[Closed] Charge ditching 29/650B for 2016

Riding a 27Plus bike means you measure your day in smiles not miles!

ugh

Interesting. They have quite a small range though - it's not like they're converting across a large range of different applications.

Makes you wonder how long they will be a sponsor of Erlestoke if they don't have an XC style bike in their range.

Riding a 27Plus bike means you measure your day in smiles not miles!

I measure my days in hours, minutes and seconds...

Interesting that they're effectively "Downsizing" their range, might just be that charge are taking a strategic gamble on one specific wheel size niche...

Brave or foolhardy? It all depends on how keen to adopt yet another wheel/tyre size MTBists really are.

If it doesn't make the trails come alive then I'm not interested

Umm wtf is 27 plus??

😕 I use to really like Charge. I've had a Cooker, Duster, Iron and 3x Blenders and countless saddles. All great bikes and parts. Seems odd to jump on the '27Plus' thing and not offer any alternatives.

Umm wtf is 27 plus??

it's a 650b rim, and a 3" tyre.

'some' 29er frames have clearance for this.

Riding a 27Plus bike means you measure your day in smiles not miles!

I thought that was fat bikes?!

its 650b or 27.5" with a shed load of mud clearance
or putting a big tyre on.

both my current bikes are 26+, so in the summer i can use massive tyres and in the winter i can use normal ones that dont rip the frame/forks apart.

its boring isnt it

I wouldnt say boring, but I have a feeling it makes naff all differnece int he real world and wish we could have stuck with 26..

Umm wtf is 27 plus??

you can take your 26" wheels, and chuck them in the pile with the 680mm bars and 100mm stems.

More than 27 minus.

Yeah - that's next year's trend.

Can I get directions to that pile. I need wider bars and some new wheels..

So if I'm going to buy a new bike in the next couple of months, what wheelsize do I buy whilst remaining confident the industry won't have decided to make my bike obsolete in 18 months' time?

Yeah - that's next year's trend.

When does 26+ become a thing?

[i]Charge has released early images of its 2016 mountain bikes for a range that will solely focus on the 27Plus wheel size - there are no 26,29 or 27.5 inch models in the line at all. [/i]

Apart from all the 27.5 just with fatter tyres on....

This is getting more than a little bit boring now

This is getting more than a little bit boring now

All sounds good, could put 2.3" tyres on it if you wanted with monster clearance or run 3" for fun. With suprise me if 29" wheels fitted in as well, damn you Charge for giving us options.

If it fits 29" wheels, it's a 29er.

Yeah - I'm not feeling their current line up, firstly no steel geared bikes, and by making their bikes only 27+, I think they're missing a big part of the market. Given that the clearances for 27+ and 29 are similiar I would have thought they would have made their bikes compatible with both "standards"

My 650 ht fits 26+ but it's not a 26+er, people get too caught up in labels. Bash a different size pair if wheels in, it's only a bike.

miketually - Member

When does 26+ become a thing?

I'd bet money that within 3 years it'll go full circle and 26" will come back, only very slightly different to ensure that it's "new" and nothing from a 'old 26"' will be compatible.

Anyone heard if they are coming with 'boost' hubs, or just 100/135/142.

miketually
When does 26+ become a thing?

It's been here a while- its called [url= http://surlybikes.com/bikes/instigator_2point0 ]the Surly Instigator[/url]
We also have Surly to thank for the xPlus idea.

They're forgetting that people aren't feeling that wealthy at the moment - I suspect a lot of people just can't afford to sell their current bike (now obsolete so worth very little) and buy a whole new one.

Innovation which allows us to incrementally upgrade existing bikes, ok. 'Innovation' which makes expensive existing bikes redundant, requiring a full replacement, not so good - not when people are short of cash...

I wouldnt say boring, but I have a feeling it makes naff all differnece int he real world and wish we could have stuck with 26..

And friction shifters and canti's and quill stems.

Having said that I've never actually ridden a Charge bike I've actually liked. I liked the look of their XC bikes, but they rode horribly (tall BB, short TT, like they were designed to be weelie'd everywhere). So this news doesn't bother me apart from the fact I've almost entirely ridden a fat bike this year so quite fancy a slightly more sensible alternative!

Innovation which allows us to incrementally upgrade existing bikes, ok. 'Innovation' which makes expensive existing bikes redundant, requiring a full replacement, not so good - not when people are short of cash...

