Teravail Cumberland Review: Is 2.6 the new 3.0?

Just as soon as plus tires go mainstream, along comes “semi-plus”. In case you blinked, it seems that 2.8″ tires quickly replaced 3.0″, and now 2.6″ tires have taken the spotlight. Is it all industry hype? To find out we tested the Teravail Cumberland 29×2.6 on 300 miles of trail, gravel, and pavement…

Share Facebook 0 Twitter Pinterest Google+

As if by some collective conscious brainstorming event – and just when you thought the world was being taken over by the 27.5+ platform – several companies have recently breathed new life into 29er tires with a brand new width: 2.6-inch. Considerably larger in volume than any traditional 29er tire but not quite ‘plus’ enough to fall into the “mid-fat” category, it’s a size that tire companies are targeting more towards orthodox trail riders than enduro or downhill racers, as might be expected. Designed to maximize cornering stability on a 35mm rim, teamed with just enough volume to enjoy a little of the extra floatation, traction, and lower tire pressures favored by Plus riders, it’s certainly a tire size that had me intrigued.

For plus tire aficionados and haters alike, this new tire size isn’t quite “plus” — typically defined as 2.75-3.25 inches wide — and that may be the point. Old-schoolers might see 2.6s as just small enough that any stigma associated with plus tires gets tempered. But for those of us who got addicted to bigger tires via 29×3 Knards and are still waiting for the perfect 3″ tire to come along, we’ll likely have to keep waiting. Just as fast as a crop of 2.8″ tires seemingly displaced many potential full 3.0s, 2.6 has become the new flavor. Will it stick? Will there be new bikes built around this tire size? Only time will tell, but if you’re at all 2.6″-curious, you’ve got plenty of new tires to consider, including the new semi-slick(ish) Teravail Cumberland which, according to Teravail, is made specifically for bikepacking.

Teravail Cumberland Review, 29x2.6 Tires

  • Teravail Cumberland Review, 29x2.6 Tires
  • Teravail Cumberland Review, 29x2.6 Tires

Like the Teravail Sparwood, which was purpose-built for the gravel-centric Tour Divide, and the new, sand-specific Coronado, the Teravail Cumberland features a pretty unique tread pattern. On first inspection of the tire’s small, fast rolling center tread, one might think the Cumberland was designed for gravel or cross country riding on packed dirt roads. But, the massive side lugs tell a different story. Unlike the Coronado and Sparwood, which are more specialized, the Cumberland was clearly designed for a broad range of surfaces — everything from pavement, to dirt roads, to backcountry chunder.

But will they fit?

The biggest caveat with the 2.6” tire format is finding bikes that will actually accommodate them. The Deadwood SUS is the perfect candidate. With a short travel suspension platform and a rather high bottom bracket, losing a little over 1/4″ (7-9mm) of BB height is not an issue. The Surly Krampus and Salsa Woodsmoke might also be well suited. Otherwise, many 29ers were built to fit standard 29×2.2-2.4 tires, and 2.6” may be too tight a squeeze. Measured on 35mm rims, the casing on these particular Cumberlands came in at 2.62″ (66.5mm) and the side lugs at 2.79″ (70.9mm), even bigger than the 27.5×2.8″ Maxxis Recon, which measured 2.72″ (69.1mm) wide on 40mm rims. Fortunately, several bike companies foresaw ‘wide trail’ and released bikes made for such tires. Ibis specced their new Ripley with Schwalbe 29×2.6 Nobby Nics, but claims it won’t fit the yet to be released Maxxis Recon 29×2.6. That said, I think any 29+ bike with a little extra bottom bracket height could easily transform into a quick ultra-endurance rig by sizing down a little. The latest 27.5+ specific bikes probably won’t fit them though.

Most long distance bikepacking routes, like the Trans North Georgia, Stagecoach 400, and the ultra-long Altravesur have a significant percentage of gravel, some singletrack, and a share of pavement that stitches it all together. In the past, finding the perfect plus tire for such routes could be challenging. It needed to have a thick enough casing to eliminate the risk of being torn to shreds in the backcountry and the proper tread pattern, one capable of blending speed with traction. Even if you aren’t on the race clock, it’s never fun to have over-lugged tires that make pedaling feel like trudging through molasses. On the other hand, not having an aggressive enough tire can result in too little traction and keep you from enjoying some of the trails along the way.

