# Remember the whole 29er vs 27.5" battle? Who do you think won?



## Engineer90 (Apr 10, 2015)

I found it interesting that at the time I was looking at the main forums page, 295 were viewing 29er bikes and only 103 were viewing 27.5. 29er has 50,510 theads and 27.5 has 6,880 threads.

At least from my experience, a good portion of riders in my local trails tend to ride 29ers, and I am one of them (although I fully embraced the dark side and got myself a fattie too).

What do you think?


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

The winners are the ones who are happy on the wheel size they like best.


----------



## Engineer90 (Apr 10, 2015)

Cornfield said:


> The winners are the ones who are happy on the wheel size they like best.


I'm actually happy with 29er, 27.5, and fattie. They all have their advantages.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Engineer90 said:


> I'm actually happy with 29er, 27.5, and fattie. They all have their advantages.


~end thread~


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

I punted.. After riding 26" HT for years.... I have bikes with all 3 wheel sizes. Which one is best depend on what trail I am riding and how I want ride that day.


----------



## Engineer90 (Apr 10, 2015)

JoePAz said:


> I punted.. After riding 26" HT for years.... I have bikes with all 3 wheel sizes. Which one is best depend on what trail I am riding and how I want ride that day.


Exactly. I wonder though, from the numbers, which bike came on top.

Maybe some people still just enjoy one size and that's it.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

I remember when we didn't have to have a billion separate forums for each component on our bike.

That said, back in the day, when 29ers came out, 650b was also a thing and there was a forum for that and even combos of wheel sizes, but 29 became the dominant alternate wheelsize. I think 29 ultimately led to the demise of 26, with 650b filling the gaps where 29 isn't as practical, like for straight downhill.


----------



## Engineer90 (Apr 10, 2015)

Jayem said:


> ...like for straight downhill.


And for sharp turns.


----------



## zephxiii (Aug 12, 2011)

Jayem said:


> I remember when we didn't have to have a billion separate forums for each component on our bike.
> 
> That said, back in the day, when 29ers came out, 650b was also a thing and there was a forum for that and even combos of wheel sizes, but 29 became the dominant alternate wheelsize. I think 29 ultimately led to the demise of 26, with 650b filling the gaps where 29 isn't as practical, like for straight downhill.


hehe I think 29ers started the demise, then 650b came along and put the final nails in the coffin!


----------



## jjaguar (Oct 6, 2011)

The manufacturers won. They managed to convince everyone that their 26ers that were perfectly fine for decades were suddenly obsolete and needed to be upgraded.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Engineer90 said:


> And for sharp turns.


BS, things like switchbacks and sharp turns performance was a result of goofy-1st-generation 29er geometry. Think about it, with those turns you usually aren't going fast enough for any significant gyroscopic effect, so there really should be no excuse. It comes down to headtube angle, chainstay length, seat angle, etc. My Enduro 29er would rock the downhills, tight turns/switchbacks with drops in the middle/chutes, etc. Where it didn't do as well were medium-radius turns at speed. That was where you had to bleed a little speed before the turn, because the gyroscopic force pulls your wheel outside of the turn, up and over a berm if present, or just tries to drag it (skid) sideways if you come in too hot, so you end up bleeding a little speed and having to accelerate more out of the turn. On longer radius high speed turns, you'd come out ahead on the 29er. But the idea that 29ers can't make sharp turns or switchbacks is a myth to a large extent. The other half of the issue is many of the manufacturers were just lazy over the years, not designing in the front derailleur with NORMAL sized chainstays, instead of extra-long. When the wheels are already more stable it makes no sense to have 1-2" longer chainstays, the bike doesn't need to be more more stable.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

I'm tall, 6'3", and have ZERO interest in anything 27.5. it's 29" or 29+ for me. smaller riders probably don't feel so one sided about it. ride what makes you happy.

I do think some manufacturers have gone too far committing almost their entire lineup to 27.5 and dropping 29ers.


----------



## Engineer90 (Apr 10, 2015)

jjaguar said:


> The manufacturers won. They managed to convince everyone that their 26ers that were perfectly fine for decades were suddenly obsolete and needed to be upgraded.