If it's not better than what it replaces then why bother innovating. Either it's better, and people buying new should have the choice of whatever is the best available (if they didn't you'd be back complaining that companies had been drip feeding change to keep you upgrading). Or it's not better, and why would that bother you as if it was you wouldn't change.

Think of it this way, no one bats an eyelid that car wheels on most are almost all in the region of 24", but you can get anything from a 15" and a Maxxis trepadoor 4X4 tyre to a 20" rim with a 2" strip of tyre for a track day car, one's fun (and fast occasionally) the other's fast, and probably wouldn't last too long off road. 650b+ in theory with enough width could fit in anything from a fat bike to a 29er without a substantial change in diameter. No one's forcing the change, you could buy one of these charge frames and probably stick 29er wheels in there.

I've a regular 650b bike that'll take maybe a 2.4" tyre. It's pretty awesome. I shan't get round to 27.5+ probably, but I like the idea of the sheer hugeness of 29+.

All this stuff is new, and it's fun for those who do change bikes quite a lot. I've yet to see much evidence that anyone is genuinely struggling to source parts for their 26ers. It seems just to be (quite high-pitched) internet noise.

🙂

Riding a 27Plus bike means you measure your day in smiles not miles!

Too tiring and slow to ride those fat tyres too far presumably

They're forgetting that people aren't feeling that wealthy at the moment - I suspect a lot of people just can't afford to sell their current bike (now obsolete so worth very little) and buy a whole new one.

In theory, reality is bike shops cant get enough stock to satisfy demand. Cycling really is the new golf, people buy new bikes and discard old ones. 'Upgraders' are not the market force they once were.

And friction shifters and canti's and quill stems.

I can answer my own question, not Boost, according to the STW article on the front page.

Also;

As is contemporary, the head angles are slackened off slightly over last year’s 29ers, the front centre is slightly longer and the stems, slightly (10mm) shorter. With the WTB 27+ tyres being around 14mm shorter than 29ers, this isn’t a direct port of the 29er frame into a 27+. The chainstays have been shortened and the BB height adjusted to take into account the shorter tyre too.

No 29er backwards compatibility (probably) due to being designed for smaller tyres, also as designed for 2.8 the ability to run 3.0 or 3.25 is questionable.

Kind of gone off them now.

wrecker - Member
Thanks Charge. Thanks for working towards making our bikes redundant.....again *slow clap*

It's not Charge, it's the industry.

And you'll be able to get many 26 & 29" spares for years to come.

So they're ditching 650b for.....650b with a bigger tyre...? Why (apart from fat bikes) would you want a tyre bigger than 2.35?

So they're ditching 650b for.....650b with a bigger tyre...? Why (apart from fat bikes) would you want a tyre bigger than 2.35?

Why would you want a 2.35 over a 2.00? same answers apply.

All this stuff is new

But is it? I mean really, genuinely [i]New[/i]???
It all feels more like a bit of a marketing formula given the last few years of MTB wheel "Development"...

Pick an existing Rim size, 622mm, 584mm, whatever, take a tyre profile not previously used on that particular rim; mash the two together and give it a bit of branding. Make minimal reference to any similarities with the other stuff already fitted to peoples bikes, make sure MBR/MBUK are on-message, and get busy selling!

You can't help but be a bit cynical about these things now, I'm sure there are genuine merits to [i]"27Plus"[/i] but as wheels they are still round, so it's hardly a quantum leap over and above what you could buy before...

genuinely New???

For a couple of decades, there wasn't any serious buggering about with wheel sizes at all. Now we've had a huge explosion of innovation, or at least, experimentation, with using different wheel sizes for different applications.

You don't have to try each one - sitting it out and checking back in in 5 years, or just plumping for one and not worrying about it are all sane enough. Presumably it'll settle down a bit at some point and the enthusiasm for experimenting with wheel sizes will move on to something else with some sort of consensus established about what works best.

🙂

This is a lot of fuss over a manufacturer promising to make their tyres slightly wider

WOW. So an extra 24mm on the wheels or 12mm on tyre width offers as much difference to a bike as disc brakes?
Erm....no.

You're trying too hard. But personally, I'd take a singlespeed fat bike with V-brakes in the summer at least without worrying too much. Disk's* just allowed winter riding without the financial armageddon of rim replacement!

My Floaters measure 3.8" on the on-one rims, so if the biggest 650b+ tyres are the Vee rubber 3.25" then that's not far off full-fat with a bit less heft.

*unless you live somewhere with actual hills

andylc - Member

Why (apart from fat bikes) would you want a tyre bigger than 2.35?

for bimblers like me, a large tyre at low pressures might offer just enough cushioning to consider ditching the bouncy forks - even on quite technical trails.

or, i've ridden my cross bike offroad with 35mm tyres, why would you want a tyre bigger than that?

They're forgetting that people aren't feeling that wealthy at the moment - I suspect a lot of people just can't afford to sell their current bike (now obsolete so worth very little) and buy a whole new one.

Innovation which allows us to incrementally upgrade existing bikes, ok. 'Innovation' which makes expensive existing bikes redundant, requiring a full replacement, not so good - not when people are short of cash...

27.5+ will fit in a 29er - and vice versa. Even if they've lowered the BB height by 7mm that's not going to stop you running 29" wheels. So it does allow incremental 'upgrades'.

What's the problem with innovation making old things "obsolete"? Stop selling and buying and instead enjoy riding the old bikes until they die - then buy a new one. The innovation isn't the problem, it's the consumerism that is!

miketually
When does 26+ become a thing?

Soooo 2012 Dahlings.
[url= https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7198/6983035595_d5158a58cf_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7198/6983035595_d5158a58cf_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/bD4Tcr ]Glen Lochay, Killin[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/matt_outandabout/ ]Matt Robinson[/url], on Flickr

I'd not call this last round "Innovation" the real innovation/experimentation was done by those few people say a decade or so ago who tried lashing together 29ers, and those few people who bodged a 650b wheel into a 26" frame, once the bigger companies started adopting these things, and then looking for a few more variations on the same trick, all the "Innovation" went out of it and it became about creating a bit of artificial growth in and otherwise static market...

sitting it out and checking back in in 5 years,

TBF that's pretty much what I'm doing, Won't stop me grumbling though.

Well, this certainly pricked some ears 😀

Thanks for all the comments guys, it's good to hear all sides.

I understand why lots of people are peed off with this wheelsize thing, i, as a product manager, am too for the most part - but i would like to say that the 'industry' isnt just trying to change for the sake of change in most cases, if it were we wouldnt just hop onto something for the sake of it anyway.

[i]Why did we go balls out on 27Plus?[/i]
Well, We've been riding and developing 27Plus for some 12 months now and i really love it, it's fast like a 29 but has tonnes more grip but most importantly, it's loads and loads of [b]fun[/b]... Personally i think that's a word that the industry really struggles to say when it comes to new product but hey, that's what we're in it for, right?

We're hoping to be able to have a demo fleet out there this year so people can have a go and see what they think. Keep the comments coming.

Ash

Hi Ash - nice one for responding to the comments.

Personally I find the idea of 27plus interesting... but I have a couple of questions about it which perhaps you can answer:

- How does the weight of a 27plus Charge bike compare to the previous model of 29er? It must be heavier, right?

- What does this mean for XC racing? Presumably 27plus does not make for a decent race bike due to increased weight and slower acceleration... or am I wrong? Will charge team racers be using the new bikes or sticking to 29ers?

Ash, any reason you decided on not going with the 3" tyre size that has become almost ubiquitous with the + size movement? I'm running 2.75" dirt wizards and would happily run a bit bigger.

I understand why lots of people are peed off with this wheelsize thing, i, as a product manager, am too for the most part - but i would like to say that the 'industry' isnt just trying to change for the sake of change in most cases, if it were we wouldnt just hop onto something for the sake of it anyway.

Innovation is fine. It's the lack of choice which is not - from a consumer's point of view. ie: stopping supporting existing legacy kit - it forces us into buying new bikes whether we a) want to or b) can afford to.

I was about to buy a new bike (27.5) but am losing confidence it will not be obsolete in a couple of years. I can't afford to spend £2k+ on something which will be worthless (ie: no resale value on the 2nd hand market) within 2 years when I'm struggling to put together cash for a house deposit...

FWIW I work in marketing and this forcing of new standards on customers is not marketing - marketing is identifying (genuine) customer needs and meeting them whilst leaving the ultimate choice with the customer.

I'm not having a pop at Charge specifically for this - it's the whole industry - it's trying to do something similar by introducing discs to road bikes - except roadies have a different culture - more conservative and resistant to change. No-one in my club rides discs for either winter or summer bikes and there's no sign of anyone wanting to either. A very few have electronic shifting.

It's hard not to be cynical when the industry forces these changes at a time when UK consumers are clearly slowing spending on almost everything including the weekly shop - I'd be surprised if the cycling industry's balance sheet/growth projections weren't suffering too...

Hi Packer,
Thanks for the questions.

- How does the weight of a 27plus Charge bike compare to the previous model of 29er? It must be heavier, right?
[i]Yes, it is heavier but nowhere near as much as you would think... it certainly isnt noticeable, especially when run tubeless.[/i]

- What does this mean for XC racing? Presumably 27plus does not make for a decent race bike due to increased weight and slower acceleration... or am I wrong? Will charge team racers be using the new bikes or sticking to 29ers?
[i]Hmmmm... that's a good question. The tyre gives a huge increase in grip over a 2.25" tyre, for example, i found that this made for some slower acceleration but ultimately faster for longer as you can brake in a shorter distance and more grip means faster speeds.

That given, i'm no racer and we design our bikes around cross country riding rather than racing, per se... that said, i did see a chap on a Cooker Titanium at a race yesterday.
The extra tyre volume really helps with comfort on a hardtail, even more so on a fully rigid bike, i rode Afan last week and the effect over the rough stuff was remarkable... i even gave the GT boys a run for their money :D[/i]

I was about to buy a new bike (27.5) but am losing confidence it will not be obsolete in a couple of years. I can't afford to spend £2k+ on something which will be worthless (ie: no resale value on the 2nd hand market) within 2 years when I'm struggling to put together cash for a house deposit...

Thanks for the reply Ash.

I'd certainly like to try one out, hopefully I will get the chance at some point.

cookeaa - Member

I'd not call this last round "Innovation" the real innovation/experimentation was done by those few people say a decade or so ago who tried lashing together 29ers, and those few people who bodged a 650b wheel into a 26" frame, once the bigger companies started adopting these things, and then looking for a few more variations on the same trick, all the "Innovation" went out of it ...

I completely agree Cookeaa.

Akira:
Ash, any reason you decided on not going with the 3" tyre size that has become almost ubiquitous with the + size movement? I'm running 2.75" dirt wizards and would happily run a bit bigger.

[i]We've tested a lot of tyre widths over the past 18 months, 3.25" handled too much like a fat bike tyre and had lots of self steer, 3.0" was much better but the 2.8" was where the bike handled like a 'normal' bike but retained the increased grip etc.
I am riding 3.0" tyres on my midi at the moment and i do like them, but i prefer the 2.8.

It's a good comment, since WTB rolled out the TrailBlazer tyre it seems that every man and his dog is reaching for the next size up... I think 'Plus' is a moving target, we'll see big improvements over the next couple of years in tyre design and casing size etc. but we'll be choosing what works best for our customer, not what is in the latest order form from X&Y brand.

AC[/i]

I was about to buy a new bike (27.5) but am losing confidence it will not be obsolete in a couple of years. I can't afford to spend £2k+ on something which will be worthless (ie: no resale value on the 2nd hand market) within 2 years when I'm struggling to put together cash for a house deposit...

If you're buying a new bike now, why does the resale value in 2 years matter? If cost matters then don't sell it when it's done most of its depreciation but isn't far through its usable lifespan.

No inflammation meant by this but ......

I like the idea of bigger tyres. I have a fat bike and am dabbling in 29er+ but these are rigid applications.

To what part (if any) do the bigger tyres work against the suspension?

In my mind you want fat/650b+/29er+ tyres to sit on wide rims and to run low pressures to maximize grip etc.

Doesn't running a suspension fork or full sus with fatter tyres require them to be run at higher pressures negating some of the grip?

Just curios.

Charge are niche bike manufacturers and they had a lot of success with their fat bikes (worldwide success!). If they aim their bikes at the fun & fatter crowd - then this is a good corner of the market for them. The other manufacturers have got the mainstream 29er and 650B arena covered pretty well. I don't blame them really.

[b]letmetalktomark:[/b]

Fully rigid bikes do definitely benefit the most from plus tyres, it's a huge improvement and is arguably better than a cheap suspension fork, given that neither a cheap fork or tyre have compression/rebound damping.

Apart from a little extra compression damping I have not changed pressures when running with a suspension fork.
I've been running 15-18psi, this is where the sweet spot is for where i mostly ride and seems to provide the best balance of grip vs. rolling resistance.
In the winter i mostly ran 15psi, with and without suspension, in order to really get every ounce of grip. Now summer is here (apparantly) i have upped the front to 18psi and left the rear at 15psi.

Tyre pressures are an important factor, the bike industry has been touching on tyre pressures for quite some time now but the motorcycle industry really gets all over it... i'm pretty obsessive with pressures and i'd rather tune my fork into the tyre rather than the other way round. That way the tyre remains at its best all the time.

This is not directed ant anyone in particular. 'The bike industry' isn't forcing anything on 'you', it's offering a wider choice of products to those that want them. It's also not led by consumer demand, it's led by product development like anything else in life. I didn't ask for a bigger iPhone screen but they made it anyway and it's better than the last one, although if they hadn't made it i would have made do with the old one just fine. Same with anything in life, cars, TV's, houses etc.

Bikes are being made for a global audience, not just one rider in particular so if you like what 29 or 27+ or fat offers then get one, if not, stick with what you have, it still works just fine although you may ride one of these new bikes and ask why didn't this wheel size revolution come sooner?

This notion that bike designers (like Ash) or bike marketers (like me) are tricking 'you' off your existing bike with 27 smoke and plus mirrors is nonsense, however it's a bummer when something new comes along that makes you question if it's better than what you have. The answer there is try it and see?

I've ridden the Cooker Midi and it's an amazing bike for less crazy trails, lots of fun for a cruisy trail centre, wouldn't be my choice for Afan although the GT Product Managers couldn't drop Ash at Afan last week on their 150/160mm GT's. Ash is a bloody good rider though!

No industry conspiracy, just more choice, not all those choices will be for 'you'.

Well, as someone who's job it is to sell things to people whether they need them or not, you would say that, wouldn't you?
🙂

My cynicism towards the 'bike industry' increased even more this week when I read a designer banging on about how great 1* was - he reckoned 70% off his frame development time was taken up with front mech alignment issues.
I look forward to seeing the cost reduction passed onto the consumer.

Ha ha... i'd agree with that Rusty Spanner!

Just to clarify, I added the second para afterAsh agreed with the first one.
🙂

Not at all. It's Ash's job to try and make better bikes and (a small part) of my job to give everyone the right information so they can make their own minds up on if it is for them, or not as the case may be.

If Ash thought that 29" still offered the right ride for the customers he is targeting then he would keep with it right? he knows that you lot are not idiots, you'll test ride it and if you think it gives you a better ride then you might buy it?

What people forget is that we ride and we want better bikes too so we make what we think will offer something better than what we have offered before otherwise we might as well just not come to work.

Most people get it but I read this stuff like "I was going to get a bike, now i'm confused', or 'in two years time my bike will be worthless' etc and if you think like that you will just never buy anything because everything is obsolete as soon as you buy it, that's the nature of consumerism. I do however get that some people are confused by all the different wheel sizes but if you're curious, go and try it and see if you like it. if you like it and you can afford it, buy it but neither Ash nor myself will be standing there with a gun to your heads!

I just see it as large companies making an effort to get as much money out of riders as they possibly can. I can't help it, since the wheelsize thing started and calling 650B "27.5" I'm a full on cynic which is a real shame.
I've always loved ogling new bikes and anticipated releases, now I dread to see which inventive way "industry" has come up with to ensure that I can't reuse any of my existing kit.
🙁
FWIW; I was harsh on charge earlier, I've always liked their kit and they're fairly local, it just shows how frustrating this can be (no excuse, but apologies anyway).

Wow Rusty, 70% of his time was taken up by front mech alignment? Is there a gobsmacked emoticon?

I hope charge fail and its an example to others not to flow.

I used to rate charge they had a good range, now it rubbish, they won't be missed!

blimey scottfitx, that's a bit harsh.

I think they've always been a bit ahead of other brands and tried different stuff within a fairly narrow product range. I hope this works for them.

Who buys Charge bikes?

if anything, all they've really done is scrapped the 29ers, and made sure there's plenty of clearance for all sorts of tyres.

hardly a crime for which they 'deserve to fail'.

just more choice, not all those choices will be for 'you'.

No - less choice. If you read the headline on Bike Biz, it was "Charge ditches 29ers and 650B for 27Plus" - 'ditches', not 'adds to range available'...

I work in marketing - which at its best identifies consumer needs and meets them - often by increasing choice. Good marketing also starts with insights into consumers - not with product development for the sake of it.

It's not the new wheel size that's the problem at all in my view, it's the refusal to support existing legacy bikes that most people own - therefore forcing upgrades at a time when a lot of people are pretty skint.

You didn't see hardtails phased out when suspension came in, or V-brakes when discs came in... but back then the industry was growing fast and there was plenty of money coming their way...

I suspect the wider economic environment has far more to do with this than the bike industry discovering revolutionary innovation. This is incremental fiddling at the margins... which 'happily' leads to needing to buy a whole new bike.

Wrecker, there is no conspiracy mate! Americans don't do metric, 27.5 is easier for them as they still work in old money and mountain biking is global, 'the industry' does't sit around a table saying "well if we call it 27.5 it sounds cooler and therefore more people will buy it".

However you are right that bike companies (large and small) do try and make bike riders spend as much money as possible, that's called business and we are all in it unless you work for a charity. But they do that by trying to make what they think are better bikes and not by duping people. Sometimes they get it right, sometime they get it wrong, time will tell on this one.

And even though there is bound to be a few less 26" tyres around, there will always be available parts for these bikes so don't worry.

gossa - Member
If Ash thought that 29" still offered the right ride for the customers he is targeting then he would keep with it right?

I've no idea.
🙂
Can you give us an idea of how much influence the marketing department has over the designer?
If he decided 26 was the best choice for the consumer, you'd support him?

And as for the 'choice' thing, can you tell me where owners of 26inch straight steerer frames will be able to buy a choice of quality forks next year?
Our only 'choice' is to invest a stupid amount of cash in standards that are likely to be obsolete before we've had a chance to wear out the OE kit.

Seems to me that the big players have ballsed it up for all of us, smaller manufacturers included.

BTW, the comment about frame development time is from Dave Weagle.
I believe he was referring to 29ers specifically.

blimey scottfitx, that's a bit harsh.

but them not doing what you want isn't a reason to wish them to fail, surely?

It just means what they do isn't for you.

By my reckoning, the 650b+ frames are going to give a nice choice between 650b+ wheels and 29er ones with narrower tyres. That's what I'm hoping with my new set of b+ wheels on the way for my 29er. As such, it should offer more options if not directly more choice - buy a frame and then choose the wheels you want (26 not included but then it's basically dead now, isn't it...)

but them not doing what you want isn't a reason to wish them to fail, surely?

It just means what they do isn't for you.

Wrecker, there is no conspiracy mate! Americans don't do metric, 27.5 is easier for them as they still work in old money and mountain biking is global, 'the industry' does't sit around a table saying "well if we call it 27.5 it sounds cooler and therefore more people will buy it".

And even though there is bound to be a few less 26" tyres around, there will always be available parts for these bikes so don't worry.

[i]Who is their range for then[/i]

People who want to buy them.

Again, why wish them to fail?

I'm sure there's lots of companies that make things you don;t want to buy - do you hate *all* of them?

"Dualit, sod 'em, they don't make a toaster I want to buy I hope they fail!" - life must be tough with that approach.

Rusty, in this case the marketing dept has **** all influence! Ash is his own man, this can't be said for other brands though where marketing depts and the focus groups that a previous poster mentioned have more influence.

Ash makes the bikes (with his team), the marketing dept gets the finished product and does what it can to get the message out there. If Ash thought 26" was best that would be his choice but that's not the case here. Would I support that as marketing bod? I'd listen to his rationale but its a very hypothetical scenario, no one is saying 26" is the way to go last time i looked.

As for your forks, moving forward it's going to be harder to get parts for an older standard but'1/8 has been out for nearly twenty years mate, it was going to evolve at some point right? I know this is a lot of change in the MTB market in a short space of time but that's because the bike market is doing really well (despite some comments) so there is more R&D budget making what engineers and product managers feel are better bikes.

I read it like charge are struggling in their current market and making the jump to 27.5+ early to grab some sales

I've got a krampus + size is fun