# Anyone prefer 26ers over 29ers....????



## bowler1 (Aug 11, 2005)

I just picked up my first 29er but am not sure I like it. I previously rode (and still have) a 2004 Stumpjumper Anniversary Model with 100mm travel, but that is completely tricked out with current components and suspension. 

I bought a 2008 Stumpjumper 29er with full XO components and Pushed suspension (has a new Monarch shock in place of the Brain suspension). Also 100mm travel

I am not sure how much of the difference in handling and feel is due to the fact that the newer Stumpy has a more laid back geometry, but the handling and feel is completely different. 

While the 29er does roll over stuff easier, it really does not seem nearly as nimble, and does not accelerate or seem to have the same power response as the 26 inch. 

On really rocky trails with the 26er I would have to pick my line carefully, but I could easily do that and could fly pretty quicklly through them. With the 29er I feel I have to plow through them. It does that better but I feel I lose speed that way instead of weaving my way through with the more nimble bike. 

I kind of liked the feeling of picking my way through stuff with the more nimble bike, and liked the ability to pour the power on fast when necessary in technical situations. 

The 29er is a bit better at descending I guess and does handle hits better but now as dramatically different as I had thought. 

The jury is still out...and maybe it depends on what trail you are on, but for today's ride on a pretty technical and somewhat twisty trail, I tihnk I may like the 26er better. It just felt like a more nimble and capable, fun sports car to me. 

Is it just me? I have heard everyone just rave about the 29ers.


Matt


----------



## patrick2cents (Apr 30, 2010)

Yes, there are a number of us that still do... but there are a million threads that have gone into detail on this ;-)


----------



## Wveddy (Dec 26, 2011)

Small wheels will always be faster, lighter, and more fun to ride.


----------



## Dion (Oct 22, 2009)

I prefer Jeep bikes with 28'ers.


----------



## bowler1 (Aug 11, 2005)

yeah...I may sell the 29er. I am a bit surprised I did not like it. I still may need to give it some time. It was cool on the less twisty and technical trails....but I like the twisty and technical trails. 

Now I wonder whether I shold seek a slightly longer travel 26er than my current 100mm travel bike or if I will find the same detrminental handling when going to a longer travel bike. I like a snappy bike. Not sure if a longer travel 26er will still feel as quick and snappy. 

Matt


----------



## swingset (Oct 14, 2010)

Wveddy said:


> Small wheels will always be faster, lighter, and more fun to ride.


You know it.


----------



## Glide the Clyde (Nov 12, 2009)

Matt, how tall are you?


----------



## RedtiresII71 (Apr 11, 2011)

patrick2cents said:


> Yes, there are a number of us that still do... but there are a million threads that have gone into detail on this ;-)


A million and one. 

And yes, I sold my 29'r after only a couple of months and went straight back to a 26" ride. I didn't like it at all.


----------



## roblee (Sep 26, 2011)

I apologize I have to log off when I leave for a while..


----------



## 2fargon (Jan 22, 2011)

I've had bikes of both sizes that I loved and bikes of both sizes that I hated. To me, it's more about the features, geometry and setup of the individual bike than it is about 29ers or 26ers. Last year I built a singlespeed 29er and hated it. I rode a similar 29er from the same company and ended up riding it all year. I currently ride a Niner A9C and love it but I still can't say that I prefer a 29er over a 26er. I wouldn't give up on 29ers just yet as there's tons of choices out there right now ,but if you prefer 26" wheels, ride 26" wheels. I'm sure you could find someone looking to swap for a nice 29er!


----------



## pyrotyro (Mar 27, 2011)

Too many variables to narrow it down to just the tire size...

But yea, good luck tearing my Fuel ex from me


----------



## Loudviking (Oct 23, 2011)

I have nothing against any wheel size, but I will not own a 29er.
Will continue to ride the wheel that started it all for me in "89",
the 26er. I like to ride clean, not let the bike bulldoze it's way
through crappy line choices because I'm to in a hurry to learn to ride properly.
And everyone I think I plus repped on this page, keep the 26 going and have fun.


----------



## Kona0197 (Oct 19, 2004)

Out of curiosity did you try out a Trek with the G2 geometry?


----------



## Glide the Clyde (Nov 12, 2009)

Loudviking said:


> I have nothing against any wheel size, but I will not own a 29er. I like to ride clean, not let the bike bulldoze it's way through crappy line choices because I'm to in a hurry to learn to ride properly.


Is that how it is for you on a 29er? Can't avoid bulldozing crappy lines? Sounds more like a rider problem than the wheel size.

I can bulldoze a crappy line on a 26" bike just as much as I can ride clean on a 29er. Actually, I like to maintain speed and whether I'm on a 26" or 29" bike, I try to pick the cleanest lines I can.


----------



## Paul.C (Aug 13, 2011)

I prefer a 26er because it's what I have. When I upgrade I will ride every shape and size possible until I find the one that fits me and my riding style. To each his own.


----------



## Mud Gecko (Apr 16, 2011)

29er's are so gay....


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

29er = Clown bike.


----------



## PatrickK (Apr 26, 2007)

I have Gary fisher X-Caliber 29er, Scott Scale 29er, Chinese carbon 26 and another chinese carbon 26 (different setup) and I spent more time riding 26. I cutting cutting a corner at high speed on my both bikes and my 29ers did not make it. I had to slow down. lol I am an amatuer only.


----------



## PatrickK (Apr 26, 2007)

I have Gary fisher X-Caliber 29er, Scott Scale 29er, Chinese carbon 26 and another chinese carbon 26 (different setup) and I spent more time riding 26. I cutting cutting a corner at high speed on my both bikes and my 29ers did not make it. I had to slow down. lol I am an amateur only.:thumbsup:


----------



## bowler1 (Aug 11, 2005)

To answer the question I am 5'8. 

Based on my two rides on the 29er I would say this--I would agree with the comment above that the bike geometry probably has a lot to do and that it is more than just strictly tire size. That makes sense, and I do believe that some of my feelings about the bike are based on the different geometry. While both are Stumpys there is no question that they have much different geometry. It seems that the geometry on my older stumpy 26er is pretty similar to the geometry on the current Epic. Strange....but maybe the older stumpys were less trail bike oriented and more cross country oriented. Makes sense in a way perhaps as teh bike has evolved into what it is today.

Some of the different handling though is due to the bigger tires. I find that they do have "bulldozing" potential, but not as much as I would have expected, and I am not sure that I like that aspect so much. I always had fun picking my way through obstacles and using finesse to get through and over them. I did not mind slowing down for obstacles adn then making up the speed by quickly accelerating out of the rock garden and rocketing down the trail.

Overall I am just not feeling as in control or like I have as much finesse, acceleration and power connection with the bike. On the other hand, my lower back feels better which may be due to the more effective suspension, or may just be the more upright riding position. I have a really bad lower back. 

Matt


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

I ride what ever is cool and popular. I am a slave to fashion and trends. Gotta go 29er! :thumbsup:


----------



## PretendGentleman (May 24, 2011)

I still have mixed feelings about the matter. My comparisons of my 26" bike and 29" bike are only marginally related to the wheel size, as there are so many other differences between the two hardtails. 29er has long cs, so stable but hard to control traction on climbs. 26er is amazing in comparison on steep stuff, where I can really go up some steep stuff and turn the tire no matter how slow I'm going. But nonetheless I don't actually get up more climbs on 29 than 26. I'm thinking my next test will be to put fatter tires on 26 to see how they compare to 29.


----------



## ljsmith (Oct 26, 2007)

I have no plans to ever own a 29er. Unless someone wants to buy me the S-Works Epic, I think I might like that one.


----------



## JonMX5 (Dec 22, 2011)

bowler1 said:


> Based on my two rides on the 29er I would say this--I would agree with the comment above that the bike geometry probably has a lot to do and that it is more than just strictly tire size.


Geometry and the type of trails you ride have more to do with bike performance than tire size alone. At the local trail, I've ridden it most with my 26' Hardrock. I had a 26" Jekyll as a loaner bike for a weekend and it was a lot worse handling and slower than the Hardrock because it has a raked out head angle that couldn't handle tight turns and the suspension had too much travel for the slower sections full of sand and roots. However, my Scott Spark 29er bests both of those bikes. I follow the same lines I take with my Hardrock and yeah it's not quite as quick through the tight turns but it's faster going straight and faster going over tricky roots.

On the two local trails I ride most often, I'm about 10% faster on my 29er.


----------



## JonathanGennick (Sep 15, 2006)

When I first bought a 29er I was enamored and thought I'd never go back.

But then I did go back, sort of. Built up a very nice 26er hardtail last summer. Really enjoyed riding it, and it was the first of my bikes that I prepped over the winter for this upcoming season. 

I am 5' 9". 

I am not selling my 29er, but I do plan to be riding my 26er a lot this spring.


----------



## Loudviking (Oct 23, 2011)

Malibu412 said:


> Is that how it is for you on a 29er? Can't avoid bulldozing crappy lines? Sounds more like a rider problem than the wheel size.
> 
> I can bulldoze a crappy line on a 26" bike just as much as I can ride clean on a 29er. Actually, I like to maintain speed and whether I'm on a 26" or 29" bike, I try to pick the cleanest lines I can.


You know, I hear that alot, it's not the wheel size. If a 29er rolls over stuff so easy,
and a 26er gets caught up in rough terrain which is why a 29er is supposed to
be better, then how can you bulldoze a crappy line on a 26er?
Not here to argue, suffice it to say just not my wheel size, to each their own.
Of the 29ers I have rode, they have been sluggish in steering and not nimble
enough for tight single track.


----------



## Iko (Mar 20, 2011)

I have a 26" Stumpy and a 29" Stumpy. Ride both and love both. The niner can certainly "bulldoze" better when needed. Speaking of "lines" ...more challenging line = FUN, easier line = BORING.


----------



## Loudviking (Oct 23, 2011)

Well, I realized after reading my response from last night, I could have worded
it better, so my apologizes. A 29er just isn't for me and I do understand that a 
certain wheel size fits the terrain your riding. The trails I ride just don't allow
for a larger wheel in my opinion.I should just be happy that alot of people are out
riding, regardless of what they are riding.:thumbsup:


----------



## Call_me_Tom (May 26, 2008)

I didn't like my 29er at all. I tried to like it for the first month of ownership & then I just rode it while I saved my money to buy another 26er. In all, I only rode the 29er for a total of 4 months before it got ditched.


----------



## Svizzara (Oct 3, 2011)

Dion said:


> I prefer Jeep bikes with 28'ers.


:lol:

Anyway... call me vain, but 29ers just look disproportionate to me! That alone keeps me away from them.


----------



## Kona0197 (Oct 19, 2004)

What looks disproportionate about this bike?


----------



## Paul.C (Aug 13, 2011)

Kona0197 said:


> What looks disproportionate about this bike?


The ginourmous wheels.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

To me, 26ers look funny now compared to the 29ers. Riding them is even funnier...unless you are a kid...blah blah blah

Ok, seriously though, I just don't get this debate. If you can ride a bike, you can ride either just fine. I ride very tight twisty singletrack and am 5'6". My 29er works perfectly. I still ride it like I rode my 26er, fast and smooth. I don't "bulldoze" things. If you can't ride a 29er and blame it on the wheelsize, you aren't a very competent mountainbiker to begin with. Note that I didn't say anything about preference. Ride what you want/like. But don't tell me you can't ride tight stuff on a bike with a wheel that is a few inches bigger. Its just a bike with a larger wheel, not a religion.


----------



## WarriorPro (Jun 12, 2006)

Absolutely- I prefer the nimble nature of my 26er and the snappy acceleration to my 9er any day. Since my 29er is a hardtail (and my 6er a full suspension), I use the 29er for commuting purposes and occasional off-road duty. Glad I didn't get rid of my main rig to get the 29er though! Or like others here, I would have been scrambling to dump the 29er/ buy back my 26-inch!


----------



## Loudviking (Oct 23, 2011)

TiGeo said:


> To me, 26ers look funny now compared to the 29ers. Riding them is even funnier...unless you are a kid...blah blah blah
> 
> Ok, seriously though, I just don't get this debate. If you can ride a bike, you can ride either just fine. I ride very tight twisty singletrack and am 5'6". My 29er works perfectly. I still ride it like I rode my 26er, fast and smooth. I don't "bulldoze" things. If you can't ride a 29er and blame it on the wheelsize, you aren't a very competent mountainbiker to begin with. Note that I didn't say anything about preference. Ride what you want/like. But don't tell me you can't ride tight stuff on a bike with a wheel that is a few inches bigger. Its just a bike with a larger wheel, not a religion.


Sorry, not drinking the Kool-aid. I did apologize for my comments in a previous 
post, but I will say this, been riding since 1989, so I know I can ride, and ride
very well, and it does get old defending a wheel size, as there must be a reason
alot of bikers are sticking with a 26er. Enjoy what you ride, as I will enjoy what I ride,
And I am telling you, I do not like how they ride on my trails nor how they feel
. If that bothers you, that is your dilemma, not mine.


----------



## Paul.C (Aug 13, 2011)

Loudviking said:


> Sorry, not drinking the Kool-aid. I did apologize for my comments in a previous
> post, but I will say this, been riding since 1989, so I know I can ride, and ride
> very well, and it does get old defending a wheel size, as there must be a reason
> alot of bikers are sticking with a 26er. Enjoy what you ride, as I will enjoy what I ride,
> ...


It seems some people want to make it your dilemma. 
My bike>your bike
My bike=26er
Therefore 26er>29er 
the formula will work for who ever solves it
/thread


----------



## bowler1 (Aug 11, 2005)

I am the original poster. I have to say that I was not trying to start a war here. I just was curious to see if there were still people that prefer a 26er since I find that I may end up being one of them. I am not sure yet, but I just was not as impressed with the 29er as I thought I would be. 

I had to ask the question because I thought maybe it was just me, or maybe was a function of not being used to the bike, given all the hype I have heard about 29ers....and hanging out in the 29er forum too I guess. My LBS even referred to 26ers as being "obsolete technology". Pretty strong words.

As to riding skills...agree that a good rider can ride either bike. I have been riding since 1991 and am a skilled rider. I can ride both well in my local technical single track. However, for me it is a matter of which I can ride better and which is more fun. 

The jury is still out for me. I rode the 29er yesterday after making some adjustments on the suspension and fit. It appealed to me more, but I am still not sold. It is a little more capable in the technical stuff by just rolling over things. The 26er was maybe a little more fun in that stuff by causing me to pick a really good line and allowing me to weave my way through stuff to get that good line. 

The 26er was a bit more capable and fun in the twisty stuff. 

The 29er did handle bit hits better, and it did descend better. The latter may be due to a slacker head tube angle.

Weaving through rocks at higher speeds was...different. The 29er is slower in its handling...again maybe partially due to the slacker head tube. I got a little more used to it yesterday and found I could weave through stuff but I needed to be more aggressive in leaning the bike, and rely a little less on steering with the bars....???? It was just a different kind of a feeling. Not as snappy. 

What was different for me though is that my lower back does not bother me after riding. I have a bad back. I think that the suspension on the 29er is more effective at soaking up the bigger hits and it is helping my back. That is a big factor actually. 

I am going to keep riding it and keep evaluating. I like the fact that my back is not bothering me. 

I am debating over two possible options: first is to swap this frame out (older Stumpy 29er with 100mm trave) for a Specialized Epic 29er frame. That may give me the handling I am looking for but in a 29er.

The second option is maybe to ditch this bike and go to a 26er with a little more travel than my current 100mm travel 26er. That would help with my back I am sure, but not sure whether the longer travel 26er would handle better than the shorter travel 29er...??? I would certainly have more acceleration but not sure about the snappy handling. I really can't say since I have not ever ridden anythign with more travel than 100mm

Matt


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

My point was to say if you don't like the 29er, great, ride the other, but I have heard plenty say they couldn't ride the 29er, which is a different issue and one of bike competency.


----------



## Dougie (Aug 29, 2004)

My bike is more awesomer than yours and I'm a more better rider than anyone else.


----------



## JonathanGennick (Sep 15, 2006)

> I am debating over two possible options: first is to swap this frame out (older Stumpy 29er with 100mm trave) for a Specialized Epic 29er frame. That may give me the handling I am looking for but in a 29er.


Test ride an Epic 29er if you can. I took a couple short rides last year one each of the Stumpy and the Epic. Huge difference in how the two bikes felt. I felt nimble and aggressively stretched on the Epic 29er and all I could think was how nice it would be to have one. I did not get that same feeling from the Stumpy. It's worth taking a test-ride if you have the opportunity.


----------



## sgtstretch (Apr 1, 2012)

I'm 6'8". My previous bike was a Trek 4300. No matter what I adjusted I just couldn't get a very comfortable riding position. It just felt too small. I just picked up a new Trek Mamba friday, and already its like a night/day difference. I fit better, and ride better. And according to my fiancee, I look better proportionally on the bike.


----------



## Loudviking (Oct 23, 2011)

TiGeo said:


> My point was to say if you don't like the 29er, great, ride the other, but I have heard plenty say they couldn't ride the 29er, which is a different issue and one of bike competency.


Or it could be that's the reason that I don't use them, because I don't like like them
nor like how they ride, and apparently it does bother you, as you can't seem to
understand that some people feel that way. Instead of poking a hornets nest
by basically stating that " those that don't like 29ers for whatever reason just
can't ride very well", you might want to find another way to explain yourself.
I could always state that" maybe you couldn't hack it on a 26er, so had to
go 29er to get through obstacles". Works both ways. Ride what you like,

And to the OP, I wasn't trying to start a war, as per the apology I gave,
ride what you feel comfortable with and enjoy.


----------



## dead_dog_canyon (Sep 8, 2010)

Bowler1 / Matt –

I think you asked a valid question and do not need to apologize for the posts of others.

The way I look at it is a bike (gun, backpack, etc.) is a tool. 

At work, I must have 15-20 different small screwdrivers. I have several brands in the same size – example #0 Phillips. Each has slightly different tip design and will fit a specific screw the best. (Even though Phillips is a “standard”.)

The same is going to be true for a bike. Each design will have a riding condition that it excels at. Pick the one the works best for your conditions and forget about wheel size as a single line item.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Kona0197 said:


> What looks disproportionate about this bike?


Most would say the clown wheels.


----------



## Jon Richard (Dec 20, 2011)

I don't own a 29er, only test rode before I decided which way to go, so take this with a grain of salt.

I went with the 26" because the geometry and disired suspension travel I prefer will not package well with the larger wheel. I like short chain stays and minimum 5.5" (140mm) of travel.

I was raised on hard tails and loved it, but I'm a bit older now and I find I really enjoy these new fangled springy bikes, less jarring and loads of fun for me.

It kinda sounds to me like your focus should be on shorter chain stays and steeper head tube angles, and maybe lower bottom brackets. Try to find bikes with comparable geometry having the two wheel sizes available for test rides, this may help you zero in on whats right for you and your trails.

I wouldn't mind having a 29er, but I kinda want a custom suspended 24" single speed for bmx type blasting sprints and trials like endeavors as well, it all sounds fun to me.


----------



## Kona0197 (Oct 19, 2004)

> The 26er was a bit more capable and fun in the twisty stuff.


Seriously, try a 29er with G2 geometry and you will think differently about that.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Kona0197 said:


> Seriously, try a 29er with G2 geometry and you will think differently about that.


I did and I don't find it to be that much better. My 26er is most assuredly better in the tight/twisty's. Marketing is great stuff.


----------



## Loudviking (Oct 23, 2011)

^^^ And on that note, I rest my case.^^^


----------



## ZXFT (Oct 17, 2010)

Dion said:


> I prefer Jeep bikes with 28'ers.


How dare you even mention that thread


----------



## NickD1228 (Apr 1, 2012)

*Mamba Vs. SL3*

I am still riding my 2003 Gary Fisher 'Tassajara', which has paid for itself many times over, but am contemplating upgrading to a new bike. I have narrowed my choices to either a Trek 'Mamba' (loyalty to Gary Fisher) or a Cannondale 'SL3'. The specs are relatively comparable, except for the fact that the Trek now falls in the 29er category and the Cannondale is still holding out with the 26 inch tires. I am torn.

I know that it always comes down to a matter of preference, but comparatively, which do you find to be the better of the two options? I live on Long Island, New York, where the trails tend to be loopy and twisty, with stretches of pavement in between.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

this is perfect


----------



## Dougie (Aug 29, 2004)

It's fun to picture all of the marketing guys at all of the major bike companies high-five'ing each other after reading through this thread.


----------



## The fro (Apr 1, 2012)

NickD1228 said:


> I am still riding my 2003 Gary Fisher 'Tassajara', which has paid for itself many times over, but am contemplating upgrading to a new bike. I have narrowed my choices to either a Trek 'Mamba' (loyalty to Gary Fisher) or a Cannondale 'SL3'. The specs are relatively comparable, except for the fact that the Trek now falls in the 29er category and the Cannondale is still holding out with the 26 inch tires. I am torn.
> 
> I know that it always comes down to a matter of preference, but comparatively, which do you find to be the better of the two options? I live on Long Island, New York, where the trails tend to be loopy and twisty, with stretches of pavement in between.


I have an sl3. Its really really nice, its fast and nimble, the only concernsi have are the bars are kinda wide. I was torn between the sl3 26er and the sl2 29er. I chose the 26er just because i knew that my riding style( fast twisty and rough) would be better acconodated on a 26 inch wheel:thumbsup:


----------



## Max Q (May 24, 2011)

I guess I haven't been riding long enough to make any sense of an argument about wheel diameter.


----------



## kikoraa (Jul 25, 2011)

To answer the ops question... Yes I do.


----------



## bowler1 (Aug 11, 2005)

Okay, I have ridden the 29er enough to make a decision. I don't like it. In fact....i think it may actually....suck. 

I am pretty well convinced the the 29er thing is mostly a bunch of hype (at least for full suspension bikes....maybe different for hard tails). 

I think that with the same travel bike in a 26er I am a lot more capable. Even with just a 100mm travel bike in some pretty technical rocky terrain. 

I can go a lot faster and have more fun with the more maneuverable 26er. I just have to pick my line, but I am able to stick to it with the 26er with some finesse. 

With the 29er (at least the one I have) it lacks the maneuverability and almost forces me to "plow" through stuff. But its ability to "plow" is not as good as my abiliity to maneuver through stuff with finesse on my 26er. 

I think that a newer rider may do better on a 29er. They don't need to have the finesse and can plow through stuff. But a truly skilled rider may be able to do better with the precision of a 26er in my limited opinion. 

I found myself just going slower. On tight singe track I could not take the turns as fast, adn then when I hit the very short straightaways I was not able to accelerate fast enough to make up for the slowness in the turns. 

It felt to me like a pickup truck with a 6 inch lift, versus a porche SUV. The truck can plow over stuff but is not nimble or fast. It was just slow and plodding. Not much fun, not all that capable, not all that fast. Not really all that good in techincal rocky stuff where I figured it woudl shine. 

Basically I found it to be a good way for a newer rider to ride better, but to me it seemed like a good way for a skilled rider to ride more like a newer rider.

that's just my opinion. And frankly I was more biased to make myself like it than not to like it (after spending 2k on it) So this is a pretty honest opinion. 

Not for me......

I think what I really want is a 26er with a bit more travel to give me a plusher ride. I thought that a 100mm 29r would give me that over my 26 inch 100mm travel bike, but I was wrong.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

I am sorry, I always assume HT and not FS - personal bias I guess. You are right, for FS I think 29er doesn't work as well for some people. Case in point: buddy bought a Kona Hei Hei 29er and man....that was a LONG bike. He is not too tall and just couldn't get used to it on the twisty stuff. Went to a Kona HT 29er and is very happy.


----------



## Wveddy (Dec 26, 2011)

We are all wrong. The 650b is the answer. Best of both worlds and forces us to buy yet more stuff.


----------



## Cobretti (May 23, 2005)

First I rode a 6er, then I bought a 9er. Now I'm on a 6er again.


----------



## chinaman (Jun 8, 2007)

I am sure there is some correlation between your height, or your inseam, or riding style, to your choice of your bike? Then there is how you actually feel when you test ride the bike, which will depend on how your brain have been exposed to the 'supposed' advantages or disadvantages of each.

I use the analogy of a kid growing up and how the wheel size grow bigger. But their strength in turning the crank over may also play a part.

_Sorry for posting which will keep this thread going ..._


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

My test ride of a 29er resulted in me buying.... a carbon 26er hardtail.

Maybe next time.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

This is what I'm hearing:


> _Yeah, I've been riding 26ers for 20 years and every one I ever tried was awesome and I could ride like a god on any one of them then I tried a 29er and I didn't like it. 29ers suck._


There are just as many sucky 29ers as there are sucky 26ers.

Just find a bike that you like.

I have a rigid StumpJumper 26er, a rigid Niner MCR9 29er, and a rigid Canfield Nimble 9 29er. The N9 is the best bike. They are all still fun, but the 26er bumps up and down a lot harder on roots and stuff (go figure, right?). The MCR has a steep head angle but less fork offset and feels like I have to throw my weight around to make it turn fast. It does turn fast, though. But the N9 steers by intuition even with a 69* HA - it has the same wheelbase as the MCR with the chainstays of the SJ. The 45mm fork offset makes it work by bringing the trail figure back to normal.
So the MCR will be sold and the 26er is kept as my indoor bike for Ray's MTB Park. If I break it I won't be too sad. It's old.
btw - I also have a 5" DW*Link 26er that I almost never ride. I loan it out to the less-fortunate.

-F


----------



## tussery (Aug 15, 2009)

Why can't people leave it as simple as "I prefer to ride a 26" bike" or "I prefer to ride a 29" bike," and shut up about this crap. Everyone has to turn this into a pissing match. Just ride what you like.


----------



## kikoraa (Jul 25, 2011)

This thread needs to die...


----------



## bloodyknee (Jul 29, 2008)

Surprised at all the negative posts about 29ers. It must be a regional thing. I see carbon 26" bikes with high end components all the time on our local club forum priced ridiculously low and still not moving. Meanwhile, used 29er parts go for reasonable prices and only last a day or two.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

Lots of energy in this thread. 

The trail type is also key. I like the modern trail designs with more flow and are cut for higher speeds. Here, a 29er can shine. Also, on a rails to trail line or a fire road, a 29er can hum right along. In tight, narrow singletrack, it is tough to beat a nimble 26er. 

This said, ride what you like and it is okay to have more than one bike. No single bike will work for everything.


----------



## Senor StrongBad (May 21, 2009)

I have a 29er and a 26er. I like my 26er a lot better for the trails I ride the most, which are tight twisty single track. I do choose the 29er for the rail trail type rides and easier trails. 

I do however want to try out the new Tallboy LTc. After seeing the video for it and what those guys are able to do with the big wheels. I might be able to get away with it on my tight trails too.


----------



## Mojo Troll (Jun 3, 2004)

*long.....*

Many of the M-L FS 29ers have a wheelbase of 46-47". Could'nt imagine steering something like that in tight stuff.

Had a HT 29er with a 45" wheelbase. It was nice at speed, but not so fun in the tight twisties. Which is the majority of where I ride. Swapped frames to a 29 HT with a wheelbase of 43.25 inches and its much better in the slow stuff. Both like to stay firmly planted to terra ferma. Thier terrible at jumping off lips. If its a roller at speed. It's possible to get airborne without face planting. (disclosure: speaking from experience on XC'ish geometry)

As I approach midlife crisis. I'm considering building up a FS 26er for a fun bike. Something I can attempt to jump. Pretend I'm youthful again. Not so sure I buy into the AM 29er with slack angles. Looks like a small market. Rotational mass speaks loudly while airborn. Look at how many kids are still ripping on 20",24", even 26" wheels.


----------



## OmaHaq (Jun 1, 2010)

It's all personal preferance. Do not buy into the marketing hype and fan-boi's on each side of the subject. There is very little true, good science behind a lot of bicycle "technology"... It's more about bicycle pop-culture trends.

I have both and have had 29ers since 2005. I'm not a tall guy so I have gone through a lot of 29ers to find one that feels right. I have a Kona Unit at the moment. I also have a frankenstein 26er that gets just as much trail time.

??? It's not an all or nothing prop. Bikes are an extremely qualitative subject, which means you need to ride a bunch to know what you like. And what you like will change over time. 

Bottom line: Keep your options open and ride whatever you feel best on.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Again, no issues killing it on my 29er in very tight twisty stuff. Had no issues killing it on my 26er in the same stuff. From my experience, I just don't get this argument.


----------



## Loudviking (Oct 23, 2011)

Ride what you like, who cares what the wheel size is, your riding and
that's all that matters.


----------



## Ha_ha_693 (Apr 4, 2012)

Im a 26 rider sumtimes I get on my 20 but 26 over the 29 anyday


----------



## Hutch3637 (Jul 1, 2011)

I would prefer if people would stop starting threads like this. 

I don't care what you ride, just go ride.


----------



## CrushJeeper79 (Apr 5, 2012)

Well l'm just getting back into mountain biking myself and NONE of this stuff existed when I was pounding around on my Trek 930 solid suspension. I went EVERYWHERE on that bike! All this full suspension, 26er vs. 29er stuff is crazy! Can't believe how much mountain biking has changed. I think a lot of it is just ways for these big bike companies to keep making money and enticing people. I've seen the same thing with other activities like backpacking, four wheeling, rock climbing etc. Remember people have been pounding single track since what the 70s???? I think way too many riders out there are relying on "equipment" instead of skill and talent. I myself am undecided as to what I'm gonna buy here in the next few weeks. I could care less about all the technical mumbo jumbo. In the end in my opinion skill, talent, conditioning, budget etc. are most important considerations for me. I dont' want biking to be "easy". But who knows people seem to be falling in love with these 29ers! 

I just can't believe how much money bikes are nowadays. And most are f'ing made in China! It's sad in my opinion. Most of these bike companies are just like every other company selling out. When I bought my first steel framed Trek I was so proud to see that American Flag Made in the USA sticker on it!


----------



## CrushJeeper79 (Apr 5, 2012)

Loudviking said:


> Ride what you like, who cares what the wheel size is, your riding and
> that's all that matters.


Yeah but when you're about to drop a couple grand on a 26er vs. a 29er you wanna make sure you are going to buy what you like to ride. I mean short of test ridnig both how do you really know? I mean this whole 29er thing makes you feel like riding a 26er is ostracizing. LOL....I agree with you though!


----------



## Loudviking (Oct 23, 2011)

CrushJeeper79 said:


> Yeah but when you're about to drop a couple grand on a 26er vs. a 29er you wanna make sure you are going to buy what you like to ride. I mean short of test ridnig both how do you really know? I mean this whole 29er thing makes you feel like riding a 26er is ostracizing. LOL....I agree with you though!


I still ride a 26er, but good god, this wheel size crap is getting ridiculous.


----------



## Kona0197 (Oct 19, 2004)

> I just can't believe how much money bikes are nowadays.


That's my biggest complaint, not the wheel size or who rides what.


----------



## bowler1 (Aug 11, 2005)

I am the one who started this thread....and I have to say that I did not mean to make this an argument over dogma, etc, or which is cooler, etc. I am just trying to be completely informed of the trade-offs between the two options and to get more opinion from people so that I can hear both sides of the story. Up until now I have really only heard the rants about how much better 29ers are. 

So I have to correct myself there though. 

After having ridden my 29er for several rides I got back out on the 26 inch bike on the same trails. Unfortunately I hurt my knee this winter and had not ridden the 26er in a while and had not ridden it back to back on this particular trail. 

Okay....I was wrong in many ways. The 29er does have some definite advantages in rolling over the rocks, roots, etc. And it does have an advantage in climing on loose and technical terrain. Furthermore, it does absorb big hits better than the 26 inch bike. My back was feeling a lot better after this last ride. 

It also did okay on the single track, but was not as tight handling as the 26er. 

What it did not do as well was allow me to pick my way through the rocks, especially at lower speeds. It was not good at "weaving" through stuff. 

I think some of this may be due to the slacker geometry. I went from a 26er with a 71 degree head tube to this bike with a 69.5 degree head tube. Both are stumpies, but my older 26/4 inch stumpy had a much steeper geometry, closer to the current epic.

I am thinking that maybe there is some merit to the 29er but that I should try something like an Epic 29er with a steeper geometry. 

Of course I still have (and will keep) my 26 inch bike. Maybe I could use that when I want to do really twisty and smoother single track. I am keeping it to have a bike for my fiance to ride. 

Matt


----------



## Hutch3637 (Jul 1, 2011)

^^^ IMHO, sounds like you need to test ride a 29er Camber if you want to stick with Specialized.


----------



## S_Trek (May 3, 2010)

Mud Gecko said:


> 29er's are so gay....


Elton John OO of bikes:skep::skep:


----------



## anthonyk (Feb 15, 2012)

bowler1 said:


> It also did okay on the single track, but was not as tight handling as the 26er.
> 
> What it did not do as well was allow me to pick my way through the rocks, especially at lower speeds. It was not good at "weaving" through stuff.
> 
> I think some of this may be due to the slacker geometry. I went from a 26er with a 71 degree head tube to this bike with a 69.5 degree head tube. Both are stumpies, but my older 26/4 inch stumpy had a much steeper geometry, closer to the current epic.


It could also be that you're just not used to it yet. I decided to see what the 29er wheels were like when I built up my single speed. After riding the same 26er for the last 10 years, I hated the handling of the bigger wheels and longer wheelbase of the new bike. After a couple of months, I've adjusted my timing and reactions, and now I don't notice any handling issues at all.

If you plan on switching between the two bikes pretty often, then yeah, you might want them to pick through rocks the same way. If you're going to stick to one bike, just give yourself some time to adjust to the new one and you might be surprised.


----------



## Haggis (Jan 21, 2004)

Heh, just came back from a ride with two rider buddies, one long term 29er, one new (from a 26). The new one was having trouble getting around corners but the long termer is as fast as I am and I'm quick on a 26.

Finding the right bike is a big part of the puzzle. I'm happy on my 26s.


----------



## Gus Hemingway (Apr 6, 2012)

I've been riding and racing 26inchers for many years. Recently I've been looking for a new bike to race, and every manufacture is making for racing is a 29er. It seem like the 26 wheeled XC race bike is going the way of the Doh Doh.

Gus.


----------



## PretendGentleman (May 24, 2011)

bowler1 said:


> Furthermore, it does absorb big hits better than the 26 inch bike. My back was feeling a lot better after this last ride.
> 
> I think some of this may be due to the slacker geometry. I went from a 26er with a 71 degree head tube to this bike with a 69.5 degree head tube. Both are stumpies, but my older 26/4 inch stumpy had a much steeper geometry, closer to the current epic.


I don't attribute my back aches to big hits, but rather pedaling effort, but regardless I too find that my back is much happier after riding my 29er than my 26er on the same trail.

But the second comment I've quoted brings up what I consider to be the main problem most folks have when they make pronouncements about the differences in two wheel sizes.
That problem is all of the other variables that have huge impacts on ride quality are not held equal. I would really enjoy the opportunity to compare 2 bikes built with identical geometry, but with unequal wheel sizes.

Of course you can argue that a majority opinion has been expressed by buyers in their interests in 29ers and that across many variations in geometry, most people still prefer the larger wheel size.

This argument is valid only if the fluctuations in geometry that go along with the wheel change are not systematic. Most 29er frames seem to be longer to keep the wheel away from the downtube. and most 29ers likely have a longer wheel base. Systematic correlation like this means that people might be truly expressing their preferences for longer wheel-base mtbs but just think it is the wheelsize that is responsible for the desirable change in handling.

Also many people are comparing a new 29er to an old 26er. clearly there are many reasons why a newer bike is likely to be preferred by most riders.


----------



## Barn Barn (Apr 3, 2012)

I don't know if it is true but it seems like longer inseam people like 29" shorter than 31" seem to favor 26". Is this true?


----------



## Trail Addict (Nov 20, 2011)

What most of the people knocking on 29ers don't realize is that both bikes will fit different riding styles better to people. For example a 29er is mostly designed for XC in which it excels at, and a 26er is perfect for AM or DH riding.

Different bikes for different riding styles. They both have their pros and cons. Ride with what suits you better. After riding my Marin 26er hardtail for years I found a 29er to be better in every aspect for my style of riding which is mostly XC.


----------



## Glide the Clyde (Nov 12, 2009)

vftr said:


> I don't know if it is true but it seems like longer inseam people like 29" shorter than 31" seem to favor 26". Is this true?


Huh???


----------



## Trail Addict (Nov 20, 2011)

bowler1 said:


> I am pretty well convinced the the 29er thing is mostly a bunch of hype (at least for full suspension bikes....maybe different for hard tails).


Full suspension 29ers are just overkill, no wonder why you didn't like it. You would probably have a different opinion if it was an HT 29er. Hardtail 29ers are awesome and in my opinion the ONLY way to go if you are wanting to buy a hardtail bike. I rode a 29er FS and it really did feel sloppy compared to my Scott Scale 29er.

So, when I speak for 29ers I only speak for hardtail 29ers. Just wanted to mention that.


----------



## Glide the Clyde (Nov 12, 2009)

Trail Addict said:


> Full suspension 29ers are just overkill, no wonder why you didn't like it. You would probably have a different opinion if it was an HT 29er. Hardtail 29ers are awesome and in my opinion the ONLY way to go if you are wanting to buy a hardtail bike. I rode a 29er FS and it really did feel sloppy compared to my Scott Scale 29er.
> 
> So, when I speak for 29ers I only speak for hardtail 29ers. Just wanted to mention that.


Are you only speaking for 29er hardtails?


----------



## csteven71 (Jan 15, 2009)

vftr said:


> I don't know if it is true but it seems like longer inseam people like 29" shorter than 31" seem to favor 26". Is this true?


I'm a 34" inseam and I like my 26er.


----------



## alarsen77 (Apr 7, 2012)

I am still debating this decision, looking to buy my first bike for cross country/trail riding. My lbs is recommending a 29er because I am 6' 2" and says as a beginner bike it will be easier to learn on cause the larger wheels will manage the terrain better than a 26" wheel will.


----------



## JonMX5 (Dec 22, 2011)

zippinveedub said:


> I'm a 34" inseam and I like my 26er.


I'm a 29" inseam and I like my 29er 

Which again just accentuates the point that there are two many variables to say that one wheel size is better than another or that tall people should all ride big wheels. It's all personal preference and at the end of the day it's better to have more bike options than less.


----------



## Sorebuttbiker (May 1, 2011)

For the OP, the thing that has stood out for me with your dilemma is your back pain. In my mind, if the 29er is more comfortable to ride you can learn to get it through the sections you feel the 26er is better at. I don't see the value in suffering through back pain to shave a few seconds off of a twisty section. When I bought my Trance X3 I realized it had a longer wheelbase than my previous bike and I immediately noticed it when I rode it. Didn't feel quite as nimble. The thing is though it does everything else so much better that I just have reconditioned myself to the Trances handling and am very happy. Not saying you need to stick to the 29er but a ride without back pain sounds like it would be a pretty good ride for those who suffer back pain.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Back pain comes from a poor bike fit and weak back muscles, wheel-size/suspension has nothing to do with it.

That being said most people ride a cockpick that is too short for them. They want their weight back because they think it will make it harder for them to go over the bars. A 29er allows people to run a longer cockpick and not feel like they are over-top of the front wheel (which depending on your riding style/skill level is both a good and bad thing).


----------



## NicoleB (Jul 21, 2011)

i'm just surprised somebody took a look at a 26 inch wheel (which seems plenty big to me) and said "hhmmmm its just NOT BIG ENOUGH!"


----------



## justwan naride (Oct 13, 2008)

I test rode a bunch of Specialized 29ers last weekend. It awas my first experience with the bigger wheels and, I must confess, I didn't like the idea or the looks of them. 

After two days of riding that changed. I almost fell in love with the Camber 29. Ok, it was the carbon framed, blinged up version which is expected to shine compared to my medium level hardtail. However, what I found impressive is that not for one moment did I think about the wheels. I noticed that it was easy to keep speed, I absolutely loved the way it carved fast turns and how it encouraged me to push the front on the downhills. Part of it may had to do with the cockpit, which I found pretty spot on, but the whole bike setup inspired confidence.

The terrain was a mix of xc trails and singletrack, nothing too tight or technical , so perhaps it was well suited to the bike. If I had the chance to test it on a particularly techy trail that demands precision in low speed manuevers I'd be able to reach a final verdict. So far I loved it as an allround xc/trail nike and would be happy to own one.

On the other hand, I absolutely hated the carbon stumpjumper ht 29er. So perhaps we shouldn't focus on wheel size but on bikes as a whole. After all, there so many parameters that define the way a bike rides.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

NicoleB28 said:


> i'm just surprised somebody took a look at a 26 inch wheel (which seems plenty big to me) and said "hhmmmm its just NOT BIG ENOUGH!"


A 26 inch wheel is plenty big enough.

I still haven't figured what made somebody think:

"Hey, let's put some more weight on the bike, actually we should make that rotating non suspended weight, and put it even further from the center of rotation than usually possible." 

Go figure.

Magura


----------



## Biohazard74 (Jul 16, 2009)

Why people keep argueing about this is beyond me. LoL ride what you like and stfu !!!!!


----------



## Dougie (Aug 29, 2004)

While I'm a die-hard 26inch rider, you can't argue with the fact that having more choices and styles of bikes is GOOD for the bike industry as a whole. Here's how it works: more bike choices leads to more bikes ultimately sold to a larger variety of consumers, more money gets generated as revenue for the industry, which results in more cool stuff we get to slap on our bikes. That's just how it works in any business. The bike industry isn't any different. 

29ers? They're not for me, but they are for many others. If it gets more people out riding then it's cool in my book.


----------



## GiantMountainTroll (Mar 27, 2012)

I see 32ers in the mtb future..


----------



## Kastendi (Nov 2, 2010)

:yikes:


Loudviking said:


> I still ride a 26er, but good god, this wheel size crap is getting ridiculous.


I totally agree. This bloody crap is retarded. a marketing scheme. 26's are waaay better for techy crap which is mountain biking is all about! going to 29 turns the sport into more of a road bike...:yikes::shocked:

26er forever :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## PretendGentleman (May 24, 2011)

swingsultan said:


> :yikes:
> 
> I totally agree. This bloody crap is retarded. a marketing scheme. 26's are waaay better for techy crap which is mountain biking is all about! going to 29 turns the sport into more of a road bike...:yikes::shocked:
> 
> 26er forever :smilewinkgrin:


so why 26? why not 20" mtb? not enough like a roadbike?:nono:


----------



## PretendGentleman (May 24, 2011)

Dougie said:


> While I'm a die-hard 26inch rider, you can't argue with the fact that having more choices and styles of bikes is GOOD for the bike industry as a whole. Here's how it works: more bike choices leads to more bikes ultimately sold to a larger variety of consumers, more money gets generated as revenue for the industry, which results in more cool stuff we get to slap on our bikes. That's just how it works in any business. The bike industry isn't any different.


It is certainly not true that more choices and more styles is unambiguously good for the industry. Too much variation leads to increased prices, as economies of scale would not be sufficiently exploited. Its a technological issue and a profit maximizing industry will attempt to balance out the variable desires of consumers with the increased costs of producing more diverse products.

Look at how compact geometry in the road bike world has led to fewer choices of frame size. You better believe the industry loves the fact that fewer variations of each model have to be produced. less risk of overproducing certain sizes, less costs of stocking more sizes, etc.

Similarly, think how expensive bikes would be if every size frame had uniquely sized wheels, optimized for that frame. this would be far from an optimal scenario for tire prices, wheel prices, etc.


----------



## Kastendi (Nov 2, 2010)

PretendGentleman said:


> so why 26? why not 20" mtb? not enough like a roadbike?:nono:


There's a reason that 26" is the standard of all bicycles. because the engineers and actual users of crappy wheel sizes larger or smaller than 26" came together and made an all encompassing circle of awesomeness.
20"ers are made to be made nimble in small :lol: applications ie small tracks that need VERY tight turning, maneuvering. if you saw a mtber on the trail with a 20" the rider would struggle intensly trying to keep the wheel straight. they would also have too much torque making too much wheelspin. if they encountered a 4" obstacle, they would fall flat out on their face.

Sidenote: it all seems that the 29" fad is just a cop out of the "shortfalls" of 26ing. in other words, if you ride 29, you don't know how to ride a real bike.


----------



## Kastendi (Nov 2, 2010)

PretendGentleman said:


> It is certainly not true that more choices and more styles is unambiguously good for the industry. Too much variation leads to increased prices, as economies of scale would not be sufficiently exploited. Its a technological issue and a profit maximizing industry will attempt to balance out the variable desires of consumers with the increased costs of producing more diverse products.
> 
> Look at how compact geometry in the road bike world has led to fewer choices of frame size. You better believe the industry loves the fact that fewer variations of each model have to be produced. less risk of overproducing certain sizes, less costs of stocking more sizes, etc.
> 
> Similarly, think how expensive bikes would be if every size frame had uniquely sized wheels, optimized for that frame. this would be far from an optimal scenario for tire prices, wheel prices, etc.


+1 Totally agree.


----------



## JonathanGennick (Sep 15, 2006)

swingsultan said:


> if you saw a mtber on the trail with a 20" the rider would struggle intensly trying to keep the wheel straight. they would also have too much torque making too much wheelspin. if they encountered a 4" obstacle, they would fall flat out on their face.


So you are not familiar with these?

Bike Friday - Custom folding and travel bicycles hand-crafted in Oregon

I also know some kids who can rock the 20" wheels. They would never encounter a 4" obstacle except while looking down whilst flying over the top.


----------



## NicoleB (Jul 21, 2011)

i think there is an appeal to newer riders when they hear "29ers roll over things easier". That way, you can rush thru a learning curve.

my bf manages a bike shop, and they just got a bunch of beautiful 26er trail bikes in. However, NEW riders are coming in, saying "i want a 29er". Keep in mind, many of these riders have never ridden a 29er before, yet, they KNOW they want one because of the hype. He'll tell them, "try this bike" (a 26er) and they wont even TOUCH them. I really do think the hype and the promise of faster and easier riding is very appealing.

we have a few friends who bought 29ers, and they agreed it make things easier. My bf, who is a really good rider, borrowed one and took it to a local technical trail system. He came back saying "that was super boring". It took all the technical fun out. Our other friend is 29er for life because he's getting old, and sick of being beat up.


----------



## Kastendi (Nov 2, 2010)

JonathanGennick said:


> So you are not familiar with these?
> 
> Bike Friday - Custom folding and travel bicycles hand-crafted in Oregon
> 
> I also know some kids who can rock the 20" wheels. They would never encounter a 4" obstacle except while looking down whilst flying over the top.


hahaaha WTF. pocket llama! that's the funniest thing i've ever seen! so you say you have friends who ride these? those bikes wouldnt be able to handle the rigors mountain biking (PROPER mtn biking). those look dangerous as hell. you get those things in some sand going downhill (or uphill for that matter), and youre screwed. not to mention going downhill at speed and finding a 4" obstacle at the last minute you can't account for.

those sorts of bikes would work well as paperweights though.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

swingsultan said:


> hahaaha WTF. pocket llama! that's the funniest thing i've ever seen! so you say you have friends who ride these? those bikes wouldnt be able to handle the rigors mountain biking (PROPER mtn biking). those look dangerous as hell. you get those things in some sand going downhill (or uphill for that matter), and youre screwed. not to mention going downhill at speed and finding a 4" obstacle at the last minute you can't account for.
> 
> those sorts of bikes would work well as paperweights though.


I know some kids that will outright school you on the art of mountain biking (proper or not) on one of those bikes. Musn't forget, its not the bike its the rider.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

The only way for each of us to know for sure is to clone ourselves and then ride/race eachother (yourself) and whoever wins is the winner. The loser is still a winner too though because you just competed against yourself which is impossible since there is really only "one" you even though you have been cloned.

So... the winner is.... both of them! The 26er _and_ the 29er WIN!!!:thumbsup:

Let's all just go out and ride now, ok? Isn't that what all of this stuff is going to ultimately lead up to?


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

ambassadorhawg said:


> The only way for each of us to know for sure is to clone ourselves and then ride/race eachother (yourself) and whoever wins is the winner. The loser is still a winner too though because you just competed against yourself which is impossible since there is really only "one" you even though you have been cloned.
> 
> So... the winner is.... both of them! The 26er _and_ the 29er WIN!!!:thumbsup:
> 
> Let's all just go out and ride now, ok? Isn't that what all of this stuff is going to ultimately lead up to?


/\ This, I'm going to ride my 29er for the first time since last year tomorrow, I hope I remember how.


----------



## Loudviking (Oct 23, 2011)

ambassadorhawg said:


> The only way for each of us to know for sure is to clone ourselves and then ride/race eachother (yourself) and whoever wins is the winner. The loser is still a winner too though because you just competed against yourself which is impossible since there is really only "one" you even though you have been cloned.
> 
> So... the winner is.... both of them! The 26er _and_ the 29er WIN!!!:thumbsup:
> 
> Let's all just go out and ride now, ok? Isn't that what all of this stuff is going to ultimately lead up to?


Beautiful man, just beautiful.:cryin:


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Loudviking said:


> Beautiful man, just beautiful.:cryin:


Thanks, man!

I took my own advice... went out and had a greaaaaaaat ride!

Minimal knee issues, climbed like running mtn goat, dropped like a Kamakazi DHer! Saw some fellow Mtn bikers.... Yeeehaaaa!


----------



## Kastendi (Nov 2, 2010)

AZ.MTNS said:


> I know some kids that will outright school you on the art of mountain biking (proper or not) on one of those bikes. Musn't forget, its not the bike its the rider.


"proper or not?" Im saying that specific wheel sizes belong on specific riding surfaces, obstacles, speeds, terrains...etc seeing a 20" on the trail would be an absolute disgrace to the sport, hell id be embarrased to stand next to one of those yahoos.

And who do you think you are? I know you might get a lotta rep around here, but you don't know my background and how I've grown up through the years around biking.

And how would you be so sure if they would "school" me in real life, good sir or madam?
Do you propose a battle of wits?:eekster:


----------



## roadie scum (Jan 21, 2011)

swingsultan said:


> "proper or not?" Im saying that specific wheel sizes belong on specific riding surfaces, obstacles, speeds, terrains...etc seeing a 20" on the trail would be an absolute disgrace to the sport, hell id be embarrased to stand next to one of those yahoos.
> 
> And who do you think you are? I know you might get a lotta rep around here, but you don't know my background and how I've grown up through the years around biking.
> 
> ...


Are you freakin serious? Specific riding surfaces dictate wheel size? Bwaaahaaa. Battle of wits, you already lost.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

swingsultan said:


> "proper or not?" Im saying that specific wheel sizes belong on specific riding surfaces, obstacles, speeds, terrains...etc seeing a 20" on the trail would be an absolute disgrace to the sport, hell id be embarrased to stand next to one of those yahoos.
> 
> And who do you think you are? I know you might get a lotta rep around here, but you don't know my background and how I've grown up through the years around biking.
> 
> ...


Uhmmmmmmmmm, I think you should rethink your theory and get back to us.


----------



## Loudviking (Oct 23, 2011)

Intermission


----------



## Trail Addict (Nov 20, 2011)

swingsultan said:


> Im saying that specific wheel sizes belong on specific riding surfaces, obstacles, speeds, terrains...etc


Exactly what a newbie would say.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

How about these wheel sizes?










I've got 20's up to 29'ers covered in this photo. You know what, we love them all and an amazing thing happens when we pedal them--they all move forward. Yes my 26 is much more nimble and I can do a better wheelie on it. I can ride my 29er at 30mph on a flat trail and still have an extra gear or two to turn over (I'm too fat and weak to go faster, though). Both do great but provide a different riding experience.

I will say that my 29er (GF) has a very low bottom bracket. So while people get excited about being able to roll over stuff better with a 29er, I've learned that it really depends. I've hit the chain rings on stuff I have cleared without issue on my 26. I have also had pedal strikes where I never did on my 26.

I say this to just emphasize that wheel size is just one variable in building a bike, and if you look back through time, wheel size is probably the attribute that has changed most over time.


----------



## Kastendi (Nov 2, 2010)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Uhmmmmmmmmm, I think you should rethink your theory and get back to us.


from what im getting at, there are DIFFERENT wheel sizes, each best at doing DIFFERENT things, for why would there BE different sizes in the first place?

from what i see i'm OBVIOUSLY lost on this topic so please explain to me your theory of wheel sizes


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

swingsultan said:


> from what im getting at, there are DIFFERENT wheel sizes, each best at doing DIFFERENT things, for why would there BE different sizes in the first place?
> 
> from what i see i'm OBVIOUSLY lost on this topic so please explain to me your theory of wheel sizes


My theory on wheel size: Pick one or two and ride them, often.


----------



## Kastendi (Nov 2, 2010)

Trail Addict said:


> Exactly what a newbie would say.


anyone with a brain would use it to think.
from thinking they would hopefully come to excersize reasoning
from there, they would, again, just a stretch here...deduce that:
wheels were made to suit certain environments and
different environments are better made to accomodate these wheel sizes.

please don't contribute unless your addition is fruitfull.


----------



## Kastendi (Nov 2, 2010)

AZ.MTNS said:


> My theory on wheel size: Pick one or two and ride them, often.


This arguing is taxing... i think ill take a rest.

but only if your two wheel sizes are both 26


----------



## roadie scum (Jan 21, 2011)

swingsultan said:


> This arguing is taxing... i think ill take a rest.
> 
> but only if your two wheel sizes are both 26


Could you please explain what wheel sizes suit what conditions and what did we do before 29ers? If its not too taxing.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

swingsultan said:


> this trolling is taxing... I think ill take a break before they ban me.


fify


----------



## Trail Addict (Nov 20, 2011)

swingsultan said:


> Im saying that specific wheel sizes belong on specific riding surfaces, obstacles, speeds, terrains...etc





swingsultan said:


> it all seems that the 29" fad is just a cop out of the "shortfalls" of 26ing. in other words, if you ride 29, you don't know how to ride a real bike.





swingsultan said:


> i think ill take a rest. but only if your two wheel sizes are both 26


If you truly believe different wheel sizes are good for specific riding/terrain and what not, then why are you knocking on 29ers? I bet you haven't even ridden one before.

You don't realize it but you're contradicting yourself on an exponential level, thus making a big fool out of yourself.


----------



## Kastendi (Nov 2, 2010)

roadie scum said:


> Could you please explain what wheel sizes suit what conditions and what did we do before 29ers? If its not too taxing.


uh... before 29ers i think we mountain biked with what was it... twenty... twenty... oh yeah! twenty-six-ers.


----------



## Kastendi (Nov 2, 2010)

Trail Addict said:


> If you truly believe different wheel sizes are good for specific riding/terrain and what not, then why are you knocking on 29ers? I bet you haven't even ridden one before.
> 
> You don't realize it but you're contradicting yourself on an exponential level, thus making a big fool out of yourself.


i dont see how you come to the conclusion of contradiction using the quotes provided. please extrapolate trail addict


----------



## Trail Addict (Nov 20, 2011)

swingsultan said:


> uh... before 29ers i think we mountain biked with what was it... twenty... twenty... oh yeah! twenty-six-ers.


So what!?

Before we had cars we were using horse drawn carriages. Before we had the telephone we were sending out letters. Are you telling me you are against change in technology?

Hell before suspension, riders used rigid forks. Are you going to tell me that people who ride with suspension now, don't know how to mountain bike? Why aren't you complaining about suspension if you strongly believe that old is better?

You are hands one of the stupidest people I have ever encountered on the internet. And, it's just real sad to hold that title.


----------



## floydlippencott (Sep 4, 2010)

swingsultan said:


> uh... before 29ers i think we mountain biked with what was it... twenty... twenty... oh yeah! twenty-six-ers.


Originally Posted by swingsultan

Im saying that specific wheel sizes belong on specific riding surfaces, obstacles, speeds, terrains...etc

Did you ride them on 29er specific terrains idiot?


----------



## Trail Addict (Nov 20, 2011)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Nice! A little troll on troll combat.


I really don't know if swingsultan is trolling or just incredibly retarded. I have the feeling it is the second one though.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

floydlippencott said:


> Originally Posted by swingsultan
> 
> Im saying that specific wheel sizes belong on specific riding surfaces, obstacles, speeds, terrains...etc
> 
> Did you ride them on 29er specific terrains idiot?


Nice! A little troll on troll combat.


----------



## Kastendi (Nov 2, 2010)

floydlippencott said:


> Originally Posted by swingsultan
> 
> Im saying that specific wheel sizes belong on specific riding surfaces, obstacles, speeds, terrains...etc
> 
> Did you ride them on 29er specific terrains idiot?


yeah, i did! is your name really floyd dippencott?


----------



## Kastendi (Nov 2, 2010)

Trail Addict said:


> So what!?
> 
> Before we had cars we were using horse drawn carriages. Before we had the telephone we were sending out letters. Are you telling me you are against change in technology?
> 
> ...


If you just got your appendages cut off, then yes, I agree.

I never said "old is better" idk where you got "old" from. but yeah those fully rigid guys... I respect them. Another part of what im saying is that (part of an earlier post) the more complex things become, the more lazy we tend to get (the pure essence of technology is to do something easier). ie ss into geared, rigids turning into front sus, front sus into full sus. where i draw the line is 26 to 29. 26 is a nice even number! i mean seriously why 29??!? why not 28 or 30!??


----------



## Kastendi (Nov 2, 2010)

oh sry didnt see the "L" in Lippencot. but seriously, what is the origin of that?