Teravail Cumberland Review, 29x2.6 Tires

In preparation for a Trans WNC (Western North Carolina) route scouting mission, I tried to keep my rig extremely light and fast. I knew we’d be riding between 60-100 miles per day on some pretty rugged terrain mixed with tarmac and a bit of gravel… a great opportunity to try out some 2.6” tires. I figured the smaller tires would significantly reduce weight and rolling resistance compared to the 29×3″ WTB Ranger+ tires that came on the Deadwood SUS. Teravail sent the Durable 60 TPI versions for testing, and, upon unboxing them, I was a little concerned. They have some of the thickest casings I’ve ever seen on a mountain bike tire. At 1,148 grams (2 1/2 pounds!) a piece, they also far outweighed the 3″ Ranger+ (light casing) at 902g. Having said that, the Ranger+ Light might be a little too light; I’ve ripped two over the last few months (now WTB makes a Tough version that weighs in at 1140g though). The specific pair of Cumberlands that I demoed are technically pre-production versions, and, according to Teravail, the end production weight might shift a little. Also, Teravail will be offering a lighter version with a 120 TPI casing, although they haven’t yet announced its weight. Ultimately I decided to take the plunge, deal with the added weight, and feel confident that I wouldn’t tear a sidewall en route.

  • Teravail Cumberland Review, 29x2.6 Tires
  • Teravail Cumberland 29x2.6 Tire Review

Teravail Cumberland Review, 29x2.6 Tires

I didn’t regret the decision. Due to the semi-slick tread design, even the heavy Durable Cumberland is fast compared to any 3″ tire I’ve tried. While there was some noticeable rotational weight in comparison to the Ranger Plus, the Cumberlands were easy to pedal up to speed and felt quick on pavement and gravel. I ran them tubeless at about 15-18 PSI while bikepacking. This gave them enough cushion to feel somewhat like a plus tire. Mounting them on the 35mm WTB Asym rims gave the Cumberland 2.6 a nice rounded profile, allowing the center treads to stand up on hard-pack and pavement while preventing the side knobs from adding resistance on tarmac and gravel. On the other hand, when the terrain got loose and twisty, the side lugs seemed to dig in and add welcomed traction. I was surprised by how much grip they provided when climbing on steep gravel grades. However, they did seem to spin out when clamoring over slick roots, fallen logs, and slippery hardpack recently wet from rain. The Cumberlands also seemed to corner nicely. Given their size, and the stout rubber casing compound, the sidewalls are stiffer than those of true plus tires. As the rounded center gave way to the side knobs, the lugs bit in on both rubbly surfaces and loamy dirt. Part of this is likely due to a nice medium durometer rubber compound on the tread which seemed fairly sticky. But not too sticky so as to wear out quickly (see below).

  • Teravail Cumberland Review, 29x2.6 Tires
  • Teravail Cumberland Review, 29x2.6 Tires
To illustrate tread wear, each tire was photographed (front at left and rear right) after about 300 miles on a somewhat equal amount of singletrack, gravel and pavement… 260+ miles loaded and over 40 unloaded. As shown, the grooved lines on the center tread are still intact. I would expect the tread on the Durable Cumberland 29×2.6 tires to last well over 1,000 miles.

Teravail Cumberland Review, 29x2.6 Tires

  • Model Tested 29×2.6 Durable Casing
  • Rim Width Tested 35mm
  • Actual tire width Casing 2.62″ (66.5mm) / Side Lugs 2.79″ (70.9mm)
  • Average PSI tested 15
  • Weight (per tire) 1148g (40.5oz)
  • Price Durable: $80 / Light & Supple: $70
  • Contact Teravail.com

Pros

  • Super tough casing built for rowdy surfaces and long-distance durability.
  • Center tread that’s nice and fast on gravel and pavement.
  • Side lugs that dig in when cornering on trails.
  • Nice rounded profile makes the side knobs work at the right time when tires are run at a lower pressure.
  • At 300 miles the tread still has plenty of life.

Cons

  • Durable casing version is very heavy; at 1,148g it weighs about 100 grams more than the 120 TPI 3″ Maxxis Chronicle and 8 grams more than the WTB Ranger+ 3.0 Tough version.
  • Center tread can be slick when climbing over roots and other slippery surfaces head on.
  • Teravail Cumberland Review, 29x2.6 Tires
  • Teravail Cumberland Review, 29x2.6 Tires

Wrap Up

There are several plus tires on the market that do a fairly good job at mixing fast rolling center tread with more aggressive outer lugs to balance speed and traction, but Teravail took this to another level, with their new ‘semi-plus’ tires. The tread pattern is unique, to say the least. I am impressed with how fast they roll while still having the ability to carve corners and not feel undergunned on more rugged terrain.

As for the new 2.6″ width, I now get why a lot of new tires are coming out in this wide trail concept. Ultimately, the 29×2.6 has made me question my decision to settle into the 27.5+ platform on my trail bike. After riding the Deadwood for a while, I started lusting after a new 36mm I9 Backcountry 360 wheelset and dreaming about spending more time on an oversized 29er.

