Scott Genius LT 700 Tuned Plus (aside from the tires)
The Fox 36 fork felt great (the regular 29” fork fit the big tire just fine). It was as supple as a Pike, but with more mid stroke support. The four-bar linkage on the back of the bike matched the fork fairly well, but suffered a bit in chop due to the brake feedback inherent in the design.
The rear shock lockout is absolute when in its firmest position, and still firm in the medium position. This helped the big bike pedal. If you’ve ever complained that a lockout didn’t really work all that well, you won’t be disappointed with this one.
The Genius LT is long and slack, as slack as my Santa Cruz Nomad and very comparable in length as well. It is as capable as a DH bike from just a few years ago, but light enough to pedal to the top of any climb.
I only found the geometry to be detrimental at lower speeds and / or on tight turns, where the long wheelbase and slack head angle meant that the bike needed a lot of piloting to get around to the exit of the turn.
The frame was adequately stiff laterally—I noted neither exceptional rigidity, nor any worrisome flex. Scott struck a good balance here.
All of the Syncros components performed well for the few hours I spend on them. Definitely not a long-term test, but no glaring issues, either.
Scott Genius 700 Tuned Plus
After the LT, I grabbed the regular Genius Plus and took it up on some trails that many folks ride with downhill bikes. I was then impressed when the 130mm-travel Genius handled them beautifully. Even with its moderate head angle (67.5 degrees), the big tires gave so much grip and cushion that I found myself hauling through rougher and steeper bits of trail without concern. This bike hits as hard as most 160mm travel bikes with traditional tires.
Genius vs. Genius LT
It was easier to handle the big tires on the standard Genius with the steep geometry. The steeper head angle made wrangling the big rubber into a turn child’s play.
The Fox 34 fork on the regular Genius performed adequately, but wasn’t impressive compared to the 36 on the LT. It has the same 51mm offset as the 29” 36 pressed into service on the LT Plus. But it was specifically designed to fit the big tires so it was much wider, but that also made it a bit flexier. And it had more stiction than the 36.
I did get just a bit of climbing and traversing in, and the big tires felt equivalent to a 2.4 High Roller. Slow, but not intolerably so. I’ll have to get more time on them before drawing any firm conclusions, though.
Unsurprisingly, the more upright geometry of the regular Genius did make climbing a bit easier and the front end less floppy.
The shorter travel of the regular Genius also allowed more trail feel and playfulness with the big tires and I was continually impressed by how capable it was, even though it has less travel than the LT.
In the past I haven’t loved Scott’s standard Genius Bikes (LT not included). I’ve thought the head angles were too steep and the chainstays too long. The Plus tired Geniuses didn’t exhibit either trait. The LT is slack, long, and very capable. The regular Genius is nimble and quick, with a head angle just slack enough to keep things from feeling twitchy. I would be happy owning either bike, but I would probably chose the regular Genius over the LT for its versatility.
The transition back to normal-width tires after riding Plus tires actually felt more weird than riding the Plus initially did. After riding the bigger tires, going back to 2.35” Nobby Nic tires felt almost like riding a road bike on singletrack. Okay, not quite that bad, but I was surprised by how much more easily the narrower tires deflected off rocks than the 2.8” Nobby Nics.
Riding the larger tires requires very little nuance. Getting used to riding precisely again on the 2.35” tires took longer than getting used to the “riding by approximation” technique I used with the 2.8” tires.
Some Comparisons
Stumpjumper 6Fattie: I’m just starting to put in time on this bike, and it is more akin to the Genius than the Genius LT. The biggest difference I see is rim width. The rims on the Specialized are only 29mm wide (internal) whereas the Scott bikes both have 40mm wide rims. This made a big difference.
The Specialized feels like it has very big tires on a fairly normal rim. The Scott felt like a pretty normal rim and tire combo in terms of deflection and sidewall stiffness—it just had a lot more cushion and traction.
Santa Cruz Nomad 27.5: Would I trade my Nomad for a Plus tire bike? Maybe… It would depend a lot on the terrain I was riding.
For technical climbing, the big tires win hands down. For high speeds on good dirt I prefer the skinnier tires. I can climb more quickly on smooth trails on the Nomad. I can edge turns on the Nomad, and the tires are rock solid and predictable on jumps whereas the bigger tires can be slightly less predictable due to the tire casing compressing and rebounding with less control than suspension offers. The Plus tires inspire more confidence on really loose trails, and great traction when trying to slow down on steep terrain.
So, if I were riding loose soil all the time, I’d run a bike with Plus sized tires. If I were riding a lot of slow speed, steep terrain, I’d run Plus tires. But, if I were riding in good, tacky dirt and/or spending a lot of time cornering hard, I’d definitely stick with the Nomad.
I’m currently trying to decide what bikes I’ll ride next year, and acquiring a 27.5 Plus bike crosses my mind. But I think it is more likely that I would add one to the quiver than replace a regular 27.5 bike. Either way, it was clear that I really enjoy riding +bikes because of how much fun you can have on a trail drifting and jumping—with big tires, anything is a landing.
Note: Two for the price of One
There is an added side benefit of bikes designed around 27.5+ tires. They have an outside diameter of ~28.25”. This means that most of them will very easily fit 29” wheels and tires, with only a very modest increase in bottom bracket height. This could give you two bikes for the price of one Plus bike and a second wheelset. You could use the fat tires for technical terrain, and switch to 29” wheels when you want to cover some serious ground.
Bottom Line
27.5 Plus tires are a ton of fun and are certainly here to stay. Instead of groaning about a new standard, get out on one and try it to see if you like it. I bet you will. Just don’t go into it thinking that it will be better by any of the typical metrics. I didn’t feel that I was necessarily faster on it in any situation, but I sure as hell had a big grin at the end of the day.
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!