I agree and disagree.

I disagree because I honestly think 29ers are better than 26ers. They feel more stable and faster.

I agree because now the bike manfacturers are trying to push eMTBs...


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

Engineer90 said:


> And for sharp turns.


Well my 29er is best turning bike I have for sharp turns and my 26"er goes downhill better than all the others. So there...


----------



## Engineer90 (Apr 10, 2015)

Jayem said:


> The other half of the issue is many of the manufacturers were just lazy over the years, not designing in the front derailleur with NORMAL sized chainstays, instead of extra-long. When the wheels are already more stable it makes no sense to have 1-2" longer chainstays, the bike doesn't need to be more more stable.


You have to think about all of the stress-testing that is required where the chainstay and BB have to be welded. It ain't easy. I can tell you this from my experience with designing metal parts. Chainstays have to have a certain design. Do you want them to be so short that they fail quickly? Torsional and vertical stresses can break your chainstay.


----------



## Engineer90 (Apr 10, 2015)

JoePAz said:


> Well my 29er is best turning bike I have for sharp turns and my 26"er goes downhill better than all the others. So there...


Hmmm

At least in my experience, my wife's 27.5" is better at sharp turns. But, you might be right, maybe a 29er is better for sharper turns than a 26er. I don't have the experience with 26ers like you do. I came into the MTB game last year, so the 26ers were dead already and didn't get to ride a quality one in actual MTB trails.


----------



## bankerboy (Oct 17, 2006)

jjaguar said:


> The manufacturers won. They managed to convince everyone that their 26ers that were perfectly fine for decades were suddenly obsolete and needed to be upgraded.


^^^This. Standard is only as long as we are told so. Dictated capitalism at its best. Funny thing is my triple ring 26" bike does as well as any other bike for me. Be your own person, people. Think for yourselves.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

Engineer90 said:


> You have to think about all of the stress-testing that is required where the chainstay and BB have to be welded. It ain't easy. I can tell you this from my experience with designing metal parts. Chainstays have to have a certain design. Do you want them to be so short that they fail quickly? Torsional and vertical stresses can break your chainstay.


Chainstay length is a factor in stress at the joint, but one that can be easily compensated for. The factor that drives chainstay length is not joint strength, but tire clearance issues. That is why you see non-straight seat tubes on some bikes.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

Engineer90 said:


> Hmmm
> 
> At least in my experience, my wife's 27.5" is better at sharp turns. But, you might be right, maybe a 29er is better for sharper turns than a 26er. I don't have the experience with 26ers like you do. I came into the MTB game last year, so the 26ers were dead already and didn't get to ride a quality one in actual MTB trails.


this actually quite interesting as you are making a judgement about which you know very little. I gave you two anecdotes and you are assuming they are generalities. I could go into those details, but since you are an engineer like me I will see if you can find your error before I show you.


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

Pick a wheelsize and be a ...

Or realize they all can be fun. 

I've owned a bunch of 26", 1 29er, 1 fat, and have demoed quite a few 27.5. Last night I went to a Salsa demo and rode a Pony Rustler (well actually a Horsethief with 27+ wheels, which is basically the same as the PR) and loved it. Really fun combo for the ball bearing gravel over hard with occasional sandy spots of my favorite trails. So I guess my point is that mountain bikes are fun regardless of wheelsize.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

You're ALL wrong! Isn't it obvious? People with 29ers don't work as much as people with other wheel sizes. Geez.


----------



## #1ORBUST (Sep 13, 2005)

It because 29'er riders are like girls picking a dress.

Some many q's and q's does this blahaba match this and work with this blah blah blah.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Cornfield said:


> The winners are the ones who are happy on the wheel size they like best.


Word!


----------



## Engineer90 (Apr 10, 2015)

JoePAz said:


> this actually quite interesting as you are making a judgement about which you know very little. I gave you two anecdotes and you are assuming they are generalities. I could go into those details, but since you are an engineer like me I will see if you can find your error before I show you.


Well, the only experience I have with 26ers is when I was a teenager just riding those crappy wal-mart bikes around the city lol


----------



## jstonebarger (Nov 6, 2014)

Jayem said:


> BS, things like switchbacks and sharp turns performance was a result of goofy-1st-generation 29er geometry. Think about it, with those turns you usually aren't going fast enough for any significant gyroscopic effect, so there really should be no excuse. It comes down to headtube angle, chainstay length, seat angle, etc. My Enduro 29er would rock the downhills, tight turns/switchbacks with drops in the middle/chutes, etc. Where it didn't do as well were medium-radius turns at speed. That was where you had to bleed a little speed before the turn, because the gyroscopic force pulls your wheel outside of the turn, up and over a berm if present, or just tries to drag it (skid) sideways if you come in too hot, so you end up bleeding a little speed and having to accelerate more out of the turn. On longer radius high speed turns, you'd come out ahead on the 29er. But the idea that 29ers can't make sharp turns or switchbacks is a myth to a large extent. The other half of the issue is many of the manufacturers were just lazy over the years, not designing in the front derailleur with NORMAL sized chainstays, instead of extra-long. When the wheels are already more stable it makes no sense to have 1-2" longer chainstays, the bike doesn't need to be more more stable.


So all those advantages to the modern 29er and not a single sacrifice in return? Sounds too good to be true. Really.


----------



## Ryder1 (Oct 12, 2006)

Engineer90 said:


> Who do you think won?


Both wheel sizes are doing well. I can't see either fading away anytime soon.

Forum "viewing" numbers don't really matter. I'd guess MTBR is a little more 29er-loving than other sites, and 27.5 riders are probably more likely than 29er riders to be in the in the All-Mountain or "+" forums.

Which is currently selling better? Anybody?


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

jstonebarger said:


> So all those advantages to the modern 29er and not a single sacrifice in return? Sounds too good to be true. Really.


29ers are just a marginal tech improvement to string you along for a bit.

What's next? 
36ers. They DESTROY trails, and with a few geo tweaks they'll handle quicker than 20" BMX bikes.


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

Every time I walked into an LBS while I was shopping they thought it was best for me to have a 29er even though I requested 27.5 I had previously tested 29ers and they are not for me, perhaps they know the trails I ride and they might be right but if you don't have that "feel" for a bike is probably not for you. 

Personally, I could care less about numbers, it is probably more important to see more people ridding regardless of the bike. 

I'm also a late bloomer to the sport and 2/3 years ago I barely heard 27.5 but you can attribute that to my lack of knowledge at the time. (Still learning though)


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

1st, you need to take into account the All Mountain and Downhill forums which are predominately 650b nowadays. Also your personal experience will depend on where you live. I don't see a lot of 29ers around here and none of my friends have them. That doesn't mean they are not popular in other areas. I like having different choices out there.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

Ok here is my more detailed response... 
My background was a 26" HT ridden in the Az desert by 5'7" rider

29er - My current 29er is Carbon HT with 120mm fork. There is no downside compared o my 2003 vintage 26"HT. The bike is lighter, stiffer and handles better than my 26er. Wheel base is the same as well so it feels good in the tight stuff. Climbs better and desends better. roll over rocks better. Some of this is due to modern geometry, some due to frame material, some due to the wheelsize. I now can see the benefit of the 29inch wheel as it makes all the rocks feel a bit smaller. Overall on a 3hr ish rocky, narrow loop I was 15 minutes faster and not working as hard as compared the 26" HT. What is not to like?

27.5 - Current 27.5 is 5010. 125rear /130 front. This bike is not as nimble as the 29er, but that is due two things. 1 weight , 2 wheelbase. Weight is not function of wheelsize to large degree and neither is wheelbase. They are more a function of travel and geometry. So with more travel you need longer wheelbase and that impacts how nimble a bike is. The 27.5 wheels don't roll over stuff as well as 29in wheels, but allow for smaller bike when it comes to adding suspension. I can see more challenges and compromises with 29in wheels on a 5-6 bike vs 27.5. For me this bike however is AM type ride where I will give up some climbing performance to gain the ability take bigger hits on the way down the trails. Overall the 29er HT is faster, but if I just want to blast the rocky descents the 27.5 5010 is nice option. 

26 - 26" Rocky Mtn Switch - 7" free ride bike. Well this one is a bit strange in descends like rocket, but climbs like tank with a bad motor. (ie it does not really). Again this has less to do with wheelsize and more to do with geometry and frame, but I will say that tying put 29" wheels on this bike is an exercise in futility. It will make a big bike even bigger, but not better. I took this down a pretty nasty trail here in Phx and smoked my friend on an Enduro 29er. He had been down this trail a few times and knew it. I was riding it first time never having seen it and rocketed away. The extra suspension travel and beef in the frame and parts make it easy to just bomb down stuff wheel size be damned. Interesting it looks like I could stuff 27.5 wheels on this bike. I can directly use my 27.5 wheels on it due to hub config, but there is the space up front and I believe in the rear. That said in this type of bike strength is important and the 26 wheels are strong. 

So in the end wheel size is just one factor in how a bike rides. I think generally that for short travel applications the big wheels work well, but as travel increases the benefit from big wheels vs the issues grow.


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

Zowie said:


> 29ers are just a marginal tech improvement to string you along for a bit.
> 
> What's next?
> 36ers. They DESTROY trails, and with a few geo tweaks they'll handle quicker than 20" BMX bikes.


I'll wait for 37.5, thanks.


----------



## DiRt DeViL (Dec 24, 2003)

IMO the winner is the bike industry, they keep changing and making us buy the stuff.

I'm happy with my 29er and fatty.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)




----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

RS VR6 said:


> View attachment 1069682


Is he gonna beat it with his tongue!? :lol:

I ride both... majority of bikes I see around trails I ride are 29".... Next would be 26" (still a few diehard stalwarts out there). Don't see many 650b rides.

-----------------------------------------------------------
#1 resolution... Ride it like I stole it!!


----------



## Bokchoicowboy (Aug 7, 2007)

Per the OP's question...I don't know which of the two have won, but I agree with others who stated the 26'er has lost and the bike industry has won. 

I know the 26'er has lost when I can no longer support my local bike shops with my purchase of some products there, as they can not afford to stock 26'er product any more as they have to sink all their money into 27.5 and 29'er product...the products the bike industry has pushed them to carry as it is the Next Big Thing. Non-size specific stuff I can still get, but a replacement wheel, tire, or in one case a presta valve 26 tube...those I can no longer get.

I can see the reason to get a 29'er, not convinced 27.5 is better than 26....and I am laughing about the new swing toward Plus-tire bikes....the next debacle to watch.


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

To all the people who think it's the industry pushing new wheel sizes on us:

I remember the days when people who wanted 27.5 only had a handful of rims/tires to choose from, and pushed the industry to produce more. People who liked 27.5 were stoked when their favorite tire was finally made in that size.

I don't believe it was forced down our throats, until the industry abandoned 26 and those who didn't want 29 had to go 27.5. 

I also remember a crap-ton of people wanting 29. I can't remember the industry pushing them over 26, it was just another choice, and they were making money, everybody was happy.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

jstonebarger said:


> So all those advantages to the modern 29er and not a single sacrifice in return? Sounds too good to be true. Really.


The only problem is when it comes to packaging, which is why people have been testing 29'er DH bikes for quite some time, but never bring them out.

If anyone doubts that it's the frame, not the wheelsize that determines how a bike handles, go find a Trek demo day and ride a Stache....that big girl can dance. But, the bars are a little high, it's limited to 1x and has a front triangle poorly suited for bikepacking...packaging problems.

My other bike just happens to be a 27.5.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

Only "pushing" being done is by MTBR members. Like whatever they prefer is the best and should prefer what they prefer.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

1) 29ers have been around for longer than 650bers so of course there is going to be more threads in the 29er forum page.

2) the masses were fairly upset when yet another new wheel size (650b) came into the picture because they were already on edge switching from 26er to 29er.

IMO, 29ers are better for big riders. They are also better for climbing. But they do not turn as tightly as the 650b does and they are less nimble.

