Anyone on one of these, past or present? After going from 27.5 to 29er I can't help but wonder about 29+.
The full stache seems like a bit of a sleeper. Good reach, fairly steep seat tube, not super slack bit I have to think that a 67 degree 29+ bike doesn't feel as steep as the number might suggest, same goes for the 130mm of travel.
Why are these not all over the shore? Am I missing something? I would think this think this thing would liquify chunk both up and down.
Thoughts?
Andrew did a review on these a little while back and iirc he found what you seem to think about the bike and that it rides great on the shore. When I was looking for a hardtail I was mostly looking between a Stache and a Honzo and more towards the Honzo because of the steel option. The Stache is great for teh 29+ option though as an extra set of wheels puts you into fatbike territory and snowrides and climbs work a lot better.
actually he did 3 tests, here they are in order
https://nsmb.com/articles/2017-trek-stache-29-hardtail/
Thanks for digging those up! But, I'm talking about the full suspension version. Oddly nsmb seems quite silent on it. I do love hardtails, my my chromag rootdown with 2.6/2.4 29" rubber inspired me to start investigating a full suspension rig with even burlier rubber.
they have a full susser stache? when you said full i thought you meant the 29+ tires.
I am moving the opposite direction lately. 29 to 27.5. As soon as you make a full sus 29 with 3.0 tyres, the wheel base is going to be HUGE. Also, the rotational weight will be substantial. What trail on the shore do you feel that you want 29x3.0 tyres for? It is true that this monster truck of a bike will roll over lots of stuff but I don't know that it will make your ride more enjoyable. There is something to be said about a bike with burly 2.4/2.5 tyres that hold up being railed around turns and a tight wheelbase you can maneuver. To get 3.0 tyres light enough, they will also be more susceptible to tears and punctures. Personally I would rather ride a 27.5 with a 2.5 front and 2.4 or 2.5 rear with burly sidewalls and gnarly tread. Finally, proper suspension can be adjusted with rebound, preload and compression. 3.0 Tyres have "bouncy" suspension with no adjustability. Personally I would rather have 1" extra travel than the squish of a huge tyre.
I do prefer 29 over 27.5+ on my hardtail, I hear you on the bouncy castle effect. I was thinking full suspension might actually mitigate that some. The full stache has 427/430 chainstays depending on the flip chip setting, and a 1204mm wheelbase in size large, so in reality it's pretty "normal" in that regard.
I've found the 29s better on all trails (other than maybe something like bobsled or upper Dale's, which are not my core type of trails). Less fatigue due to less need to micromanage the terrain and more riding and less walking especially up tricky climbing sections has equalled more fun.
Is also seems like the BB height is tall enough you could put 2.6s on it with a 140 fork and have a mid travel 29er with some quite nice numbers.
I haven't looked at the geo but looking now, I'd have to size up to get the same size top tube as I am used to. The head tube is fairly steep. Despite both these things, the wheelbase is still longer than a 160mm travel 29er with a 180mm fork! That's a pretty long bike....er...monster truck. Even one size down would have the equivalent wheelbase to a long travel 29er with a 65 deg head tube and 180 fork. I have a hard time going for a bike with wonky, heavy tires and shorter travel. I could get an Evil Wreckoning with a 180 fork or a Yeti SB150 and both would have much slacker head tubes and equivalent or shorter wheelbase. Just imaging going full tilt down a rowdy trail on a 130mm bike with 3 inch tyres vs a 29er superbike with 2.4/2.5 tyres, one would be an "experience" where as the other would be a fucking amazing ride!
Forum jump:
