# 26er vs 29er....again.



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Still a big fan of 26" wheels, and believe they are better than 29er's! Even though I've never ridden one and never will!

NOTE: This thread was broken off from one in the all-mountain forum. The statement above should be taken in context of all mountain and technical trail riding.

EDIT: So, I feel that this question has been answered. No one can make a coherent, fact based arguement on the measureable technical merits of 29" wheels for all mountain riding, while there are many more facts that tell us the 26" is better - weight, strength, stiffness. While the anecdotal evidence presented in favor of 29er's is interesting, personal opinion is too easily biased.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Here's an interesting article discussing the weight vs. inertia of the various wheel sizes:

Educating the Debate ? Part I - NSMB.com

He calculates a 29er wheel taking about 12% more energy to accelerate to 10 m/s vs. an equivalent 26" wheel. You would have to drop roughly about a pound off the weight of the 29er wheelset to get back to a wheel that accelerates comparably to the 26". This seems like it would be expensive and/or decrease the strength of the wheel and the tire's capablities.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

*29ers or 26ers?*

You'll notice he doesn't claim any one size is superior or inferior. And that hasn't kept him from designing some well-regarded aggressive 29ers that have manners consistent with his designs for other wheel sizes.


----------



## Ironbar81 (Mar 22, 2014)

turbodog said:


> Here's an interesting article discussing the weight vs. inertia of the various wheel sizes:
> 
> Educating the Debate ? Part I - NSMB.com
> 
> He calculates a 29er wheel taking about 12% more energy to accelerate to 10 m/s vs. an equivalent 26" wheel. You would have to drop roughly about a pound off the weight of the 29er wheelset to get back to a wheel that accelerates comparably to the 26". This seems like it would be expensive and/or decrease the strength of the wheel and the tire's capablities.


He also says it takes the same amount of extra energy to stop the 29er compared to the 26". Harder to accelerate but retains momentum better. Give and take.

In fact probably the most important thing he says, over and over again, is that it's all subjective to the trail conditions, tyre choice and pressure.

Most rational people can agree that both 26" and 29" have pros and cons. Pick the one with the pros you want most and then set that bike up in such a way as to nagate it's cons as best you can, then ride the bloody thing till it becomes so natural to you that you forget what all the fuss was about in the first place.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

turbodog said:


> Here's an interesting article discussing the weight vs. inertia of the various wheel sizes:
> 
> Educating the Debate ? Part I - NSMB.com
> 
> He calculates a 29er wheel taking about 12% more energy to accelerate to 10 m/s vs. an equivalent 26" wheel. You would have to drop roughly about a pound off the weight of the 29er wheelset to get back to a wheel that accelerates comparably to the 26". This seems like it would be expensive and/or decrease the strength of the wheel and the tire's capablities.


The thing to remember about any metric filled anything is that it fails to take into consideration joy of user experience. I personally ride a fat front 29er and my front wheel/tire combo weights 1.5 times what my rear 29er wheel/tire combo but dammit do I love riding with it. It is such a fun thing to ride with that my brain just files away the obvious acceleration issues, as well as the manualling issues and the sheer effort of hefting it over rocks or fences or even off my car because I just love riding it. Every so often I put my other 29er front wheel on and for a short time I love the light weight and the fast acceleration and the manuals (oh how it manuals) but it isn't as much fun and since I measure my rides in smiles and not m/s and joules it really doesn't matter.

That is what you are missing here. It isn't about the physics it is about the fun and I can't think of a discipline that is more about fun then AM riding because it is what we used to call mountain biking before we got it all segmented and such.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Ironbar81 said:


> He also says it takes the same amount of extra energy to stop the 29er compared to the 26". Harder to accelerate but retains momentum better. Give and take.
> 
> In fact probably the most important thing he says, over and over again, is that it's all subjective to the trail conditions, tyre choice and pressure.
> 
> Most rational people can agree that both 26" and 29" have pros and cons. Pick the one with the pros you want most and then set that bike up in such a way as to nagate it's cons as best you can, then ride the bloody thing till it becomes so natural to you that you forget what all the fuss was about in the first place.


Right......this thread is about which wheel size is better for all mountain, and I'm presenting evidence that a 26" is easier to accelerate and deaccelerate. I would argue that having a bike that deaccelerates well is very important for all mountain, such as braking for a corner.

Very rarely have I ever said I needed a bike that "held it's speed in a straight line" better. Try riding a 45lb+ old school DH "plow bike" with 10 lb forks, 2.7 tires and 1 lb MX tubes (yes, walked into a MX shop and bought them)....brings new meaning to carrying speed through anything.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

Thank god we're finally openly debating this important issue. I can't wait for this discussion to be resolved, once and for all.


----------



## Ironbar81 (Mar 22, 2014)

turbodog said:


> Right......this thread is about which wheel size is better for all mountain, and I'm presenting evidence that a 26" is easier to accelerate and deaccelerate. I would argue that having a bike that deaccelerates well is very important for all mountain, such as braking for a corner.
> 
> Very rarely have I ever said I needed a bike that "held it's speed in a straight line" better. Try riding a 45lb+ old school DH "plow bike" with 10 lb forks, 2.7 tires and 1 lb MX tubes (yes, walked into a MX shop and bought them)....brings new meaning to carrying speed through anything.


You're not even trying to be realistic with your comparisons, are you?

Also, the "deceleration" as you put it, in the article is referring to the loss of momentum caused by trail features and has nothing to do with braking, of which the minor differences of rotational weight between a 29" and a 26" would be lost in the more than adequate stopping power of a modern disk brake.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Ironbar81 said:


> You're not even trying to be realistic with your comparisons, are you?
> 
> Also, the "deceleration" as you put it, in the article is referring to the loss of momentum caused by trail features and has nothing to do with braking, of which the minor differences of rotational weight between a 29" and a 26" would be lost in the more than adequate stopping power of a modern disk brake.


Sorry, I don't follow. Wheel moment of inertia is always a factor when riding a bike. How is it that extra moment of inertia now a "minor difference" when braking and accelerating (in contrary to 30+ years of MTB tech development, btw), and a "distinct advantage" when rolling across rugged terrain? I've ridden some VERY heavy wheels, and they do some things very very well, but I would not want to all mountain on them.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

The guys calculations are wrong. I will prove it in a post later, but read some of the comments after the article. Weight matters, but moment of inertia due to increased radius does not. 29er wheels rotate more slowly which cancels the inertia effect. The myth about "slower to spin up to speed" are a myth.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> The guys calculations are wrong. I will prove it in a post later, but read some of the comments after the article. Weight matters, but moment of inertia due to increased radius does not. 29er wheels rotate more slowly which cancels the inertia effect. The myth about "slower to spin up to speed" are a myth.


Nope. They are not wrong Steve. Please review them again.


----------



## Ironbar81 (Mar 22, 2014)

It's simple really.

29ers have a number of factors which make them better than 26ers at some things and
26ers have a number of factors which make them better than 29ers at some things.
Adding those factors up in a way that supports the way you ride is called personal preference.
Adding those factors up in a way that supports your chosen stance, on the other hand, is called politics.


----------



## Ironbar81 (Mar 22, 2014)

turbodog said:


> Sorry, I don't follow. Wheel moment of inertia is always a factor when riding a bike. How is it that extra moment of inertia now a "minor difference" when braking and accelerating (in contrary to 30+ years of MTB tech development, btw), and a "distinct advantage" when rolling across rugged terrain? I've ridden some VERY heavy wheels, and they do some things very very well, but I would not want to all mountain on them.


You are missing the point, it's the size not the weight of the 29" wheel that allows it to keep momentum over the rougher sections compared to the 26". But as I've tried to say already and the guy in the article says again and again, these are minor differences and are far less important than things like tyre choice and pressure and I'd add bike geo and design so stop trying to put me on the other side of your 29 vs 26 pointless debate as I've said most rational people can accept the pros and cons of both and use them to make the right choice for their needs.


----------



## FastBanana (Aug 29, 2013)

*Re: 29ers or 26ers?*



Ironbar81 said:


> You are missing the point, it's the size not the weight of the 29" wheel that allows it to keep momentum over the rougher sections compared to the 26". But as I've tried to say already and the guy in the article says again and again, these are minor differences and are far less important than things like tyre choice and pressure and I'd add bike geo and design so stop trying to put me on the other side of your 29 vs 26 pointless debate as I've said most rational people can accept the pros and cons of both and use them to make the right choice for their needs.


The radius also increases the effect of weight.

Sent from my LG-LS995 using Tapatalk


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

turbodog said:


> Nope. They are not wrong Steve. Please review them again.


I have some advice for you turbodog,
If you like your bike that's fine. If you want to convince yourself that nothing is better than your 20 year old mongoose your dad bought you, well, you are wrong. If you want to prove that there is a "best" wheel size, well, smarter people than you have determined that there is no one single best size. 
So like what you like, and quit trying to fight a losing battle.

Also, Since you have insulted my new bike, and my Colorado front range trails, its time for you to post up pictures of your bike and your trails so we can see the awesomeness that is behind all your arrogance.

Pictures please!

Finally, I am an engineer and I know how to do the energy calculations referred to in that article you posted. So, don't try and tell me whether they are right or wrong when you have no idea.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

I said I will offer proof that wheel diameter doesn't effect energy to accelerate, so now I will provide it. By the way, this is from an old post of mine, as you can imagine this subject has been beaten to death a few thousand times on this forum in the past.

Put some energy into a wheel to make it roll and that energy is converted to translation and rotation.
The equation for translational energy plus rotational energy looks like this:

E = ½mv² + ½Iω²

I'm going to use moment of inertia I = mr², as for a hoop or hollow cylinder, and ω= angular velocity (rad/sec), which is related to translational velocity for a rolling wheel (not slipping) by ω= V/r (1 rotation = 2pi radians and circumference =2pi*r)

Substituting:
E= ½mv² + ½mr²ω²
E= ½mv² + ½mr²( v²/ r²)

Notice the r²'s cancel out in the second term and you are left with

*E=mv²*

So, you can see the energy it takes to get a wheel up to certain translational velocity depends on its mass! (There is no radius in the equation, because for bigger wheels, the r in higher moment of inertia canceled the r in the lower angular velocity).

More mass more energy. Higher velocity, more energy. The size of the wheel doesn't matter!

As for the mass, the article used 90 grams more weight for 29er wheels. considering the mass of bike plus rider, that is only a difference of .2 or .3 percent weight. A water bottle makes more difference, as was pointed out in the comments following the article.

Physics aside, all you have to do is ride a 29er to know that these "slow acceleration" claims are false. Riding a 29er, by the way, is something that turbodog has never done :lol:


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> I said I will offer proof that wheel diameter doesn't effect energy to accelerate, so now I will provide it. By the way, this is from an old post of mine, as you can imagine this subject has been beaten to death a few thousand times on this forum in the past.
> 
> Put some energy into a wheel to make it roll and that energy is converted to translation and rotation.
> The equation for translational energy plus rotational energy looks like this:
> ...


Cool man, sorry you're so bent out shape.

But that still doesn't make r = r or m = m.....! You are wrong.

Please review the web page in question again. We're talking about a 12% difference, or the 29's wheels needing to be about 1 lb lighter (in his example) to be equivalent.

I also find it amusing you think that you're better educated and more experienced than me.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

turbodog said:


> Cool man, sorry you're so bent out shape.
> 
> But that still doesn't make r = r or m = m.....! You are wrong.
> 
> ...


If r isn't in the equation than it doesn't matter if r=r. 
And M does matter I already addressed that.

Still waiting for pictures of your cool bike on your cool trails. And throw in your in your resume of qualifications.

Pictures!


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> If r isn't in the equation than it doesn't matter if r=r.
> And M does matter I already addressed that.
> 
> Still waiting for pictures of your cool bike on your cool trails. And throw in your in your resume of qualifications.
> ...


Your math is wrong. Please review your equations. r =/= r!

Oh, and I can ride less than a mile from my house and be on terrain considerably more challenging than yours. Sorry.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

I recommend you you delete your stupid "hybrid" signature turbodog. Its making you look kind of, you know, stupid.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

turbodog said:


> Your math is wrong. Please review your equations. r =/= r!


r refers to the radius of any wheel in the derivation. There are no multiple values for r. The radius is not part of the final equation. Do you know what that means? Don't argue math if you don't understand it.

Oh yeah where are those pictures of your cool bike that's so much better than everyone's 29ers?

Pictures!


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> I recommend you you delete your stupid "hybrid" signature turbodog. Its making you look kind of, you know, stupid.


Love the youtube comments. I rest my case.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> r refers to the radius of any wheel in the derivation. There are no multiple values for r. The radius is not part of the final equation. Do you know what that means? Don't argue math if you don't understand it.


Again, one r is not equal to the other r in question. In layman's terms, your model is wrong and you have made a fundamental error in your analysis. Please revise your math accordingly. Thanks.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

turbodog said:


> Again, one r is not equal to the other r in question. In layman's terms, your model is wrong and you have made a fundamental error in your analysis. Please revise your math accordingly. Thanks.


You are embarrassing yourself


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

turbodog said:


> Love the youtube comments. I rest my case.


Is that bike in the video a hybrid? Do you know what a hybrid bike is? What exactly do you know?
And, where are those PICTURES!

Rest your case? Quit while you're behind. Good idea.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

You'll notice that I have again moved these off topic posts out of the original thread because you probably didn't notice that the OP never returned after we **** off topic all over that thread. Use this one and hopefully as *ddprocter* stated above " Thank god we're finally openly debating this important issue. I can't wait for this discussion to be resolved, once and for all.

Good luck to all participants and may the best wheel size crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

turbodog said:


> Love the youtube comments. I rest my case.


you're right youtube comments are pretty much the most intelligent things on the planet, that is a good basis for resting your case.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> You are embarrassing yourself


Ok, since you refuse the read the web page in question and are being belligerent, I'll have to spell it out. There are *TWO radii* in the energy equation, which are NOT equal to each other.

One is taken as the axle to ground distance of the rolling wheel, or slightly less than half the unloaded diameter of the mounted tire. For example, .377 meters for a 29er wheel.

The other is the effective radius of the wheel's mass location in the moment of inertia equation, when modeling it as a cylinder. For example, .31 meters for a 29er, or slightly less than effective rim diameter (ERD). Referred to as effective rotational radius.

Anyway, in reviewing the web page, I noticed that the author mixes up diameter with radius where he takes the ERR. Thus all his rotational kinetic energy calcs are inflated by a factor of four, and thus the percentage differences between wheel sizes are significantly less. I will email him and advise him of the error.

When I ran all the calcs again, there is about a 10.4% more energy required to accelerate the 29er wheels up to 10 m/s vs. the 26". However, only about 1.4% of that is actually due to the diameter being larger, the rest of it is simply due to the increased mass of the 29er (the example is taken as having the same type of rim/tire/tube).

I also took the opportunity to solve the energy equation for mass, to figure out what the 29er wheelset would have to weigh to take the same energy to accelerate to 10 m/s as the 26". To accelerate the same as 3830g 26" wheels (rim/tube/tire), the 29er wheels would have to weigh 3780g....or 50g less.

Not much you say? You have to consider that the equivalent (same type of rim/tire/tube) 29er wheels would be 4175g. So you're looking at having to lose 395g, or .87 lb, between two wheels. That's a significantly less beefier tire and/or rim 26".

Sorry Steve.


----------



## bob13bob (Jun 22, 2009)

why is this a new thread. continue the old ones.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

bob13bob said:


> why is this a new thread. continue the old ones.


I honestly don't think we have the computing power to merge all the old ones with this new one. It'd be like dividing by zero. It'll run its course and we will have a new victor I think. This time it is for real. This time it's personal.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

rockcrusher said:


> I honestly don't think we have the computing power to merge all the old ones with this new one. It'd be like dividing by zero. It'll run its course and we will have a new victor I think. This time it is for real. This time it's personal.


I respect you giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue!!! But it's not personal.


----------



## sandiego (Sep 18, 2013)

turbodog said:


> Still a big fan of 26" wheels, and believe they are better than 29er's! Even though I've never ridden one and never will!


I'm curious how you come to that conclusion without ever having ridden one. Oh, you read something that supports your lack of experience... got it.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

sandiego said:


> I'm curious how you come to that conclusion without ever having ridden one. Oh, you read something that supports your lack of experience... got it.


There are plenty of things in this world that people are entitled to dislike without trying them!


----------



## sandiego (Sep 18, 2013)

turbodog said:


> There are plenty of things in this world that people are entitled to dislike without trying them!


True, but it just makes you look stupid when you try to defend that position.


----------



## bikerbert (Aug 28, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> I recommend you you delete your stupid "hybrid" signature turbodog. Its making you look kind of, you know, stupid.


The guy in the video is riding flats too, we should probably touch on that not being as efficient as being clipped in.....

That bike looked pretty nimble and seemed to handle well through turns.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

Hey Steve,

I haven't done these calcs since I finished my BS in 2000. But, I think I see where the discrepancy is between your derivation and the the published kinetic energies in the article (and turbodog's assertions). I'm not taking sides on 26 vs. 29, nor endorsing Turbodog's obvious trolling. However, when you do the math you get a non-trival difference in the KE's between the 26 and the 29inch wheel. Bear with me.

The first main thing is that I see you're using I = 1/2 mr[SUP]2[/SUP] to approximate the moment of inertia for a wheel.

However, I = 1/2 mr[SUP]2[/SUP] is the equation for moment of inertia of a _solid cylinder_.

The moment of inertia of a _hollow_ cylinder is generally approximated as

I = 1/2 m (r[SUB]i[/SUB][SUP]2[/SUP] + r[SUB]o[/SUB][SUP]2[/SUP])

where 
r[SUB]i[/SUB] is the distance from the axis (the hub) to the edge of the hollow part (the inner edge of the rim) and r[SUB]o[/SUB] is the radius of the outer cylinder (the tire in this case). I think the hollow cylinder equation is the correct one, since 80% of the mass is in the rim + tire, + tube if you're using it.

Notice that a solid cylinder which has inner radius zero simplifies the above equation to I = 1/2 mr[SUB]o[/SUB][SUP]2[/SUP]. But bike wheels aren't solid disks so we have to take into account that most of the mass is held out from the rim. So we should really use the hollow-cylinder equation.

We might also consider the moment of inertia for a very thin walled cylinder I = mr[SUP]2[/SUP] but I think the thickness of our cylinder relative to its outer radius is too large to use this. A typical height of rim+tire is ~80mm, so our cylinder wall thickness would be over 10% of the outer radius of the cylinder. I don't think we can use that equation.

With me so far?

So when you use I = 1/2 m (r[SUB]i[/SUB][SUP]2[/SUP] + r[SUB]o[/SUB][SUP]2[/SUP]), the r[SUP]2[/SUP] devisor in the angular velocity doesn't cancel out any more and we have to plug real numbers to see how the KE's vary between the two wheels.

Let's go back to your original energy equations, plugging in the different dimensions for a typical 26 and 29 inch:

Assume: A typical rim height is ~20mm, and a typical tire height is ~60mm. Starting with the the outer radius from Educating the Debate - Part I - NSMB.com we can approximate the following dimensions for the rim and tire. For simplicity let's assume the mass of rim and tire is evenly distributed across that radius. This might also be a false assumption but its moving closer towards an accurate answer.

For 26 inch wheel:
r[SUB]o 26inch[/SUB] = 690mm
r[SUB]i 26inch[/SUB] = 610mm

For 29 inch wheel:
r[SUB]o 29inch[/SUB] = 750mm
r[SUB]i 29inch[/SUB] = 670mm

E[SUB]29 inch[/SUB] = 1/2 m[SUB]29[/SUB]v[SUP]2[/SUP] + 1/2 m(750mm[SUP]2[/SUP] + 670mm[SUP]2[/SUP])*v[SUP]2[/SUP]/750mm[SUP]2[/SUP]

E[SUB]26 inch[/SUB] = 1/2 m[SUB]26[/SUB]v[SUP]2[/SUP] + 1/2 m(690mm[SUP]2[/SUP] + 610mm[SUP]2[/SUP])*v[SUP]2[/SUP]/690mm[SUP]2[/SUP]

Next, you said that the weight difference between the 29er wheel and the 26er wheel is only .2 or .3 % of rider + bike. However, since this mass is rotating (hence, are multiplied by r[SUB]i[/SUB][SUP]2[/SUP] PLUS r[SUB]o[/SUB][SUP]2[/SUP] in the second part of the energy equation), these do have a more measureable affect on overall energy required to move the wheel. I am stealing masses from the article, in grams. Also I'm leaving out masses closer to the center of the axis: hub and spokes. Rotating weight further from the axis makes a difference because its multiplied by the two r's squared:

26: 3830g - 200g (hub) - 200g (spokes) = 3430g
29: 4175g - 200g (hub) - 200g (spokes) = 3775g

So, plugging these into Excel:

E[SUB]29[/SUB] =(0.5*3775*(10^2)) + 0.5 * 3775 * (750^2 + 670 ^2) * 10^2 / 750 ^ 2

E[SUB]26[/SUB] =(0.5*3430*(10^2)) + 0.5 * 3430 * (690^2 + 610 ^2) * 10^2 / 690 ^ 2

If we take the ratio between the two we can get rid of those pesky units and we get

E[SUB]29[/SUB] / E[SUB]26[/SUB] = 1.11, or, 11% difference, which is pretty close to the total difference in the article above, which is 778 / 694 = 1.12 or 12% difference.

Now, of course this isn't any end-all debate killer and again I am NOT taking sides on 26ers vs 29ers. This is the KE difference for the WHEELS only. When a 185lb rider is accelerating, wheels are only a portion of the total KE needed to get his ass up to speed. But I think its important to get the math right and compare different answers from different sources to understand the discrepancies if any.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

^^^ It's after midnight here so I'm not going to comment on that, but I just wanted to say that I went through the Banshee guys numbers and the mistake appears to be that he forgot to convert diameter to radius when working out moment of inertia. When I use bead seat diameter instead I get his numbers.

Qualifications: none.


----------



## HitmenOnlyInc (Jul 20, 2012)

rockcrusher said:


> You'll notice that I have again moved these off topic posts out of the original thread because you probably didn't notice that the OP never returned after we **** off topic all over that thread. Use this one and hopefully as *ddprocter* stated above " Thank god we're finally openly debating this important issue. I can't wait for this discussion to be resolved, once and for all.
> 
> Good luck to all participants and may the best wheel size crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation
> of their women.


Nice Conan reference!


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

Ironbar81 said:


> It's simple really.
> 
> 29ers have a number of factors which make them better than 26ers at some things and
> 26ers have a number of factors which make them better than 29ers at some things.
> ...


Win

Posted via mobile


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

turbodog said:


> Still a big fan of 26" wheels, and believe they are better than 29er's! Even though I've never ridden one and never will!


Reminds me of the line ... "Pick a wheel size and be a d!ck about it."

You have succeeded admirably. More so in your follow up posts than the OP but it's definitely a successful endeavor for you.


----------



## beshannon (Oct 14, 2012)

People should ride what they like and allow others to make their own choices.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

turbodog said:


> There are plenty of things in this world that people are entitled to dislike without trying them!


Then you should just say you dislike it, and not claim the other one is better. It makes you look bad, especially when you don't fully understand the one you dislike.


----------



## patrick2cents (Apr 30, 2010)

there hasn't been a thread/poster more awesome than this one since the jeep bike thread in GD a year or so back....


----------



## digitalayon (Jul 31, 2007)

Why not just ride what your body tells you? Since every body is different, no bike will be right for every person out there. The options we have in this day in age are just plain fantastic. And brands are also way different.....a Giant 27 1/2 bike can feel better than a 29er Marin. A Superfly(29er) might feel better than and Giant 27 1/2. A Santa Cruz 26er might feel better than a Superfly. So.....go with what feels good and adapt it to the type of terrain you will be on. Here is a hint....if you get a 29er, you can convert at anytime to a 27 1/2 and swap the wheels out back to a 29 on the fly. But the argument here that the bike shop kids will fight each other about is really moot.


----------



## Ironbar81 (Mar 22, 2014)

I like, big, wheels and I cannot lie,
you other brothers can't deny,
when a girl rides in with that ity-bity waste and those round things in your face 
I get........Feelins


----------



## Deep Thought (Sep 3, 2012)

This is a silly discussion anyway. 26" wheels are quickly being relegated to the most entry-level of bikes, and to Dirt Jump and DH bikes. 

Now, 27.5 vs 29 is a legit discussion. But even then, it's all relative.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

I love my 29er. At 6'4" I look like a wookie riding a 26er. Plus my 29 rolls over everything much better without sending me over the bars. Plus it makes me smile more betterer. Dude.


----------



## time229er (Oct 30, 2013)

ddprocter said:


> Thank god we're finally openly debating this important issue. I can't wait for this discussion to be resolved, once and for all.


I personally find it hard to believe that the OP baited folks and they actually responded...


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Deep Thought said:


> This is a silly discussion anyway. 26" wheels are quickly being relegated to the most entry-level of bikes, and to Dirt Jump and DH bikes.
> 
> Now, 27.5 vs 29 is a legit discussion. But even then, it's all relative.


Not to go off topic, but I'm afraid that 27.5" just isn't going to happen, as much as the industry/bikemag hype machine would like you to believe it! There's no real advantage over 26", and you get all the disadvantages of having an oddball wheel size, with a heavier and weaker wheel. In the US, the bike industry does a pretty good job of forcing things, but thankfully in the UK and Europe, they know a bit better:

Toe curling 650b marketing guff. « Singletrack Forum

Video:






The euros basicly rejected 29er's, now they are trying to force 650b on them. Good luck - they are a huge market and much more bike savvy than the US, and will clearly reject it. If you can't sell europe on it they are basicly dead in the water.

People are still buying nice high end 26" bikes:

http://forums.mtbr.com/all-mountain/who-still-rides-26-full-susp-choice-801264-6.html#post11154346

I actually feel a bit sorry for those buying into the 650b thing right now. In 2015, 650b will really fade from the lineup in most major bike companies, then by 2016 it will be almost gone and be widely regarded as an unmitgated disaster. They may carry one or two niche bikes in the size. I feel bad for people who bought high end 650b's because rims and tires will become harder to get. Suppose they can always convert back to 26".

29er's have reached their peak in popularity, they have been oversold but will continue to stick around because they are seeming good for some people and some types of riding. But many people will gravitate back to 26".


----------



## 70sSanO (Nov 20, 2013)

I thought I would add a few comments from a 4x4 forum and apply them to the 26er/29er debate on going larger...

More likely to rub body parts.
Increases wear on steering components.
Increases center of gravity.
Changing tire requires ability to lift/handle more weight. (My favorite)
Decreases fuel economy.
More debris thrown up.
Need to determine if you have the gears and power to turn the tires. (Can't wait for the comments on this one)
Higher theft risk.

You see, wheel/tire size debate is not a mountain bike monopoly.

Enjoy!

John


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

turbodog said:


> Not to go off topic, bu I'm afraid that 27.5" just isn't going to happen, as much as the industry/bikemag hype machine would like you to believe it! There's no real advantage over 26", and you get all the disadvantages of having an oddball wheel size, with a heavier and weaker wheel. In the US, the bike industry does a pretty good job of forcing things, but thankfully in the UK and Europe, they know a bit better:
> 
> Toe curling 650b marketing guff. « Singletrack Forum
> 
> ...


I am having a hard time here.
Are you for real and serious or just being a troll?
Anyway, you really don't have to answer.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

jazzanova said:


> I am having a hard time here.
> Are you for real and serious or just being a troll?
> Anyway, you really don't have to answer.


Completely serious. I'll come back and bump this thread in 2016, and we'll just have to see if I'm correct or not, now won't we.....?


----------



## plantdude (Dec 30, 2007)

While I understand all the debate I find it hard to buy into the marketing hype that my 5yr old "state of the art" (at the time) Ibis Mojo SL is equal to a low end model now (since only low end bikes will be 26ers I guess). I do own a steel rigid 29er that is currently my primary bike, as most of the trails here in the (east) Bay Area are fire road/double track with the occasional ST to found. I love the big wheels on my 29er, and am often doing 40-60 mi days with 6000'+ footies. However, every time I get on the "ancient" ibis mojo SL I can't help but grin from ear to ear as it is still just as amazing as the day I bought it. Granted, it is usually the bike I bring on outings where more technical terrain is to found, tight twisty ST, or where the 3x drivetrain is welcome. At the end of the day, ride what you have, ride what makes you giddy, as the ability of the rider itself by far outweighs any differences between wheel size...


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

Removed after rereading it. The sarcasm didn't come off well enough.


----------



## Deep Thought (Sep 3, 2012)

turbodog said:


> Not to go off topic, bu I'm afraid that 27.5" just isn't going to happen, as much as the industry/bikemag hype machine would like you to believe it!


Lulz. Okay, bro.

Your schtick is tired and unfunny.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Deep Thought said:


> Lulz. Okay, bro.
> 
> Your schtick is tired and unfunny.


Ok, if you say so. I'll be back in a few years to bump this thread and we'll see how my prediction went.

Here's a thread of mine from about 5 years ago, enjoy....

http://forums.mtbr.com/weight-weeni...ecome-commonplace-under-$100-each-526161.html


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

turbodog said:


> Ok, if you say so. I'll be back in a few years to bump this thread and we'll see how my prediction went.
> 
> Here's a thread of mine from about 5 years ago, enjoy....
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/weight-weenies/how-long-before-carbon-rims-become-commonplace-under-$100-each-526161.html


I'll be out riding my [insert random number]er. Who cares?

Posted via mobile


----------



## Deep Thought (Sep 3, 2012)

turbodog said:


> Ok, if you say so. I'll be back in a few years to bump this thread and we'll see how my prediction went.
> 
> Here's a thread of mine from about 5 years ago, enjoy....
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/weight-weeni...ecome-commonplace-under-$100-each-526161.html


I can assure you I will have forgotten about this thread by next week, and I don't care about your thread from 5 years ago.

Good for you for finding some self worth on a silly forum, though. If all else fails in life, at least you have these threads to fall back on.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ddprocter again.

Looking back at my rep history all the way back to last August, ddprocter is not on the list. How often can you rep someone? Once a year? 

Anyway, nice work dd, I appreciate the effort.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

Another day another trolling post.

Didn't you have another thread closed because of this trolling behavior?

http://forums.mtbr.com/downhill-freeride/psa-29er-=-hybrid-bike-909778.html


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

mtnbikej said:


> Another day another trolling post.
> 
> Didn't you have another thread closed because of this trolling behavior?
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/downhill-freeride/psa-29er-=-hybrid-bike-909778.html


It's not trolling. I have a sense of humor and a very valid point. In researching this, I found it interesting that many people don't know that 29er's and hybrids share the same wheel size, including some people working in bike shops:

http://forums.mtbr.com/29er-components/29er-vs-700c-tire-565880.html

If you took today's 29er XC bike back in time to 1995, they would clearly identify it as a hybrid bike. Over the years, I've seen people successfuly ride off road on hybrid bikes. Heck, cyclocross has been going on for years with 700c wheels.

http://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/700c-hybrids-poor-mans-29er-231885.html

People get very defensive about how they spent their money. If you think 29er's are great for you and your riding, good for you!!!


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

ddprocter said:


> The first main thing is that I see you're using I = 1/2 mr[SUP]2[/SUP] to approximate the moment of inertia for a wheel.


Actually I was using I = mr², moment of inertia for a thin hoop. the 1/2 comes from the equation for rotational energy E = ½Iω²

Now I think you (and turbodog to give him credit), are correct that it would be a more accurate calculation to use the moment of inertia equation for a thick hoop instead of a thin hoop, as you did.

(I think your numbers might be off by a factor of 2 because you needed to multiply the 1/2 in the moment of intertia equation by another 1/2 from the rotational energy equation, but no matter because you did it the same for both wheel sizes, so the relative comparison is valid)



> For 26 inch wheel:
> r[SUB]o 26inch[/SUB] = 690mm
> r[SUB]i 26inch[/SUB] = 610mm
> 
> ...


When r[sub]o[/sub] = r[sub]i[/sub], then the equation I derived earlier is true E=MV^2 for any size wheel.
Now I have derived the modified formula assuming a thick hoop, and it comes out to be

E=3/4MV^2 + 1/4MV^2 (r[sub]i[/sub]^2/r[sub]o[/sub]^2]

So you see when r[sub]i[/sub] = r[sub]o[/sub], the equation simplifies back to E=MV^2

This equation tells us it isn't actually the radius that matters but the ratio of inner to outer radius. So, _ if you assume that a 26 inch wheel is an exact shunken down duplicate of a 29 inch, then the ratio will be the same for both wheels, and again, we get the result that for the same weight wheel the energy is the same regardless of of diameter!_

In the actual numbers you used, the ratios are slightly different, .798 for the 29er and .782 for the 26er, the difference being about 2%. In reality, I can see how the ratios might be slightly different, since 26er tires do not seem to have proportionately shorter sidewalls compared to 29er tires.



> If we take the ratio between the two we can get rid of those pesky units and we get
> 
> E[SUB]29[/SUB] / E[SUB]26[/SUB] = 1.11, or, 11% difference, which is pretty close to the total difference in the article above, which is 778 / 694 = 1.12 or 12% difference.


It is important to note that you used 29er tires with 10.1% more weight to get an energy cost of 11%. So in your calculation, less than 1% is attributed to the wheel size, the rest to the weight. turbodog also conceded that his calculation showed only 1.2% attributed to the size. Conceptually, that 1% comes out of the math because of the assumptions that put the center of the rotating mass very slightly closer, proportionately, to the hub for the 26er. So we assumed where the center of mass was (80mm from the tire edge for both wheels), and this only matters because it makes the ratio r[sub]i[/sub] to r[sub]o[/sub] different for the different wheels.



> This is the KE difference for the WHEELS only. When a 185lb rider is accelerating, wheels are only a portion of the total KE needed to get his ass up to speed. But I think its important to get the math right and compare different answers from different sources to understand the discrepancies if any.


For 4 kg wheels m, 100 kg bike plus rider M

E[sub] wheels[/sub] / E[sub]tot[/sub] = .8mV^2/1/2MV^2

=1.6 (m/M) = 6.4%

So the effect of larger radius is 1% of 6.4% or .06%! Negligible.

If you want to consider that the 29er tires are 10% heavier than the total effect is still only 11% of 6.4% or .7%.

So the whole moment of inertia thing is really overblown and people who say they feel it are feeling what they want to believe rather than a real effect. Weight of gear, water etc, will have the same or greater effect. That is why 29er riders don't feel what others are hypothesizing about moment of inertia.

Also, even with slightly heavier wheels, the added stability of a bigger BB drop, and the combined effects of lower rolling resistance and lower approach angle seem to make up for it, since many people feel that 29ers roll smoother and easier, and race times show they can be faster.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> So the whole moment of inertia thing is really overblown and people who say they feel it are feeling what they want to believe rather than a real effect. Weight of gear, water etc, will have the same or greater effect. That is why 29er riders don't feel what others are hypothesizing about moment of inertia.


Hummm not sure about that. I've run fairly light xc setups all the way up to old school super heavy DH. I'd say I can pick up on about a 3% difference in tire/rim/tube weight, such as going from a light tube to a lighter tube. 10% would be pretty noticeable.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

turbodog said:


> Hummm not sure about that. I've run fairly light xc setups all the way up to old school super heavy DH. I'd say I can pick up on about a 3% difference in tire/rim/tube weight, such as going from a light tube to a lighter tube. 10% would be pretty noticeable.


So you can tell the difference between a 700g front wheel and 721g front wheel? I doubt it.

Regardless, thats adding weight to the same size wheel. With a 29er, you might gain weight, but save energy because of its other benefits I mentioned above. Clearly, if weight was the only consideration, racers wouldn't use 29ers, and 24 would be replacing 26.


----------



## digitalayon (Jul 31, 2007)

Again.....the only arguments are going to be from bike shops guys that do not carry a line of a certain size!


----------



## FastBanana (Aug 29, 2013)

smilinsteve said:


> So you can tell the difference between a 700g front wheel and 721g front wheel? I doubt it.
> 
> Regardless, thats adding weight to the same size wheel. With a 29er, you might gain weight, but save energy because of its other benefits I mentioned above. Clearly, if weight was the only consideration, racers wouldn't use 29ers, and 24 would be replacing 26.


There is more than moment of inertia, there is also the physics for acceleration to consider, and the force it takes to act upon the wheel at a given radius.

Sent from my LG-LS995 using Tapatalk


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

turbodog said:


> It's not trolling. I have a sense of humor


A lot of comedy comes down to timing. You're several years too late, as evidenced by the fact that even the DH guys found it tired.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> So you can tell the difference between a 700g front wheel and 721g front wheel? I doubt it.


This is what we call a straw man arguement folks.

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not many people I know riding around with a 700g combined front tire/tube/rim/spokes/hub weight. Nice try.

My old XC bike's front wheel is around 650g wheel+150g tube+600g tire=1400g total. Swapping to a poly tube like a panny greenlite, about a 40-50g difference that was noticeable.

We're talking an automatic 10% difference between 29 to 26 wheelsizes, or nearly a POUND of weight in the all mountain example. Very noticeable to anybody.



> Regardless, thats adding weight to the same size wheel. With a 29er, you might gain weight, but save energy because of its other benefits I mentioned above. Clearly, if weight was the only consideration, racers wouldn't use 29ers, and 24 would be replacing 26.


Another straw man.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

evasive said:


> A lot of comedy comes down to timing. You're several years too late, as evidenced by the fact that even the DH guys found it tired.


Sorry, I really haven't been paying attention for the last 3-4 years. Guess I'm late (or early) to the party. It's going to be hilarious to watch 26" come back in the next year or two.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

smilinsteve said:


> So you can tell the difference between a 700g front wheel and 721g front wheel? I doubt it.


Let's make that 1400 vs1442 for weight of wheel and tire etc.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

turbodog said:


> Another straw man.


Another troll post. That's good you can lookup a definition, but not so good that you don't understand it.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

So, I found the comments by mavic that all things being equal, the 29er wheel is 10% heaver (which we know), but is also *39% less stiff*.



> Stiffness was paramount when Mavic set about designing these 29er Crossmax wheel. *They reckon a 29in wheel is 39% less stiff than a similar 26in wheel*, and heavier to the tune of 10%. That's the big challenge facing the 29in wheels, and as the wheels are a component that hugely impact on ride performance and handling, is something they wanted to get right.
> Read more at Mavic launch Crossmax 29er wheel range | Bike Magic


Mavic launch Crossmax 29er wheel range | Bike Magic

Now, there's a bunch of things that go into wheelbuilding and design that can increase stiffness and strength - hub flange spacing, rim cross section, spoke diameter and lacing pattern being the big ones. But that's beyond the scope of this thread.

*39% less stiff?* I have to assume they are refering to the bending stiffness of the wheel. Any of the engineers in the room care to figure out for us how much less strong it is...?


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

I'm waiting for the 24" Doublewides and 3.0 Gazzaloddi's to make their comback.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

mtnbikej said:


> I'm waiting for the 24" Doublewides and 3.0 Gazzaloddi's to make their comback.


Lol....what do you want to bet that a "fat bike" company brings a 24" wheel offering to the market in the next 3 years.....?


----------



## SandSpur (Mar 19, 2013)

turbodog said:


> Still a big fan of 26" wheels, and believe they are better than 29er's! Even though I've never ridden one and never will!


I cant believe people are responding to this thread like its serious.... really, read what the guy typed.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

turbodog said:


> Sorry, I really haven't been paying attention for the last 3-4 years. Guess I'm late (or early) to the party. It's going to be hilarious to watch 26" come back in the next year or two.


That's the thing. You have not paid attention to the MTB market for few years.
I have been on all 3 sizes and still alternate my rides among all of them.
26 for years, 29" for 3 years and 650b for almost 2 years now.
I can definitely feel the differences between 26 and 650b.
If I have to go with one size, it would very likely be a 650b.

There have been close to 0 development in 26" in the last year. Just look at the newest bikes.
Some wheel manufacturers don't even bring new 26" wheels anymore. The same goes for tires.

The push for 650b started from consumer enthusiasts.
Santa Cruz had its Bronson design initially as 26". But smartly decided to go with 650b, since they were getting 1000s of emails and phone calls requesting a 650b trail bike.
Bronson has been a big hit for them.
Virtually the same was happening with all others bike manufacturers.

Those who were late to adapt pay their price now. 
Yeti had to discontinue SB66, a very popular bike just a year ago. Less then 5% of the New orders for 2014 were for SB66. They are loosing big for not having a 6" 650b.
Ibis also doesn't have a dedicated 6" 650b bike, they are loosing a lot of market share there.
Specialized has invested heavily in 29" and ridiculed 650b movement not long ago. And look at them now.

Like it or not. 26" will slowly become a niche market. It will still go strong in used and aftermarket, since that is what is mostly out there.
But in New buys and newcomers to the sport will not be buying 26".
Even DH is going to 650b.

If you think 26" will see any significant comeback any time soon, if ever, you are delusional.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

FastBanana said:


> There is more than moment of inertia, there is also the physics for acceleration to consider, and the force it takes to act upon the wheel at a given radius.
> 
> Sent from my LG-LS995 using Tapatalk


That's a good point, but think the calculations above cover that. The energy of the bike is the energy required to accelerate it to that given point. Energy to maintain speed is zero for our purposes since we are ignoring friction etc. 
So it takes 99.3% of the energy to accelerate a 26er as it does a 29er with 10% heavier wheels.

That's not much, and even less significant after the gains from lower rolling resistance and angle of attack, etc.

Physics aside, if if 29er wheel weight was as important as turbo dog tries to paint it, then people would immediately see the disadvantage and there wouldn't be 29er bikes. That's not a strawman that's a fact turbodog.
But since turbodog has zero experience, he is trying to tell us all about how 29ers ride by using his imagination, and it's not working.


----------



## Ironbar81 (Mar 22, 2014)

turbodog said:


> So, I found the comments by mavic that all things being equal, the 29er wheel is 10% heaver (which we know), but is also *39% less stiff*.
> 
> Mavic launch Crossmax 29er wheel range | Bike Magic
> 
> ...


Can I ask you a honest question Turbodog? If you are perfectly happy and confident in the unrivalled superiority of your 26" bike and have never, nor will ever, in your own words, buy or ride a 29" wheel bike, why then are you so obsessed with proving to those who are happily riding 29" bikes for trail, XC, AM, Enduro and anything else they like to ride, that they have made such a huge mistake and are only fooling themselves every time they enjoy a spin on their silly 29ers?

Were you bullied by a guy on a 29er or something? Made to feel less of a man on your 26 by a guy shouting "on ur left" one day on the trail? This all smacks of something way more personal than you're letting on.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

SandSpur said:


> I cant believe people are responding to this thread like its serious.... really, read what the guy typed.


Very insightful. Internet Forums 101 - label someone you disagree with as a troll!


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

jazzanova said:


> That's the thing. You have not paid attention to the MTB market for few years.
> I have been on all 3 sizes and still alternate my rides among all of them.
> 26 for years, 29" for 3 years and 650b for almost 2 years now.
> I can definitely feel the differences between 26 and 650b.
> ...


Sure, a good majority of the industry is pushing it this year. Just wait until they fall flat on their face with a majority of the bike buying public.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

turbodog said:


> Sure, a good majority of the industry is pushing it this year. Just wait until they fall flat on their face with a majority of the bike buying public.


I have no idea where you live, but majority here is not buying new 26", unless it is heavily discounted.
North America and Australia is all in.
Asia as well.
Europe is getting there.
Even if you are a diehard 26", you will not have many options to get a new 26" bike next year.
This is the best time to get one, if you want one. Huge discounts out there, New or used.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

jazzanova said:


> I have no idea where you live, but majority here is not buying new 26", unless it is heavily discounted.
> North America and Australia is all in.
> Asia as well.
> Europe is getting there.
> ...


Well, clearly there isn't much being sold in the current model year that is 26", because there isn't any available. The 26" market is being filled by (some) used bikes and some holdovers. 27.5" wheels are selling to SOME people. The ones who read the mags, have little technical background, lack of experience, plenty of money, people who didn't just buy a 29er, etc. Everyone else just bought a 29er, or is happy on 26" or is not in the market. You can't fool everyone all the time. They are very quickly going to run out of people willing to buy into 27.5" wheels. As much you want to tow the industry line and claim 26" is going away, people just simply aren't going to buy 27.5" in the long run on a large scale.


----------



## Ironbar81 (Mar 22, 2014)

Ironbar81 said:


> Can I ask you a honest question Turbodog? If you are perfectly happy and confident in the unrivalled superiority of your 26" bike and have never, nor will ever, in your own words, buy or ride a 29" wheel bike, why then are you so obsessed with proving to those who are happily riding 29" bikes for trail, XC, AM, Enduro and anything else they like to ride, that they have made such a huge mistake and are only fooling themselves every time they enjoy a spin on their silly 29ers?
> 
> Were you bullied by a guy on a 29er or something? Made to feel less of a man on your 26 by a guy shouting "on ur left" one day on the trail? This all smacks of something way more personal than you're letting on.


Turbodog....still waiting for an honest answer to an honest question....why all the hate?


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

It's not hate. It's trolling. People like that are so negative they feed off the negativity of others. Get the guy a puppy or something. 

Posted via mobile


----------



## Ironbar81 (Mar 22, 2014)

TwoNin9r said:


> It's not hate. It's trolling. People like that are so negative they feed off the negativity of others. Get the guy a puppy or something.
> 
> Posted via mobile


F*ck the puppy, if I had the cash I'd send him a 29 S-Works Enduro, that thing would make anyone smile


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

turbodog said:


> Well, clearly there isn't much being sold in the current model year that is 26", because there isn't any available. The 26" market is being filled by (some) used bikes and some holdovers. 27.5" wheels are selling to SOME people. The ones who read the mags, have little technical background, lack of experience, plenty of money, people who didn't just buy a 29er, etc. Everyone else just bought a 29er, or is happy on 26" or is not in the market. You can't fool everyone all the time. They are very quickly going to run out of people unwilling to buy into 27.5" wheels. As much you want to tow the industry line and claim 26" is going away, people just simiply aren't going to buy 27.5" in the long run on a large scale.


You probably did not notice my remark the first time. Let me repeat.

Yeti HAD to discontinue their 26" SB66 simply because there was not demand for it. It went from being their most popular bike to almost 0 of new orders.
The same happened to Turner. He had to axe the 26" Spot and bring 650b trail bikes. He even mentioned here in Turner forum he would design a new 26" bike if there was at least 200people willing to make a down payment. Guess what, there was a lot of people upset about him discontinuing it, but not one went for the offer...
Bike companies are in the business to make money. 650b and 29" is what the market willing to buy wants.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Ironbar81 said:


> Turbodog....still waiting for an honest answer to an honest question....why all the hate?


First of all, it's not hate. My reasons? A personal sense of justice and honesty. Thanks for asking.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

jazzanova said:


> You probably did not notice my remark the first time. Let me repeat.
> 
> Yeti HAD to discontinue their 26" SB66 simply because there was not demand for it. It went from being their most popular bike to almost 0 of new orders.
> The same happened to Turner. He had to axe the 26" Spot and bring 650b trail bikes. He even mentioned here in Turner forum he would design a new 26" bike if there was at least 200people willing to make a down payment. Guess what, there was a lot of people upset about him discontinuing it, but not one went for the offer...
> Bike companies are in the business to make money. 650b and 29" is what the market willing to buy wants.


I've liked yeti's since the ARC days, but you're talking an almost 3 year old design that brake squats. In 2014. And what you're describing is what's called a self fulfilling prophesy. The bike media called 26" wheels dead. OBVIOUSLY nobody is going to go out to pay full shot retail for a 26" bike right now. People are clearly still building them up, look at the response to this thread right here:

http://forums.mtbr.com/all-mountain/who-still-rides-26-full-susp-choice-801264-6.html#post11154346


----------



## Ironbar81 (Mar 22, 2014)

turbodog said:


> First of all, it's not hate. My reasons? A personal sense of justice and honesty. Thanks for asking.


Justice for who? All the poor fools who were duped into buying something they love to ride?

Honesty about what? The already well expounded cons of the 29" bike wheel?


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Ironbar81 said:


> Justice for who? All the poor fools who were duped into buying something they love to ride?
> 
> Honesty about what? The already well expounded cons of the 29" bike wheel?


Nah, just in an abstract sense. Thanks for your interest.


----------



## Ironbar81 (Mar 22, 2014)

turbodog said:


> Nah, just in an abstract sense. Thanks for your interest.


Oh I get it now, you were being Abstract, like your opinions and experience with the 29er.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

It's always good to read a thread in which both views are equally hilarious.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Zowie said:


> It's always good to read a thread in which both views are equally hilarious.


This is serious business!


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

smilinsteve said:


> Actually I was using I = mr², moment of inertia for a thin hoop. the 1/2 comes from the equation for rotational energy E = ½Iω²


Ahhhh you're right!!!



smilinsteve said:


> . . . .
> 
> So you see when r[sub]i[/sub] = r[sub]o[/sub], the equation simplifies back to E=MV^2
> 
> ...


Yup, I see it now, your reasoning is sound.



smilinsteve said:


> Also, even with slightly heavier wheels, the *added stability of a bigger BB drop*, and the combined effects of lower rolling resistance and lower approach angle seem to make up for it, since many people feel that 29ers roll smoother and easier, and race times show they can be faster.


Agree with you here too, especially the BB point . . . well reasoned as always Steve. Unfortunately I too must spread rep around before I can give to you again.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

Get a room... 

(hehe) 

Posted via mobile


----------



## Thustlewhumber (Nov 25, 2011)

turbodog said:


> Very insightful. Internet Forums 101 - label someone you disagree with as a troll!


I am still wondering how/why your rep is red? This is gold people! GOLD!


----------



## bikerbert (Aug 28, 2004)

Great write up on Bike Mag about 29ers:
http://m.bikemag.com/news/exclusive-war-of-the-wheel-sizes/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

TwoNin9r said:


> Get a room...
> 
> (hehe)
> 
> Posted via mobile


Brohug!!! Not getting awkward here. Not at all.


----------



## sandiego (Sep 18, 2013)

turbodog said:


> Well, clearly there isn't much being sold in the current model year that is 26", because there isn't any available. The 26" market is being filled by (some) used bikes and some holdovers. 27.5" wheels are selling to SOME people. The ones who read the mags, have little technical background, lack of experience, plenty of money, people who didn't just buy a 29er, etc. Everyone else just bought a 29er, or is happy on 26" or is not in the market. You can't fool everyone all the time. They are very quickly going to run out of people willing to buy into 27.5" wheels. As much you want to tow the industry line and claim 26" is going away, people just simply aren't going to buy 27.5" in the long run on a large scale.


I'm guessing you aren't a tall man and as such you can't fit on a 29er. AMIRITE???


----------



## time229er (Oct 30, 2013)

SandSpur said:


> I cant believe people are responding to this thread like its serious.... really, read what the guy typed.


scary scat aint it...but, even more scary is the fact that this dude could be on the same trail as you are :yikes:


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

time229er said:


> scary scat aint it...but, even more scary is the fact that this dude could be on the same trail as you are :yikes:


Just think of me anytime somebody out rides you on a 26" wheel bike!


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

sandiego said:


> I'm guessing you aren't a tall man and as such you can't fit on a 29er. AMIRITE???


Nope. A bit over 6 feet tall, normal build, and plenty big in the pants. Don't need to compensate for anything, like bike handling skills, with wheel size. Though I do typically ride a frame on the smaller side of what would be considered acceptable sizing.


----------



## time229er (Oct 30, 2013)

turbodog said:


> Nope. A bit over 6 feet tall, normal build, and plenty big in the pants. Don't need to compensate for anything, like bike handling skills, with wheel size. Though I do typically ride a frame on the smaller side of what would be considered acceptable sizing.


anyone that states they "a bit over 6 feet tall..." is more than likely really 5'10" on a stretch day. And what is the "big in the pants" reference all about :skep:


----------



## time229er (Oct 30, 2013)

turbodog said:


> Just think of me anytime somebody out rides you on a 26" wheel bike!


guess we will never know cause whatever direction you are going, I am going the opposite direction...


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

time229er said:


> anyone that states they "a bit over 6 feet tall..." is more than likely really 5'10" on a stretch day. And what is the "big in the pants" reference all about :skep:


I don't know what it means either, but that's what they tell me. About 6'-3/4", 205 lb per my last physical. Are you really questioning my size, as if it has much to do with this?


----------



## time229er (Oct 30, 2013)

you are the one who felt it necessary to start providing us with your dimensions...imagined or otherwise


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

time229er said:


> anyone that states they "a bit over 6 feet tall..." is more than likely really 5'10" on a stretch day. And what is the "big in the pants" reference all about :skep:


I would venture to say an inordinate amount of extra room in the trouser area. And probably a truck with big wheels which should counteract a bike with small ones.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

time229er said:


> guess we will never know cause whatever direction you are going, I am going the opposite direction...


How do you like the nail trail 29er? Seems like a decent entry level xc bike. My first mountain bike was a neon yellow marin, wayyy back when neon was cool the first time. Maybe I'll pick up an XC 29er for cruising around on the mellow stuff....or I could just press my old school Ti hardtail back into service. Hummm.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

ShinDiggity said:


> I would venture to say an inordinate amount of extra room in the trouser area. And probably a truck with big wheels which should counteract a bike with small ones.


I do have a nice luxury crossover suv with largish wheels!


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Back on topic please!!! I will ignore any further off topic posts. Thanks.


----------



## time229er (Oct 30, 2013)

you know, this exercise is kinda like wrestling with a pig...after a while you realize the pig is enjoying it more than you ut:


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

turbodog said:


> Back on topic please!!!


Little too close to the truth huh?

Lets get back to the fact that one wheel size is superior to another even though you have no personal experience with any but the one. Seems reasonable, especially when you consider it is a view constructed from the bridge you live under.


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

turbodog said:


> I do have a nice luxury crossover suv with largish wheels!


Ahhh, the inverse proportion rule in full effect. Works totally opposite with bikes.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

ShinDiggity said:


> Lets get back to the fact that one wheel size is superior to another even though you have no personal experience with any but the one. Seems reasonable, especially when you consider it is a view constructed from the bridge you live under.


While I do believe 26" is an overall superior wheel size to both 29" (700c) and 27.5" (650b), there are certainly places where a 29" has advantages. In terrain without sharp turns requiring accel/decell all the time, and in moderately bumpy terrain where line choice isn't much of an issue, the fractional improvement rollover capabilities are an advantage. For an xc racer on a largely technically undemanding course, it is clearly an advantage to spend less mental and physical energy handling the bike. Riding a 29er XC is really just about as close as you can get to riding cyclocross without actually being it.

This thread was started in the all mountain forum, and my original statements are regarding all mountain riding. Where accel/decel and wheel strength are extremely important, and the rollover factor is more than canceled out by suspension travel and slack head angle.

For any type of technical riding, you are far better off on a bike that is no more unwieldy than absolutely necessary. Ever ride a mod trials bike? BMX? How does 29" work for those types of riding? Oh...but you can certainly dirt jump and trial on a 26".


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Going back to my point about unwieldy. Has anyone ever ridden a ~2000 vintage DH bike? Many of these bikes were called "plow bikes". They had very large heavy forks - avalanche, monster-t, stratos superstar, white bros DH3, risse, etc. 3" wide nokian gazzalodi tires on 2" wide rims. Steel 3 piece BMX cranks. 8" travel front, over 8" in the rear. Many were around 50lb or more. They called them plow bikes because once they were up to speed, they would just plow through anything. Tons of fun to ride, but they were pretty one-dimensional and tough to change direction on. After several years, people pretty much figured out that a lighter, reasonable weight bike was much more effective for DH, in both racing and riding, to where you see today's 35 lb DH race bikes. The tech did get somewhat better, but that's only a small factor, it was more of a market wide trend that people just had to work through.

See anything in common here with 29er's vs. trail riding?


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

turbodog said:


> While I do believe 26" is an overall superior wheel size to both 29" (700c) and 27.5" (650b), there are certainly places where a 29" has advantages. In terrain without sharp turns requiring accel/decell all the time, and in moderately bumpy terrain where line choice isn't much of an issue, the fractional improvement rollover capabilities are an advantage. For an xc racer on a largely technically undemanding course, it is clearly an advantage to spend less mental and physical energy handling the bike. Riding a 29er XC is really just about as close as you can get to riding cyclocross without actually being it.


and you know this how? You have admitted to never riding a 29er yet you know exactly where they work and where they don't?

This is why you are a troll. I will close this thread very soon. I know this because I just know this.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

rockcrusher said:


> and you know this how? You have admitted to never riding a 29er yet you know exactly where they work and where they don't?
> 
> This is why you are a troll. I will close this thread very soon. I know this because I just know this.


I'm not a troll, and that would be unnecessary. Thanks. When this thread runs it's course, I'm going to start some sort of 26" solidarity thread to discuss the continuing actual popularity of 26" wheels, and why people prefer them. As you had suggested in the other thread.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

turbodog said:


> I'm not a troll, and that would be unnecessary. Thanks. When this thread runs it's course, I'm going to start some sort of 26" solidarity thread to discuss the continuing actual popularity of 26" wheels, and why people prefer them. As you had suggested in the other thread.


Yes you are. You continually spout bullshit claims about something you have no experience with. That is a real definition of the MTBR troll. You obviously don't know how 29ers ride yet you continue to proselytize about how they can't possibly be better than your 26er and they are only good for bike paths and not turning and moderately bumpy terrain and yet if you had ridden them you might notice that they are in fact pretty much similar in performance to any other type of bike including the 27.5 wheel size.

this will make starting a new thread easier: Search Results


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

rockcrusher said:


> Yes you are. You continually spout bullshit claims about something you have no experience. That is a real definition of the MTBR troll. You obviously don't know how 29ers ride yet you continue to proselytize about how they can't possibly be better than your 26er and they are only good for bike paths and not turning and moderately bumpy terrain and yet if you had ridden them you might notice that they are in fact pretty much similar in performance to any other type of bike including the 27.5 wheel size.
> 
> this will make starting a new thread easier: Search Results


I've read enough reports and watched enough videos to have a pretty good handle on how they ride. I've also ridden a wide variety of other bikes to have a pretty good idea of how bikes handle, more than the average 29er rider. This includes fully rigid MTB, bmx, mod trials, road bikes, dh bikes, hardtail and suspension mountain bikes. I'm doubtful that I would be surprised how a 29er handles.

Respectfully, I believe that I have enough background and experience to hold a valid opinion on this subject.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

turbodog said:


> I've read enough reports and watched enough videos to have a pretty good handle on how they ride. I've also ridden a wide variety of other bikes to have a pretty good idea of how bikes handle, more than the average 29er rider. This includes fully rigid MTB, bmx, mod trials, road bikes, dh bikes, hardtail and suspension mountain bikes. I'm doubtful that I would be surprised how a 29er handles.
> 
> Respectfully, I believe that I have enough background and experience to hold a valid opinion on this subject.


the number one line of bull **** you have yet spouted. Oh you read reports and watched videos? That is amazing experience for riding a bike. Something that even scientists can't exactly explain how we do it yet you can discern a 1.5" difference in tire height and its effects on riding through reading and watching videos! You are quite amazing. Tell us more about things you have read and seen videos of and how it makes something better than something else you have actually done.

Your experience in 29ers boils down to nothing if you haven't in fact ridden one. I have the same level of experience in all the disciplines you have experienced since the early eighties including BMX, trials, road bikes, road racing, DH, hardtails, early and recent full suspension, and CX racing and thought I knew everything but like so many many people have said when I first rode a 29ers and it was an early one, a salsa with an early reba on it, I was sold. Even though it was a well used bike of a friend, with cable actuated discs (which I very much dislike) and suspension not set up for my weight I was sold.

All my experience in all the types of bikes I rode over the decades didn't mean beans until I rode one. Same with you.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

rockcrusher said:


> the number one line of bull **** you have yet spouted. Oh you read reports and watched videos? That is amazing experience for riding a bike. Something that even scientists can't exactly explain how we do it yet you can discern a 1.5" difference in tire height and its effects on riding through reading and watching videos! You are quite amazing. Tell us more about things you have read and seen videos of and how it makes something better than something else you have actually done.
> 
> Your experience in 29ers boils down to nothing if you haven't in fact ridden one. I have the same level of experience in all the disciplines you have experienced since the early eighties including BMX, trials, road bikes, road racing, DH, hardtails, early and recent full suspension, and CX racing and thought I knew everything but like so many many people have said when I first rode a 29ers and it was an early one, a salsa with an early reba on it, I was sold. Even though it was a well used bike of a friend, with cable actuated discs (which I very much dislike) and suspension not set up for my weight I was sold.
> 
> All my experience in all the types of bikes I rode over the decades didn't mean beans until I rode one. Same with you.


Well, I respect your opinion, and clearly you feel that it is a superior wheel size for the type of riding you do, as do many other people.

However, there is an inverse to your argument. I have to question how many people are out there that are strong proponents of 29er's that are either relatively new to the sport, who have never ridden a 26" wheel bike that is comparable in performance/tech/quality level to the their 29er. Very few people side-grade when buying a bike, most people are making an upgrade. There is huge performance jump when coming from an entry level hardtail to a mid-upper level full suspension bike. Most real back to back tests of comparable bikes find that there is really not that much of a difference. How many people are just repeating industry marketing spin? And again, my original comments should be taken in the context of all mountain, where I believe 26" is superior.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

turbodog said:


> Well, I respect your opinion, and clearly you feel that it is a superior wheel size for the type of riding you do, as do many other people.
> 
> However, there is an inverse to your argument. I have to question how many people are out there that are strong proponents of 29er's that are either relatively new to the sport, who have never ridden a 26" wheel bike that is comparable in performance/tech/quality level to the their 29er. Very few people side-grade when buying a bike, most people are making an upgrade. There is huge performance jump when coming from an entry level hardtail to a mid-upper level full suspension bike. Most real back to back tests of comparable bikes find that there is really not that much of a difference. How many people are just repeating industry marketing spin? And again, my original comments should be taken in the context of all mountain, where I believe 26" is superior.


I have a multi-wheel sized bike. The best of all worlds, at least for me.

So what you are saying is that people should ride bikes of varying sizes and decide what works best for them based on their experience with the bike?

Seems like you should take this advice, find a local test day and do some back to backs. We regularly have Trek, Santa Cruz, and Specialized come to a local course with similar bikes so you can in fact do just that. You can go out and try out all the remedy bikes in all the wheel sizes with comparable components on a course that has a mix of fast, tight, technical and rocky.

I do highly recommend you try it out. At your height you might find it is a really good match for you and your riding style. Even if you don't believe it will work because proof is much more convincing than beliefs.


----------



## Bikin' Bric (Sep 7, 2003)

turbodog said:


> I've read enough reports and watched enough videos to have a pretty good handle on how they ride. I've also ridden a wide variety of other bikes to have a pretty good idea of how bikes handle, more than the average 29er rider. This includes fully rigid MTB, bmx, mod trials, road bikes, dh bikes, hardtail and suspension mountain bikes. I'm doubtful that I would be surprised how a 29er handles.
> 
> Respectfully, I believe that I have enough background and experience to hold a valid opinion on this subject.


----------



## dead_dog_canyon (Sep 8, 2010)

I've been a mechanical design engineer for 30 yrs and the one thing I can tell you is ALL "winning" designs are the best set of compromises. ie: there is no 'perfect' design, just one that best meets a set of specifications. 

There are so many variables involved here, (rider size & weight, frame dimensions & geometry, terrain, etc., etc.) how could anyone make a blanket statement that one wheel size is better than another?

Having read the whole thread and watched all the videos, the comments from one of the euro bike company reps struck me as the most pertinent. What he basically said was the wheel size, as well as the whole bike, needs to be scaled to the size of the rider. 

Scale the design: 
Small rider -> 26
Medium rider -> 27.5
Large rider -> 29

Push on and enjoy.......


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

rockcrusher said:


> I have a multi-wheel sized bike. The best of all worlds, at least for me.
> 
> So what you are saying is that people should ride bikes of varying sizes and decide what works best for them based on their experience with the bike?
> 
> ...


I've read some comments where people would rather quit riding than even throw a leg over a 29er. But I certainly wouldn't mind trying out a nice 29er XC race bike. I will if I get a chance. Thanks.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

IIIINNNNNN!!!!

Be a little more open minded.


----------



## SandSpur (Mar 19, 2013)

man, this troll is good. He even sucked in an administrator!


----------



## jetboy23 (Jun 14, 2011)

rockcrusher said:


> Yes you are. You continually spout bullshit claims about something you have no experience with. That is a real definition of the MTBR troll.


As an admin of MTBR, i would expect different. The term for "BS" is considered profanity which is against forum guidelines #2. And, you are calling the OPer names (troll) simply based on his direct opinion that 26" wheels are far superior to 29ers. This is something you, i, or anyone else on this forum is going to change. Yet, you are calling him a troll and arguing with him about his "opinion". Others have even gotten as offensive enough to call out his manhood or lack there of. None of those offenses have been addressed and yet, you want to close this thread because the OPer has an opinion which is different than some and they start to argue with him about it... ??? I'm not on the OPer's side or against it, but, i honestly find his posts the least troubling in this thread. Even if they are slightly narrow minded views.


----------



## Ironbar81 (Mar 22, 2014)

Turbodog, we get it.

You ride 26, that's fine.
You believe 26 is better than 29, that's fine too.
The part that's p1ssing everyone off though is that you believe you are qualified to make statements about how bad a 29er rides and what it's not capable of doing even though you've never ridden one yourself, that's just being a twat.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

jetboy23 said:


> As an admin of MTBR, i would expect different. The term for "BS" is considered profanity which is against forum guidelines #2. And, you are calling the OPer names (troll) simply based on his direct opinion that 26" wheels are far superior to 29ers. This is something you, i, or anyone else on this forum is going to change. Yet, you are calling him a troll and arguing with him about his "opinion". Others have even gotten as offensive enough to call out his manhood or lack there of. None of those offenses have been addressed and yet, you want to close this thread because the OPer has an opinion which is different than some and they start to argue with him about it... ??? I'm not on the OPer's side or against it, but, i honestly find his posts the least troubling in this thread. Even if they are slightly narrow minded views.


well I apologize for using bull **** I will amend my posts to not read this. As far as my calling him out on trolling, this is the second thread that had to be pulled out of another users post because he was aggressively voicing his opinion regarding the the unsuitability of the 29er platform.

My prediction of this thread being closed is based on how most users at MTBR act when they feel they are being trolled. It usually resorts to calling out their manhood as you have mention and often degrades to flaming, threats and a meltdown of the thread. As a moderator we like to warn people that their thread will be closed down if it gets out of hand and after a long time moderating you figure out what threads will go critical. Turbodog has professed a strong, and sometimes vitriolic, opinion based on a unstable foundation (not actually trying one) and that pulls out the anger in everyone.

I get angry because I get to watch our mostly civil user base get themselves into trouble and the user that started it all gets a timeout or worse because so many people start reporting their posts.

I'll only close this thread if this happens but this thread is one of the one that we would all flag as potential to be closed.

Hope that explains my actions, perhaps a little over the top due to years and years of mediating this argument over and over and over again. It is the closest we get to having religious or political arguments here on MTBR and it ignites anger where ever and whenever it happens.


----------



## jetboy23 (Jun 14, 2011)

BTW, its Saturday. Shouldn't we all be riding right now? 

My son woke up this morning and wanted to ride his bike. 10" wheels and he was having a blast.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

jetboy23 said:


> BTW, its Saturday. Shouldn't we all be riding right now?
> 
> My son woke up this morning and wanted to ride his bike. 10" wheels and he was having a blast.


I wish I could, weather is perfect here in the desert but I'm stuck in house with 2 kids and my wife is on the other side of the globe for another week. I am jonesing to ride so bad. So bad. If anyone wants to watch my kids for 2 hours that'd be great.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

rockcrusher said:


> I wish I could, weather is perfect here in the desert but I'm stuck in house with 2 kids and my wife is on the other side of the globe for another week. I am jonesing to ride so bad. So bad. If anyone wants to watch my kids for 2 hours that'd be great.


I'll watch them. Bring em over.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

girlonbike said:


> I'll watch them. Bring em over.


I'll be over in what google maps says will be 12hrs I guess. Of course if I then drive back to ride I might not have enough hours left this weekend to get back and pick them up. Can you watch them to next weekend when I can get back there? I'll trade you some 3DV purple IRD widget brakes.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

rockcrusher said:


> I'll be over in what google maps says will be 12hrs I guess. Of course if I then drive back to ride I might not have enough hours left this weekend to get back and pick them up. Can you watch them to next weekend when I can get back there? I'll trade you some 3DV purple IRD widget brakes.


Score!! You'll find the riding here good for ALL wheel sizes.  I even see unicycles on my rides. :eekster:


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

I'm going to write a book on how to have sex with 2 super models at once. I haven't done it, but I have studied A LOT of videos.


----------



## bikerbert (Aug 28, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> I'm going to write a book on how to have sex with 2 super models at once. I haven't done it, but I have studied A LOT of videos.


Your sir have just won this thread, and potentially the entire internet for that matter.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

This topic again, anybody have a napkin the vendor put ketchup on my hotdog. Everybody knows ketchup on a hotdog is a sin now I've got to remove the ketchup from my hotdog. Then sit back and enjoy this 26er vs 29er world changing controversial issue.


----------



## jetboy23 (Jun 14, 2011)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> This topic again, anybody have a napkin the vendor put ketchup on my hotdog. Everybody knows ketchup on a hotdog is a sin now I've got to remove the ketchup from my hotdog. Then sit back and enjoy this 26er vs 29er world changing controversial issue.


You got something on your wiener. :eekster:


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

DJ, how could you? Hot dog BUNS are the sin. 

(Hail Eris, man.)


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Zowie said:


> DJ, how could you? Hot dog BUNS are the sin.
> 
> (Hail Eris, man.)


Do you know how lonely a hotdog would be without the bun. It's like apple pie and vanilla ice cream one sucks without the other. "EXCUSE ME VENDOR" you put ketchup on my hotdog would you happen to have a napkin. Thanks!"

Alright back to this like changing world altering topic please. I'm settled in now with my hotdog and waiting for the next important information.


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

Haha! That looks like a 6 inch hotdog. A 9 inch hotdog is far superior.


----------



## SandSpur (Mar 19, 2013)

net wurker said:


> Haha! That looks like a 6 inch hotdog. A 9 inch hotdog is far superior.


and of course, unlike the OP, you know that from personal experience, not something you only read about on the interwebz


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

It's all just marketing fuzz propagated by Oscar-Meyer. 6 inch hotdogs were just fine for decades, then Oscar-Meyer puts out a 9 inch hotdog and all of the sudden 6 inch hotdogs are stupid and ridiculous. (at least that's what Oscar-Meyer wants the hotdog buying public to believe)


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

BTW, I'm going to be the first to market with 7.5 inch hotdogs. I'll be rich.


----------



## Dirt n Dust (Mar 21, 2014)

This reminds me of the 9mm vs .45 debate and the 650b is like .40, a balance. Different strokes for different folks (or purposes).


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

I hate ketchup.


----------



## Bikin' Bric (Sep 7, 2003)

net wurker said:


> BTW, I'm going to be the first to market with 7.5 inch hotdogs. I'll be rich.


I've heard that 6" hot dogs are becoming so obsolete that they are going to stop making buns for them.

Also, do I need a 9" specific mustard or will the 6" mustard work?


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

6 inch mustard will 'stretch' to fit 9 inch hotdogs.


----------



## elcaro1101 (Sep 1, 2011)

Admin arguing with the troll?


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

Jayem said:


> I hate ketchup.


i don't like mustard...


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2014)

net wurker said:


> Haha! That looks like a 6 inch hotdog. A 9 inch hotdog is far superior.


however the 7.5" is the best all-arounder..


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

*This just in....*

Why do hot dogs come 10 to a pack while buns are 8 to a pack? :incazzato:


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

jazzanova said:


> I am having a hard time here.
> Are you for real and serious or just being a troll?
> Anyway, you really don't have to answer.


Since the large bike companies are already spec'ing their 2016 bikes, and they're all 650b or 29", I'm afraid you're going to be quite disappointed.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Mustard is so much better than ketchup, I predict in 2 years all ketchup will be converted to mustard


----------



## time229er (Oct 30, 2013)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Why do hot dogs come 10 to a pack while buns are 8 to a pack? :incazzato:


this has always been a big concern of mine also...but even more disturbing to me is the flagrant omission of a light bulb in your freezer...your refrigerator has one. What's up with that :skep:


----------



## Bikin' Bric (Sep 7, 2003)

net wurker said:


> 6 inch mustard will 'stretch' to fit 9 inch hotdogs.


Damn, I threw out all my 6" mustard to buy 9" mustard. Who would have known I could have used it on both.

What about a 7.5" hot dog on my old 6" buns? Will there be enough clearance?

I'm not even going to get into the issues this will have with my choice of relish.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

Dirt n Dust said:


> This reminds me of the 9mm vs .45 debate and the 650b is like .40, a balance. Different strokes for different folks (or purposes).


I was going to disagree.. But then I couldn't figure out why. Pretty good analogy.

Posted via mobile


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Thanks for the free bumps, but hotdogs have nothing to do with the topic at hand. 

I will just have to assume that 26" is the superior wheel size, since no one can make an effective arguement for 29".


----------



## shining_trapezoid (Mar 24, 2014)

Brätwurst dominates hotdogs


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

shining_trapezoid said:


> Brätwurst dominates hotdogs


Fact, or opinion?


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

turbodog said:


> Mods, please delete off topic posts......


Odin is clearly a superior god to Zeus, even though I've never scarified anything to Zeus, I did read an article about him once.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Thanks to everyone for keeping this bumped at the top of the page.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

turbodog said:


> Thanks to everyone for keeping this bumped at at the top of the page.


No problem.

What do you think about the vast majority of World Cup Downhill racers using 27.5" wheels in the first two rounds? With every win so far on the bigger wheels?


----------



## Deep Thought (Sep 3, 2012)

:lol

Turbodog getting straight up WORKED in this thread.


----------



## Bikin' Bric (Sep 7, 2003)

Does anyone put cheese on their hotdogs? I love a good cheesedog.


----------



## Bikin' Bric (Sep 7, 2003)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Why do hot dogs come 10 to a pack while buns are 8 to a pack? :incazzato:


You need to double dog two of your buns. Twice the pleasure.


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

Bikin' Bric said:


> You need to double dog two of your buns. Twice the pleasure.


All you need is a turbodog!


----------



## elcaro1101 (Sep 1, 2011)

Hotdogs must have bacon, like at Marco's in Longmont, CO! So good!


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

The chile cheese dog at the Dog House (as seen on Breaking Bad) is really good, with nice spicy chile with an "e".


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Delete


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

juan_speeder said:


> No problem.
> 
> What do you think about the vast majority of World Cup Downhill racers using 27.5" wheels in the first two rounds? With every win so far on the bigger wheels?


I find it interesting. When are the 29" DH bikes going to take over? Most of the field seems to still be on 26", and there are 26" riders beating 650B riders. It's clear that they are competitive, but tough to say if they are an advantage.


----------



## 70sSanO (Nov 20, 2013)

girlonbike said:


> Score!! You'll find the riding here good for ALL wheel sizes.  I even see unicycles on my rides. :eekster:


I agree, especially the unicycles. When I see someone on the trail riding one of those it blows me away.

John


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

New signature. 

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

70sSanO said:


> I agree, especially the unicycles. When I see someone on the trail riding one of those it blows me away.
> 
> John


I saw a group of mountain uni riders on Porcupine Rim once. Apparently they go every year. It was a sight.


----------



## Deep Thought (Sep 3, 2012)

Bikin' Bric said:


> Does anyone put cheese on their hotdogs? I love a good cheesedog.


I like it when there's cheese INSIDE the hotdog.


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

*or ...*









Which do you think is the turbodog keepin' it real?


----------



## Deep Thought (Sep 3, 2012)

ShinDiggity said:


> View attachment 889041
> 
> 
> *or ...*
> ...


That bottom picture looks like a sweet hybrid, so that's probably turbodog trying out a 29er. No wonder he doesn't like them. That hotdog must make that bike so cumbersome feeling.

I think turbodog is a misunderstood breed. Like pitbulls. It's a little sad to watch, actually.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

juan_speeder said:


> Since the large bike companies are already spec'ing their 2016 bikes, and they're all 650b or 29", I'm afraid you're going to be quite disappointed.


Actually, I sort of doubt that. They are all holding it close to the vest and trying to see if this 27.5" marketing push works out, or if it is flatly rejected. If sales are down again this year, they are in serious trouble. 26" will be back for 2016, along with better value and proven technology across most lines.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

OK guys, let's stop screwing around.... and find out how hot dogs are made.


----------



## Bikin' Bric (Sep 7, 2003)

net wurker said:


> All you need is a turbodog!


Toss some cheese on that and I'm sold.

Just wondering though is that one of those new fat-dogs? Looks meaty.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

turbodog said:


> Actually, I sort of doubt that. They are all holding it close to the vest and trying to see if this 27.5" marketing push works out, or if it is flatly rejected. If sales are down again this year, they are in serious trouble. 26" will be back for 2016, along with better value and proven technology across most lines.


You can doubt all you want, but that's exactly how the industry works. They're planning about 18 months ahead of what's on the shop floor.

How 'bout those world cup dh racers?


----------



## Bikin' Bric (Sep 7, 2003)

Deep Thought said:


> I like it when there's cheese INSIDE the hotdog.


Where do I get these wonderful cheese filled delights?


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

Bikin' Bric said:


> Where do I get these wonderful cheese filled delights?


My butcher has smoked jalapeno cheese dogs. They're wonderful.


----------



## Deep Thought (Sep 3, 2012)

Seriously, you guys. 

Can we back to the REAL issue here? 

Who puts ketchup on a hotdog? Ketchup is for potato products and meat loaf ONLY.


----------



## Bikin' Bric (Sep 7, 2003)

Deep Thought said:


> Seriously, you guys.
> 
> Can we back to the REAL issue here?
> 
> Who puts ketchup on a hotdog? Ketchup is for potato products and meat loaf ONLY.


No no no. Its not a proper hotdog without ketchup. Then again, I'm Canadian and we like our ketchup. And mayonaise on french fries.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

I believe that has something to do with the "Ketchup is a vegetable" school lunch movement of the eighties. A hot dog is not a balanced meal without ketchup, (and milk.)


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

btw, you say the industry is in real trouble? Look at Giant, a big proponent of 27.5" wheels:

Giant Bicycle sales up 4% in first half | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News

You can make up whatever you want, but facts say otherwise.


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2014)

Zowie said:


> I believe that has something to do with the "Ketchup is a vegetable" school lunch movement of the eighties. A hot dog is not a balanced meal without ketchup, (and milk.)


actually ketchup is a fruit, so now you schmucks can have fruitdogs yo!!


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

nvphatty said:


> actually ketchup is a fruit, so now you schmucks can have fruitdogs yo!!


I've never seen a ketchup plant.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

juan_speeder said:


> btw, you say the industry is in real trouble? Look at Giant, a big proponent of 27.5" wheels:
> 
> Giant Bicycle sales up 4% in first half | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News
> 
> You can make up whatever you want, but facts say otherwise.


Interesting. Their (world wide, across the board) sales are up, good for them. Could that have anything to to with the economy being in better shape? Could it be because this time last year, they were pushing 29er's across the board, an effort which also fell flat on it's face internationally? Could it be that the one fact you just posted, has nearly to absolutely nothing to do with the sales of 27.5" mid and upper end mountain bikes in the USA? Nah.



> TAICHUNG, Taiwan (BRAIN) - Giant Manufacturing's revenue for the first two quarters of this year totaled $906 million, a 4 percent increase over the same period last year.
> 
> According to a statement released by the Taiwan trade group TAITRA, Giant's founder and president King Liu is looking to sales in the Chinese market for future growth. Giant was one of the first companies in the industry to establish a factory in China.
> 
> ...


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

turbodog said:


> Interesting. Their (world wide, across the board) sales are up, good for them. Could that have anything to to with the economy being in better shape? Could it be because this time last year, they were pushing 29er's across the board, an effort which also fell flat on it's face internationally? Could it be that the one fact you just posted, has nearly to absolutely nothing to do with the sales of 27.5" mid and upper end mountain bikes in the USA? Nah.


You're the one who claimed that the industry was in trouble. Now provide some evidence to back up your claim, or stfu, like you should have 7 pages ago.

How about those World Cup Downhill racers (and winners) on their 27.5" wheels? Why the silence on the matter?


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2014)

juan_speeder said:


> I've never seen a ketchup plant.


they grow on a vine and produce round red fruit.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

nvphatty said:


> they grow on a vine and produce round red fruit.


Does a tomato plant also produce sugar, vinegar, and salt?


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

juan_speeder said:


> You're the one who claimed that the industry was in trouble. Now provide some evidence to back up your claim, or stfu, like you should have 7 pages ago.
> 
> How about those World Cup Downhill racers (and winners) on their 27.5" wheels? Why the silence on the matter?


I commented on the DH at post #172...

The industry is out of whack right now:

Report available on 'turbulent' 2013 US bike market | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News


----------



## shining_trapezoid (Mar 24, 2014)

Cheese goes INSIDE Brats. Not on hotdogs. Hot dogs are nasty. Bonus for brats with cheese and jalepenos.


----------



## Deep Thought (Sep 3, 2012)




----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

nvphatty said:


> actually ketchup is a fruit, so now you schmucks can have fruitdogs yo!!


At the time, it was the Republicans pointing out that lower income schools were doing just fine, but you are absolutely correct.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

juan_speeder said:


> You're the one who claimed that the industry was in trouble. Now provide some evidence to back up your claim, or stfu, like you should have 7 pages ago.
> 
> How about those World Cup Downhill racers (and winners) on their 27.5" wheels? Why the silence on the matter?


Giant also just cut their prices on 30 bike models:

Fred Clements: Giant lowers prices, dealers react | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

turbodog said:


> I commented on the DH at post #172...
> 
> The industry is out of whack right now:
> 
> Report available on 'turbulent' 2013 US bike market | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News


As you asked of me: This is somehow due to the diameter of mountain bike wheels? Really?

As to your DH response: Most ARE NOT on 26" wheels. They're in the minority on the WC DH circuit, and they are not beating 26" wheels either. All 4 winners in the first two rounds were on 27.5".

I'm not going to delude myself that it's the bike, and not the athletes who are winning those races, but those guys do tons of testing with all kinds of equipment, and they run what works best, and it seems like 27.5" is working best thus far.

Carry on with your uninformed opinions, as I've filled quota for arguing with dummies on the internet for the week.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

So, I'm riding a rigid all mountain 29er with toe clips. It beats the rigid AM 26er every time, every course. Am I just lucky?

-F


----------



## shining_trapezoid (Mar 24, 2014)

27.5" Bratdogs are perfect for eating while DH racing. 29" is just too long while 26" leaves you hungry.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

juan_speeder said:


> As you asked of me: This is somehow due to the diameter of mountain bike wheels? Really?
> 
> As to your DH response: Most ARE NOT on 26" wheels. They're in the minority on the WC DH circuit, and they are not beating 26" wheels either. All 4 winners in the first two rounds were on 27.5".
> 
> ...


I don't like your abusive attitude, it's baiting, and just makes you look bad that you can't civilly participate in a discussion.

Please quote a source saying the majority is on 650b. Here's a bunch of this years bikes, looks like mostly 26" to me:

39 World Cup Downhill Bikes - Pietermaritzburg World Cup - Pinkbike

Not to mention....two races, really? There's quite literally a 40 year history of people riding downhill on 26" wheels. You're a little over the top and premature in declaring 650b the best option for DH.


----------



## Bikin' Bric (Sep 7, 2003)

turbodog said:


> The industry is out of whack


I agree. They need to sell weiners AND buns in 12 packs.


----------



## dead_dog_canyon (Sep 8, 2010)

Dirt n Dust said:


> This reminds me of the 9mm vs .45 debate and the 650b is like .40, a balance. Different strokes for different folks (or purposes).


TOO True!

How many 12 page "9 vs 45" blabber fests have we waded thru over the years? ......


----------



## sodak (Oct 10, 2006)

turbodog said:


> I don't like your abusive attitude, it's baiting, and just makes you look bad that you can't civilly participate in a discussion.


Haha!! Seriously Turbodog? The irony in your statement is comical.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

sodak said:


> Haha!! Seriously Turbodog? The irony in your statement is comical.


I'm not going around attacking or calling people out. Just trying to have a civil, fact based discussion about an important topic. Thanks.


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

turbodog said:


> I'm not going around attacking or calling people out. Just trying to have a civil, fact based discussion about an important topic. Thanks.


Which would be fine if any of your "facts" were actually facts. You lost all credibility when you stated you have never ridden nor will ever ride a 29" wheeled bike in the opening post, then ranted on about how superior a 26" wheel size is citing studies, articles and the like. You're big deal is stirring the pot. You're not trying to be civil, you're simply enamored with your own pathetic misguided online presence. If you had a modicum of intellect you would know this. Maybe you are that ignorant. Guess it's possible.

All you have convinced anybody of is how narrow minded you are. And I'm being kind. Most of us would substitute another term for "narrow minded".


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

ShinDiggity said:


> Which would be fine if any of your "facts" were actually facts. You lost all credibility when you stated you have never ridden nor will ever ride a 29" wheeled bike in the opening post, then ranted on about how superior a 26" wheel size is citing studies, articles and the like. You're big deal is stirring the pot. You're not trying to be civil, you're simply enamored with your own pathetic misguided online presence. If you had a modicum of intellect you would know this. Maybe you are that ignorant. Guess it's possible.
> 
> All you have convinced anybody of is how narrow minded you are. And I'm being kind. Most of us would substitute another term for "narrow minded".


Please re-read my updated my first post. I'm not interested in your anecdotal evidence that because you ride them, they are better. I don't have to ride them to know beyond any shadow of a doubt that 26" is better for all mountain, there is a large amount of evidence that supports this conclusion.


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

turbodog said:


> Please re-read my updated my first post. I'm not interested in your anecdotal evidence that because you ride them, they are better. I don't have to ride them to know beyond any shadow of a doubt that 26" is better for all mountain.


When have I ever said what wheel size I ride? When have I ever said one is better than the other? I do have the advantage of having ridden all three current sizes, but I'm not the one stating categorically that one is better with no personal experience beyond 26.

I am pointing out that you have *zero* credibility here. *Nobody* is buying what your selling. You can blather on about how much better one is than another but no one believes you ... no one. You should quit while you're merely way behind. I'm sure you won't but that's where the lulz happen. And it's not with you ... it's at you.


----------



## bikerbert (Aug 28, 2004)

Where else could you get educated on the virtues of a 29" wheel AND the proper ways to prepare a hot dog?? I loves me some interwebs!!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

Would anyone care to see how I prove that _Starry Night_ is superior to _The Scream_, via math?


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

ShinDiggity said:


> When have I ever said what wheel size I ride? When have I ever said one is better than the other? I do have the advantage of having ridden all three current sizes, but I'm not the one stating categorically that one is better with no personal experience beyond 26.
> 
> I am pointing out that you have *zero* credibility here. *Nobody* is buying what your selling. You can blather on about how much better one is than another but no one believes you ... no one. You should quit while you're merely way behind. I'm sure you won't but that's where the lulz happen. And it's not with you ... it's at you.


There are MANY people on MTBR (and not) who have certainly not bought into 29" and 27.5", because of the reasons I describe. In a year or two (three?) when sales of 29er's have fallen off, 27.5" is back to being niche market.....26" will continue to dominate mountain biking, just like it always has. You've bought into to much industry hype, I'm afraid.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

turbodog said:


> There are MANY people on MTBR (and not) who have certainly not bought into 29" and 27.5", because of the reasons I describe. In a year or two (three?) when sales of 29er's have fallen off, 27.5" is back to being niche market.....26" will continue to dominate mountain biking, just like it always has. You've bought into to much industry hype, I'm afraid.


Honest question; do you have a medical condition that requires prescriptions that you aren't taking?


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

I'm required by law to inform my wife, if so.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

juan_speeder said:


> Honest question; do you have a medical condition that requires prescriptions that you aren't taking?


See below:



turbodog said:


> I don't like your abusive attitude, it's baiting, and just makes you look bad that you can't civilly participate in a discussion.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

turbodog said:


> See below:


Is that a no? I don't need the hassle, honestly.


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

turbodog said:


> There are MANY people on MTBR (and not) who have certainly not bought into 29" and 27.5", because of the reasons I describe. In a year or two (three?) when sales of 29er's have fallen off, 27.5" is back to being niche market.....26" will continue to dominate mountain biking, just like it always has. You've bought into to much industry hype, I'm afraid.


Not surprisingly you aren't reading what I'm writing. I haven't bought into anything, this isn't about me or what I ride or what I think is good or bad or any of that. This is about you (which is exactly what you want I am sure) and your pathetic attempt to convince yourself that what you ride is the best without any personal experience beyond what you ride.

What you think is *not* valid ... period. Your feebly miserable attempt to convince otherwise has failed. Give it up. You are becoming the definition of a troll.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

ShinDiggity said:


> Not surprisingly you aren't reading what I'm writing. I haven't bought into anything, this isn't about me or what I ride or what I think is good or bad or any of that. This is about you (which is exactly what you want I am sure) and your pathetic attempt to convince yourself that what you ride is the best without any personal experience beyond what you ride.
> 
> What you think is *not* valid ... period. Your feebly miserable attempt to convince otherwise has failed. Give it up. You are becoming the definition of a troll.
> 
> View attachment 889205


Guy has a 15 year old, whatever, with 26" wheels and rim brakes, and it shall never be surpassed in performance, regardless of _anything._ Mainly because he, via his own admission, will never ride anything else.

That makes his bike the best. Evah.

Don't you get it?

The odd thing to me is that I'm lucky to get 3 years out of a frame before I break it. I can't imagine how gingerly I'd have to ride a bike to make it last far more than a decade.


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

juan_speeder said:


> Guy has a 15 year old, whatever, with 26" wheels and rim brakes, and it shall never be surpassed in performance, regardless of _anything._ Mainly because he, via his own admission, will never ride anything else.
> 
> That makes his bike the best.
> 
> ...


Well I guess we could all just ride adult striders with rock wheels and just Fred Flintstone everywhere.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

juan_speeder said:


> Guy has a 15 year old, whatever, with 26" wheels and rim brakes, and it shall never be surpassed in performance, regardless of _anything._ Mainly because he, via his own admission, will never ride anything else.
> 
> That makes his bike the best. Evah.
> 
> ...


Frames don't break easily when they weigh 10 lbs and have 7"+ of travel.


----------



## Dirt n Dust (Mar 21, 2014)

Well this thread went downhill fast. Although, there is some debate as to what wheel size went downhill the fastest.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

turbodog said:


> Frames don't break easily when they weigh 10 lbs and have 7"+ of travel.


They do if they are ridden as intended.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

Dirt n Dust said:


> Well this thread went downhill fast. Although, there is some debate as to what wheel size went downhill the fastest.


Rocky was right.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

juan_speeder said:


> They do if they are ridden as intended.


It's overkill for what I do with it. I'm in the market for a nice modern 6" travel frame in the 7-8 lb range. Thanks.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

turbodog said:


> Frames don't break easily when they weigh 10 lbs and have 7"+ of travel.


Aluminum has a definite fatigue life, and if you are riding a 15 year old aluminum frame, you are absolutely not riding it hard, at all, and your opinion is even far more suspect.

You tried to belittle me for going to the ER every year and a half on my XC bike. I break XC bike frames every two years by riding hard, yet you manage to ride a DH bike for 15 years? What gives?

You are the best troll in a while.

Congrats!


----------



## bikerbert (Aug 28, 2004)

juan_speeder said:


> Honest question; do you have a medical condition that requires prescriptions that you aren't taking?


LMAO!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HitmenOnlyInc (Jul 20, 2012)

Wow this thread is still rolling! Albeit not as fast as 26'er. 

I'll jump on the brats with kraut bandwagon sans ketchup.


----------



## bikerbert (Aug 28, 2004)

HitmenOnlyInc said:


> Wow this thread is still rolling! Albeit not as fast as 26'er.
> 
> I'll jump on the brats with kraut bandwagon sans ketchup.


Bubby's Saurkraut is AWESOME!! Makes a hot dog, braut or sausage taste mmmmm mmmmm good. Mustard, that's the way to go.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

How about sausages?
My favorite is hungarian spicy paprika. I am not a big fan of Italian ones.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

juan_speeder said:


> Aluminum has a definite fatigue life, and if you are riding a 15 year old aluminum frame, you are absolutely not riding it hard, at all, and your opinion is even far more suspect.
> 
> You tried to belittle me for going to the ER every year and a half on my XC bike. I break XC bike frames every two years by riding hard, yet you manage to ride a DH bike for 15 years? What gives?
> 
> ...


My bike is certainly not 15 years old, and shows no signs of wearing out. You probably ride more often and harder than me, I'm genuinely happy for you.


----------



## bikerbert (Aug 28, 2004)

After this thread, I had to do hot dogs Saurkraut and pretzel buns for dinner tonight !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dirt n Dust (Mar 21, 2014)

bikerbert said:


> After this thread, I had to do hot dogs Saurkraut and pretzel buns for dinner tonight !
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Now I want one! Ketchup, mustard, relish, and cheese. Blasphemy I know, ketchup and mustard together?! Sadly, I don't have chili or Frito's...


----------



## HugeCow (Apr 14, 2014)

Pretzel buns are awesome


----------



## bikerbert (Aug 28, 2004)

Dirt n Dust said:


> Now I want one! Ketchup, mustard, relish, and cheese. Blasphemy I know, ketchup and mustard together?! Sadly, I don't have chili or Frito's...


Fritos, gobs of cheddar and chili is the S! I used to put them in my sammiches as a kid.

My mom used to mix Dennisons, Chef Boy R Dee ravs and tons of cheese together. Can only imagine what that did to my innards but it was tasty!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## shining_trapezoid (Mar 24, 2014)




----------



## andy f (Jan 13, 2004)

bikerbert said:


> Bubby's Saurkraut is AWESOME!! Makes a hot dog, braut or sausage taste mmmmm mmmmm good. Mustard, that's the way to go.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Everything Bubbies makes is awesome but their bread and butter pickles are better than their saurkraut.


----------



## sandiego (Sep 18, 2013)

Zowie said:


> I believe that has something to do with the "Ketchup is a vegetable" school lunch movement of the eighties. A hot dog is not a balanced meal without ketchup, (and milk.)


Nobody puts ketchup on a hotdog.


----------



## bikerbert (Aug 28, 2004)

andy f said:


> Everything Bubbies makes is awesome but their bread and butter pickles are better than their saurkraut.


I've only had their dill pickles. Not the other ones. May have to pick some up.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

This thread so reminds me of this classic thread from the past:

http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/jeep-bike-build-776332.html


----------



## Ironbar81 (Mar 22, 2014)

I promised myself I was done with this unholy spawn of the Devil of a thread but after listening to the crap coming out of u guy's mouths I just have to jump in again.

So, what the HELL IS WRONG WITH KETCHUP ON A HOTDOG????
A hotdog should have fried onions, mushrooms, mustard AND KETCHUP!!

And now Im done.


----------



## Dirt n Dust (Mar 21, 2014)

The real question about the best hotdog: hardtail or full-suspension? The components in the hotdog are a total preference but full-suspension is better because I say so.


----------



## dmullen1994 (Apr 23, 2012)

Dirt n Dust said:


> The real question about the best hotdog: hardtail or full-suspension? The components in the hotdog are a total preference but full-suspension is better because I say so.


Im with this guy.

"You don't have to re-invent the hot dog" - Some guy


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

So, moving on here, I'd like to address in more detail the concept of improved rollover and angle of attack. Much has been said, here is a typical industry/mag promo video that's strongly biased to 29ers.....






Honestly, I don't really see a whole lot of difference, nor do I consider that rough terrain. Not even close. That would be considered mellow singletrack around where I am. Thus, if you want to claim 29er's are faster on mellow singletrack, be my guest, seems like they might be.

Here's a plot of angle of attack vs. obstacle.....









Educating the Debate ? Part II - NSMB.com

As a I side note, I live within an hour of two extremely technical riding areas that are regionally very popular. I can't recall the last time I saw a 29er at those spots, but I really wasn't paying attention.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Hmm, so the guys who are actually riding the bikes say its a significant difference, and the guy who has never ridden one has concluded that it isn't. 

Thanks for that valuable insight.


----------



## andy f (Jan 13, 2004)

turbodog said:


> So, moving on here, I'd like to address in more detail the concept of improved rollover and angle of attack. Much has been said, here is a typical industry/mag promo video that's strongly biased to 29ers.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My experience is that many of the differences that people attribute to wheelsize are actually geometry issues. Some builders have addressed them successfully on their larger wheeled designs, many haven't.

Why not try to arrange a test ride on a longer travel, short chainstay, slack head angle 29er just to see how you like it? Specialized Enduro 29, Lenz Lunchbox, something like that.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

Ketchup is nasty. More sugar than tomatoes. Mustard is made out of rainbows.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

turbodog said:


> I don't like your abusive attitude, it's baiting, and just makes you look bad that you can't civilly participate in a discussion.


turbodog wrote this? Seriously?

Priceless!

Do you know what baiting is, trollboy? this is baiting:

29er = Hybrid Bike.

So, don't accuse anyone of baiting, when you are the master baiter. :lol:


----------



## andy f (Jan 13, 2004)

girlonbike said:


> Ketchup is nasty. More sugar than tomatoes. Mustard is made out of rainbows.


There are too many different kinds of mustard to generalize like that. That would be almost as stupid as dismissing all bikes with a particular wheel size without ever having ridden one.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

andy f said:


> Why not try to arrange a test ride on a longer travel, short chainstay, slack head angle 29er just to see how you like it? Specialized Enduro 29, Lenz Lunchbox, something like that.


That would go against his deeply held principle of staying totally ignorant.


----------



## Ironbar81 (Mar 22, 2014)

turbodog said:


> So, moving on here, I'd like to address in more detail the concept of improved rollover and angle of attack. Much has been said, here is a typical industry/mag promo video that's strongly biased to 29ers.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You've said that you're discussing all this within the context of AM riding right? So considering AM is just as much about going UP as well as going DOWN steep technical terrain I'd like to hear your opinion on the superiority of the 26 over the 29 in this regard.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

I think I would prefer more infographics, preferably with misspellings and exclamation points.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

ddprocter said:


> Thank god we're finally openly debating this important issue. I can't wait for this discussion to be resolved, once and for all.


Best post in this thread.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> Hmm, so the guys who are actually riding the bikes say its a significant difference, and the guy who has never ridden one has concluded that it isn't.
> 
> Thanks for that valuable insight.


Clearly there is a measureable difference in the rollover, but it's not huge. Look at this plot:









When impacting a 4" square edged object, you get a roughly 45 degree instant force vector into the wheel. The x-axis component of that vector is directly counteracted by the momentum of the bike and rider. So, looking at the plot above, we're talking about a roughly 4% difference in the x-axis vector. Doesn't seem huge, but I'm sure it's noticeable, and should translate to increased timed speed when traversing 1" to 4" obstacles.

However, what if the object size increases to 6" or larger? Well, you simply aren't going to just roll over it. You have to unweight and pull up, this is where the 29er is at a distinct disadvantage by having heavier wheels, and the rider having less leverage over them. I suppose if you ride places where there is not much bigger than 4", you would prefer a 29er, but to me, all mountain riding ususally involves terrrain where you need to pick up the front of the bike pretty often.


----------



## shining_trapezoid (Mar 24, 2014)

What if you roll over a bottle of ketchup?


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

I said MORE infographics, not re-posting the same ones. Sheesh.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

andy f said:


> There are too many different kinds of mustard to generalize like that. That would be almost as stupid as dismissing all bikes with a particular wheel size without ever having ridden one.


I don't need to try all the mustards. I can provide a flow chart. Proof.


----------



## 70sSanO (Nov 20, 2013)

I've been riding road bikes for 25 years with 700c (29er) wheels and when I went to mountain biking I started riding a 26 inch wheel but the effective overall diameter is the same.

Does this mean I am riding a 29er when I ride my road bike on dirt? And if I ride my mountain bike on the pavement does it then become a 700c which is actually a 29er?

I want to join this argument, but I'm so confused?????

John


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

That's a great question. My old Schwinn has big tires that measure 27.5, but they are 700C rims and it rides great on dirt, how is this possible? Would it be way better with a smaller real mountain wheelset?

It's an early seventies model that was not shoved down anyone's throat, if that matters.


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

Here's a sausage roll over chart ...

My friend is a vegetarian, has *never* eaten a hot dog but has definitely concluded which size and sodium content of hot dog and/or sausage tastes the best. This is proven beyond any shadow of a doubt through this chart.

Please keep in mind that my friend is a total whack job, much like some one else on this thread.


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

Here is another whack job riding the size of dog she wants. She is just going out, mounting that dog and having a great time. Even she is not whining about the inferiority of a dog size that she has never ridden.


----------



## andy f (Jan 13, 2004)

turbodog said:


> Clearly there is a measureable difference in the rollover, but it's not huge. Look at this plot:
> 
> View attachment 889359
> 
> ...


A DT XM1501 front wheel is 70 grams heavier in 29" than 26". A Schwalbe Hans Dampf 2.35 is 90 grams heavier. It really isn't noticeably harder to lift an extra 160 grams off the ground if you make a fair comparison between bikes with similar geometry.


----------



## Bikin' Bric (Sep 7, 2003)

turbodog said:


> So, moving on here, I'd like to address in more detail the concept of improved rollover and angle of attack


Use two hands on your hotdog to improve chances of not having your weiner roll out of your bun.

My preffered angle of attack is 90 degrees to my mouth. Not sure how else you can eat a hotdog.


----------



## shining_trapezoid (Mar 24, 2014)

ShinDiggity said:


> Here's a sausage roll over chart ...
> 
> View attachment 889364


That infographic clearly proves it!! Brätwurst DOMINATES hotdogs!!!



ShinDiggity said:


> View attachment 889366


Shortly after this pic was taken, she managed to insert the whole thing...



Bikin' Bric said:


> Use two hands on your hotdog to improve chances of not having your weiner roll out of your bun.
> 
> My preffered angle of attack is 90 degrees to my mouth. Not sure how else you can eat a hotdog.


Sometimes I'll hold my wiener with 2 hands but I keep it pointed away from my mouth. Usually. Wait, what?

You could take a bite out of the middle of the hotdog and then you'd have two hotdogs!


----------



## Dirt n Dust (Mar 21, 2014)

I'm going to play my trump card on this topic and end the discussion. My old 94-95 GT Interceptor. 20", oh yeah!!! Talk about a single-speed bike. Low-rise bars and Flite pads for nard cushion when you bite it. 

Angle of attack? Screw it, bunny-hop that 6" obstacle. Drop-offs? No problem. Downhill? All over it (and all over the place). Climbs? As fast as you can go in a single gearing. Bumps, jumps, and lumps? Launch that bad boy into flight and table-top that for some style points! Did I mention wheelies or endos?

There ya go. Debate over. 20" wins!


----------



## Ironbar81 (Mar 22, 2014)

Ironbar81 said:


> You've said that you're discussing all this within the context of AM riding right? So considering AM is just as much about going UP as well as going DOWN steep technical terrain I'd like to hear your opinion on the superiority of the 26 over the 29 in this regard.


Turbodog, can you address the above please^^


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Dirt n Dust said:


> I'm going to play my trump card on this topic and end the discussion. My old 94-95 GT Interceptor. 20", oh yeah!!! Talk about a single-speed bike. Low-rise bars and Flite pads for nard cushion when you bite it.
> 
> Angle of attack? Screw it, bunny-hop that 6" obstacle. Drop-offs? No problem. Downhill? All over it (and all over the place). Climbs? As fast as you can go in a single gearing. Bumps, jumps, and lumps? Launch that bad boy into flight and table-top that for some style points! Did I mention wheelies or endos?
> 
> There ya go. Debate over. 20" wins!


Clearly 20" is the answer...


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

turbodog said:


> Clearly there is a measureable difference in the rollover, but it's not huge. Look at this plot:
> 
> When impacting a 4" square edged object, you get a roughly 45 degree instant force vector into the wheel. The x-axis component of that vector is directly counteracted by the momentum of the bike and rider. So, looking at the plot above, we're talking about a roughly 4% difference in the x-axis vector. Doesn't seem huge, but I'm sure it's noticeable, and should translate to increased timed speed when traversing 1" to 4" obstacles.
> 
> However, what if the object size increases to 6" or larger? Well, you simply aren't going to just roll over it. You have to unweight and pull up, this is where the 29er is at a distinct disadvantage by having heavier wheels, and the rider having less leverage over them. I suppose if you ride places where there is not much bigger than 4", you would prefer a 29er, but to me, all mountain riding ususally involves terrrain where you need to pick up the front of the bike pretty often.


Angle of attack only matters on small bumps? Interesting conclusions you can arrive at from zero actual experience.

The article you posted does an ok job, and clearly does attribute smoother rollover to 29er wheels (did you catch that?). But instead of defining the angle of attack as the tangent at the point of contact, it should be defined as the angle from the contact patch to the point of contact.

Why is that important?

Because when you hit a 6 inch tall obstacle, your front wheel has to raise up 6" to clear it. With a bigger wheel, the rise in the wheel is more gradual... You rise up 6 inches over 12 inches of horizontal distance instead of over 11 inches horizontal distance with the 26er.

The difference is about 7%. the ups and downs are less abrupt (and feel less abrupt).

Also the force on the wheel is more tangential with the bigger wheel and more radial on the smaller wheel, so the bigger wheel has greater tendency to rollover rather than be pushed back.

These benefits are true for any sized obstacle, not just small bumps.


----------



## Deep Thought (Sep 3, 2012)

You gotta throw the corn where the hogs can find it. 

I've always said THAT.


----------



## 70sSanO (Nov 20, 2013)

Here ya go...









John


----------



## bikerbert (Aug 28, 2004)

Emily Batty finishes 2nd in the recent Cairns UCI XCO race, on a 29er, and she's only about 5'3" - 5'5" max, and she's got mad handling skills. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Just wanted to mention that I measured my tires, the outer diameter is 27". So I guess that puts me into the 27.5" class, and I now have a modern bike. I feel so awesome!!!


----------



## time229er (Oct 30, 2013)

turbodog said:


> Clearly there is a measureable difference in the rollover, but it's not huge. Look at this plot:
> 
> View attachment 889359
> 
> ...


hey...thanks for clearing that up ut:


----------



## crewjones (Aug 24, 2007)

Once you're finished measuring and analyzing it, maybe you'll ride it one day.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

So, is it settled yet?


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Hawg said:


> So, is it settled yet?


Sounds like it. Bratwurst wins.


----------



## dead_dog_canyon (Sep 8, 2010)

turbodog said:


> Clearly 20" is the answer...
> 
> View attachment 889373


Nev'r ben dun b4.... (grin)

Victor's 1979' 20-20 
(Victor Vincente of America)









Victor on a 24-20
Not sure if Victor or Rick Hooiser (IRA's Bike shop - Arroyo Grande) built these first but Rick experimented with many variants of the dual wheel size design 1979-> early 80 something.. Rick mostly built 26-24's.









Victor on his 20-20 hill climb bike. He won a few of the impromptu after race BBQ's hill climb challenges with it.


----------



## shining_trapezoid (Mar 24, 2014)




----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

Dude, ride a 29er, then you will see the light.
Have fun on your oversized shopping cart wheels.

And BTW most hybrids these days have 26" wheels. 
Just saying.


----------



## sasquatch rides a SS (Dec 27, 2010)

CannondaleF9 said:


> And BTW most hybrids these days have 26" wheels.
> Just saying.


This is very far from true. Nearly every hybrid bike out there from any major brand has some form of 700c wheel.

C'mon CF9, this ain't like you. Your Googling powers must be a little "off" today.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

sandiego said:


> Nobody puts ketchup on a hotdog.
> 
> View attachment 889277


Ohhh, that's a good one!!!


----------



## bikerbert (Aug 28, 2004)

shining_trapezoid said:


> View attachment 889647


Beef, the final frontier.....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

sasquatch rides a SS said:


> This is very far from true. Nearly every hybrid bike out there from any major brand has some form of 700c wheel.
> 
> C'mon CF9, this ain't like you. Your Googling powers must be a little "off" today.


Flat bar road bikes are 700c. Urban bikes are 700c. But balloon tyre hybrids with phony suspension seat posts and 40mm of front travel are 26". Just check Trek's and Specialized's websites.
Shift Comfort - Trek Bicycle
Specialized Bicycle Components

My definition of a hybrid rules out the bikes with somewhat mountain tyres and 63mm of front suspension. It also rules out flat bar slick tyre road bikes.


----------



## shopcat_cycles (Dec 28, 2007)

CannondaleF9 said:


> Dude, ride a 29er, then you will see the light.


That's laughable. Skilled riders don't need to rely on one wheel size or another. For newer riders, the big wheels are a great crutch and probably improve their experience. Not saying that they don't have their place, but far from the be-all and end-all that a lot of folks make them out to be. And, I do own a 29er HT(yelli screamy) and have had a few FS 29ers. The FS models I have owned might have been fast on trail, but the long wheelbases and clumsy demeanor made for less than enjoyable rides. Maybe there's a FS 29er that I would like out there, something along the lines of a Devinci Atlas, but it's easier to find the characteristics that I want in a 26 or 27.5 frame.

And, yeah, your 29er uses hybrid sized wheels.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

ncfisherman said:


> That's laughable. Skilled riders don't need to rely on one wheel size or another. For newer riders, the big wheels are a great crutch and probably improve their experience. Not saying that they don't have their place, but far from the be-all and end-all that a lot of folks make them out to be.


It's not laughable at all. "Seeing the light" does not mean to see that 29er is the best, but only for the troll to pull his head out and drop this phony idea that 29ers don't have their place as real mountain bikes and will soon be relegated to a small niche in the market. 
I don't think anyone in this thread has claimed that there is a "best" size overall, only what they prefer. It is only trollboy who claims that there is only one valid size and the others are marketing ploys and will eventually fail or are inherently worse (although he has not been consistent with his thoughts, as is typical for trolls).



> For newer riders, the big wheels are a great crutch


Any technological advantage introduced to bikes is embraced and accepted, but the advantage of big wheels is a crutch? If that is a case, then suspension is a crutch. Right?



> And, yeah, your 29er uses hybrid sized wheels


Yeah, and its not a hybrid bike. And your 26er uses beach cruiser sized wheels, and its not a beach cruiser. Thanks for the third grade insight.


----------



## shopcat_cycles (Dec 28, 2007)

smilinsteve said:


> Any technological advantage introduced to bikes is embraced and accepted, but the advantage of big wheels is a crutch? If that is a case, then suspension is a crutch. Right?


Yeah, actually I would. Anyone riding fully rigid on the stuff that I like to ride, is a way more skilled rider than I am.



smilinsteve said:


> Yeah, and its not a hybrid bike. And your 26er uses beach cruiser sized wheels, and its not a beach cruiser. Thanks for the third grade insight.


Just joking there. Probably a bad one. No need to be so uptight though. Maybe get out and ride once in a while.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> "Seeing the light"


Sounds like a religion or cult. The point of this thread is to try to use *objective* information to determine which wheel size is better for all mountain.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

turbodog said:


> Sounds like a religion or cult. The point of this thread is to try to use *objective* information to determine which wheel size is better for all mountain.


What is your definition of "all mountain"?


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

jazzanova said:


> What is your definition of "all mountain"?


Extremely technical trail riding on extended rock and root trail sections, slower climbing and higher speed decending, drops to transition up to around 6-8 feet, moderate jumping, moderate bike park, lift served riding without a DH bike, "enduro" riding. More than XC, less than FR/DH.


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

turbodog said:


> Extremely technical trail riding on extended rock and root trail sections, slower climbing and higher speed decending, drops to transition up to around 6-8 feet, moderate jumping, moderate bike park, lift served riding without a DH bike, "enduro" riding. More than XC, less than FR/DH.


27" wheels are proven to be best at Enduro racing, 26" are best at DH, and 29" are best at XC and technical XC, how about let's just live with that.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

CannondaleF9 said:


> 27" wheels are proven to be best at Enduro racing, 26" are best at DH, and 29" are best at XC and technical XC, how about let's just live with that.


Says who, and where is your proof?

Post proof, not industry hype.


----------



## sasquatch rides a SS (Dec 27, 2010)

turbodog said:


> Says who, and where is your proof?
> 
> Post proof, not industry hype.


You'll have a hard time getting him to do that...


----------



## shopcat_cycles (Dec 28, 2007)

CannondaleF9 said:


> 29" are best at XC and technical XC


Maybe arguably the best. I think we should all be able to agree that the current best XC racer in the world is Nino Schurter -- he rides a 27.5 Scott.


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

ncfisherman said:


> Maybe arguably the best. I think we should all be able to agree that the current best XC racer in the world is Nino Schurter -- he rides a 27.5 Scott.


But Schurter is very lightweight and is a great technical XC rider. 
Half of the story is the rider, but a good bike helps.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

ncfisherman said:


> Maybe arguably the best. I think we should all be able to agree that the current best XC racer in the world is Nino Schurter -- he rides a 27.5 Scott.


I think it's course and rider specific for XC. Obviously, when you put the entire field of XC riders on 29", like companies did in the last few years, there will be lots of wins on them. Who's to say many courses aren't better suited for 26 or 650b?


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

turbodog said:


> Says who, and where is your proof?
> 
> Post proof, not industry hype.


I sense great anger in you. Your kind is dying off, I know, like the Noldor of Middle Earth, but the time of men (essentially 29, and 27.5) has come and it will be a return to the time of Westernesse and all will be glorious!

LONG LIVE KING ELESSAR!


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

CannondaleF9 said:


> I sense great anger in you. Your kind is dying off, I know, like the Noldor of Middle Earth, but the time of men (essentially 29, and 27.5) has come and it will be a return to the time of Westernesse and all will be glorious!
> 
> LONG LIVE KING ELESSAR!


Why don't you post some proof or thoughtful analysis?


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

turbodog said:


> Why don't you post some proof or thoughtful analysis?


Why don't you? Oh yeah you have and nobody believes you because you haven't tried anything but a 26 yourself. So now we're all laughing at you because you have no idea what your talking about but keep posting funny nonsense.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Guys, you can argue until the cows come home about what wheel size is best. The most important thing of all here and now is that my bike is better than yours regardless of it's wheel size. 'nuff said...


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Hawg said:


> Guys, you can argue until the cows come home about what wheel size is best. The most important thing of all here and now is that my bike is better than yours regardless of it's wheel size. 'nuff said...


Oh yeah, well my wheels can beat up your wheels.


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

Hawg said:


> Guys, you can argue until the cows come home about what wheel size is best. The most important thing of all here and now is that my bike is better than yours regardless of it's wheel size. 'nuff said...


Well arguing with the OP is futile I agree, but he's so darn comical with all the "facts". The lulz are strong with this one as is the fail.

And you are right that my bike is better than yours regardless.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

ShinDiggity said:


> Why don't you? Oh yeah you have and nobody believes you because you haven't tried anything but a 26 yourself. So now we're all laughing at you because you have no idea what your talking about but keep posting funny nonsense.


I have more experience with a variety of types of bikes and riding styles than most people on 29ers.


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

turbodog said:


> I have more experience with a variety of types of bikes and riding styles than most people on 29ers.


But *no* experience with 29ers which means no credibility whatsoever.

As the Soup Nazi said ... NEXT!


----------



## time229er (Oct 30, 2013)

turbodog said:


> I have more experience with a variety of types of bikes and riding styles than most people on 29ers.


why not just let this dude die his own slow death by not acknowledging his presence...this is almost as bad as feeding the seagulls :idea:


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

time229er said:


> why not just let this dude die his own slow death by not acknowledging his presence...this is almost as bad as feeding the seagulls :idea:


OK. But the OP keeps bumping the thread almost every morning because .....









I have to admit to having fun reading all the clap trap from him/her. But I'll leave it alone if every one else will.


----------



## Fat Urkel (May 9, 2013)

*26* inch rocks steady.

:cornut::rockon:


----------



## Dirt n Dust (Mar 21, 2014)




----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

ShinDiggity said:


> But *no* experience with 29ers which means no credibility whatsoever.
> 
> As the Soup Nazi said ... NEXT!


Actually, I think it's the people who ride 29er's and have limited experience with a high end 26" bike that have little crediblity. How many people have "upgraded" into 29er bike? Probably lots. If you go from an entry level $500 26" bike to a $2500 29er, you're going to say, "OMG's!!!! THE 29er's they are soooooo much better!!!"


----------



## andy f (Jan 13, 2004)

turbodog said:


> Actually, I think it's the people who ride 29er's and have limited experience with a high end 26" bike that have little crediblity. How many people have "upgraded" into 29er bike? Probably lots. If you go from an entry level $500 26" bike to a $2500 29er, you're going to say, "OMG's!!!! THE 29er's they are soooooo much better!!!"


I've had quite a few 26" bikes, most of them pretty high end: Turner RFX, Iron Horse Hollowpoint III, Ventana El Chamuco, Specialized Enduro, Ventana La Bruja, Bianchi BuSS, Ellsworth Truth, Dean Colonel, Specialized Stupjumper, Bridgestone MB-1.

The Turner and both Ventanas were built up as heavy duty AM rides, 6" travel front and rear, 32-35 lbs. I ran a Marzocchi Super T dual crown fork on the Bruja. The IH and Enduro were both lighter 5" trail bikes and I raced XC on the rest of them. The Dean was one of my favorite bikes ever, even though it had 71/73 geometry and I used a 135 mm zero rise stem with a 23" wide flat bar.

Any of the three current wheel sizes can work really well for any type of riding if the builder gets the geometry right. There are pluses and minuses to each but the only way to know which trade off is best is to ride them. Your charts and armchair reasoning are worthless without experience to back it up.


----------



## shining_trapezoid (Mar 24, 2014)

turbodog said:


> <Quote Originally Posted by CannondaleF9 View Post
> 27" wheels are proven to be best at Enduro racing, 26" are best at DH, and 29" are best at XC and technical XC, how about let's just live with that.>
> 
> Says who, and where is your proof?
> ...


...and round and round and round we go


----------



## HitmenOnlyInc (Jul 20, 2012)

turbodog said:


> Actually, I think it's the people who ride 29er's and have limited experience with a high end 26" bike that have little crediblity. How many people have "upgraded" into 29er bike? Probably lots. If you go from an entry level $500 26" bike to a $2500 29er, you're going to say, "OMG's!!!! THE 29er's they are soooooo much better!!!"


I think this is just crap plain and simple. I have both 26 and 29 and use them for different purposes. Is one better than the other? Yes and no. But to say I bought a 29 to "upgrade" from 26 is ridiculous! And to generalize and say that I/we (who ride 29) have limited experience with high end 26'ers is ignorant.


----------



## HitmenOnlyInc (Jul 20, 2012)

Can we get back to the hot dog debate now?


----------



## Dirt n Dust (Mar 21, 2014)

What about corn dogs? Does anyone care about the corn dogs?


----------



## shining_trapezoid (Mar 24, 2014)

Corn dogs are pretty good if they have the right diameter


----------



## HitmenOnlyInc (Jul 20, 2012)

Fair food corn dogs are the best!


----------



## Dirt n Dust (Mar 21, 2014)

HitmenOnlyInc said:


> Fair food corn dogs are the best!


Prove it. Do you have charts, graphs, or any research to back that up?


----------



## HitmenOnlyInc (Jul 20, 2012)

I might be able to make something up. Although I have never actually had one!


----------



## shopcat_cycles (Dec 28, 2007)

Dirt n Dust said:


> What about corn dogs? Does anyone care about the corn dogs?


Corn dogs are a crutch for less skilled hot dog eaters...ya know with the stick and all.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lawson Raider (Jul 24, 2006)

I can't afford high end bikes so both my 26er (2011 Trek Fuel EX5) and my 29er (2014 Specialized Camber 29) are entry level on their perspective manufacturer. I enjoy them both but I admit I spend more time on the 29er since I bought it last October when I returned from the Fruita trip. 

I think 26 vs 29 more equates to personal preference - like Coke and Pepsi - nothing wrong with either so whatever you ride is perfectly fine. After all, it's your butt on the saddle so you should ride whatever makes you happy. Ride a 72" wheel if that floats your chicken.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Corn dogs dipped in mustard are better than corn dogs not dipped in mustard.


----------



## HitmenOnlyInc (Jul 20, 2012)

Hawg said:


> Corn dogs dipped in mustard are better than corn dogs not dipped in mustard.


Once again, where's the proof? The least you could do would be to site a study or something. What kind of mustard? Normal everyday French's or how bout that hot sh!t from the Asian restaurant?


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

HitmenOnlyInc said:


> Once again, where's the proof? The least you could do would be to site a study or something. What kind of mustard? Normal everyday French's or how bout that hot sh!t from the Asian restaurant?


Ordinary, every day, plain old, plain wrap mustard applied to an ordinary, every day, frozen and then baked corn dog.

The proof is in MY BELLY!


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Has anyone had the sausages wrapped in pancakes, on sticks? Holy moly, awesome 3:00 AM food.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

evasive said:


> Has anyone had the sausages wrapped in pancakes, on sticks? Holy moly, awesome 3:00 AM food.


"3:00 AM food"

:lol:


----------



## Dirt n Dust (Mar 21, 2014)

evasive said:


> Has anyone had the sausages wrapped in pancakes, on sticks? Holy moly, awesome 3:00 AM food.


Delicious. Syrup, not mustard.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

turbodog said:


> Why don't you post some proof or thoughtful analysis?


Why don't you ride something other than 26" before you form an opinion?


----------



## shining_trapezoid (Mar 24, 2014)




----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Hawg said:


> Guys, you can argue until the cows come home about what wheel size is best. The most important thing of all here and now is that my bike is better than yours regardless of it's wheel size. 'nuff said...


As much as I agree with you, we can't stop now--we're at the "My favorite pro rider is awesome and rides this so his wheel size is the best" part of the thread.

This is when the truly objective facts start rolling in. :bluefrown:


----------



## shopcat_cycles (Dec 28, 2007)

Zowie said:


> As much as I agree with you, we can't stop now--we're at the "My favorite pro rider is awesome and rides this so his wheel size is the best" part of the thread.
> 
> This is when the truly objective facts start rolling in. :bluefrown:


I dont have a favorite pro xc rider or 27.5 wheel. You're putting words in my mouth. I think all wheel sizes have their place and I only listen to one person when it comes to my bike choice...me.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

andy f said:


> I've had quite a few 26" bikes, most of them pretty high end: Turner RFX, Iron Horse Hollowpoint III, Ventana El Chamuco, Specialized Enduro, Ventana La Bruja, Bianchi BuSS, Ellsworth Truth, Dean Colonel, Specialized Stupjumper, Bridgestone MB-1.
> 
> The Turner and both Ventanas were built up as heavy duty AM rides, 6" travel front and rear, 32-35 lbs. I ran a Marzocchi Super T dual crown fork on the Bruja. The IH and Enduro were both lighter 5" trail bikes and I raced XC on the rest of them. The Dean was one of my favorite bikes ever, even though it had 71/73 geometry and I used a 135 mm zero rise stem with a 23" wide flat bar.
> 
> Any of the three current wheel sizes can work really well for any type of riding if the builder gets the geometry right. There are pluses and minuses to each but the only way to know which trade off is best is to ride them. Your charts and armchair reasoning are worthless without experience to back it up.


Thank you for your insight, I certainly agree that they each have their pros/cons.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> Angle of attack only matters on small bumps? Interesting conclusions you can arrive at from zero actual experience.
> 
> The article you posted does an ok job, and clearly does attribute smoother rollover to 29er wheels (did you catch that?). But instead of defining the angle of attack as the tangent at the point of contact, it should be defined as the angle from the contact patch to the point of contact.
> 
> ...


Sorry for not responding to this sooner. What you are decribing is actually the front wheel's axle following an arc with the center being the wheel's contact with the object. Yes, for a larger wheel this arc will be longer and there will be less force needed or momentum lost. By how much really though? If you want to do up a full dynamics model and run the math for us, that would be great.

The article describes taking the tanget of the angle, so as to arrive at the x-axis component of the force vector applied to the wheel (this vector is by definition from the contact with the object to the wheel axle). For example, if the object is around 4", the vector will be around 45 degrees, and there will be equal x and y force components counteracting gravity and the momentum of the rider/bike. At a 4" object, the difference in x-axis force is about 7%.

Why does this matter? Once accurately quantify the difference, we can relate it to real world experince and objectively judge how it matters.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

This entire thread is MOOT!

If the OP had just used the search function we'd still be on page 1 of this thread:

http://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/26er-vs-29er-resolved-846106.html

You're welcome.

-F


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

^^He's got a point.



ncfisherman said:


> I dont have a favorite pro xc rider or 27.5 wheel. You're putting words in my mouth. I think all wheel sizes have their place and I only listen to one person when it comes to my bike choice...me.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


Sorry about that, "I think everyone can agree" so and so is the best isn't quite like a "favorite", I suppose. I'm just always entertained by the implication of 'pro justification', i.e. so and so does this, so it's right or good or is very important for you to know, or whatever. Kinda like the old Answer 'forx'. 

FWIW, I think your second sentence is absolutely on point.


----------



## bikerbert (Aug 28, 2004)

turbodog said:


> Actually, I think it's the people who ride 29er's and have limited experience with a high end 26" bike that have little crediblity. How many people have "upgraded" into 29er bike? Probably lots. If you go from an entry level $500 26" bike to a $2500 29er, you're going to say, "OMG's!!!! THE 29er's they are soooooo much better!!!"


I went from a 26" Giant Anthem XC race rig to a 29er Anthem. Pretty familiar on the high end of both wheel sizes and each bike got me on the top step of the podium in a race.

Both bikes have/had their +/-'s, ultimately I chose the 29er because I felt it was a lot better on a race course and a had a much higher performance/efficiency factor.

I will admit I miss the snappiness of the 26, but the "it stays going after you get it going"of the 29 is definitely worth it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bikerbert (Aug 28, 2004)

evasive said:


> Has anyone had the sausages wrapped in pancakes, on sticks? Holy moly, awesome 3:00 AM food.


Haven't had that but, I've had sausage wrapped with pancakes with syrup! My sister lives out east and sends us real maple syrup from Vermont for the holidays. Now THAT is some tasty stuff!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

turbodog said:


> Yes, for a larger wheel this arc will be longer and there will be less force needed or momentum lost. By how much really though? If you want to do up a full dynamics model and run the math for us, that would be great.


I've got a better idea. Ride. It will tell you more than any calculation. The people here who know ride characteristics from riding experience aren't in need of any "dynamics model."


----------



## bikerbert (Aug 28, 2004)

Dirt n Dust said:


> Prove it. Do you have charts, graphs, or any research to back that up?


I will see that and raise you fried Twinkies aren't very good.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## shining_trapezoid (Mar 24, 2014)

bikerbert said:


> I will see that and raise you fried Twinkies aren't very good.


I wouldn't bother with fried Twinkies when there's fried cheesecake to be had.


----------



## bikerbert (Aug 28, 2004)

shining_trapezoid said:


> I wouldn't bother with fried Twinkies when there's fried cheesecake to be had.


Well played, well played. I concede this part of the thread to you!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DennisF (Nov 4, 2011)

Interesting thread! I haven't read every post, so pardon me if my question has been addressed.

I understand from SmilinSteve that a thin hoop of a given weight will require the same amount of energy to accelerate to a given speed, REGARDLESS of diameter.

So it seems to me that if you had two bicycle wheels/tires of different diameters but of identical weights, and with identical hubs, cassettes, and rotors, the larger wheel/tire would accelerate easier, since the cassette, hub, and rotor would not be accelerated to as high an RPM. Am I correct about this?

If so, how much of a factor would this lower RPM be? 

IN a real-world example of "27.5" vs 29, there is about a 100 gram weight penalty for both wheels and tires when going from 27.5 to 29. (I used American Classic Race wheels and Conti Race King Tubeless Black Chili Pepper tires for my comparison).

SmilinSteve, do you know or can you calculate if the offsetting factor of the lower RPM of the 29" be significant?

BTW, the 100-gram penalty is totally acceptable for the mild XC stuff I do. I saved 85g going tubeless and skimping on goo (2 oz per wheel instead of the recommended 4). The difference in acceleration was noticeable, but not dramatic by any means.

Thanks!


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

DennisF said:


> Interesting thread! I haven't read every post, so pardon me if my question has been addressed.
> 
> I understand from SmilinSteve that a thin hoop of a given weight will require the same amount of energy to accelerate to a given speed, REGARDLESS of diameter.


Right



> So it seems to me that if you had two bicycle wheels/tires of different diameters but of identical weights, and with identical hubs, cassettes, and rotors, the larger wheel/tire would accelerate easier, since the cassette, hub, and rotor would not be accelerated to as high an RPM. Am I correct about this?


Dennis,
No. 
Assuming the large and small wheel have the same mass distribution (same moment of inertia formula), then it is true that the bigger hoop turns more slowly at a given translational speed, but its also true that the bigger hoop has a higher moment of inertia, even if it has the same mass. 
The bigger hoop has the advantage of lower rpm, but it has the disadvantage of higher moment of inertia. These 2 effects cancel, so that the diameter is not an advantage or disadvantage.

If you go back to the derivation I posted, the energy of the thin hoop worked out to 
E=MV^2.
The energy of the hoop depends on its speed and its weight only.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Hmm, I don't know if I explained that so well, but there is an easy high school physics experiment that answers your question. 

If you roll a bunch of hoops down a ramp, they all roll at the same speed. Big or small diameter, heavy or light, wood or metal, etc. 

The same is true of a bunch of discs. 

But discs always roll faster than hoops. And spheres always roll faster than hoops or discs. 

Lets take a disc example. A big disc has a slower angular velocity to have the same translational velocity, which gets it to the bottom of the ramp at the same time as the small disc. Even though, as you say, the inner parts of of the disc are accelerated less, its the distribution of mass (moment of inertia) that determines how fast it rolls.


----------



## DennisF (Nov 4, 2011)

Thanks for your quick reply, It won't let me give you any more rep unfortunately.

Right, I understand why for just a hoop for a given ground speed and weight, diameter doesn't matter. But add identical cassettes & hubs to the two hoops, and if lower RPM is advantageous.... Wouldn't the stuff in the center have the same moment of inertia regardless of the diameter of hoop it is mounted in? 

Oh well, let me sleep on it! Thanks again.

We were posting at the same time  I now see your disk example.


----------



## shining_trapezoid (Mar 24, 2014)

bikerbert said:


> Well played, well played. I concede this part of the thread to you!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## time229er (Oct 30, 2013)

evasive said:


> Has anyone had the sausages wrapped in pancakes, on sticks? Holy moly, awesome 3:00 AM food.


I admit to never having experienced those, but another good choice would be a big-ole-bag of White Castle sliders @ 3:00 AM


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> I've got a better idea. Ride. It will tell you more than any calculation. The people here who know ride characteristics from riding experience aren't in need of any "dynamics model."


Come on, you're the engineer here, prove it to us!


----------



## peteer01 (Apr 26, 2005)

My favorite part of my 26" bike is that it's fun to ride.

My favorite part of my 29" bike is that it's fun to ride.

I like that they ride different from each other.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Have you guys seen this comparison? 26" wins....

Opinion: 26 vs 27.5 vs 29-inch Wheels - Pinkbike


----------



## Dirt n Dust (Mar 21, 2014)

After midnight, it's gotta be Whataburger.


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

turbodog said:


> Have you guys seen this comparison? 26" wins....
> 
> Opinion: 26 vs 27.5 vs 29-inch Wheels - Pinkbike


That is an opinion article. Key word: OPINION. That is all that 26 vs 29 is.


----------



## peteer01 (Apr 26, 2005)

CannondaleF9 said:


> That is an opinion article. Key word: OPINION. That is all that 26 vs 29 is.


Exactly.

It's not like frame material, pedal types or other components that obviously have a right answer for all types of riding, regardless of who you are. As long as we long as we all agree that 27.5 is pure marketing and a product that no one needs, we can go back to lobbying for our personal preference of 26 or 29...again.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

CannondaleF9 said:


> That is an opinion article. Key word: OPINION. That is all that 26 vs 29 is.


No. that article settles it. Case closed. Not that 26 is the best, but that it is the best,and it is the only logical choice. For everyone. 
We can close this thread now.


----------



## SandSpur (Mar 19, 2013)

turbodog said:


> Have you guys seen this comparison? 26" wins....
> 
> Opinion: 26 vs 27.5 vs 29-inch Wheels - Pinkbike


Yep, 26er sure does win.. with riders who prefer to push their bikes uphill


----------



## bikerbert (Aug 28, 2004)

If you live in the Silicon Valley, it doesn't get better than a La Costena burrito. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

peteer01 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> It's not like frame material, pedal types or other components that obviously have a right answer for all types of riding, regardless of who you are. As long as we long as we all agree that 27.5 is pure marketing and a product that no one needs, we can go back to lobbying for our personal preference of 26 or 29...again.


I can agree that 27.5" is purely marketing, or just another (slightly bigger than 26") wheel size. You can have a legitimate discussion of 26" vs. 29er, because they are actually different.

But 26" is still better for all mountain.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

turbodog said:


> I can agree that 27.5" is purely marketing, or just another (slightly bigger than 26") wheel size. You can have a legitimate discussion of 26" vs. 29er, because they are actually different.
> 
> But 26" is still better for all mountain.


Don't start sentences with prepositions. It's grammatically incorrect, and that's an actual fact.


----------



## bikerbert (Aug 28, 2004)

In fairness to T-dog, you see that in journalism all the time. I see it quite a bit in the sports section. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

Adding a fifth FS bike, 27.5, to my collection of one 26" and three 29". I have found that the one I prefer is always the newest one.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2014)

SandSpur said:


> Yep, *29er* sure does win.. with riders who prefer to push their bikes uphill


fixed proper


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

nvphatty said:


> fixed proper


Not fixed. the 26er won according to those bike pushers.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

juan_speeder said:


> Don't start sentences with prepositions. It's grammatically incorrect, and that's an actual fact.


No, it's not.

Grammar Girl : Can You Start a Sentence with a Preposition? :: Quick and Dirty Tips ?


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

turbodog said:


> No, it's not.
> 
> Grammar Girl : Can You Start a Sentence with a Preposition? :: Quick and Dirty Tips ?


Maybe you guys should first figure out what a preposition is, before you argue about whether to start a sentence with one. :lol:

"But" is a conjunction, not a preposition


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

So is it OK to begin a sentence with a conjunction?


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2014)

J.B. Weld said:


> So is it OK to begin a sentence with a conjunction?


only if predisposed


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2014)

smilinsteve said:


> Not fixed. the 26er won according to those bike pushers.


ahhhhhh yes indeedy i stand corrected........


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

smilinsteve said:


> Maybe you guys should first figure out what a preposition is, before you argue about whether to start a sentence with one. :lol:
> 
> "But" is a conjunction, not a preposition


"But" can be a preposition, but I was clearly using it as a conjunction.....


----------



## bikerbert (Aug 28, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> So is it OK to begin a sentence with a conjunction?


 I think if you hook up phrases and clauses at the junction you're good to go.....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EXW (May 11, 2013)

It's snowing out and I'm bored so I figure I'll add to this ridiculous thread. 

I believe there is a correct answer to which is the better wheel size. It is the one you personally enjoying riding the most. End of story. For those trying to save consumers from big evil mountain bike companies, I would say stop worrying about it. 

Case in point, after 20 years on 26" bikes I started test riding 27.5 and 29'ers last year. Finally decided on a 29'er. Yesterday I went up a trail I've ridden many times and found myself getting through sections I've never cleared before. Maybe it's the 29" wheels, maybe it's the 50mm stem, maybe it's my flowery basket and streamers. All I know is the bike as a whole works for me. 

BTW, I was behind some guy for part of the ride and he was on a 26'er. While I was riding better than I have in the past, he was clearly doing better and cleaned parts of the trail much faster than me. All that means to me is that he is a better rider, not that one wheel size is somehow better.


----------



## Dirt n Dust (Mar 21, 2014)

More fuel to the fire. Careful, it might make your head explode!
Video: Tobi Leonhardt?s slays Lake Garda on 29er/27.5 mashup bike | Mountain Bike Review


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Dirt n Dust said:


> More fuel to the fire. Careful, it might make your head explode!
> Video: Tobi Leonhardt?s slays Lake Garda on 29er/27.5 mashup bike | Mountain Bike Review


That dude can ride! Cool video. Clearly, 97ers are the only logical choice! I'm going to get me one so I can ride like that.


----------



## HitmenOnlyInc (Jul 20, 2012)

That guy's got mad handling skills. Makes me feel even worse about the sh!t I hair out on. LOL!


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Here's a video of 26" and 29er riding together.........






26" wins in the end, of course.


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

turbodog said:


> Here's a video of 26" and 29er riding together.........
> 
> 26" wins in the end, of course.


Guess your thread was dying and you had to bump it up so you could see yourself again. Pathetic.

Too bad 26" bikes are dying. Shops aren't stocking 26" bikes for serious off road any more. They have to give away the old ones and any new are relegated to kids or entry level. Don't like it? Too bad because that's just the way it is.

Manufacturers only have more expensive 26" wheeled bikes fabricated for downhill but the writing is on the wall even for those bikes if you only knew how to read. All the R&D is going to other wheel sizes, especially if you want to actually ride the bike uphill.

All mountain? All 650b. Don't like it? Too bad because that's just the way it is.

But you keep your head firmly buried in the sand.

"DE NILE" is not just a river in Egypt.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

ShinDiggity said:


> Guess your thread was dying and you had to bump it up so you could see yourself again. Pathetic.
> 
> Too bad 26" bikes are dying. Shops aren't stocking 26" bikes for serious off road any more. They have to give away the old ones and any new are relegated to kids or entry level. Don't like it? Too bad because that's just the way it is.
> 
> ...


Can't we all just get along (and accept that all wheel sizes are viable options depending on personal preference)?


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

cerebroside said:


> Can't we all just get along (and accept that all wheel sizes are viable options depending on personal preference)?


Nope, sorry, everyone has to be pushy about what wheel size they like. Everyone else is wrong. Just plain wrong.


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

cerebroside said:


> Can't we all just get along (and accept that all wheel sizes are viable options depending on personal preference)?


I totally agree that 26" is a viable wheel size. But when someone states unequivocally that one is better than another without ever having tried another and keeps posting their agenda ad nauseum, bumping their thread over and over I have a problem with that.

It's actually too bad that 26" is dying but it is what it is.


----------



## dbhammercycle (Nov 15, 2011)

cerebroside said:


> Can't we all just get along (and accept that all wheel sizes are viable options depending on personal preference)?


I tried this, but somebody said we should leave out personal preference when debating wheel size attributes...


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

dbhammercycle said:


> I tried this, but somebody said we should leave out personal preference when debating wheel size attributes...





cerebroside said:


> Oh I totally agree you should buy what feels the best to you. Just saying that when buying you should take reviews and riders impressions with a serious grain of salt.
> On the other hand, if people on the internet feel they need to have a nitpicky discussion about the relative advantages of wheel sizes maybe rider impressions shouldn't come into it.


There you go.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

ShinDiggity said:


> Guess your thread was dying and you had to bump it up so you could see yourself again. Pathetic.
> 
> Too bad 26" bikes are dying. Shops aren't stocking 26" bikes for serious off road any more. They have to give away the old ones and any new are relegated to kids or entry level. Don't like it? Too bad because that's just the way it is.
> 
> ...


I see. Then I suppose you'll be thrilled to get a great closeout on a 650b this fall, after they can't sell them this year.


----------



## dan4jeepin (Apr 9, 2007)

turbodog said:


> I see. Then I suppose you'll be thrilled to get a great closeout on a 650b this fall, after they can't sell them this year.


Considering majority of pro DH is switching over to 27.5 right now I highly doubt that this is going to happen.

Like it or not 26 is dying! It will be around for a long time but become the minority instead of the majority.


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

turbodog said:


> I see. Then I suppose you'll be thrilled to get a great closeout on a 650b this fall, after they can't sell them this year.


That's funny because my LBS is selling the peewaddins out of 650b and 29" and having to sell old 26" models at cost just to get rid of them. Once they are gone that will be it for 26" except for kids and cheapo entry level bikes.

Good for you though until the 26" bikes are gone for good. Then you can buy used up old technology.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

dan4jeepin said:


> Considering majority of pro DH is switching over to 27.5 right now I highly doubt that this is going to happen.
> 
> Like it or not 26 is dying! It will be around for a long time but become the minority instead of the majority.


I doubt it. There's only a small sub-segment (yuppies that upgrade every year?) of the biking market that is willing to roll into a bike shop and plop down $1000+ on a bike with an unproven and overhyped wheel size. Once they burn through all those people (selling them on 29er's and now 650b), the sales figures will fall off a cliff.

Bike tech is currently on very a large plateau - if you have a good bike from the last 5-10 years that is not currently worn out, badly broken, or outgrown, there's really no good reason to upgrade. Now, if you bought a bike in 1993-1997, and were looking for a new bike around 2000-2005, there were tons of improvements that would really make for a nice upgrade. Not so with today's bikes.

If you bought a decent bike in the last 5 years, forget about it, there is really nothing going on to get you to upgrade - aside from this ever so conveinient push for 29er's and 650b. A large majority of the biking population knows better and will ride this hype train out, sticking with 26" wheels.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

ShinDiggity said:


> That's funny because my LBS is selling the peewaddins out of 650b and 29" and having to sell old 26" models at cost just to get rid of them. Once they are gone that will be it for 26" except for kids and cheapo entry level bikes.
> 
> Good for you though until the 26" bikes are gone for good. Then you can buy used up old technology.


Sweet, where is it, and what do they have left?


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

turbodog said:


> If you bought a decent bike in the last 5 years, forget about it, there is really nothing going on to get you to upgrade


Nothing going on? You're hilarious.

1X drivetrains, 15 and 20 mil front axles, 142/12 and bigger rear axles, carbon wheels, carbon frames, carbon everything, improved shocks, forks and FS designs, dropper posts, improved geometry's, better rubber, lighter, smoother, faster etc. But you'll never know because you'll never ride it.

You will be the old curmudgeon dinosaur every one is laughing at. This could be you if you keep it up ....


----------



## 70sSanO (Nov 20, 2013)

I have haphazardly followed this thread and there is one point I want to bring up.

All of this discussion is about 622mm wheels (you can call 'em 29ers all you want), specifically 622mm rim diameter... and the 700c (28") road, or 29er (29") mountain wheels which only refers to the outside diameter with an average size tire.

622mm wheels have been around in sew-up for 50 years maybe more, not positive, but at least 40 years as clinchers. I mean this is an old, very old, rim size and one I have been riding on my road bike for almost 30 years.

There is really nothing new about a 29er rim; outside any normal technological advancements that would occur over time in materials, manufacturing, etc.

What is really funny is not why the mountain biking industry went to this size, but why it took so long. Maybe the industry could come to grips with the image of spandex clad cyclists drinking champagne while riding the Champs Elysees. I don't know.

That said... the 622mm rim is a proven size and I see no reason why it won't dominate mountain biking in the same way it has dominated road biking for decades.

John


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

ShinDiggity said:


> Nothing going on? You're hilarious.
> 
> 1X drivetrains, 15 and 20 mil front axles, 142/12 and bigger rear axles, carbon wheels, carbon frames, carbon everything, improved shocks, forks and FS designs, dropper posts, improved geometry's, better rubber, lighter, smoother, faster etc. But you'll never know because you'll never ride it.
> 
> You will be the old curmudgeon dinosaur every one is laughing at. This could be you if you keep it up ....


I've been running a 20mm front, 10mm rear axles and 1x drivetrain since the year 2000. Where have you been, living in a cave? The 2006 vintage air fork on my bike is better than some on the market today......the list goes on and on.

I recently picked up a few new modern parts....a new narrow wide ring, new slx crank (2-piece style, just like bullseye's I had in 1993), lighter SPD's, a carbon bar, esi grips, tubeless ready tires. Nice little upgrades that updated my already well performing and dialed in bike.


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

turbodog said:


> Where have you been, living in a cave?


No, where have you been, living under a bridge?


----------



## cglasford (Sep 26, 2011)

I think 26 inch will probably all but go away for XC and might even be taken over for "all mountain" but 26 inch will never actually die... very few people in the DH world like riding larger tires and even fewer in the freeride and I don't know of any DJ bikes that would be made better by going to a larger rim. 26 isn't going anywhere, it now just has to share the market with 650b and 29ers.... they all have their place and will continue to... I will ride my 26 inch bikes until they all are worn out and then I will look at my options at that point.


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

turbodog said:


> I doubt it. There's only a small sub-segment (yuppies that upgrade every year?) of the biking market that is willing to roll into a bike shop and plop down $1000+ on a bike with an unproven and overhyped wheel size. Once they burn through all those people (selling them on 29er's and now 650b), the sales figures will fall off a cliff.


So you don't think that is what happened to 26ers? Just saying.
If what you say is true, then the 29ers would have left the market 2.5 years ago. It is time to face real life, man, things change.


----------



## paxy (Apr 6, 2012)

What is now old will be new again. Mullets, bell bottoms 26 ers etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## andy f (Jan 13, 2004)

paxy said:


> What is now old will be new again. Mullets, bell bottoms 26 ers etc
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not mullets.


----------



## j35u5fr34k (Aug 20, 2008)

andy f said:


> Not mullets.


Or pegging jeans. Please no!

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

ShinDiggity said:


> No, where have you been, living under a bridge?


FWIW, 15mm have been out since 2008, so you could have a 5+ year old bike with that as well...


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

It's hilarious to read such an enormous amount of crap from a gentleman (and quite possibly a lunatic) who simply has zero experience in the subject he's ranting about.

Having owned several bikes of all wheels sizes, here's the final word: They're all bikes and they're all great. Ride whatever you like and try hard not to be a d!ck about it.


----------



## shining_trapezoid (Mar 24, 2014)




----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Zowie said:


> FWIW, 15mm have been out since 2008, so you could have a 5+ year old bike with that as well...


Kinda thought 15mm was BS when it came out. Wasn't QR20 released like 15 years ago?


----------



## Thustlewhumber (Nov 25, 2011)

turbodog said:


> Now, if you bought a bike in 1993-1997, and were looking for a new bike around 2000-2005, there were tons of improvements that would really make for a nice upgrade. Not so with today's bikes.


So... If I have a bike from 1997, it is totally cool to trade it in for a bike made in 2000 because of the significant upgrades that happened in those 3 years? But it's not worth it to upgrade my bike made in 2005 because no significant improvements have happened in the last 9 years? Interesting.


----------



## andy f (Jan 13, 2004)

Thustlewhumber said:


> So... If I have a bike from 1997, it is totally cool to trade it in for a bike made in 2000 because of the significant upgrades that happened in those 3 years? But it's not worth it to upgrade my bike made in 2005 because no significant improvements have happened in the last 9 years? Interesting.


Correct. There is no need to ever try anything new for yourself in order to know this is true.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Thustlewhumber said:


> So... If I have a bike from 1997, it is totally cool to trade it in for a bike made in 2000 because of the significant upgrades that happened in those 3 years? But it's not worth it to upgrade my bike made in 2005 because no significant improvements have happened in the last 9 years? Interesting.


Actually, yes. Even though you are trying to make a straw man arguement, 1997 to 2000 was probably the most progressive period in bike technology, ever. You could actually build up a bike in 2000 with functional disk brakes, real suspension (up to 8"), pretty strong stiff and light, by modern standards. Go back to 1997? You get flexy elastomer suspension, v-brakes, etc. Huge changes, really. Add a couple more years difference either way and you're talking about massive changes.

Now, if you go back to 2010 and compare them to today's bikes......great, you have some nice incremental improvements and refinements. Oh, another gear? Oh more carbon? They are really dialing things in. But we're not talking about revolutionary changes.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

I thought this was pretty epic:

The Web Monkey Speaks: Parachute Pants and Press Fit Bottom Brackets | BIKE Magazine



> The *U-brake was like some kind of Terminator-esque, canti-cyborg.* It had cables that operated on the same premise as a normal cantilever brake, but the arms had grown massive and they now scissored back and forth, and it weighed a ton and suddenly there were more parts to contend with and, for some weird reason, it was often mounted below the chainstays in a location that immediately ensured that the brake would be covered in muck. It&#8230;.kind of made sense&#8230;.maybe&#8230;.
> 
> *Actually, it didn't make sense at all*. At all. But, then, the whole bike industry was suddenly doing it, so it had to be alright, right? That's what I and a hundred thousand other optimistic consumers were telling ourselves as we lined up to buy a bike straddled with the device. Both Shimano and Dia-Compe were making these brakes: *U-brakes had to be awesome in a way that just wasn't immediately obvious.* If that sounds a little naïve, remember that there were no Internet chat forums in which people ranted about the obvious shortcomings of the latest components. There weren't a ton of magazines full of product reviews to help you get a sense of what was what. Back in the mid-80s, you bought a mountain bike and you kind of made this crazy leap of faith.
> 
> ...


Reminds me of a certain wheel size.


----------



## Lawson Raider (Jul 24, 2006)

I don't see 26" wheels dying because there will always be short people who like to ride. I am 5'10" and even though I ride my 29er more than my 26er (mainly because my 26er is a lemon that ghost shifts like crazy), I would feel if I were a short person, I would feel better on a 26er than a 29er. 

Also being an owner of both 26er and 29er, I feel the 26er has a more playful feel to it than my 29er does. If I were going downhill, I would rather be on a 26er. For regular XC, I do like my 29er better. 

That is my honest opinion based on my experience with both bikes. Others experience may vary obviously.


----------



## HitmenOnlyInc (Jul 20, 2012)

Lawson Raider said:


> I don't see 26" wheels dying because there will always be short people who like to ride. I am 5'10" and even though I ride my 29er more than my 26er (mainly because my 26er is a lemon that ghost shifts like crazy), I would feel if I were a short person, I would feel better on a 26er than a 29er.
> 
> Also being an owner of both 26er and 29er, I feel the 26er has a more playful feel to it than my 29er does. If I were going downhill, I would rather be on a 26er. For regular XC, I do like my 29er better.
> 
> That is my honest opinion based on my experience with both bikes. Others experience may vary obviously.


Being only 5'7" I didn't think I would like a 29'er for the reason you stated and most of the ones I test rode I felt like my center of gravity was really high which made me feel like I would not have the control I had on my 26'er. Then I rode one that made me feel like I was riding "in" the bike rather than "on" the bike. I built one up with and now love it to the point where I ride it about 2-1 over my 26'er.


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

I'm sorry to bring up a golf reference, but in golf you have several clubs (but let's just say 5 wood and 6 iron). One isn't better than the other, but they are different. Some people prefer to use woods and therefore would use a 5 wood, and others who like irons (like me) would use the 6 iron. 
Both are great, however, and both are useful, just like 26 and 29. 
27, however, is like the 7 wood and is not needed :thumbsup:.


----------



## Thustlewhumber (Nov 25, 2011)

andy f said:


> Correct. There is no need to ever try anything new for yourself in order to know this is true.


I have always suspected that my penny-farthing was much more flickable and efficient than any bike that has come out in the last 100 years. Now, thanks to this thread, there is no need to look further. See you at the pump track my good chaps!


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

CannondaleF9 said:


> I'm sorry to bring up a golf reference, but in golf you have several clubs (but let's just say 5 wood and 6 iron). One isn't better than the other, but they are different. Some people prefer to use woods and therefore would use a 5 wood, and others who like irons (like me) would use the 6 iron.
> Both are great, however, and both are useful, just like 26 and 29.
> 27, however, is like the 7 wood and is not needed :thumbsup:.


So, are you saying that riding a 29er is like golf? Because I don't golf either.


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

turbodog said:


> So, are you saying that riding a 29er is like golf? Because I don't golf either.


No, I am comparing sizes sizes of mountain bike wheels to different sizes of golf clubs. In the case of golf, almost all sizes are needed, and it is the same way for mountain bike wheel sizes.


----------



## sasquatch rides a SS (Dec 27, 2010)

CannondaleF9 said:


> No, I am comparing sizes sizes of mountain bike wheels to different sizes of golf clubs. In the case of golf, almost all sizes are needed, and it is the same way for mountain bike wheel sizes.


Your posts are confusing and contradicting. This post you say all sizes are needed and in your previous post you said "Both are great, however, and both are useful, just like 26 and 29. 
27, however, is like the 7 wood and is not needed"


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

sasquatch rides a SS said:


> Your posts are confusing and contradicting. This post you say all sizes are needed and in your previous post you said "Both are great, however, and both are useful, just like 26 and 29.
> 27, however, is like the 7 wood and is not needed"


That is why I said ALMOST all sizes are needed.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

To be fair, nobody really _needs_ any specific wheel size (or any specific amount of suspension travel, stem length, head angle, etc.)


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

cerebroside said:


> To be fair, nobody really _needs_ any specific wheel size (or any specific amount of suspension travel, stem length, head angle, etc.)


You don't _need_ them, you can quit anytime, right? 
Sounds like you're in denial.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

Zowie said:


> You don't _need_ them, you can quit anytime, right?
> Sounds like you're in denial.


Sure, I don't need those new carbon bars...
*Breaks out in a cold sweat*


----------



## Desertride (Nov 1, 2012)

My prediction: in 2054 a sociologist studying the effects of the internet will review forum archives and calculate that humanity spent a collective 100,000 years of its life debating MTB wheel sizes (compared to only 40,000 years debating fat skis). 

So, in the interests of not getting left out of this momentous collective effort, I'm wondering what works better (i.e., is more fun)for average recreational riders. A couple weeks ago I was on a big group ride and every time we hit very steep, slightly technical but not long grades the HT 29er guys were hike a biking it up. They seemed to have more trouble keeping the wheels spinning and getting weight over the front end. Now, no doubt better riders would have killed it on any bike, but for an average, not very fit, approaching middle age, disproportionately short inseem guy like me, I was quite happy to be riding an outdated FS 26er that makes me feel like a hero (no I don't GoPro my rides) in comparison.

I think there was a point somewhere in there... Ah yes, I think FS 26ers are really fun and capable trail bikes. And if they are now being sold off at cost, take advantage.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

They were hiking because they sucked at technical climbing. Not because of their equipment.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Silentfoe said:


> They were hiking because they sucked at technical climbing. Not because of their equipment.


So, why did they buy 29er's?


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

Silentfoe said:


> They were hiking because they sucked at technical climbing. Not because of their equipment.


Not necessarily. Equipment set up improperly can affect performance. IME nothing climbs better than a light 29" HT. But at 5'10", the out of the box seat height of the bike was too low for me. In that position, putting me in the back seat climbing was compromised. Reversing stem, switching to flat bar, eliminating spacers got my saddle level with bar as compared to higher than bar on 26" bike. But better than stock. Result: climb like goat.

So I wonder if "vertically challenged" riders can get a 29" bike to fit well. Not just the toe overlap thing.

Sure short women pros kick ass on them. But they are pros. Nino Schurter, the guy who made 650b famous, prefers a radically high saddle height which he could not achieve on a 29'er. So he had to use the extra large 26" wheels or whatever you want to call them.


----------



## dirtdan (Jun 27, 2011)

The bigger wheels are more stable, the smaller wheels accelerate better. The front ends of big wheeled bikes are often too high for shorter riders to get a neutral riding position with bars and saddle level. In races I still mostly see only 29rs. 650B bikes corner like crazy for whatever reason and are really fun to ride. From what I remember, 26" wheeled bikes are fun to ride too, but I won't be surprised if I never seriously ride a 26" wheeled bike again. The bigger the wheel the smaller the opposing force is on the system when riding over an obstacle making it smoother and directing the energy into the fork where it is absorbed instead of against the rider's momentum making it arguably more efficient.


----------



## Thustlewhumber (Nov 25, 2011)

Desertride said:


> My prediction: in 2054 a sociologist studying the effects of the internet will review forum archives and calculate that humanity spent a collective 100,000 years of its life debating MTB wheel sizes (compared to only 40,000 years debating fat skis).


It's been said that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Thustlewhumber said:


> It's been said that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.


So then, does that mean that 29er wheel reign supreme?! YESSS, they do!!!


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Hawg said:


> So then, does that mean that 29er wheel reign supreme?! YESSS, they do!!!


So does this mean the bandwagons full or is there still room to bring a herd of sheep.


----------



## paxy (Apr 6, 2012)

I think these wheels reign supreme

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

sasquatch rides a SS said:


> 27, however, is like the 7 wood and is not needed"


Hybrid long irons are needed for most. The 27 bike, of course, is a hybrid, SOMEWHERE between 29 & 26, but not exactly half way a previously claimed. But still the tweener, which is either a good thing or a bad thing ,depending on the rider


----------

