# 29er vs. 650B vs. 26 – a Crude Analysis



## dead_dog_canyon (Sep 8, 2010)

Disclaimer - I have never ridden anything bigger than a 26" wheel on a Mt. Bike, so I don't have the real world experience some of you have&#8230;

For some time now I have been curious about all the excitement over larger Mt. Bike tires and their advantages. This is a quick and dirty analysis meant only to open the discussion on a more technical basis. I'm sure there are errors in my thinking&#8230;

Claimed Advantages of larger wheels:
·Larger wheels roll over obstacles more easily due to decrease in approach angle
·Larger wheels are less prone to sinking in soft material such as sand and mud due to the larger contact patch causing lower ground pressure.
·The longer contact patch increases cornering and straight line traction
***************************
"Larger wheels roll over obstacles more easily"
Here are some screen shots of the impact angle of the three different wheels hitting 1", 3" and 6" rock. 

























There is less than a 2% improvement in approach angle going from a 26" wheel to a 29" wheel in all cases.
I don't see any real advantage of 29er here...

"Larger wheels are less prone to sinking in soft material & longer contact patch increases cornering and straight line traction"

The part about sinking in sand I get but don't understand the 'longer contact patch' advantage. The tire must support the same weight and what changes is the shape of ground contact with the larger the tire being an oval that is longer and narrower. Wouldn't the surface area in contact with the gound be the same if you had the same brand tire, tire pressure and rider weight in each size? How does a different shape help with either cornering or straight line traction? Surface area is surface area&#8230; Why do some claim longer contact is better than wider?

Flywheel Effect:
The more mass you have at a greater radius, the greater flywheel effect. I'm doing this quickly but it looks like there is roughly 10% more mass at roughly 10% greater diameter using a 29er over a 26". This will make the larger wheel harder to stop and turn. The larger wheel will have a slightly lower rotational speed for the same ground speed.









The response of a rotating system to an applied torque (turning the front wheel). 
When the device swivels, and some roll is added, the wheel tends to pitch.










Offhand, it seems like the larger wheel is at a disadvantage here....


----------



## wbmason55 (May 30, 2010)

Umm, yeah....I'm a grown adult that spends my free time riding a bicycle through the woods. It's fun. I could care less about the physics behind it. [Disclaimer, I own both a 26" and 29" bike.]


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

Test ride more bikes concentrate more on how each one feels different to you. Nothing else really matters. This forum, especially the 29er board, has been much more interesting now that most of these quasi-scientific justifications have slowly died off. However, to humor you:

As for impact angle, all I can say is that the couple 29ers I've had all rolled better through the many rock gardens on my trails. No idea about stopwatch times or anything, but it feels smoother to me on a hardtail or rigid bike and I'm less hesitant to carry speed into a rock garden because of that. 

As for contact patch.. I have no idea because differences between tire designs and compounds seem to make a much more noticeable difference.

As for the flywheel effect, I have no problem simply squeezing the brake lever a little bit harder and/or using a larger rotor. That part is easy to compensate for. Turning the wheel feels different but is easily compensated for and adjusted to through technique. A 26" bike with slack angles felt to me like it needed more technique adjustment than comparing between more similar XC 26ers and 29ers. The place I can say that I've found the flywheel effect more noticeable is in a positive way: the way the bike holds speed longer when coasting


----------



## herbn (Sep 17, 2005)

"less than 2%",not significant? you don't really know, 2% might just make a pretty big difference.In fact i did ride a 29er and that rollover factor is pretty nice.I also feel that they're quite a bit less manuverable, you need that rollover because you will be running into a lot of things that you'd probabely weave around on your 26er. There is still no clear cut scientific test that shows you will be faster, everywhere, if you go with a 29er. There's a huge number of variables both in terrain and in rider.I think the 29er makes more and more of a difference the lower the riders skill level is. As an extreme example of this; a super skilled trials rider can hop,skip and roll, quickly through a boulder field on 20 inch wheels that would require 109er wheels for a less skilled rider to roll through. I'm also a strong believer that every advantage is balenced by a disadvantage, it might not be an immediate clear cut balence but it will present itself. I think durability is a factor, i don't get stuff for free, a year from now if my wheels are bent up and wobbly ,i don't just get a fresh set from the factory, i'm the one buying spokes and rims and lacing them over. That's not even that much of a problem,when they potatoe chip in the middle of the woods in some remote area, that's when they're really gonna suck. Frame durability is another factor,29er frames are more stretched out and at their limit,much more wuarentee issues, i believe that the higher price for 29ers, is not so much the extra material, and it's not lower production numbers,it most likely the higher amount of wuarentee replacements factored in. There you go my .02


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

herbn said:


> In fact i did ride a 29er and that rollover factor is pretty nice.I also feel that they're quite a bit less manuverable, you need that rollover because you will be running into a lot of things that you'd probabely weave around on your 26er


That's part of the adjustment factor I was describing. I don't have any problems making high speed course corrections now that I'm used to riding 29ers, but I certainly had problems doing it well at first. Bikes that naturally turn in slower (whether it's because of geometry or wheel size) generally seem to require a little bit more conscious use of your body to lean in instead of just trying to make the bike turn using the bars.



herbn said:


> Frame durability is another factor,29er frames are more stretched out and at their limit,much more wuarentee issues, i believe that the higher price for 29ers, is not so much the extra material, and it's not lower production numbers,it most likely the higher amount of wuarentee replacements factored in.


There are certainly differences but nothing that puts modern design and materials at or close to their limits. Lots of people have been riding 29ers for quite a while now and this just hasn't been a problem.


----------



## sopwithcamel (Oct 2, 2007)

Have you ever seen someone use a stop watch and GPS data to compare sector times of a 26er's to 29er's like they do in formula one racing? This data is readily available off of any Garmin GPS but I am guessing you haven't seen this data because the 29er's are *"slower*" in every sector. That is why 29er riders always talk about _*"feel" *_and not about having a quicker time or speed.


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

sopwithcamel said:


> Have you ever seen someone use a stop watch and GPS data to compare sector times of a 26er's to 29er's like they do in formula one racing? This data is readily available off of any Garmin GPS but I am guessing you haven't seen this data because the 29er's are *"slower*" in every sector. That is why 29er riders always talk about _*"feel" *_and not about having a quicker time or speed.


Regardless of whether there is a speed difference, people here talk about feel and fun so much because we're almost all amateur riders out to have fun and feel good on the trail.

If you want to get into quicker times and speed you should ask all the XC World Cup riders who have been switching to 29ers. If anyone has gone through the work it would definitely be those riders and their teams


----------



## brent878 (Apr 17, 2007)

dead_dog_canyon said:


> "Larger wheels are less prone to sinking in soft material & longer contact patch increases cornering and straight line traction"
> 
> The part about sinking in sand I get but don't understand the 'longer contact patch' advantage. The tire must support the same weight and what changes is the shape of ground contact with the larger the tire being an oval that is longer and narrower. Wouldn't the surface area in contact with the gound be the same if you had the same brand tire, tire pressure and rider weight in each size? How does a different shape help with either cornering or straight line traction? Surface area is surface area&#8230; Why do some claim longer contact is better than wider?


I don't understand your reasoning in contact patch. I understand that a bigger wheel will have a longer contact patch but why does that mean its narrower? If you compare a 26" 2.2 tire and use the same brand tire but in a 29" 2.2 why would the 26" have a wider contact patch? I would think the same brand tire as a 2.2 would be 2.2" wide in either a 26" or 29" version. Maybe I am missing something here.


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

brent878 said:


> I don't understand your reasoning in contact patch. I understand that a bigger wheel will have a longer contact patch but why does that mean its narrower? If you compare a 26" 2.2 tire and use the same brand tire but in a 29" 2.2 why would the 26" have a wider contact patch? I would think the same brand tire as a 2.2 would be 2.2" wide in either a 26" or 29" version. Maybe I am missing something here.


Given a similar tire, the same weight on the tire, and the same air pressure inside the tire the contact patch will have approximately the same total area. As a very rough approximation of real life: 180lbs of weight being supported by the tire / 30psi air pressure inside the tire = 6 square inches of the tire on the ground

If the larger diameter 29" wheel gets a longer contact patch then physics means the contact patch must be smaller in width to keep the same area.


----------



## JonathanGennick (Sep 15, 2006)

dead_dog_canyon said:


> There is less than a 2% improvement in approach angle going from a 26" wheel to a 29" wheel in all cases.


You just need to find a different value to measure to give a more impressive result. 

Consider the height of a 6" rock to the distance from ground to axle.

29 / 2 = 14.5, 6/14.5 = 41%
26 / 2 = 13, 6/13 = 46%

I guess that's still not terribly dramatic, but we're up to 5% now, which is better than 2%.


----------



## brent878 (Apr 17, 2007)

boomn said:


> Given a similar tire, the same weight on the tire, and the same air pressure inside the tire the contact patch will have approximately the same total area. As a very rough approximation of real life: 180lbs of weight being supported by the tire / 30psi air pressure inside the tire = 6 square inches of the tire on the ground
> 
> If the larger diameter 29" wheel gets a longer contact patch then physics means the contact patch must be smaller in width to keep the same area.


I guess I am still not seeing it. I don't see see how they will have the same total area just becuase the tires have the same weight and tire pressure. Maybe I am not guessing the 26" tire will deform as much to make a wider base. The way I see it in my head (not saying this is correct) is that the 29" will have a larger contact patch but the pressure to the ground will be less per a square inch. in your example the pressure to the ground would be the same per a square inch in the 26" and 29" with the only difference is the shape of the contact patch.

In your example would they have the same contact patch area if both tires contact patches were measure with no weight on the bike? So the tire did not deform at all from the 180 pound rider or weight of bike?


----------



## nuffink (Feb 21, 2010)

Nice analysis. There's some Schwalbe sponsored research here which may be of interest if you haven't yet seen it... www.mtbonline.co.za/downloads/Rolling_Resistance_Eng_illustrated.pdf

One thing you've probably got wrong is the flywheel effect. Rolling wheels don't act as flywheels, only free spinning wheels do that. Among other things this means that the distribution of mass in a (non slipping) wheel is immaterial, only the total mass matters.


----------



## @dam (Jan 28, 2004)

You're measureing approach angle from the wrong side. the 29er approaches the 6" obstacle at 48.9 degrees, the 26er at 51.3. That's a difference of 5%. The bigger diameter also means the wheel will rise and fall over the obstacle more slowly. The bigger wheel can also reach 1.5" further forward to bridge the gap to the next bump, rather than falling all the way down and then coming all the way back up, slightly reducing up/down amplitude in high-frequency bumps. These combine to make the bike feel like it's floating over the obstacles rather than crashing into them.

BB height is about the same, but axle height is 1.5" higher on a 29er, reducing the moment that can cause an endo when hitting a given size obstacle, so the 29er encounters less force when encountering the obstacle, and what force it does encounter matters less.

Overall contact patch will be the same, but it'll be slightly longer. This means it can reach forward and back for traction, rather than slipping on every little rock that falls under a wider, shorter contact patch. This is especially notable on technical climbs.

Are 29ers faster? No- I think they're mainly just easier to ride. So, if the alternative is pushing up that technical climb, then yes- the 29er will be faster. It's also less fatigue to get up and over all the little obstacles, and you're less likely to endo. Cornering traction is also slightly better. A good rider on a course in his skill level might be quicker on a 26er due to reduced weight. For everyone else, riding is faster than pushing or crashing.

All the differences are pretty small- we're only talking about a wheel that's 12% bigger, but they all add up to a very noticable difference. I was skeptical of the advantages, too, until I tried one. My wife demoed one recently and was cleaning rock gardens she usually walks though. Very confidence inspiring. It's not like going from full-rigid to full-suspension, or like going from single speed to 30 speed, or a 35 pound bike to a 20 pound bike, but it's probably about the biggest difference you can find on a mountain bike besides those things.


----------



## arkon11 (Jul 26, 2009)

I'm gonna say it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*
29'ers are a fad.*


----------



## moschika (Jan 12, 2004)

arkon11 said:


> I'm gonna say it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> *
> 29'ers are a fad.*


was this post 262 or 263 for you? and what constitutes a 'fad'? people have been riding 29ers for quite a while now. do you think singlespeeding is a fad? i started riding one 22 years ago. what about suspension? you're funny Arkon11:yesnod: :yesnod: :yesnod: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Kona0197 (Oct 19, 2004)

I wonder if anyone is thinking that in time 29ers will become the standard. I doubt it.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

29er feels really good and noticeably better than 26er on the fireroad descend. On the rougher trail it's harder to pick a winner. Even though 29er roll better we don't keep plowing thru bigger stuffs and it also handle slower than 26er. 650b feels like a 26er with fat tires without that much extra drag. I like the wheel format the most but the compatible components/frame are still limited.


----------



## pyrotyro (Mar 27, 2011)

Interesting breakdown of it, OP. Im suprised at how small the improvements are, and it makes me wonder if coming in with speed would be the great improvement of a larger tire.

I come from a 4x4 background so I know:

Bigger tires are better. They roll over stuff better and smoother.
Bigger tires put more wear on stuff, are harder to slow and harder to turn.

Im considering going to a 29er myself. I like the idea of having another 1.5" of ground clearance. And im a tall, strong rider, so i figure it would fit me better and i could handle the turning of a taller tire. However... I just love how my 26er rides, and im afraid of how much heavier wheels and tires will be... So its a double edged sword.


Carry on silly bikers


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

pyrotyro said:


> Interesting breakdown of it, OP. Im suprised at how small the improvements are, and it makes me wonder if coming in with speed would be the great improvement of a larger tire.
> 
> I come from a 4x4 background so I know:
> 
> ...


29ers generally have the same ground to crank clearance. The frames are usually designed with different geometry so that the rider is the same height from the ground, so the rider is lower relative to the axles and more "between" the wheels instead of "over" them. Some people like that feeling, some don't


----------



## pyrotyro (Mar 27, 2011)

boomn said:


> 29ers generally have the same ground to crank clearance. The frames are usually designed with different geometry so that the rider is the same height from the ground, so the rider is lower relative to the axles and more "between" the wheels instead of "over" them. Some people like that feeling, some don't


No way! That sounds silly... But makes sense to not raise the COG too high.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

This is like that Jewish kid in a third grade class at Christmas time. They so wanted to be part of the fun, but tradition and their parents keep pushing towards the Dreidel and the Menorah.

But Mom, they're having so much fun, why not??:cryin: 

(No offense intended to any religions, the zealotry on both sides just makes the comparison apropos) :thumbsup: 

And FWIW? I like the way my bike makes me "feel", so if it feels like something I like, I like it, what's so bad about that????


----------



## frdfandc (Sep 5, 2007)

I have both a 26" FS Kona Kikapu Deluxe - 4" travel, and a Fuji Tahoe Pro 29er. 

I think there is an application for both, but I prefer the 29er. I rode the Kona two times last year. Once was because I broke some spokes on my 29er wheel set, and the 2nd time I just wanted to ride it before I stripped it down and sold everything. 

Now I was a skeptic on the 29er "fad", but held full judgement until I actually had the opportunity to ride one on the trails. A parking lot ride does not give you an accurate measurement of how a 29er performs.

I'll probably never ride a 26" wheel bike again, unless I'm going into downhill racing. After that first real ride on the trails, I knew I had to have my own 29er.


----------



## morphosity (Mar 3, 2011)

sopwithcamel said:


> Have you ever seen someone use a stop watch and GPS data to compare sector times of a 26er's to 29er's like they do in formula one racing? This data is readily available off of any Garmin GPS but I am guessing you haven't seen this data because the 29er's are *"slower*" in every sector. That is why 29er riders always talk about _*"feel" *_and not about having a quicker time or speed.


I don't have a GPS, but over very similar tracks with a similar percieved effort using bikes that are of a similar category (late model Stumpjumper FSR's), I record higher average speeds on the 29er (around 1 km/h higher). This may not be the most rigorous measurement of speeds but it's proof enough for me...


----------



## Gasp4Air (Jun 5, 2009)

@dam said:


> You're measureing approach angle from the wrong side. the 29er approaches the 6" obstacle at 48.9 degrees, the 26er at 51.3. That's a difference of 5%. The bigger diameter also means the wheel will rise and fall over the obstacle more slowly. The bigger wheel can also reach 1.5" further forward to bridge the gap to the next bump, rather than falling all the way down and then coming all the way back up, slightly reducing up/down amplitude in high-frequency bumps. These combine to make the bike feel like it's floating over the obstacles rather than crashing into them.
> 
> BB height is about the same, but axle height is 1.5" higher on a 29er, reducing the moment that can cause an endo when hitting a given size obstacle, so the 29er encounters less force when encountering the obstacle, and what force it does encounter matters less.
> 
> ...


Nicely explained. One of the words I use to characterize 29er vs 26er is _stability_. The bigger wheel circumference and the BB drop make for a more forgiving, more easily controlled and more "flowy" ride. For many riders, myself included, these advantages more than compensate for the small losses in acceleration and manueverability.


----------



## @dam (Jan 28, 2004)

Thanks. I also forgot to mention something else

A 0* approach angle (i.e. level ground) equals zero force pushing you back. A 90* approach angle is infinite- the harder you push, the harder it pushes back. Especially after 45 deg, the higher the obstacle you hit the closer to vertical (90 deg) the approach angle becomes. In other words, the force ramps up at an accelerating rate. Going from 0 to 45 will be a very small force increase compared to going from 45* to 90* or, likely, even 45* to 65* or 70* (I haven't thought about how to figure out the exact number, you'd have to play with vectors and get the horizontal component). So, while there may only be a 5% advantage in approach angle on the 6" obstacle, the difference in feel will be much greater- especially at angles over 45 deg where the steepness of impact starts to climb very sharply.

Think of it like this: how often have you approached a rock or ledge, and had to do a slight wheelie to get up onto it smoothly...just an inch or two? Probably pretty often. Well, a 29er gives you a similar advantage, 100% of the time, without having to pull that little wheelie. All the wheelie does is decrease your approach angle. It unweights too I suppose, but all you have to do on a 29er is unweight and let the bars come up to achieve the same advantage as doing a little wheelie on a 26er. It takes a lot less energy on technical terrain.

Also, bigger wheels deform less when they roll at any given pressure, so 29ers have slightly lower rolling resistance.


----------



## paredes_fontanals (Aug 10, 2012)

*2013 Norco Article*

Read the 2013 Norco article, there is a video that explains all this, I know it has been a couple of years but I think that 650b is going to be great, even more if you are not very tall.


----------



## 274898 (Nov 29, 2005)

I agree with OP in a sense. Ok, I don't own a 29er however I have ridden it enough to see the difference. To me, the impact resistance is ground breaking better in the sense of smoothing out the bumps. It is slightly better but I don't think it is a better than suspension in smoothing out the bumps. However, where I think the 29er shines is on the uphills. You can really shift your weight forward and hammer on the pedals in the ups and not lose traction. That to me is the biggest benefit of 29ers. But 29ers are not for everyone, they don't fit smaller people very well. If you are taller person than it is much better fit.


----------



## WD9 (Jun 29, 2012)

My biggest confirmation of why a 29er makes a better commuter/trail bike for me comes at the lowest speeds when I get distracted during my ride, slow down to observe and inadvertently hit a large stump or in my case I hit a sidewalk curb and where my old Raleigh Talus used to almost come to a dead stop when I unintentionally tried to mount a curb, my rigid 29er slow down only about 50% but rolls right over that slab and instead of going "ohfuxorz!" And lurching forward I find myself now only going "oof. . . . eh, that wasn't so bad." and rolling about my business.


----------



## WD9 (Jun 29, 2012)

Oh. The lbs I went to in I'll had an interesting test track for people that had doubts about 29ers. Get a bunch of 2x4 pieces then a bunch of 1/2 pieces of wood. Space the pieces out every 12 inches for about 20 feet then ride over the 2x4's first. Then roll over the 1/2 inch pieces and you tell me which feels smoother and and which you feel mire confident riding over.


----------



## Nubster (May 15, 2009)

My analysis on the 29er vs 26" debate...WHO GIVES A FVCK!!!!!!!!!!!! Try each wheel size, pick the one that suits you, and f'ing ride and stop debating this sh!t to death.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

My 29er is red, so it goes faster.


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

I don't know man, but I have GPS data on my own rides on 26'er vs. 29'er, and I am more often than not faster on the 29'er on the same segment of trail. Obviously there are a lot more variables than just wheel size, but such charts and physics are pointless. How does it feel to you when you ride it? Is it fun? Do you get exercise? Do you get to where you are going? Do you meet your own personal ride goals for the day? If the answer to all that is yes, then it is a great bike! Yes, with 29'ers there is definitely more traction and control on sand. Yes, the larger wheel is a bit more unwieldy to handle. But most of the time I am scratching my head trying to figure out which of my sweet bikes to ride. Life is good with such problems. 

My interest in the 29'er stems from longer rides. It is my hypothesis that you conserve more energy over the long haul pedaling larger wheels than smaller ones. I believe it's slower to accelerate, and in short distances you might not see any speed gain. But that's not the point for me, I'm not a short distance kind of gal.


----------



## morphosity (Mar 3, 2011)

shredchic said:


> I don't know man, but I have GPS data on my own rides on 26'er vs. 29'er, and I am more often than not faster on the 29'er on the same segment of trail. Obviously there are a lot more variables than just wheel size, but such charts and physics are pointless. How does it feel to you when you ride it? Is it fun? Do you get exercise? Do you get to where you are going? Do you meet your own personal ride goals for the day? If the answer to all that is yes, then it is a great bike! Yes, with 29'ers there is definitely more traction and control on sand. Yes, the larger wheel is a bit more unwieldy to handle. But most of the time I am scratching my head trying to figure out which of my sweet bikes to ride. Life is good with such problems.


That's a good summary of this whole wheel size vs. wheel size thing. A bike should be fun to ride, and there are a lot of great bikes around today.

I think that wheel size is only one part of the puzzle of what makes a bike fun. I'm much more interested in what geometry the bike has (headangle, chainstay length, wheelbase, etc) what suspension design the bike has and general component choices than what size wheel the bike has.

That said I'm riding 29ers (mainly a WFO9) at the moment because I see no reason not to for what I want to do. I haven't found them to be slow to accelerate or sluggish to corner, at least no more so than the 160 mm travel Enduro I had before... As far as 29ers arent good for jumping (which seems to get repeated a lot as another downside of the wheelsize) well, that's BS. Usually the guys saying that haven't been riding the right bikes  and the same goes for the guys saying that 29ers are "just" (I hate that word) for XC riding...that depends on what XC riding means.

Right, I'm going riding now.


----------



## PowerGoat (Jul 31, 2012)

I'm about to buy a new bike and liked my test rides on a 29er better than those on the 26ers. To me, the difference was about as big as the difference between an hardtail and a FS. I'm planning on doing mostly 24 hour and 100 mile races, but at 5'9" and 125 pounds, I'm concerned about lugging a heavier bike/wheels around for a long time. (I'm more of an "endure" person than a "power" rider.) From what I've been reading, most people feel that the benefits of getting over the bumps and ruts and etc. more easily and more comfortably seem to outweigh the drawback of a heavier bike, but probably the great majority of these commenters are heavier and more powerful than I am. For those of you who are small and/or light and have 29ers, have you been happy with your switch to 29's and would you recommend a 29er for a lighter person? Thanks.


----------



## lpranger467 (Aug 18, 2012)

*About to buy my first 29,*

After riding 26's for years I'm about to drop 2 grand on a 29 HT. I'm in Michigan (mainly singletracks) so I dont really think I need FS (but I'm very open to opinions on this,,,hint hint).

I did test ride a 29 FS and found that it seemed to climb better than my 26.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

For hardtails, 29ers are the new standard. Not many companies making high-end 26er HTs anymore.


----------



## JonathanGennick (Sep 15, 2006)

lpranger467 said:


> After riding 26's for years I'm about to drop 2 grand on a 29 HT. I'm in Michigan (mainly singletracks) so I dont really think I need FS (but I'm very open to opinions on this,,,hint hint).


I'm in Michigan too. Most trails I've ridden in Michigan -- Hanson Hills, Shingle Mill, Fort Custer, Stoney Creek, Bay de Noc -- can be ridden pretty easily on a rigid. Front suspension will save a little wear and tear on your arms though, and maybe allow you to go faster through the bumpy stretches. Full suspension aids traction and allows you to stay seated and pedal where you might otherwise have to coast and absorb the bumps. Don't knock full-suspension, but the light weight of a nice hardtail is nice too.

FWIW, and somewhat on topic for this thread, I rode both a 29er and a 26er -- both rigid -- at Hanson Hills last week. I do believe I was faster on the 29er, but did not time myself. I did better on the downhill turns using the 26er though, because the smaller bike is easier to move around on. But in the main, on that trail system, I like the 29er better.


----------



## derby (Jan 12, 2004)

At lower speeds bigger wheels ease rolling resistance and have better traction. At higher speeds, not much difference, suspension matters more, and smaller wheels have more surface feel.

Most trail ride time is done at slower speeds.


----------



## lpranger467 (Aug 18, 2012)

*Stmpjumper EVO*

I'm still very hesitant to buy a 29 (kinda thought I should see where this whole 27.5/650 thing is going). But I did put a deposit on a Specialized EVO HT, only has a single ring up front, real light..I'm thinking I cant go wrong either way


----------



## tomboyjr (Jul 16, 2009)

I agree with all those that say none of the tests matter unless YOU get on a 29er and decide if its for you. 

I had bought one to see what all the fuss was about, a cheap Fuji 4" travel frame. It wasnt even the right fit for me, I bought it a little smaller than I usually ride, cuz the next size up was a little big for me. At first I didnt see much of a difference over my 26er. But it was on the technical climbs I noticed I was making them most of the time, where as on my 26er I would make them maybe half the time. Same climbs, same conditions. And I never felt it beoing slower to turn like everyone says. 

I sold the Fuji and bought a Salsa, this thing is even better for my local conditions. I built it up to be a light XC bike-25 lbs. And I found myself bringing it to even the most technical places I ride, choosing that over my Yeti 575. I liked it much better except for any longer downhills, but we dont have many of those here in CT.

Long story short (or is it too late for that now-lol), the Yeti is gone and I just bought a Kona Satori which is a longer travel 29er, 130mm rear and 140mm front. Fantastic bike that seems to do everything well. Yet I still ride the lighter Salsa more than half the time.


----------



## lpranger467 (Aug 18, 2012)

*Thnks all*

I figure with everyone raving about 29's I cant go wrong,,I am going out on my 26 one more time today though while the 29 ride is still fresh in my mind


----------



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

There- that proves it.


----------



## Piman (Aug 13, 2012)

Seems like the OP is just against 29ers. I love mine. Rolls for dayzzzz!


----------



## chatman (Feb 8, 2012)

Soon to add a 29er to my fleet. Can't wait....


----------



## b-kul (Sep 20, 2009)

watch the norco 650b vid on here, its really good at explaining the differences between wheel sizes in simple terms. in short there are noticable differences.


----------



## b-kul (Sep 20, 2009)

paredes_fontanals said:


> Read the 2013 Norco article, there is a video that explains all this, I know it has been a couple of years but I think that 650b is going to be great, even more if you are not very tall.


bah, shoulda read the whole thread :thumbsup:


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

I have a fukcing 26er and every day I feel like I have been castrated because all the big boys that knows their **** on the internet have 29ers. I must have a small penis too.

My next bike will be muddafukkin 700c! wooooooooo!

And the next one after that I will fukcing weld myself with my dikc if I have to and it will kick the last ones (700c) ass so much! And it will have 20 inch wheels!!!!!!! How can this insanity continue!!! The end is near. Pray everybody, pray!

Wheel size don't mean jack zhit. Only your ability to adapt to the enviroment/situation does! You heard it first here!


----------



## Learux (Jun 4, 2012)

I am 6,5 been riding 26" for a long time, bought a 29" and will never ever look back.

I must add I do mainly xcountry these days with the occasional jump and drop.

Too many responsibilty's to go bombing down singletrack.


----------



## Sandrenseren (Dec 29, 2011)

I sweat like a pig on my 26". I sweat like a pig on my 29'er. I corner like a sissy on my 26. I corner like a sissy on my 29. I get stuck in the mud and sweat some more on both bikes.

My 29'er feels very different than my 26'er, but that might just be that one is rigid and the other has suspension, one is SS while the other is geared, the difference in geometry, the difference in weight or maybe it's just that my new bike is newer and more fun to ride at the moment..... then again I can't rule out that it's all down to the wheel size..


----------



## chatman (Feb 8, 2012)

29er won the Olympic MTB XC Gold and a 650b came in second......


----------



## duggs9903 (Apr 5, 2009)

*I get the passion, but...*

I have a tough time understanding why one wheel size has to be determined as the absolute best. In the past two years, I've owned a FS 26, a rigid 26,a hardtail 26, a hardtail 650b and a rigid 29er. The variables that determine "the best" are completely subjective, so what works for me probably wont work for 98% of riders. However, for me, after riding my rigid 29er, I will never go back to a 26 inch bike. But, once my fat body forces my thick head to realize I cant use a rigid bike as my everyday ride, I'll grab a 650b FS. Every bike has its place...ride 'em and enjoy 'em! Just my .02.


----------



## ocean_29 (Mar 18, 2012)

dead_dog_canyon said:


> Disclaimer - I have never ridden anything bigger than a 26" wheel on a Mt. Bike, so I don't have the real world experience some of you have&#8230;
> 
> For some time now I have been curious about all the excitement over larger Mt. Bike tires and their advantages. This is a quick and dirty analysis meant only to open the discussion on a more technical basis. I'm sure there are errors in my thinking&#8230;
> 
> ...


I stop reading there, your analysis is wrongly simplified. 
If you want to do maths you should take into account and so many other equations 
of physics to conclude how this is expressed in percentage of more loss of energy in 26" in that particular case.

with that simple logic, I can tell you that....

70 deg of head tube angle in comparison with 68 deg differs only 2 degs.

*- "Oh!!? only 2... not big deal...thats under 3% ...I don't see any real advantage of having 68deg in descents or having 70 going up the trails."*

and its more complicated than that. For example having a little slacker HTA does not mean always that you ll be more comfortable in descents or vice versa...take part and a plenty of other factors of bike geometry.

With your logic all the bikes are the same. But altering some factors a little and you make huge difference, some other less. If someone ride a 29er having at least a little experience of cycling he will immediately understand how much impact is having 29er than a 26er

Other likes it other not, thats not the case.


----------



## dead_dog_canyon (Sep 8, 2010)

Holly smokes, settle down guys – 

I agree with “who really cares” about wheel size, HT vs FS, etc., etc., etc. It is some of you who get overly impassioned about this crap. 

I can see Heavenly at Tahoe from my house. This time of year, I ride 1-3 times a week. I quite happily road my 84’ Fisher until late 2010. Not really caring about the latest and greatest stuff that was pedaling by me on the trail. Then…. my wife pulled a new Specialized HT out the car. I’m going what the ‘ WTH – I’m getting a new bike too.’ 

This where the fun begins. What to buy? I start reading here and boy does the confusion start. Blah, blah, blah – my jimmy is bigger than yours – blah, blah, blah. I ended up with what I basically already knew, a V-Brake HT. And BTW - I’m very happy with it…. 

One of the big reasons I bought the 26 V-Brake was the ability to swap parts with the 5 other bikes at my house. This was more important to me than the latest and greatest.

The OP was written after a 25 mile loop where a couple of guys on 29ers kept leap frogging me and my boys. The ever time we met, they keep harping about how cool their 29” FS bikes were –> implying our 26” HTs w/ V-Brakes were crap. (Humm… We keep getting ahead of you… must be crap.)




The more I hang out on this forum, the more I’m convinced there are some really immature / narrow minded people here….

I wonder what some of you are like in person?

Neg Rep from a couple of days ago (on a 4 / 5 month old post?):

1) yep... you're an idiot!

2) Started a thread, based on no experience bashing something. I HATE you arm chair engineers, do yourself a favour and ride the damn things to form a real opiion –

#2 is the one I really like:
“no experience bashing something /// think you know it all” – learn to read, I said I don’t get what all the excitement is about, it was a CRUDE analysis and I’m sure there are errors in my thinking.

“I HATE you arm chair engineers” – You think! Sorry dude, I’m a ‘hands on’ engineer. Everybody that works at my company needs to (and does) work on any and everything. 3D Mechanical and Electrical CAD, running the CNC mill, soldering circuit brds, taking the trash out...... 

Based on your comments, I think you don’t know a damn thing about how things get built in the real world. Herp a Derp – we just get out the welder and start making stuff without thinking about it first! –> grin. If you would pull your head out of your butt, you would realize every design is optimized for one thing. The 26 is better in certain conditions and the 29 is better in others. The 29er is very likely a superior design but to think your 29er is end all is foolish.

Go ride your bike and enjoy what you got….


----------



## Nubster (May 15, 2009)

At least you learned a lesson, starting any thread here that has any thing to do with one wheel size vs another = neg rep. No matter what.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Nubster said:


> At least you learned a lesson, starting any thread here that has any thing to do with one wheel size vs another = neg rep. No matter what.


Bingo. Now I'm off to the DH forum to explain how physics says my rigid 29er is faster.


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

PowerGoat said:


> have you been happy with your switch to 29's and would you recommend a 29er for a lighter person? Thanks.


I am not as light as you, but I do know a lot of light guys riding 29'ers around. I recently got a Lurcher from On-One, did a pretty non-weight-weenie build and it's 24.5 lbs. - so it can easily get down to 22 lbs. 29'er doesn't always mean heavier. They are slow/harder to accelerate, which matters for about the first 60 seconds after which you are trucking along and passing everybody. Hardly a deal-breaker in a 24 hr/100 mile race. They are the tool of choice for many endurance racers - look at the tour divide - ok mostly fire road, but still...

26" bikes are still awesome - they are better at different things. I love mine, and might get another one soon. There are different bikes built for different purposes and they are all a blast.


----------



## bclagge (Aug 31, 2009)

chatman said:


> 29er won the Olympic MTB XC Gold and a 650b came in second......


Yeah, and a woman won the Gold medal with a 26" HT. Your apparent point was ill informed.

shredchic:
"There are different bikes built for different purposes and they are all a blast."

Yup. Ride what you like and find fun!


----------



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

> The OP was written after a 25 mile loop where a couple of guys on 29ers kept leap frogging me and my boys. The ever time we met, they keep harping about how cool their 29" FS bikes were -> implying our 26" HTs w/ V-Brakes were crap. (Humm&#8230; We keep getting ahead of you&#8230; must be crap.)





> The more I hang out on this forum, the more I'm convinced there are some really immature / narrow minded people here&#8230;.
> 
> I wonder what some of you are like in person?
> 
> ...


like :thumbsup:

I don't know or care about "rep" here but I like this.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

dead_dog_canyon said:


> Disclaimer - I have never ridden anything bigger than a 26" wheel on a Mt. Bike, so I don't have the real world experience some of you have&#8230;
> 
> For some time now I have been curious about all the excitement over larger Mt. Bike tires and their advantages. This is a quick and dirty analysis meant only to open the discussion on a more technical basis. I'm sure there are errors in my thinking&#8230;
> 
> ...


I was directed here from a thread on singletrackworld, just wanted to complement you on your analysis. Excellent post.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

turbodog said:


> I was directed here from a thread on singletrackworld, just wanted to complement you on your analysis. Excellent post.


And thank's for dragging this nightmare of a thread out if the attic. Now we can argue wheel size again for the next 4 months.


----------



## FujNoob (Dec 20, 2009)

turbodog said:


> I was directed here from a thread on singletrackworld, just wanted to stir up some more useless crap.


Fixt


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

turbodog said:


> I was directed here from a thread on singletrackworld, just wanted to complement you on your analysis. Excellent post.


The troll thinks the post is excellent, because it's BS, which is trollboy's speciality.

This article has a pretty good analysis of rollover, although other parts of the article have some problems. It calculates horizontal force (opposing forward motion) from a 6" tall obstacle is 4% worse for a 26" vs 27.5, and 6% better for 29" vs. 27.5, so 29er wheels will see almost 10% less momentum sucking force for each hit of this size compared to a 26er.

Educating the Debate ? Part II - NSMB.com


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

turbodog said:


> I was directed here from a thread on singletrackworld, just wanted to complement you on your analysis. Excellent post.


Fess up ... it was the little voices in your head, the voices compelling you to dredge up old threads that espouse the turbotroll line wasn't it? You can admit it.


----------



## Havinfun (Mar 18, 2015)

My first college degree was in math, and I even competed in national level college math competitions. And, there is nothing worse than killing the fun of the human aspect of feeling and joy with a bit of boring math and physics. I have one of each wheel size, but on totally different bikes, AM, DH, and XC. Each is what I wanted and like for its application. Hopefully I will not have to hear too much about how my choices just do not make sense from folks who do not own and ride the different sizes. Or, maybe I should be smart enough to click the back arrow faster next time!!!


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Anyone with a background in math, science, statistics or anything involving data analysis should know that the way data is presented has a big impact on how that data is preceived by the lay person. The diagrams above are from a neutral party with no agenda, and are accurate. In comparison, look at Giant's 27.5 marketing material - it has been fully manipulated.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

turbodog said:


> Anyone with a background in math, science, statistics or anything involving data analysis should know that the way data is presented has a big impact on how that data is preceived by the lay person. The diagrams above are from a neutral party with no agenda, and are accurate. In comparison, look at Giant's 27.5 marketing material - it has been fully manipulated.


You are so full of sh1t. Do the calcs yourself, if you can. The ops numbers are wrong. And the link above isn't from Giant. Giant has their own numbers which have been manipulated, by overestimating the benefit of 27.5, and underestimating the benefit of 29". 
Look at the real numbers, then imagine what better rollover feels like. Since you don't ride, that's the best you can do.


----------



## Knucklehead (May 18, 2004)

I was actually pretty happy to see this thread turn up - I was just looking for information like this. I took many years off of mtb'ing and just got back into the saddle about a month and a half ago. Back when I was riding a lot, 29'ers were still looking like a new fad. 29" and 27.5" have now come to the forefront. Since all of my old bikes are 26" I was looking for an analysis of the differences. This thread seems to pretty much state the same as the various articles I can find on the subject. That being, all three sizes have their place but in the end, it's still a matter of preference.

Although I took years off, I still consider myself a fairly advanced rider. Technical riding, rock gardens, etc.. were never an issue. This being the case, I'd rather stick with 26" wheels. Unfortunately, I prefer 26" on smaller XC racing bikes, which appear to be harder and harder to come by. I like my bikes small and nimble even though I'm 6'2". From what I can tell, the trend looks like XC racing bikes are all moving to 29" while DH style bikes are staying at 26".

Maybe if I end up needing to buy a new MTB I'll end up with 27'5". I'll definitely have some demo'ing to do. The good news for me is that my LBS has been able to acquire a few key replacement parts I needed for my old NRS Air - so I can hold off buying a new bike, for now.


----------



## andy f (Jan 13, 2004)

D.Ambrose said:


> I was actually pretty happy to see this thread turn up - I was just looking for information like this. I took many years off of mtb'ing and just got back into the saddle about a month and a half ago. Back when I was riding a lot, 29'ers were still looking like a new fad. 29" and 27.5" have now come to the forefront. Since all of my old bikes are 26" I was looking for an analysis of the differences. This thread seems to pretty much state the same as the various articles I can find on the subject. That being, all three sizes have their place but in the end, it's still a matter of preference.
> 
> Although I took years off, I still consider myself a fairly advanced rider. Technical riding, rock gardens, etc.. were never an issue. This being the case, I'd rather stick with 26" wheels. Unfortunately, I prefer 26" on smaller XC racing bikes, which appear to be harder and harder to come by. I like my bikes small and nimble even though I'm 6'2". From what I can tell, the trend looks like XC racing bikes are all moving to 29" while DH style bikes are staying at 26".
> 
> Maybe if I end up needing to buy a new MTB I'll end up with 27'5". I'll definitely have some demo'ing to do. The good news for me is that my LBS has been able to acquire a few key replacement parts I needed for my old NRS Air - so I can hold off buying a new bike, for now.


Pay more attention to geometry than wheel size and it'll be much easier to find a bike you really like. Compared to your NRS, you're going to find newer bikes have lower BBs, slacker HTAs, and longer TTs. A 69 degree HTA is considered XC these days. Also, there are finally a reasonable number of 29ers available with sub-17" chainstays and unlike 10 years ago, fork manufacturers use different offsets for the 26", 27.5", and 29" versions. Chances are, you'll be able to find the kind of bike you enjoy in all three wheel sizes.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

D.Ambrose said:


> I was actually pretty happy to see this thread turn up - I was just looking for information like this. I took many years off of mtb'ing and just got back into the saddle about a month and a half ago. Back when I was riding a lot, 29'ers were still looking like a new fad. 29" and 27.5" have now come to the forefront. Since all of my old bikes are 26" I was looking for an analysis of the differences. This thread seems to pretty much state the same as the various articles I can find on the subject. That being, all three sizes have their place but in the end, it's still a matter of preference.
> 
> Although I took years off, I still consider myself a fairly advanced rider. Technical riding, rock gardens, etc.. were never an issue. This being the case, I'd rather stick with 26" wheels. Unfortunately, I prefer 26" on smaller XC racing bikes, which appear to be harder and harder to come by. I like my bikes small and nimble even though I'm 6'2". From what I can tell, the trend looks like XC racing bikes are all moving to 29" while DH style bikes are staying at 26".
> 
> Maybe if I end up needing to buy a new MTB I'll end up with 27'5". I'll definitely have some demo'ing to do. The good news for me is that my LBS has been able to acquire a few key replacement parts I needed for my old NRS Air - so I can hold off buying a new bike, for now.


Most of the currently offered DH bikes are 650b these days...


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

D.Ambrose said:


> I was actually pretty happy to see this thread turn up - I was just looking for information like this. I took many years off of mtb'ing and just got back into the saddle about a month and a half ago. Back when I was riding a lot, 29'ers were still looking like a new fad. 29" and 27.5" have now come to the forefront. Since all of my old bikes are 26" I was looking for an analysis of the differences. This thread seems to pretty much state the same as the various articles I can find on the subject. That being, all three sizes have their place but in the end, it's still a matter of preference.
> 
> Although I took years off, I still consider myself a fairly advanced rider. Technical riding, rock gardens, etc.. were never an issue. This being the case, I'd rather stick with 26" wheels. Unfortunately, I prefer 26" on smaller XC racing bikes, which appear to be harder and harder to come by. I like my bikes small and nimble even though I'm 6'2". From what I can tell, the trend looks like XC racing bikes are all moving to 29" while DH style bikes are staying at 26".
> 
> Maybe if I end up needing to buy a new MTB I'll end up with 27'5". I'll definitely have some demo'ing to do. The good news for me is that my LBS has been able to acquire a few key replacement parts I needed for my old NRS Air - so I can hold off buying a new bike, for now.


It shouldn't be too hard to find a modern 26" hardtail frame, while they are rare, they are still available online and on ebay.

Rollover and stablity are the only advantage of larger wheels, and depending on how you look at the data (such as in this thread, which is correct), it is really not as big of an advantage as people would have you believe. 26" wheels are much stiffer, stronger, lighter, and more manuverable.

Consider this senario - you are coming at a 10" square edged curb (rock, log, etc) at 25 mph. Would you rather roll into it with a 29er, or bunnyhop up it with a 26" wheel bike?

Sorry....it's a trick question, because if you roll into a 10" square edged obstacle with a "normal" 29er at 25mph, you will destroy the rim, tire, and yourself.

I recommend 29er and 27.5 riders try rolling into a 6" square edged object at 25 mph to see what happens. Don't pull up.

I'd be willing to bet most people never have owned a bike that could survive that. I did, about 15 years ago. It had 8" travel front and rear, a 10lb inverted fork with oil bath and coil springs, 2-ply tires and 500g tubes bought at a motorcycle shop. Bike was somewhere over 45lb. You could plow into anything 6" and under and it wouldn't miss a beat.

Regardless, the biggest thing anyone will rollover on a normal bike without unweighting the front wheel is going to be about 2-3 inches. Last time I checked, where I ride has PLENTY of stuff over 3" tall that I need to ride over. I'll take the manuverable bike with the stiff strong wheels, please.

If you like dirt roads, flow trails, small rocks, and loong walks on the beach, perhaps larger wheels are the best bet.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

turbodog said:


> It shouldn't be too hard to find a modern 26" hardtail frame, while they are rare, they are still available online and on ebay.
> 
> Rollover and stablity are the only advantage of larger wheels, and depending on how you look at the data (such as in this thread, which is correct), it is really not as big of an advantage as people would have you believe. 26" wheels are much stiffer, stronger, lighter, and more manuverable.
> 
> ...


You still having fun? No one gives a **** about your shitty attempts at trolling. Go away.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Here ya go to TB. Watch this and get back to us with your well thought out findings.

Barney's Round & Round We Go!


----------



## Knucklehead (May 18, 2004)

andy f said:


> Pay more attention to geometry than wheel size and it'll be much easier to find a bike you really like. Compared to your NRS, you're going to find newer bikes have lower BBs, slacker HTAs, and longer TTs. A 69 degree HTA is considered XC these days. Also, there are finally a reasonable number of 29ers available with sub-17" chainstays and unlike 10 years ago, fork manufacturers use different offsets for the 26", 27.5", and 29" versions. Chances are, you'll be able to find the kind of bike you enjoy in all three wheel sizes.


Thanks for the info, that's good to know.



turbodog said:


> It shouldn't be too hard to find a modern 26" hardtail frame, while they are rare, they are still available online and on ebay.<snip>
> Regardless, the biggest thing anyone will rollover on a normal bike without unweighting the front wheel is going to be about 2-3 inches. Last time I checked, where I ride has PLENTY of stuff over 3" tall that I need to ride over. I'll take the manuverable bike with the stiff strong wheels, please.<snip>


I like to feel the trail - rocks and all. Figuring out how to get over/through it all is part of the fun (for me). Thanks for the input.


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

How long before turbotroll gets another thread locked from their inane babbling?


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

TheDwayyo said:


> You still having fun? No one gives a **** about your shitty attempts at trolling. Go away.


Hey now, let's try to keep it civilized here, this is a valid discussion even though you disagree with my points. You don't see me calling you an industry shill, even though your post history shows you work in a shop and clearly have an agenda.

I used to work in a shop too! In 1995-2001. How come you just joined MTBR? Welcome to the party!

26" are a fantastic and perfectly valid wheel size to ride with many advantages, even if the industry (and your shop) might not be properly supporting them at the moment. Don't worry, they'll be back soon.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Have you watched this yet? This pretty much sums up this thread.

Barney's Round & Round We Go!


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

turbodog said:


> It shouldn't be too hard to find a modern 26" hardtail frame, while they are rare, they are still available online and on ebay.
> 
> Rollover and stablity are the only advantage of larger wheels, and depending on how you look at the data (such as in this thread, which is correct), it is really not as big of an advantage as people would have you believe. 26" wheels are much stiffer, stronger, lighter, and more manuverable.
> 
> ...


Yup......you created a trick question. :thumbsup:

You would do the same thing no matter what wheel size you were on. If not, you are a hack rider and would destroy the wheel regardless of size. :nono:


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

turbodog said:


> Hey now, let's try to keep it civilized here, this is a valid discussion even though you disagree with my points. You don't see me calling you an industry shill, even though your post history shows you work in a shop and clearly have an agenda.
> 
> I used to work in a shop too! In 1995-2001. How come you just joined MTBR? Welcome to the party!
> 
> 26" are a fantastic and perfectly valid wheel size to ride with many advantages, even if the industry (and your shop) might not be properly supporting them at the moment. Don't worry, they'll be back soon.


I work part time in a shop, not as a career. I make no commission and I really don't care what bikes people buy, so long as they enjoy riding them.

I don't disagree with your points, I just don't think you're making any. The wheel debate has been done to death and the only result worth discussing is simply that each person should decide what works best for them and use it.

I just switched from 29 to 27.5 and despite the general consensus that 29 is faster I am smashing all of my old records on the new bike. Doesn't mean it's better, just means it's better for me.

Your logic is argumentative and full of fallacies. I highly doubt you are actually interested in a civilized discussion.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

mtnbikej said:


> Yup......you created a trick question. :thumbsup:
> 
> You would do the same thing no matter what wheel size you were on. If not, you are a hack rider and would destroy the wheel regardless of size. :nono:


Exactly. His logic implies that a rider cannot hop a 29 or 27.5, but can a 26... Now I do recognize that 29ers are a bit hesitant in the air, but they're certainly not incapable of hopping a log or something similar.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

TheDwayyo said:


> Exactly. His logic implies that a rider cannot hop a 29 or 27.5, but can a 26... Now I do recognize that 29ers are a bit hesitant in the air, but they're certainly not incapable of hopping a log or something similar.


You don't say? It sounds more than 10% harder........



SpecialK said:


> The technique for bunny hopping a 29er, as stated before, is the same as for a 26er. However, getting a 29er wheel up is much harder than on a 26er. It has to do with wheel weight, wheel size and the natural position on the bike.
> 
> For starters, try preloading the shock (if you have one) as you approach the obstacle. When you get to the point of lifting up the front tire, use the travel rebound to push you up. At this point, your weight should be back behind the seat so that you can take full advantage of the leverage. It takes a larger shift in body weight to get that bike wheel up in the air with a 29er but with practice, you can do it. It will never be as easy as on a 26er however.
> 
> ...





sean salach said:


> it's slower on a 29er, due mainly to the greater amount of bb drop compared to a 26" wheeled bike, then by the longer stays, then by all the other, somewhat negligible factors. by greater amount of bb drop, i mean the bb is farther below the axle plane. if you look at all the bikes designed with bunnyhopping in mind, they actually have bb RISE, as in the bb is higher than the plane of the axles. if you look at 26" xc bikes, they mostly have 0.00" to 2.00" bb drop. 29" hardtails generally have 2.3" to 3.0" of bb drop. notable exceptions are the sinister simon bar and, oddly, the sette razzo.
> 
> as far as your problem of not getting the back wheel off the ground, there could be two likely issues.
> 
> ...


Bunny Hopping- Mtbr.com


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

OK, I don't see where it says that hopping a 10" obstacle on a 29er is impossible.

You seem to diminish the desirable effects of larger wheels like rollover, meanwhile overstating the undesirable effects of larger wheels in other areas, like bunny hopping or wheel stiffness. You can't have it both ways... Unless you're just a troll.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

TheDwayyo said:


> OK, I don't see where it says that hopping a 10" obstacle on a 29er is impossible.
> 
> You seem to diminish the desirable effects of larger wheels like rollover, meanwhile overstating the undesirable effects of larger wheels in other areas, like bunny hopping or wheel stiffness. You can't have it both ways... Unless you're just a troll.


You seem to be following along pretty well. Actually, I'm taking a fair, pragmatic approach, because I have no agenda and don't want to sell anything.

- We all just agreed that no one plows into square 6" objects, thus, a calculated 10% improvement in rollover is meaningless (not to mention false)

- 3" is about the most you'll plow into without lifting on a normal trail bike. The difference at that size is about 5-6%. In the angle of attack. If you actually calculate the horizontal force vectors, *the real difference is about 2.5-3%.*

- I don't consider 29er's holding momentum to be an advantage - that is traditionally considered a disadvantage in mountain biking. 26" manuver much better.

- 26" wheels are a massive 63% stiffer than 29er wheels, all things being equal. Strength is also simillarly correleated.

- 26" bunnyhop and accordingly are manuvered over larger objects with much greater ease.

- 26" are lighter by at least 10%, unless you need a stiffer and stronger wheel, or want to spend $1k+ on carbon.

So, when you actually look at all the differences in a balanced manner, you see that 29er's are trading away a pretty large number of things for only a minor practical difference in rollover.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

TheDwayyo said:


> OK, I don't see where it says that hopping a 10" obstacle on a 29er is impossible.


Speaking of impossible, back in the day I could bunnyhop a 65lb brooklyn TMX about a foot off the ground, and a 45lb dh bike onto a 20"+ ledge without hitting the rear tire.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

I don't even know what you are arguing. I've ridden all three wheel sizes and had a blast riding each. If I had my way I'd have a 29 XC bike, a 27.5 trail bike and a 26 DH bike... So what exactly are you trying to prove to me?


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

The troll is off his medication again...

*turbodog = Simpleton*


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

TheDwayyo said:


> I don't even know what you are arguing. I've ridden all three wheel sizes and had a blast riding each. If I had my way I'd have a 29 XC bike, a 27.5 trail bike and a 26 DH bike... So what exactly are you trying to prove to me?


That the bike industry is blatantly lieing to you.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

TheDwayyo said:


> I don't even know what you are arguing. I've ridden all three wheel sizes and had a blast riding each. If I had my way I'd have a 29 XC bike, a 27.5 trail bike and a 26 DH bike... So what exactly are you trying to prove to me?


You realize you are trying to have a conversation with a crazy person, right?

He lies. He states the obvious. He ignores the obvious. He ignores facts. He repeats himself. He baits you. He insults. He goes around in circles with falsehoods until people get sick of him, then he starts all over again in a new thread, or digging up an old one like this one. He pretends he never heard all the stuff you could ever post about wheel size. He pretends no one ever heard all the BS he has already posted a hundred times. He is obsessed. He is bitter. He is angry. He can't accept reality.

You called him a troll. You were right. You know what that means, right?

*turbodog = Simpleton*


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Some threads just need to stay in storage in the attic.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Do you ever get that feeling like someone is out to get you? Sigh.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

This thread will get closed thanks to Turbodog and he will get banned. Again.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

smilinsteve said:


> You realize you are trying to have a conversation with a crazy person, right?
> 
> He lies. He states the obvious. He ignores the obvious. He ignores facts. He repeats himself. He baits you. He insults. He goes around in circles with falsehoods until people get sick of him, then he starts all over again in a new thread, or digging up an old one like this one. He pretends he never heard all the stuff you could ever post about wheel size. He pretends no one ever heard all the BS he has already posted a hundred times. He is obsessed. He is bitter. He is angry. He can't accept reality.
> 
> ...


Ya, I still got sucked in. Oh well. I don't mind trying to counter some of his nonsense with some actual logic.

Sounds like he's a resident troll here?


----------



## mrniceguy42 (Nov 2, 2010)

TheDwayyo said:


> Ya, I still got sucked in. Oh well. I don't mind trying to counter some of his nonsense with some actual logic.
> 
> Sounds like he's a resident troll here?


Turbodog gently rubs himself off to sleep at night by reading fired-up retaliations to his delusional comments on MTBR. I personally make it a habit to find his account and read all of his posts for a good laugh every morning.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

I am not a troll. I am a mountain biker with 23 years of experience who has worked in shops and raced (XC and DH). I have a strong opinon about wheel sizes and the state of the bike inustry, and would like to debate these issues with anyone who can carry on a lucid discussion.


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

jazzanova said:


> This thread will get closed thanks to Turbodog and he will get banned. Again.


One can only hope.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

turbodog said:


> I am not a troll. I am a mountain biker with 23 years of experience who has worked in shops and raced (XC and DH). I have a strong opinon about wheel sizes and the state of the bike inustry, and would like to debate these issues with anyone who can carry on a lucid discussion.


Please bring forth some more of your strong opinions in a lucid manner. I'm sure most are on the edge of their seat, popcorn in hand just waiting for more ramblings.


----------



## Havinfun (Mar 18, 2015)

smilinsteve said:


> You are so full of sh1t. Do the calcs yourself, if you can. The ops numbers are wrong. And the link above isn't from Giant. Giant has their own numbers which have been manipulated, by overestimating the benefit of 27.5, and underestimating the benefit of 29".
> Look at the real numbers, then imagine what better rollover feels like. Since you don't ride, that's the best you can do.


Usually I do not like posts of this flavor, but this one is kind of funny. Imagine that....as I roll on my 26 or 27.5 or 29er.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

turbodog said:


> I am not a troll. I am a mountain biker with 23 years of experience who has worked in shops and raced (XC and DH). I have a strong opinon about wheel sizes and the state of the bike inustry, and would like to debate these issues with anyone who can carry on a lucid discussion.


How can you have such strong opinions when you haven't ridden any other wheel sizes except 26? I'm still convinced that a 29er enthusiast banged your woman, thus all this butthurt


----------



## Havinfun (Mar 18, 2015)

8iking VIIking said:


> How can you have such strong opinions when you haven't ridden any other wheel sizes except 26? I'm still convinced that a 29er enthusiast banged your woman, thus all this butthurt


OK, curious mind wants to know how you figured out the butthurt without some direct involvement in the situation????

On topic, it is hard to take anyone seriously who has not owned what is being discussed, and impossible if they have never tried it. One cannot expect to be taken seriously without any direct experience, except of course on the Internet, the home of knowledge and truth shared while in your underwear...


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

I do own a 29er, it's 12 speed, has really skinny tires, full rigid and drop bars. Don't do much mountain biking with it though.

How many 29er riders have owned a full on DH race bike?


----------



## Havinfun (Mar 18, 2015)

turbodog said:


> I do own a 29er, it's 12 speed, has really skinny tires, full rigid and drop bars. Don't do much mountain biking with it though.
> 
> How many 29er riders have owned a full on DH race bike?


How does that relate to this discussion? Do you want to be taken seriously or just make noise?


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

Havinfun said:


> OK, curious mind wants to know how you figured out the butthurt without some direct involvement in the situation????
> .


Lol no direct involvement, just a conclusion I've reached after reading many of his trolling threads.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Havinfun said:


> How does that relate to this discussion? Do you want to be taken seriously or just make noise?


You asked how I know 29er's are not as great as claimed without riding one. Well, I've owned a bike with far better rollover capabilities than 99.9999% of all 29ers. It's not all its cracked up to be. I also own an XC bikes with semi slicks...not the greatest either.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

turbodog said:


> You asked how I know 29er's are not as great as claimed without riding one. Well, I've owned a bike with far better rollover capabilities than 99.9999% of all 29ers. It's not all its cracked up to be. I also own an XC bikes with semi slicks...not the greatest either.


How does one come up with a percentage like that? Was it an 8 year scientific study?


----------



## Havinfun (Mar 18, 2015)

8iking VIIking said:


> Lol no direct involvement, just a conclusion I've reached after reading many of his trolling threads.


Yes, but what if his blow up doll has really pretty hair???


----------



## Havinfun (Mar 18, 2015)

turbodog said:


> You asked how I know 29er's are not as great as claimed without riding one. Well, I've owned a bike with far better rollover capabilities than 99.9999% of all 29ers. It's not all its cracked up to be. I also own an XC bikes with semi slicks...not the greatest either.


So, I give up. They are right. You are just wasting time with meaningless dribble.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Havinfun said:


> So, I give up. They are right. You are just wasting time with meaningless dribble.


Nope. I don't have confirmation bias - I haven't spent $5k on something I have to like.


----------



## Impetus (Aug 10, 2014)

It's like Beetlejuice, only instead of saying his name three times, you just say 26v27.5v29 and POOF! there he is to cause trouble.


----------



## Havinfun (Mar 18, 2015)

I am a very fortunate person. All three of my bikes, like you noted, are more than 5k. I am fortunate because I combined a lot of hard work, with a lot of education, made good choices as I aged, and now can afford these bikes. Each one was chosen because it is awesome and I love riding each one, the 26, 27.5, and 29er. I think you are upset because you are not in a position to do this. And, you are acting the role of a fool or truly are a fool, because you are upset. Most bikes above 5k are awesome bikes, but not all awesome bikes are liked by all people.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Havinfun said:


> I am a very fortunate person. All three of my bikes, like you noted, are more than 5k. I am fortunate because I combined a lot of hard work, with a lot of education, made good choices as I aged, and now can afford these bikes. Each one was chosen because it is awesome and I love riding each one, the 26, 27.5, and 29er. I think you are upset because you are not in a position to do this. And, you are acting the role of a fool or truly are a fool, because you are upset. Most bikes above 5k are awesome bikes, but not all awesome bikes are liked by all people.


I'm putting about $1200 or so into my main bike this year. I have several other expensive sports/hobbies, in fact, I've spent more in the last three years on another sport (that I've also been doing for years), than I've spent total on my 23 years biking. I don't feel the need to spend money where its not needed, I could have gone carbon and 650b this year but didn't. If added up, my bike's msrp would be about $5k....I know not to pay anywhere near that. I suppose someone has to support the industry, it certainly isn't me.


----------



## Optimus (Apr 14, 2012)

turbodog said:


> 26" wheels are much stiffer, stronger, lighter, and more manuverable.
> 
> Consider this senario - you are coming at a 10" square edged curb (rock, log, etc) at 25 mph. Would you rather roll into it with a 29er, or bunnyhop up it with a 26" wheel bike?


Hmm, LG1+ hubs laced to 29er hoops, I dare say they are as strong, as 26. And just because you can't bunny hop a 29er doesn't mean the rest of us can't.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

His ignore list reads like a book.



Ignore List: CannondaleF9, ShinDiggity, smilinsteve


----------



## Havinfun (Mar 18, 2015)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> His ignore list reads like a book.
> 
> Ignore List: CannondaleF9, ShinDiggity, smilinsteve


You are just jealous that you have not been allowed to join the club!!!

Loser!!!


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Havinfun said:


> You are just jealous that you have not been allowed to join the club!!!
> 
> Loser!!!


Yep you're right. And now I'm so intrigued I'm going to have to keep checking periodically to see if I've been so honored.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Optimus said:


> Hmm, LG1+ hubs laced to 29er hoops, I dare say they are as strong, as 26. And just because you can't bunny hop a 29er doesn't mean the rest of us can't.


Nice looking hubs. So, with a 10-speed xt setup with 11-36 and a clutch derailleur, plus a 29er wheel and rim, you can carry around about a pound more in the rear of the bike than my personal 26" setup, which cost much less. Nice indeed, sounds like real progress to me. :skep:

I'm a bit rusty, but I used to be able to bunnyhop a 65lb Brooklyn TMX (not mine) about a foot. Are you saying 29er's are harder to bunnyhop than that? Wow.


----------



## Optimus (Apr 14, 2012)

turbodog said:


> I'm a bit rusty, but I used to be able to bunnyhop a 65lb Brooklyn TMX (not mine) about a foot. Are you saying 29er's are harder to bunnyhop than that? Wow.


No, you did. Wow.

Read your own drivel.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> His ignore list reads like a book.
> 
> Ignore List: CannondaleF9, ShinDiggity, smilinsteve


Yeah I just wish he would really ignore me. But he can't resist :lol:


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Yep you're right. And now I'm so intrigued I'm going to have to keep checking periodically to see if I've been so honored.


People on my ignore list show a repeated pattern of highly abusive personal attacks while adding nothing to a discussion. If that sort of thing makes you feel honored, good for you.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

turbodog said:


> People on my ignore list show a repeated pattern of highly abusive personal attacks while adding nothing to a discussion. If that sort of thing makes you feel honored, good for you.


It sounds like you should be ignoring yourself, troll.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

turbodog said:


> People on my ignore list show a repeated pattern of highly abusive personal attacks while adding nothing to a discussion. If that sort of thing makes you feel honored, good for you.


So if I understand the ignore list correctly, it means whatever they post you can't see. Sounds like eating just half a steak and giving the rest to the dog. Going through life only hearing half of a conversation is no way to go through life, son.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> So if I understand the ignore list correctly, it means whatever they post you can't see. Sounds like eating just half a steak and giving the rest to the dog. Going through life only hearing half of a conversation is no way to go through life, son.


Why would I want to read personal attacks that add nothing to a discussion? These people have clearly demonstrated over dozens of posts that they have nothing worth reading, so I chose not to read or respond to them. Like a mature adult.

I will not respond to any more off topic posts in this thread.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> So if I understand the ignore list correctly, it means whatever they post you can't see. Sounds like eating just half a steak and giving the rest to the dog. Going through life only hearing half of a conversation is no way to go through life, son.


No, that's a real ignore list. The troll has a fake ignore list. :yesnod:


----------



## Havinfun (Mar 18, 2015)

smilinsteve said:


> No, that's a real ignore list. The troll has a fake ignore list. :yesnod:


You guys have been around a long time. Is this guy just doing this to get his jollies or is he actually not smart enough to know that his comments really are the useless and meaningless comments. For example, can he really believe that owning a bike with 29" wheels that is not ridden as a MTB will provide him meaningful experience to join in the conversation???


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

He doesn't buy his own nonsense. It's easy to argue when you have no desire to convey a consistent, coherent argument.

This thread and the subsequent bunny hopping one he made were my first experiences with him but it's totally clear he is nothing more than a troll and probably doesn't even actually care about bikes at all. He posted an argument (comparing a Trek hybrid to a Trek 29er) in the other thread that was so far from logical that I stopped responding to it halfway through my response. No one is _that_ stupid.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

TheDwayyo said:


> He doesn't buy his own nonsense. It's easy to argue when you have no desire to convey a consistent, coherent argument.
> 
> This thread and the subsequent bunny hopping one he made were my first experiences with him but it's totally clear he is nothing more than a troll and probably doesn't even actually care about bikes at all. He posted an argument (comparing a Trek hybrid to a Trek 29er) in the other thread that was so far from logical that I stopped responding to it halfway through my response. No one is _that_ stupid.


There is really no appreciable difference between a 29er XC bike and a hybrid. You said the fork was different, the drivetrain is a different spec.....riiight. As someone who works in a shop, you should know that people regularly cross (pun intended) shop between 29er's and hybrids in the sub $1000 range - because they are the same thing.

Heck, even Wikipedia even agrees with me:

29er (bicycle) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> 29ers or* two-niners are *mountain bikes and* hybrid bikes *that are built to use 700c or 622 mm ISO (inside rim diameter) wheels, commonly called 29" wheels.[1] Most mountain bikes use ISO 559 mm wheels, commonly called 26" wheels. The ISO 622 mm wheel is typically also used for road-racing, trekking, cyclo-cross, touring and hybrid bicycles. In some countries, mainly in Continental Europe, ISO 622 mm wheels are commonly called 28" wheels or "28 Incher".[2]


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Once upon a time, there was crazy, old troll named turbodog.









He lived under a bridge, and didn't know what was going on in the world. But one day he wanted to buy a new bike. 
He went to the coolest bike shop in town, and told the nice man there, "I am turbodog. I am a REAL mountain biker! I need a REAL mountain bike!
So the nice man showed him this:









"Baaahh humbug!" Said the troll. That's a *hybrid bike!* That would be ok for dirt roads or bike paths! It is slow and can not handle the REAL mountain biking that I do!

