The Ride
I went into the demo day with an open mind, and made a beeline for one of the new Genius bikes with Plus sized tires—I wanted to get on both the Genius 700 (130mm rear, 140mm front travel, 27.12lbs) and the Genius LT 700 (160mm rear, 160mm front travel, 28lbs) with Plus sized tires tires.
The Genius LT is more in line with what I normally ride, but I wasn’t sure if the bigger tires would have me favoring a shorter travel bike with steeper geometry because of the additional cushion and driftiness that I figured they might provide.
Scott Genius LT 700 Tuned Plus
I started off on the Genius LT Tuned Plus on a new jump trail at Deer Valley. One turn in, and I decided to try throwing the bike sideways into a big counter-steering drift. The result was the closest thing to a slarve on skis that I’ve ever experienced on a bike.
This wasn’t the only difference though…
Pros?
Jumps were easy to clear and hard to take seriously when the tires were so ambivalent about how I landed. I found myself seeking out piles of rubble on the sides of trail to mob through, just because it was fun.
The big tires were very easy to get used to, and definitely confidence inspiring. One of my first takeaways was that they would offer a huge leg up to riders looking to build their skills and push into hard terrain for the first time.
Cons?
A bit later, on a tight and twisty trail with numerous 180 degree berms, I had the first moment in which I was less than excited about the big tires. I couldn’t edge in the turns as well as I could on narrower tires. (Then again, I’ve never found that to be a strong point of the 2.35” Schwalbe Nobby Nic tires either, so I’ll hold a bit of judgment until I try a Plus tire with strong edge knobs.)
On the same turns, I also detected a bit of casing flex in the 2.8” tires. But it was much less than I had expected, only a bit more than a 2.35” Schwalbe Nobby Nic or similar tire. I have little doubt that the wide rim did a lot to help stabilize the big tire.
The bigger tires did not accelerate as quickly as regular 27.5” wheels and tires, nor quite as fast as 29” wheels and tires. But to me, the difference wasn’t all that significant—it wasn’t something that I noticed much while riding, only if I really concentrated on it.
Did I flat? Yes. And it was a weird one. I pinched the sidewall of the tire. Two holes through the sidewall – normally there just isn’t enough room to easily do that and one hole ends up the tread. The tire was set up tubeless, but there is so much sidewall that it is easy to catch it on a rock.
But the particular rock I found was very sharp and pointy, so the flat didn’t seem that surprising. Scott was still figuring out tire pressures too. I was running something south of 15 psi in the rear (number provided by carefully calibrated tire-squeeze-measurement by Scott). I expect that stepping up to 17 psi or so would have prevented the flat and still provide a nice ride.
There is definitely a tricky balance between tire weight and sidewall toughness that is made even harder with a bigger tire. Fortunately, the larger air volume does make pinch flats less likely.
I’d compare the sidewall toughness of the Schwalbe 2.8” Nobby Nic tires to a light, single-ply tire, like the EXO Ikon. Going to a thicker sidewall on a 27.5+ tire would very quickly result in a lot of extra rotating weight.
So if I needed a lot of pinch flat resistance, I’d likely stick with a standard, burly 27.5” tire. For most riders though, I don’t expect that the flat resistance of 27.5” Plus tires will prove more problematic.
NEXT: Genius LT 700, Comparisons, Etc.
Nice writeup, Tom. This article, and others, has me thinking hard about springing for a set of 27.5+ wheels and tires for my Remedy 29er for next spring’s trip to Moab.
I’m thinking that type of terrain would reward the “plus” idea in a huge way.
Thanks Tom,
I think that could be a lot of fun. 27.5+ wheels and tires would make the rough bits feel smoother and provide less rolling resistance through sand. You wouldn’t see much benefit on the sandstone though, because there is already a lot of traction there.
Do check tire clearance on your Remedy. Many forks can fit plus tires, but not too many rear triangles. The 27.5+ tires are ~28.5″ in diameter, so you do get a bit more clearance that way, but not a lot.
Hi Tom –
How would you compare this bike to the Niner WFO 9? I recognize this is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison but it sounds as though there’s some common ground here.
Thanks!
Andrew
Sorry, I’m specifically referring to the LT
Hi Andrew,
I don’t have enough time on either bike to offer as detailed a response as I would like and I haven’t ridden them on the same trail so there might be a bias from the trails I rode each bike on, so take this with a grain of salt.
It is definitely an apples and oranges comparison. The Scott Genius LT+ 700 is much slacker and longer for a given size. The WFO 9 surprised me with how nimble it was. The Scott Genius LT+ 700 stood out as stable and predictable.
If I wanted to ride a lot of loose soil or steep terrain, The Scott would be a better option. If I wanted to do lots of longer rides I’d stick with the Niner WFO 9.
Tom
Thanks Tom. I enjoy riding steep (frequently wet / rooty / loose) trails for as long as I can (I’ll aim to climb-up anything I plan to descend)… compared to my 12 year old “all mountain” ride, I found the WFO 9 to WAY better at climbing and about as fun to descend on. I had largely attributed the WFO 9’s superior climbing to the bigger wheels and improved rear suspension lock-out. Suspension aside, I’m curious about the Genius LT+ 700’s big wheels and how that bike would climb vs. the WFO 9. Given the slacker geometry, I’d guess the WFO 9 is a better climber but wanted to get your impressions.
Thanks again!
Andrew
The Genius LT+ 700 isn’t going to climb faster than your WFO 9, but it will have more traction and climb much faster than it looks like it would. If you climb on technical or loose trails, the big tires can be a big advantage.
If you prefer climbing with the rear suspension locked out, the Scott has a very strong lockout that you might enjoy. It also steepens the geometry to make it a bit more manageable on climbs, reducing front wheel flop.
Before making the leap to big tires I’d ask two questions:
1) Do you care how quickly you climb on hardpack trails or pavement? If so, know that the big tires are decidedly slower in those situations.
2) Do you like to really lean on the cornering knobs of a tire? The big tires don’t enable that very well. They have great grip as long as you lean them over gently, but drift if you try to rail a turn as you might on a Maxxis DHF or High Roller II tire.
This is very helpful – thanks Tom!
Andrew, don’t know if this helps, but I demo’d the LT when Scott came through here a few weeks ago. I ride a Rip 9, and the LT was a blast to descend on. My Rip is built up kind of heavy at 31.5 lbs, so I don’t know if the LT’s light weight made the difference, but on little kickers that are too much work to get the Rip airborne, I was flying on the 700 LT ! But I didn’t like the ‘disconnected front wheel’ feeling on the LT due to the slack angle and long travel (when slaloming through single track turns), so would probably go for the ‘regular’ 700, which was almost as fun to descend on.
Fellow readers, there are some caption typos in this article:
1) Page 1 Image “Schwalbe Nobby Nic 27.5 x 2.8” tire on the Genius LT 700 Plus” should be “…on the Genius 700 Tuned Plus”
2) Page 3 Image “Scott Genius LT 700 Tuned Plus” should be “Scott Genius 700 Tuned Plus”
Fixed – Thx Tom!