----------



## roadie scum (Jan 21, 2011)

Your mojo is weak, go troll somewhere else.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

Before Kill Bill gets buried in a lonely grave under the name Paula Schultz or in a mountain of red chicklets, I thought I would introduce my new creation: the 39er. It crushes the trail the way a monster truck crushes cars.


----------



## Trail Addict (Nov 20, 2011)

swingsultan said:


> If you just got your appendages cut off, then yes, I agree.
> 
> I never said "old is better" idk where you got "old" from. but yeah those fully rigid guys... I respect them. Another part of what im saying is that (part of an earlier post) the more complex things become, the more lazy we tend to get (the pure essence of technology is to do something easier). ie ss into geared, rigids turning into front sus, front sus into full sus. where i draw the line is 26 to 29. 26 is a nice even number! i mean seriously why 29??!? why not 28 or 30!??


Whatever man, I'm finished talking to you. If you like your 26er and ride better with it, then ride it with pride and heart. But don't knock on other bikes, especially if you haven't ridden it.

I will say one last thing though.

I ride a 29er and if you think I don't know how to ride then I gladly challenge you to an XC race any day. I would run circles around you on both the uphills and down hills, ON MY 26ER! Then I would hop on my 29er and run even faster circles around you. 

Peace out!


----------



## Kastendi (Nov 2, 2010)

Trail Addict said:


> Whatever man, I'm finished talking to you. If you like your 26er and ride better with it, then ride it with pride and heart. But don't knock on other bikes, especially if you haven't ridden it.
> 
> I will say one last thing though.
> 
> ...


Peace Trail Addict

26ers win the thread!


----------



## morphosity (Mar 3, 2011)

I thought the reason mountain bikes all used to have 26" wheels was that back in the day, the klunkers in marin county were built from old cruiser bikes because they had fat tyres (as opposed to "full size" road bikes with skinny tyres). So most bikes after that got built with 26" wheels because that was what was used originally, not because 26" wheels are necessarily "better". 29ers were built as a result of people trying different ideas. There's an interesting story about this in dirt rag a few years back.

As far as the original question goes, I prefer bikes that are fun to ride, which isn't related to what size wheels they have.


----------



## SimpleJon (Mar 28, 2011)

You're all wrong; 650b is the best at everything ever full stop - 29ers are for cowardly old people that are too scared to bunny hop, and 26ers are for lazy people who think that trail riding is all about technical tricks and going downhill.
Whereas 650b is the true jack of all trades - up, down, hops, manuals and it even goes round corners.... you can ask that Copperfield bloke if you don't believe me....

Damit - gonna have to buy a 650b now, isn't that some sort of road bike?


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

I've ridden a few 29" wheeled bikes as was a bit underwhelmed. They do some things well and others not so well. Given all they hype I was expecting more but it was more like, "yeah, nice bike and all" but there was no "how did I get by without this?" revelation like I had when I first rode disk brakes or clipless pedals. In the end I still like my 26" wheeled bike. I haven't tried a 650 yet. Maybe that is the best of both worlds?


----------



## JonathanGennick (Sep 15, 2006)

zrm said:


> I haven't tried a 650 yet. Maybe that is the best of both worlds?


It is the best of worlds; it is the worst of worlds.

Edit: Wheel sizes fit right into the N+1 philosophy. Not only do we need one of each style bike, but also in each wheel size. :thumbsup:


----------



## Trilancing (Feb 4, 2013)

I would just like to state my opinions without offending anybody. Tires seem to keep getting bigger - fatbikes and 29er+ (Krampus), etc. There has to be a point of diminishing returns. Have we reached that point yet? Where the extra rolling weight becomes more of a burden than the benefits of cush and angle of attack? 

Well, I don't know if we've reached that point yet, but if we haven't, I feel we must be getting pretty close.

And then there's the school of thought to match the tire size to the frame. Larger frames do look silly with smaller wheels and 29er wheels look like they really belong on those XL frames. 

Surly's Long Haul Trucker doesn't get 700c rims until a certain size and above (I think it's 56cm). Things like toe-overlap, and headtube length is more of a concern on smaller frames.

I am 6 feet tall, so I could really go either way on wheel size, and I find the 26-inch wheels to be more stiff, and much more nimble. I can flick and hop and swerve a 26" wheeled bike like a freestyle skateboard. The 29ers feel like riding longboards to me.

Until recently, 26" has been for MTB bicycles, while 700c (29er) has been for the road. I think there's something to be said for tradition. 

For me, the 26" feels like a BMX bike, and the 29er feels like a Cadillac. The Cadillac 29er is good for long rides on the interstate, or smooth and fast paths/roads. The 26-inch wheels are great for when I want to do "tricks" wheelies, jumping over stuff, riding up on banked, off-camber stuff. When I want to get freaky, I just have so much more control with the 26-inch wheels. 

The additional rotating weight of the larger rims preserves momentum at the cost of an inherently weaker wheel. The spokes are longer and I personally like 36 spokes on my 29ers, but get away with only using 32 on my 26-inch wheels. This all adds up to additional weight where you don't want it. Roadies combat the additional weight of a larger rim with tiny tires.

The angle of attack with the bigger wheels does let you roll over larger obstacles with less resistance, while robbing me of precise rider input control, so I can see how beginners would prefer the larger wheels - not really being in great control in the first place, might as well roll over obstacles easier, since you're going to hit them anyway.

The longer wheelbase of the larger wheels also adds to that comfortable Cadillac feeling. It's smooths things out, but also slows down the responsiveness of the bike, overall.

It's going to be a compromise, and one should take body proportions and size into consideration, but just watch out for that point of diminishing returns. At some point handling, stiffness, and rotating weight are traded for going bigger.

The 468mm rigid fork on the Ogre feels like riding a wet noodle, compared to the 413mm rigid fork on the 26-inch 1x1. (Okay, it's not that bad, but you can definitely feel more flex in the longer fork.) The entire experience feels much stiffer on my smaller wheeled bike, which feels like instant torque at the rear wheel. The faster acceleration is from stiffness, less rotating weight, etc. Rolling resistance is so low on today's high quality tires (esp. if you're tubeless) that any benefit of momentum is almost moot. 

The 26-inch wheels are lighter and stronger, for no additional cost. They just are. Aren't lighter and stronger wheels a good thing? The diminishing returns thing goes the other way too. Smaller diameters are a problem for my overall body size, personally speaking.

I'm old school, and I'll always have both sizes, but my 29er just feels like tarmac, while the 26 feels like dirt. My Ogre is a beast, and I don't really throw it around like the 1x1. I like the Ogre for loaded touring, long rides on smooth roads with extra weight and comfort - no trickery. I like the 1x1 for more aggressive, ride whatever I want, trickery type riding.

I say if you can't choose, go fat. 559 BSD rims with a 29er overall tire diameter, with the added cush of fat gains you some serious options. Those frames can run 29'er wheels for those light days too. 

Is one better than the other? I believe so, yes. My personal opinion (which I hope doesn't offend anyone) is that 700c are for the roads and 26" rims are for the dirt. Old-School. These rules may not apply for really tall people, but I don't know.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

JonathanGennick said:


> It is the best of worlds; it is the worst of worlds.


Remember that "Jack of all trades is the master of none". So the middle size wheel is simply a compromise. It won't give you the roll or stability of 29", or the lightweight or agility of 26". If you want either extreme, go for them. If you want something in between which has some characteristics of the extremes but is not quite either, you might find the middle size to be satisfying. Less likely that you'll find yourself in terrain that has you wishing you were on the other sized wheel. On average, you're always OK.

Finally, It's all about personal preference. Having ridden all 3, my preference would be 27.5" if I had to choose one. But quiver of one or two of all three would be ideal, if you were rich and retired, or talented and sponsored. Poor me, I'm retired and neither rich nor talented. Made for the middle.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## saidrick (Jan 28, 2006)

I prefer 26" wheels, I have enough problems with switchbacks and tight turns. A 29'er would make it that much harder for me.

I think what makes most people dislike the 29'er is the way the bicycle industry rammed it down our throats. To date, I have only read one magazine article that stated the downsides ( MBUK or MTB) of bigger wheels.

The industry basically came along and said that 29'ers were better at everything versus a 26" bike. They cherry picked their arguments and it basically looked like marketing to get you to buy another bike that you really didn't need.

That being said, I would definitely consider a 29er hardtail as a second bike for me.


----------



## jamface54 (Feb 20, 2013)

29ers are cool. but they "kill the skills"


----------