The bike saleman was shocked. "I assure you sir, this is an awesome machine, and it is none of those things you assume. would you like to try it?"

*I don't need to try it!* I already know all about it! I was a bike expert when you were in diapers, sonny!

The bike man was trying his best to be patient, and moved on. 
"How about this model? It is a very capable bike used by some of the best riders in the world!"









"Aren't you listening to me"? I want a real mountain bike! that means 26" wheels. This bike will be 46.23% flexier than I need. Those wheels must weigh a ton just from their sheer size! It can't work on rough rocky trails where a manly troll such as myself would ride! I can only imagine the *bunnyhopping difficulties* even an expert such as myself would have on that incapable marketing ploy of a machine!"

"Actually, Mr. Troll, sir, the wheels are very stiff, the bike handles beautifully, and it is lighter than most of the old fashioned small wheeled bikes we used to sell. Would you like to try it?"

NO! I told you, I am a bike expert! I know all about bikes and I don't need to try it! Show me a real 26" mountain bike!"

"There are none, sir."

This was the last straw for turbodog the troll. The salesman saw his eyes roll up in his head, smoke came out of his ears, and the most blood curdling trolly scream bellowed from his trolly little mouth!

*"THIS CAN'T BE TRUE!!"*

The salesman, now desperate to calm the troll down, quickly said
"wait sir, I think I have something that might interest you" and took him to the corner of the shop to show him this:









The troll was intrigued and confused. "This doesn't look like a mountain bike, but..."

"Well, these days *26er = Beach Cruiser*" said the nice man.

Surprisingly, the troll did not get angry. He got closer to the bike, and muttered under his breath;

"the wheels do in fact look to be nice and strong. Stiff as well!"

"Yes sir, I'm sure they are."

"and in my expert opinion, the bunnyhopping capabilities of this bike are far superior to anything else you have!"

Excitement filled the troll's eyes and he exclaimed "I'll take it!"

He proceeded to pull out his troll purse, made from a 26" inner tube of course, and dumped out the shiny pieces of glass and rock he collected from under the bridge.

"I'm sorry sir, but we only take money here".

"Bahh humbug!" cried the troll. "Money was a stupid invention! * One day we'll go back to the old ways!* Mark my words! You wait and see!!!"

With that he was off, riding his old small wheels back to the bridge. He was happy, but was daydreaming of someday bunny hopping that shiny pink bike right over that old bridge.

The end.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

You forgot one smilinsteve










Not sure how his wheels didn't spontaneously combust going over terrain like that on a hybrid!


----------



## 786737 (Mar 13, 2015)

Wikipedia, huh? LMAO.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Epic thread right here:

https://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/best-hybrid-anyone-make-29er-hybrid-785630.html



> best hybrid? anyone make a 29er hybrid?
> 
> I have a good MTB Cannondale Flash 29er and a good road bike, Cervelo RS but I am thinking about adding a hybrid to my fleet. Hybrids dont seem to be too expensive and for what I would use it for maybe up to $1500 would be ideal. I am thinking about a Quick CX1 by Cannondale for the disk brakes although I might want more of a street tire.
> 
> any other real nice hybrids to look at? Will it be much faster than my MTB? I wont need any severe granny gears on something like this. I live by DC and I think I might enjoy a hybrid more than the MTB for the C&O canal trail which is too rough for a road bike. I* love my 29er MTB so why cant I find any 29er hybrids? I think the tire size would be great once they are rolling! *I would rather have a dedicated bike than messing around with different sets of tires etc.





> The hardtail 29er with a fast set of tires is replacing the hybrid in a lot of cases.





> If you're talking about 700c hybrids, then they're almost 29ers as they sit. Most of them have 700x35 or 38 tires, compared to a 2.1 29er tire which is actually 700x54ish. I use 700x47 Michelin Citys on my old Redline MC Flight for urban duty.





> A 29er can do everything that a hybrid can do, only better. A 29er with fast tires is the better hybrid.












No wonder 29er's are/were so popular. 90%+ of them go to people who barely ride them off road. Just like a hybrid.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

You're boring, turbodog. Can't you diversify a bit? How about concealed carrying while riding? Dogs off leash? Oh! I know, how about you tell us why Strava has ruined cycling? So many topics to troll, why stick to just wheel size?


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

8iking VIIking said:


> You forgot one smilinsteve
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looks like some pretty gnarly stuff there. In comparison, here's what 26" wheels are capable of doing:


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> So if I understand the ignore list correctly, it means whatever they post you can't see. Sounds like eating just half a steak and giving the rest to the dog. Going through life only hearing half of a conversation is no way to go through life, son.


It goes with the rest of turbotrolls persona.

If they can't see it (such as the total lack of 26" mountain bikes available) .... it doesn't exist.

But you know the troll is reading every single word.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Here's another one:






Does anybody do that sort of thing on 29ers....? :thumbsup:


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

Yawn.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Turbotroll you've been owned! You're trying too hard. You look desperate. Pretty lame. I'm embarrassed for you.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Well, I did find this video of a guy freeriding the heck out of an intense 29er. Pretty extreme stuff right here, good thing he's got that jersey and fullface on.






Make sure you check out where he's flying over those logs and rocks at about :45 in the video. He almost goes into a tree, but the big wheels saved him.

Well, that's it, the extremeness of this video has changed my mind.


----------



## elcaro1101 (Sep 1, 2011)

turboderp is full o sheet

"Well, that's certainly not a hybrid" -turboderp
http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/my-tire-too-big-trail-riding-looking-advice-963043.html

Also, you know what they say about extreme adversity to something. Usually it's a sign that a person is probably a closet participant that has internal strife issues.


----------



## Space Robot (Sep 13, 2008)

After 6+ years of riding 29ers, I'll never buy another 26" bike. That's my crude analysis...


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

As far as popularity of wheel size on the MTBR forums goes, here is a recent count taken this morning of "users browsing this forum" ...

*26 - 15 users browsing

27.5 - 200 users browsing

29 - 468 users browsing*

Now granted that most are mountain bike enthusiasts but one has to realize (if they have a brain at all) that 26" wheels simply are not popular any more. Add that to a first or second time buyer walking into a shop that has zero 26" mountain bikes above $400 to choose from and again any one with a brain can see that the 26" wheel for real off road bikes is going away.

I think turbodog simply can't get past the denial stage of greiving. Counseling might help ... and a heavy dose of Thorazine perhaps.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

By turbodogs brilliant analysis, apparently all entry level bikes are hybrids. That appies to 26 too am I right?


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

8iking VIIking said:


> By turbodogs brilliant analysis, apparently all entry level bikes are hybrids. That appies to 26 too am I right?


Needs more JPG.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

*26 = Beach Cruiser*


----------



## Optimus (Apr 14, 2012)

I'd pos rep ya smilinsteve if I hadn't already. Marvelous story!!


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

turbodog said:


> Well, I did find this video of a guy freeriding the heck out of an intense 29er. Pretty extreme stuff right here, good thing he's got that jersey and fullface on.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And there are 10,000's + videos of people doing the same exact thing on 26ers. Next BS point you need us to debunk?


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

turbodog said:


> No wonder 29er's are/were so popular. 90%+ of them go to people who barely ride them off road. Just like a hybrid.


And so were many 26" bikes that were sold through the LBS....actually many never get ridden at all. Sorry, once again....not wheel size related.

Since you worked in a shop....you should have already known that. :thumbsup:

And for your viewing pleasure...gotta love 26" wheels:


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

mtnbikej said:


> And so were many 26" bikes that were sold through the LBS....actually many never get ridden at all. Sorry, once again....not wheel size related.
> 
> Since you worked in a shop....you should have already known that.
> 
> And for your viewing pleasure...gotta love 26" wheels:


Turbo could bunny hop the hell outta that thing! Not to mention smoke all the guys on 29ers


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

> BaIf your statement was correct, every person who won a XC race won on a hybrid.
> This is a hybrid: 8.5 DS - DuoTrap S - Trek Bicycle as you can see, it has 38c width tyres and a 63mm junk fork.
> This is a 29er XC bike: Superfly 9.9 SL XTR - Trek Bicycle notice that it has WIDER tyres than a hybrid.


Sorry man, those are both hybrids. They look REALLY similar, don't they!



















Shocking, isn't it?


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

Quoting someone on your ignore list... I wish that was the biggest contradiction I've seen from you today.


----------



## Space Robot (Sep 13, 2008)

turbodog said:


> Sorry man, those are both hybrids. They look REALLY similar, don't they! Shocking, isn't it?


They look nothing alike to me... Lots of differences.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

smilinsteve said:


> Once upon a time, there was crazy, old troll named turbodog.
> 
> View attachment 981416
> 
> ...


Thanks for the laughs.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

mtnbikej said:


> And so were many 26" bikes that were sold through the LBS....actually many never get ridden at all. Sorry, once again....not wheel size related.
> 
> Since you worked in a shop....you should have already known that. :thumbsup:
> 
> And for your viewing pleasure...gotta love 26" wheels:


First side shot googleing "mountain bike". I'm pretty sure people aren't going to mix up the two:


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

cackalacky said:


> They look nothing alike to me... Lots of differences.


If you showed those to 100 people off the street, 95%+ of them would say they were the same type of bike - because they are. So, is a Hybrid a 29er, or is a 29er a Hybrid bike?


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

Looks like a beach cruiser to me.


----------



## Space Robot (Sep 13, 2008)

turbodog said:


> If you showed those to 100 people off the street, 95%+ of them would say they were the same type of bike - because they are. So, is a Hybrid a 29er, or is a 29er a Hybrid bike?


 Well the bottom one, the 8.5 DS is listed under "mountain" on the Trek website. Most people would probably call both of those mountain bikes, IMO. But the Superfly is a vastly different bike just from a cursory glance.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

turbodog said:


> If you showed those to 100 people off the street, 95%+ of them would say they were the same type of bike - because they are. So, is a Hybrid a 29er, or is a 29er a Hybrid bike?


Logical fallacy. Just because you're as stupid as the majority of the population doesn't make you right... It just makes you really, really stupid.

I don't think you're that stupid though, I just think you're a sad old man with nothing better to do than try to get a rise out of people on the internet. 29 inch wheels just represent all the other things in life that have left you in the dust. Your wife found a nice 29er and settled down to raise a brood of 27.5s, I bet.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

turbodog said:


> First side shot googleing "mountain bike". I'm pretty sure people aren't going to mix up the two:


Yup....just like they aren't going to mix up the two :thumbsup: :


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

cackalacky said:


> Well the bottom one, the 8.5 DS is listed under "mountain" on the Trek website. Most people would probably call both of those mountain bikes, IMO. But the Superfly is a vastly different bike just from a cursory glance.


I bet about 95% of people would call them the same kind of bike, and a large majority woud call it a cross bike, commuter bike or road bike. Because it basicly is.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

mtnbikej said:


> Yup....just like they aren't going to mix up the two :thumbsup: :
> 
> View attachment 981470


Not sure what your point is. Those are all mountain bikes, though some on this board would sneer at a few (or all) for being too low end.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

TheDwayyo said:


> Quoting someone on your ignore list... I wish that was the biggest contradiction I've seen from you today.