If you are looking for a tire (and new tire size) for long-distance bikepacking routes where stretches of gravel and pavement are mixed in with backcountry singletrack, the Teravail Cumberland is a solid choice for those who want to get some of the benefits of a plus tire, but still go fast. The Durable version is extremely heavy, but there’s no doubt that it’s durable, and might be better suited for a long trip where the need for durability is more important than overall weight. I am interested in seeing how the 120 TPI “Light and Supple” casing compares; and should I get some time on them, I’ll make sure to update this posting.

Other 29 x 2.6-inch Tires

– Schwalbe Nobby Nic 29 x 2.6-inch (available)
– Teravail Kennebec 29 x 2.6-inch (announced)
– Maxis Rekon 29 x 2.6-inch (announced)
– Vee Flow Snap 29 x 2.6-inch (announced)
– Kenda Saber 29 x 2.6-inch (announced)

  • dthio

    looks like a nice rear tire with a kennebek up front.

    very currious how the cumberland compares to the 29×2.3 minion ss on a 35mm rim.

  • Yes. And thanks for the reminder to add that one to the list.

  • Idle Prentice

    I think I’m in love…but don’t want to build yet another wheelset. 23mm, 25mm, and 45mm…now 36mm.

  • fauxpho

    FWIW, the Salsa Timberjack will fit any of these 29×2.6 tires (and any 2.8 and a couple of smaller-than-claimed 3.0). BB position stays reasonable.

  • fauxpho

    That’s easy. Your 23 and 25 are redundant: pick your least favorite of the two, and re-lace with i35 rims. :)

  • Great point. That means the Ti version too!

  • Jon Schultz

    Look forward to trying some of these tires on my Velo Orange Piolet.

  • rocketman

    looks like a nice tread pattern for all around bikepacking, similar to the WTB Riddlers. Nice to have some new tires in this size but I’d still love to have more choices in the 29 x 2.8″ size. I’ve got my eyes on the new Terrene McFly

  • Yeah, the Riddler or the Schwalbe Thunderburt which was pretty impressive on the Cutthroat riding 860 miles across Cuba — no flats or issues between Gin and myself. McFly does look like a great tire…

  • Mark

    I think the Salsa Deadwood SUS Plusbike is the set-up that most trail bikes should have. i35mm (i = internal width) rims with a high enough bottom bracket and enough frame clearance so that any any tire between 2.4″ and 3.0″ wide can be used. Face it, Narrowbikes are extinct except for XC racing. Where I live, Durango CO, everybody riding a Narrowbike is mounting up the widest tire that will fit in their frames, which is usually about 2.4″ wide and wishing they could try something wider. Don’t buy a new Plusbike unless it is set-up this way. That way you can run a variety of tire widths. Mount up a light- weight 2.4″ wide tire and go to the races. Mount up a heavily knobbed 3.0″ wide tire and ride in snow or deep sand. In addition, if you don’t end up liking the wider Plusbike tires you can always switch back to 2.4″ wide tires. Beware, many of the currently available Plusbikes have very low bottom brackets and too wide rims and cannot reasonably handle any tire narrower than 2.8″ wide.

  • I agree 100% on the Deadwood comment. I own a Pony Rustler and to be honest, I wish I was returning it and keeping the Deadwood. The PR is the plus bike you speak of. Any tire below a 3.0 lowers the BB too much. And, fitting any 29er tires above a 2.3 is not doable, as far as I can tell.

  • Locke Hassett

    Any word on a 650b 2.6? This could take my knolly to the next level.

  • Teravail did 2.8s in 27.5. I think Maxxis did a 27.5×2.6 though…

  • Andrew Wade

    Schwalbe Nobby Nic & Rocket Ron, Maxxis Rekon+, Minion, DHF, Forekaster. 2.8 front and 2.6 sounds fun. I’m still undecided on 29″ or 27.5+ for my next set of wheels.

  • Smithhammer

    I think there is plenty of room for variety, and the more options the better. But a 2.6″ tire doesn’t replace a 3.0″.

  • I agree. Let’s hope theindustry doesn’t replace 3.0 with 2.6 (kind of my point in a roundabout way)…

  • Jake Kruse

    I am currently running the 2.6 Nobby Nic front and rear mounted to Stan’s Flow rims on my 2013 El Mariachi and it has been excellent. Plenty of clearance (live in southern NM, so I don’t worry about mud), no tire rub, don’t even need to run drop outs all the way in rear position. Very excited about the 2.6 size gaining steam, we are quite spoiled for tire choices these days. Being able to fit them on older model 29ers is a huge benefit.

  • Tj

    Specialized has many of their tires in a 650b x 2.6″

  • Tj

    I would not say that it’s a unique tread:

    Specialized Slaughter, Schwalbe Rock Razor, Maxxis Minio SS have all been doing this idea for a while now.