650b is more nimble like 26er and it turns sharper and reacts faster.

But in the end, did we really ever need anything other than the 26er wheel size? The answer is NO. 

I own a 26er, a 650b'er, a 29er, and a 700c'er. How do you like them apples?!


----------



## digitalsoul (Feb 17, 2004)

RS VR6 said:


> View attachment 1069682


The only thing we can learn from this thread is that the higher number of posts for something the better it must be.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Hawg said:


> But in the end, did we really ever need anything other than the 26er wheel size? The answer is NO.


I've been waiting for your blessing on rebuilding my 26'er. Looks like the light is green. No more "dude buy a new bike already". I'm glad you finally shut yourself up. 

Just when I was almost off the fence to.

Saved for future harrasssments.


----------



## Hurricane Jeff (Jan 1, 2006)

A few of my 29er riding, riding buddies sometimes tease me about me riding a 27.5er, making comments as too say that 29ers are better or faster. My answer is, " well if 29ers are faster and better as you say, then if I rode a 29er, I'd really be kicking your a$$es!"
I've ridden them all ( and own at least one bike of each size) I prefer 27.5. But to stay out of the conflict into which which one is better, I say whatever works and is better for you, may not be better or work for the next guy.
Just ride what you like, if your buying a new bike, try them all and see what works for you. Don't let anyone, any magazine ad or bike test tell you which is better or faster, find that out on your own.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

All bikes are kewl ^^ wheel size is irrelevant ^^ ride what you like, let God take care of the rest ;-)

-----------------------------------------------------------
#1 resolution... Ride it like I stole it!!


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Well, it sure looks like the customer wants bikes with a 29"ish diameter given how many different options there are for the 29" diameter. If you want a 27.5"ish diameter, there is really only one option, so I would say that 29ers are winning hands down.

29" diameter options:
-Fat bikes 
-650b+ size 
-29ers
-29er+ size

27.5" diameter options:
-650b

If 27.5" was such an ideal diameter, then we would be seeing a bunch of new 26"+ bikes, but we don't. Looks like the industry doesn't have much confidence in the 27.5" diameter since pretty much all the new innovation, fat bikes and plus size bikes are 29" in diameter.

What innovation has there been in the last 5 years around the 27.5" diameter? I can't think of any.

If your looking at what is more popular on mtbr, then I would say 27.5" diameter is the least popular, even less popular than 26"......

29" diameter popularity: (26+ is not talked about much in the plus thread)















26" popularity: 








27.5" popularity:


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

singletrackmack said:


> 27.5" diameter options:
> -650b


You missed 26+

Not exactly 27.5 in diameter, but it's close, just like 27.5+ is almost 29.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Cornfield said:


> You missed 26+
> 
> Not exactly 27.5 in diameter, but it's close, just like 27.5+ is almost 29.


I thought about including it, but they are very rare. Name 6 different 26"+ tires available to buy today and I will edit my comment to add 26+


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

singletrackmack said:


> I thought about including it, but they are very rare. Name 6 different 26"+ tires available to buy today and I will edit my comment to add 26+


Lol, that might take me a bit, but I might be able to pull it off.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Cornfield said:


> Lol, that might take me a bit, but I might be able to pull it off.


If I know you like I think I know you, you'll pull a rabbit out in short order.


----------



## John Kuhl (Dec 10, 2007)

Its all good.


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> If I know you like I think I know you, you'll pull a rabbit out in short order.


I guess you don't know how lazy I can get in short order.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Cornfield said:


> I guess you don't know how lazy I can get in short order.


Ha, there might be six or more 26+ tires available on the market today, but I have no idea how to find them. I can find a couple, but then the search gets complicated with a lot sifting through regular 26" tires.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

jstonebarger said:


> So all those advantages to the modern 29er and not a single sacrifice in return? Sounds too good to be true. Really.


Well if you're a guy with short legs, you are e×pected to sacrifice your balls to the Top Tube. 😮


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

andytiedye said:


> Well if you're a guy with short legs, you are e×pected to sacrifice your balls to the Top Tube. 😮


My 29er has more stand over clearance than my old 26er.... These kind of generalities are pointless. Stand over has more to do with frame than wheels.


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

26" is dead
29" will soon be dead apart from XC racing
27.5" is the better 26"
27.5"+ is the better 29"


----------



## AustinBiker (Aug 29, 2008)

People used to say downhill would never change from 26". Now ALL dh is 27.5, precisely because bigger wheels roll over bumps better, so the potential advantage of bigger wheels in dh is the biggest. This didn't happen because of industry sales strategies. 

29" bikes will definitely expand from xc domination only, into all mountain/Enduro. After riding 30 years on mountain bikes, I'm still getting faster, and only some of this is conditioning. Modern 29er geo (and suspension tech improvements, etc) are huge. 

I don't think it's unrealistic to see newer, bigger wheel sizes in the coming decades, filtering into xc first of course. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## d4nt3ch (Sep 17, 2015)

Engineer90 said:


> And for sharp turns.


And climbing switchbacks.

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

AustinBiker said:


> People used to say downhill would never change from 26". Now ALL dh is 27.5, precisely because bigger wheels roll over bumps better, so the potential advantage of bigger wheels in dh is the biggest. This didn't happen because of industry sales strategies.
> 
> 29" bikes will definitely expand from xc domination only, into all mountain/Enduro. After riding 30 years on mountain bikes, I'm still getting faster, and only some of this is conditioning. Modern 29er geo (and suspension tech improvements, etc) are huge.


They are already there, with the E29 and Evil Wreckoning.

Although I see more entries in this market, the more aggressive and "DH" like the riding, the less 29ers you'll see and I don't think 29ers will ever be used for straight "DH". Even though I "raced" my E29 DH, this will never be mainstream. The wheel limits travel too much with any kind of reasonable chainstays and seat-tube and the hit on all-out speed is pretty big. That rotational mass difference hanging 2.5 or similar tires out there on fatty rims is absolutely huge. I'd even notice a big difference in rotational weight and acceleration if I switched out to my "trail" tires that were ~800g, as opposed to the 1100+g DH ones.

In fact, a few years back I did predict that DH would change, just that it would never go to 29.

I agree though, for most everything except straight DH racing, 29ers are going to be out there and available and people will ride them. No argument there. I think we are far enough past the "29ers are only for XC" mindset already.

The one caveat I have though is that while bigger wheels help maintain speed over rough terrain better, they don't help you hold on any better. 4" of travel on a 29er feels like 4" of travel on any other bike to me. I could blast through some impressive chutes and launch the front wheel right into some "holes" that could potentially catch smaller wheels, but holding on to the bike and the "control" was just as difficult, so better at maintaining speed, but doesn't necessarily "smooth" the trail any more IME.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Steel Calf said:


> 26" is dead
> 29" will soon be dead apart from XC racing
> 27.5" is the better 26"
> 27.5"+ is the better 29"


I think you nailed it.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

You forgot 26"+ is better than 27.5".


----------



## Soundbud (Oct 21, 2013)

i have all three bike wheels sizes and do love the stability of the 29er, l love the acceleration and gear changes of the 27.5 bike and i dont really use the 26 bike much anymore  although i am faster through fast twisty sections of single track on the 26 bike, i can just accelerate faster out of the bends (easier to crank in high gears). 

i love to experiment with this stuff actually, wheel sizes, gearing, tyres.

i have had a 29 front and a 26 rear on an old bike and loved the more stability the bigger front wheel give, but could still accelerate fast from the small rear wheel. then i had another bike with a 29 front and a 27.5 rear (liked this one better), both had rigid forks.

now i feel that my 27.5 bike is a lot faster through sections than my 29er, but it wears me out faster and gets more exhausted after a ride, also a lot more knarley where the 29er just inspires more confidence.

my solution to my next build is a trail bike with 650b wheels and a 29er 120 travel fork with a 650b plus front tyre running at 28.2 inches and 2.4 tyre in the rear. i think this will be really good


----------



## Soundbud (Oct 21, 2013)

Zowie said:


> 29ers are just a marginal tech improvement to string you along for a bit.
> 
> What's next?
> 36ers. They DESTROY trails, and with a few geo tweaks they'll handle quicker than 20" BMX bikes.


that would be bloody good laugh, trying to pedal that :-D


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

you should have just posted into one of those old threads


----------



## Soundbud (Oct 21, 2013)

who me?


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Steel Calf said:


> 26" is dead
> 29" will soon be dead apart from XC racing
> 27.5" is the better 26"
> 27.5"+ is the better 29"


you've been drinking too much kool-aid


----------



## Soundbud (Oct 21, 2013)

just get a 27.5 back wheel and a 29 front and you got the best of both worlds :-D


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

Soundbud said:


> who me?


um, not you. how could my post refer to yours?

for the record, directed to OP


----------



## Soundbud (Oct 21, 2013)

no worries, glad we got that sorted out.


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

*OneSpeed* said:


> you've been drinking too much kool-aid


I think you're suffering from some kind of 26" hangover or 29" wheels poisoning. Both can quickly be cured with either 27.5 or 27.5+ wheels depending on how severe your current condition is. Contact your local bike dealer for further consultation.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Steel Calf said:


> I think you're suffering from some kind of 26" hangover or 29" wheels poisoning. Both can quickly be cured with either 27.5 or 27.5+ wheels depending on how severe your current condition is. Contact your local bike dealer for further consolidation.


consolidation?

is your favorite manufacturer Giant? you should read this http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/why-buy-anything-other-than-giant-1011762.html


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

*OneSpeed* said:


> consolidation?
> 
> is your favorite manufacturer Giant? you should read this http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/why-buy-anything-other-than-giant-1011762.html


ups oversaw that, auto correct was twisting my words...

Yes I ride a Giant and like it but that doesn't mean their company policy to phase out 29ers influences my personality in any way. I'm still a relaxed dude but just yesterday a long time friend betrayed me (and my Giant) by buying a 29er. I got very angry and yelled at him "how dare you traitor!!" and quit our friendship right away. The enemy of Giant is my enemy. When I see these 29er bikes on the trails I wanna spit my own guts out.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

sounds like you have been deeply scarred by a 29er. seek local therapist for further consolidation.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Soundbud said:


> that would be bloody good laugh, trying to pedal that :-D


Finding one is harder than pedaling it...


----------



## Scott In MD (Sep 28, 2008)

I like my 27.5 but 29 is better for me ... But if the whole thing ended up a wash except that my 5-4 wife ends up on a much better fitting (than a 29er) and better riding (than a 26er) bike, then I'm good with that.


----------



## Ericmopar (Aug 23, 2003)

None are better than the other. They just do different things a different way. 

To be blunt, when the pro riders still had a choice in what they rode, they hardly touched anything that wasn't a 26" wheel. They could choose the best the factory offered and ride what they liked back when and usually picked a 26" bike, but now they are told what to ride... They have to play along or lose their sponsorship.


----------



## Soundbud (Oct 21, 2013)

Zowie, that's incredible :-D I want one of those, does anyone on this forum know more about them?

Looks like that guy in front is hardly pedalling and he's really ripping along.

One thing I noticed about the 29er is I'm going faster down hills, just got a local KOM on strava for a down hill segment that I wasn't even close to on a 27.5 bike. 

36er I thought you were joking.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Steel Calf said:


> I think you're suffering from some kind of 26" hangover or 29" wheels poisoning. Both can quickly be cured with either 27.5 or 27.5+ wheels depending on how severe your current condition is. Contact your local bike dealer for further consultation.


Apperantly you don't realize that 650b+ is much closer to 29" in diameter than 27.5" in diameter and therefore 650b+ is esentially a 29er.

It's the outer tire diameter that matters on the trail since that is the part of the bike that connects you to the trail, not the rim. Rim size only matters in forums.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Soundbud said:


> Zowie, that's incredible :-D I want one of those, does anyone on this forum know more about them?
> 
> Looks like that guy in front is hardly pedalling and he's really ripping along.
> 
> ...


That has nothing to do with wheel size. It's because you are getting younger and stronger.