Lol! Not onjly did he quote someone on his fake ignore list, but he took the quote from an old thread! It wasn't even posted in this one!

then he went back and deleted Cannondales name to cover his tracks! BWaaah HHAAA HA!


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

smilinsteve said:


> Lol! Not onjly did he quote someone on his fake ignore list, but he took the quote from an old thread! It wasn't even posted in this one!
> 
> then he went back and deleted Cannondales name to cover his tracks! BWaaah HHAAA HA!


What a moron.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

turbodog said:


> I bet about 95% of people would call them the same kind of bike, and a large majority woud call it a cross bike, commuter bike or road bike. Because it basicly is.


So why is it that a 29er xc bike is a "hybrid" but a 26 xc bike is not a hybrid? Explain this conundrum to me


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

8iking VIIking said:


> So why is it that a 29er xc bike is a "hybrid" but a 26 xc bike is not a hybrid? Explain this conundrum to me


Because he thinks that comparison will make 29er people mad and he wants to get people riled up. He knows the comparison is a poor one.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

8iking VIIking said:


> So why is it that a 29er xc bike is a "hybrid" but a 26 xc bike is not a hybrid? Explain this conundrum to me


30+ years of precedent and history says a 26" XC bike is a Mountain Bike.

30+ years of precedent and history says a 29er XC (aka, a 700c bike with flat bars, front suspension, and semi slick tires) is a "cross" or "hybrid" bike.

Period.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Why is it that Turbo is responding to members that are on his ignore list?


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

turbodog said:


> 30+ years of precedent and history says a 26" XC bike is a Mountain Bike.
> 
> 30+ years of precedent and history says a 29er XC (aka, a 700c bike with flat bars, front suspension, and semi slick tires) is a "cross" or "hybrid" bike.
> 
> Period.


I know I will regret this but your argument is poorly crafted. There are numerous documented cases of people riding their 650b and 700c and 28" bikes off road for decades prior to 26" bikes becoming mainstream:









It was only when a bunch of people decided to monetize this that they choose the easiest format to adapt around which for them was the kid bike size of 26".

Based on that precedent I would argue that 26" was late to the game. Of course you might be saying that bunch of Buffalo Soldiers doesn't really represent cycling, so I give this in support of larger sizes:









Doesn't get more legit than riding the Tour.

So money made 26" the defacto choice but when mountain biking really became mainstream the reversion to the original size made a lot of sense.

or your a troll. Either way STFU.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Why is it that Turbo is responding to members that are on his ignore list?


I pulled a post out of another thread from some time last year, pre-ignore list.


----------



## Space Robot (Sep 13, 2008)

turbodog said:


> 30+ years of precedent and history says a 26" XC bike is a Mountain Bike.
> 
> 30+ years of precedent and history says a 29er XC (aka, a 700c bike with flat bars, front suspension, and semi slick tires) is a "cross" or "hybrid" bike.
> 
> Period.


What would you call a 29+ bike with super fat knobbies?


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

"30+ years of precedent and history" could be ascribed to any number of discredited ideas.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

rockcrusher said:


> I know I will regret this but your argument is poorly crafted. There are numerous documented cases of people riding their 650b and 700c and 28" bikes off road for decades prior to 26" bikes becoming mainstream:
> 
> View attachment 981477
> 
> ...


I'm familliar with the early origins of mountain biking, thanks. But you must admit, riding road bikes off road is cyclocross, which has been around for 100 years. Modern mountain biking evolved much more from downhilling on cruiser bikes, and BMX.

https://www.google.com/search?q=cyc...VeLWLOewsATwroCYBA&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQsAQ#imgrc=_


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

Please moderators ... make this stop ... please.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

cackalacky said:


> What would you call a 29+ bike with super fat knobbies?


Useless?


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

turbodog said:


> Useless?


No that's the answer to "What would you call turbodog and his constant dredging up the same sh!t ad nauseum?"


----------



## deke505 (Jul 29, 2012)

this thread


----------



## Space Robot (Sep 13, 2008)

turbodog said:


> Useless?


Okay, I'm out. Sorry for contributing to this trainwreck of a thread...


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

*EVERYBODY* please refer to post #59 on page 3. That was where the rebirth of this thread started again. After being dormant since 2012'. And that was just yesterday and the thread has more than doubled from 3 pages to 8 now. Nothing good has come from it then or now.

So it's up to all to.....


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

turbodog said:


> I'm familliar with the early origins of mountain biking, thanks. But you must admit, riding road bikes off road is cyclocross, which has been around for 100 years. Modern mountain biking evolved much more from downhilling on cruiser bikes, and BMX.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=cyc...VeLWLOewsATwroCYBA&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQsAQ#imgrc=_


Well your logic got me. Keep at it, I'm sure the 13 people reading the 26er forum will be glad you converted someone.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

cackalacky said:


> Okay, I'm out. Sorry for contributing to this trainwreck of a thread...


Well sorry, I'm just not sure what one could hope to achieve on a 29+ bike vs. any of many other vastly more practical options.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

turbodog said:


> Well sorry, I'm just not sure what one could hope to achieve on a 29+ bike vs. any of many other vastly more practical options.


No-one can hope you would achieve anything on many of other vastly more practical options since you have never tried them...


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

1> If you think Turbo is a troll - STOP REPLYING TO HIM.

2> Please do not resurrect very old threads just for the purpose of getting people all riled up.

3> Stop the personal attacks.

4> Keep this thread on Topic, or let it die off like it did in 2012.


----------



## Gasp4Air (Jun 5, 2009)

We all have opinions, but mine is more important.


----------



## deke505 (Jul 29, 2012)




----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Thank you to everyone that civily discussed this important topic.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

turbodog said:


> Thank you to everyone that civily discussed this important topic.


In other words...."bump"


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

[/quote]Threads that keep getting "bumped" back to the top with "hey, bumping this post back up" type posts will be locked. If you do not have anything new/informative to add to the post, please do not attempt to "bump" a thread just to keep it at the top. [/quote]

Mtbr Posting Guidelines

Last Warning. Contribute in a meaningful way or this gets locked for good.


----------



## cobba (Apr 5, 2007)

Not much discussion on the 27.5+ and 29+ sizes.

27+ Bikes - Innovation or Industry Scam? - BIKE Magazine


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

cobba said:


> Not much discussion on the 27.5+ and 29+ sizes.
> 
> 27+ Bikes - Innovation or Industry Scam? - BIKE Magazine


IMHO, pretty much a scam. Why would you want to upsize your rim and then your tire? Sounds excessively heavy and slow. Yes, you probably end up with an outer diameter comparable to a 29er XC bike. I'm sure the combination of a 3" tire, suspension and a large overall diameter gives you plenty of rollover - at a big cost to manuverablity and weight.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

cobba said:


> Not much discussion on the 27.5+ and 29+ sizes.
> 
> 27+ Bikes - Innovation or Industry Scam? - BIKE Magazine


Check this out, read the pinkbike comments:

Trek Stache 9 - Review - Pinkbike

I don't see anything special going on here....


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

Now this is proper fat bike useage:

- 26" fat bike
- Fully rigid
- Strong technical rider
- Riding on sand at the beach
- Bike is manuverable enough to be hefted over large rocks


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

turbodog said:


> IMHO, pretty much a scam. Why would you want to upsize your rim and then your tire? Sounds excessively heavy and slow. Yes, you probably end up with an outer diameter comparable to a 29er XC bike. I'm sure the combination of a 3" tire, suspension and a large overall diameter gives you plenty of rollover - at a big cost to manuverablity and weight.


Everything is a compromise.
Different horses for different courses.
Why don't you ride a 20" bike if your main priorities are agile, light and stiff? It will be superior in those attributes to your 26er.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

jazzanova said:


> Everything is a compromise.
> Different horses for different courses.
> Why don't you ride a 20" bike if your main priorities are agile, light and stiff? It will be superior in those attributes to your 26er.


I have a 20" BMX bike. I've also ridden a mod trials bike a good bit and wish I could justify owning one.


----------



## SeaBass_ (Apr 7, 2006)

turbodog said:


> I have a 20" BMX bike. I've also ridden a mod trials bike a good bit and wish I could justify owning one.


And not one f*ck was given.......


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Klurejr said:


> Threads that keep getting "bumped" back to the top with "hey, bumping this post back up" type posts will be locked. If you do not have anything new/informative to add to the post, please do not attempt to "bump" a thread just to keep it at the top.


Why not just lock any thread Turbo posts in? It's obvious no one will let him say anything without insulting him repeatedly until that happens anyway...


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Zowie said:


> Why not just lock any thread Turbo posts in? It's obvious no one will let him say anything without insulting him repeatedly until that happens anyway...


You know, causality is a biatch.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

SeaBass_ said:


> And not one f*ck was given.......


If you haven't ridden BMX as an adult, or a trials bike, you should try it. Both are great for bike control skills, and while they are different, they can overlap. Look at Danny Macaskill, he blends elements of BMX with trials. His normal bike is a 24", btw.

Inspired Skye Team Bike - Inspired Bicycles
Inspired Launches the Skye Danny MacAskill Signature Trials Bike


----------



## JonathanGennick (Sep 15, 2006)

turbodog said:


> If you haven't ridden BMX as an adult, or a trials bike, you should try it. Both are great for bike control skills, ...
> 
> 
> > :thumbsup:
> ...


----------



## SeaBass_ (Apr 7, 2006)

turbodog said:


> If you haven't ridden BMX as an adult, or a trials bike, you should try it. Both are great for bike control skills, and while they are different, they can overlap. Look at Danny Macaskill, he blends elements of BMX with trials. His normal bike is a 24", btw.
> 
> Inspired Skye Team Bike - Inspired Bicycles
> Inspired Launches the Skye Danny MacAskill Signature Trials Bike


McCaskill is awesome. Look, I agreed with something you said!


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

SeaBass_ said:


> McCaskill is awesome. Look, I agreed with something you said!


He does indeed kickass, SeaBass.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Deleted


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

If it means any thing to anybody, the 29'r has been a huge marketing success.

Where I live in New Zealand, they have been a late showing compared to the US. I used to be a Cycle Mechanic and frame builder in the early 1980's and made an adventure bike out of a Cruiser class BMX frame (24" converted to 26"), 15 speed wide ratio for a fellow worker for cruising what we would today call single track in mountainous area's.

Anyway, I walked away from bikes and returned 24yrs later. The MTB bikes on my return to bikes were 26", but only a couple of years away from conversion to 29".
This happened rapidly here. I went to a MTB racing event one year and raced against a 26" field of bikes, the following year, 1 29" appeared. The year after that I was all alone on my 26". The LBS made a KILLING. Heaps of bikes were shifted, someone prospered.

I still go to the events, and even though I am at the twilight of my Cycling, one thing for me has been constant, I enjoy my bike. I made it, I ride it most days, and when I take it to Events, I still finish well. Yes it is 26", and the 29'r crowd cover the rough ground better, but at the end of the day, having tried all the newer options, there is something about a comfortable shoe than is difficult to define, it just seems right to me.

I think that if you like your 'whatever' sized wheel, just go and enjoy the ride, to me that's more important than the recent dialogue being dished here.

Eric


----------