    Usually used as a rear tire in combination with an aggressive front tire, you keep the rolling resistance down in the back where it matters most, but match up the cornering with the front.
    Of course, as you show, they can be used as a matched set to for mixed terrain rides. I Have also wondered about using them in the Front matched to a XC tire in back.

  • Tj

    I forget where I read about it, I think ‘What MTB’ (UK), but the Minion SS came of poorly compared to the Specialized Slaughter, especially in the rolling resistance. This was mostly due to the square profile, causing the large side knobs to drag on smooth surfaces. That was on narrower rims, so on an i35mm rim it would be even worse. I would say, for all these designs, the key is to match them with the right rim width:
    Too wide and the side knobs drag, negating most of the benefit of the center semislick;
    too narrow and the side knobs never engage, negating the benefit of those.
    I have the Schwalbe Rock Razor in 2.35 and it comes up at 60mm at the casing, a hair more at the knobs, on an i28mm rim.

    I would say the interesting comparison would be a Nobby Nic 2.6. We know that one is smaller than this, and rolling resistance should be excellent, wonder how grip and cushion compare.

  • Jack Kirby

    I am running 2.6 Nobby Nics on a 40mm wheel on a Krampus. The 40mm is a little wide as there is more sidewall exposure than I prefer, BUT – I love it. Can’t say I am rushing to get back to a 3.0 inch tire.

  • Marty

    I’m a bit late here but there is also the Panaracer Fat B Nimble. It is marked as 29 x 3.0 but comes out of the box at 2.8, according to my callipers. That said, after a few months of use they stretched out to 3.0. They are a superlight tire – close to 800 grams – which means a very nice ride but which also means I end up having to inflate them too hard for my liking to stop them folding over in tight turns.

  • StaySaneSleepOutside

    Thanks for this review, Logan. It brings up some interesting thoughts.
    Why this tire over a Chronicle, which is lighter and still fast, but with more volume?
    What about compared to a Surly Extraterrestrial? Same weight(ish), non-plus, and also fast rolling.
    Have people have issues with destroying Knards? They are way lighter and very fast rolling.
    I guess I’m not sure I see why this tire would be chosen over some of the other options, for whatever purpose, given it’s high weight. It just seems like there are better options for the weight and money, seemingly like all the Teravail and Terene tires. I haven’t ridden them, though, so that’s just coming from reviews and spec charts… and my love of Knards as an all around tire, like the point of this one.
    Thanks

  • I think, as noted, that this tire is certainly a specialty tire. I would take it over many other options for specific uses. It’s faster rolling than any of the tires you listed, IMO, and it corners better than the Knard, for sure. The Chronicle is certainly a beast in its own right though. I will be curious to see how the lighter casing version of this one is (and how much it weighs). On a side note, I’ve been running a pair of Nobby Nic 2.6s and am completely sold on the 2,6″ width. They aren’t as fast though. I;ll also be interested in checking out the Recon 29×2.6

  • Jason jeter

    Hi Logan,
    Great write up, I just picked up a deadwood sus and love it. Going to run the 3.0’s in an upcoming tour but I can see the appeal of the 2.6’s as my daily drivers out here. I was wondering where did you get your frame bag or have it made, for the deadwood sus? I need one pretty quick and salsa pointed me to revelate, and they said they are not going to be producing any,etc.
    Any thoughts?
    Thanks in advance, jason

  • Hi Jason. Cool, yeah, love the Deadwood SUS. I made that bag. Pretty easy to do, but maybe check out a few custom bag makers to see if anyone has time. Bedrock, Oveja Negra, Rockgeist, or there is a big list on our ‘Complete Guide to Bikepacking Bags’…

  • Kirby

    I own a 2016 HorseThief and its primarily setup with some 50mm wide carbon Nexus 27.5+ rims and tyres for our desert conditions with plenty soft terrain. (Schwalbe Nobby Nic front for grip and Rocket Ron rear for reduced rolling resistance) I recently added a Mavic XA Elite 29er wheelset to the mix and have run this with “conventional” 29er tyres and 2.6 Schwalbe Nobby Nice as a plus/minus setup. The problem being the Nobbby Nic is just to high profiled and buzzes the linkage at full compression (only just!) and also offers too much rolling resistance with those spade like knobs. Also stones get wedged in the knobs and seems to be doing so damage to my paint job on the rear triangle. In terms of normal 29er yes, I’m currently running a 2.35 Rock Razor on the back and thats great, rolls wonderfully and can be run with either a standard or 2.6 NN front. I think the Cumberland sorrt of low centre profiled 2.6 is very similar in concept to the Rock Razor and may squeeze into the HorseThief / Pony Rustler frame. Maybe you could drop it in, and test if it contacts at full compression? It should work a treat as a combo with either the 2.6 RR or even the 2.8 Mcfly in the front.

Share This

others did. Support us and pass it along...

Follow Us

and join the conversation.
art