggles]

I am a fan of 29 plus. Have owned a few. It gives an option to run without suspension forks, yet still smooth out the trail. They are also fine in Southern Mud with correct tyre choice. At 5'9" though you might find 27.5 plus better as wont compromise frame bag and seat bag fitting. As Stuart says being able to switch between plus and 29er wheels gives you the option of two good set ups to suit terrain and use. There are also the newer mid size 2.6 29er tyres coming in which the US bikepacking sites seem to be raving at. Whichever option you go for I would recommend boost as it gives better clearance chain/tyre and mud clearance.

If going custom I also recommend good peer review of your requirements and design . If choosing a Titanium frame good lifetime warranty is crucial. Titanium can and will crack. The ride qualities still makes it worth the risk though in my opinion. I have had two frames repaired under warranty (Lynskey; 10 years old. Singular: 7 years old), but sold a frame when I heard the company were notdealing with broken frames outside their pitiful 3 year warranty (Kinesis).
Have you looked at the Sonder Broken Road. Looks a really good off the peg option.

[ScotRoutes]

Titanium can and will crack

Well, you would buy a Lynskey....

Im on my 5th Ti frame and not managed to break one yet.

[NorwayCalling]

Titanium can and will crack

Well, you would buy a Lynskey....

Im on my 5th Ti frame and not managed to break one yet.

i won't tuch a Ti frame from a mass produced company.. I only know of 2 people who have a Ti MTB for more than 5 years without a crack in the frame... and one of them was on this years WRT on a 13 year old frame.

ScotRoutes; of those 5 Ti frames you have had, how old was the oldest and was it still in regular service at the time before moving it on?

[Richard G]

I have zero idea if Triton even have a warranty. I've never heard anything bad about them though.