----------



## Soundbud (Oct 21, 2013)

Yeah my name is Benjamin button :-D


----------



## Soundbud (Oct 21, 2013)

singletrackmack said:


> Apperantly you don't realize that 650b+ is much closer to 29" in diameter than 27.5" in diameter and therefore 650b+ is esentially a 29er.
> 
> It's the outer tire diameter that matters on the trail since that is the part of the bike that connects you to the trail, not the rim. Rim size only matters in forums.


Rim size just makes the bikes control more precise with smaller tyres, less float etc.. 650b plus 3 inch tyre measures about 28.2 so it's more like a 28er  than a 29er. But yes I like this concept.


----------



## morepower (May 14, 2012)

We all know 26 inch wheels are now history... (until someone resurrects them obviously with some rider winning a world title and the manufacturer still stuck with thousands of rims they have been stuck with and need to dump) 

Most of the bikes I see on the trail centers seem to be grouped into two camps. The 29 inch wheels are new riders or families and older couples just buying bikes to ride for pleasure on the family trails and fire roads. Then you have the riders who want to ride the red and black routes who are a little more serious and most of those run 650b (27.5 inch) wheels.


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

singletrackmack said:


> Apperantly you don't realize that 650b+ is much closer to 29" in diameter than 27.5" in diameter and therefore 650b+ is esentially a 29er.
> 
> It's the outer tire diameter that matters on the trail since that is the part of the bike that connects you to the trail, not the rim. Rim size only matters in forums.


I'm aware of that.
I've got a Marin Pine Mountain 2 on order which comes stock with 27.5+ wheels + a second 29" wheelset with 2.0 tires to swap in for long endurance rides.
27.5 riders could do something similar, they'd just need to go with 40C tires.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Steel Calf said:


> I'm aware of that.
> I've got a Marin Pine Mountain 2 on order which comes stock with 27.5+ wheels + a second 29" wheelset with 2.0 tires to swap in for long endurance rides.
> 27.5 riders could do something similar, they'd just need to go with 40C tires.


wo wo wo, a couple posts ago you were ready to nuke every 29er on earth, now your supporting it?

is your menopause causing violent mood swings again?


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

morepower said:


> We all know 26 inch wheels are now history...


Until 26+ picks up some momentum.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Soundbud said:


> Rim size just makes the bikes control more precise with smaller tyres, less float etc.. 650b plus 3 inch tyre measures about 28.2 so it's more like a 28er  than a 29er. But yes I like this concept.


Hmm, everything I have read is that 650b+ run between 28.5" and 29" in diameter. I know there are some smaller 2.8" plus size tires, but from what I've seen, they really are not much bigger than some big 2.5", so I wouldn't consider that plus, but rather a big regular tire, like a DH tire disguised as a plus size so it looks like something new and different.

Here are some snip-its the http://forums.mtbr.com/26-27-5-29-plus-bikes/27-5-tires-931412-11.html thread:

"27.5 x 3.25 Vee Rubber Trax Fatty on a 40mm Derby... is 29" in diameter (736mm)."

"Vee Rubber Crown Gem 27.5 x 3... I got the tires mounted on my Nextie 50 rims (45mm internal). they measure 73mm knob to knob and 75mm at the widest part and have 723mm"

I've seen others s well, but don't have time to sift thru the thread.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

morepower said:


> We all know 26 inch wheels are now history... (until someone resurrects them obviously...


Maybe they are roaming the trails as we speak, an abominable 'rolling dead'.
Now that I think about it... maybe they've always been there.

I'm scared.


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

Lol!


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

Cornfield said:


> Until 26+ picks up some momentum.


OMG...
I can see you forced a 3" tire on a 18mm rim, well done. Now someone needs to come and rescue that poor thing.


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

*OneSpeed* said:


> is your menopause causing violent mood swings again?


No. But just yesterday a guy was debating me on 29ers and I didn't know what to say - so I punched him in the face!


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

Steel Calf said:


> OMG...
> I can see you forced a 3" tire on a 18mm rim, well done. Now someone needs to come and rescue that poor thing.


I'd have a Dually on there but Speshy only gave me 28 spokes!

Can I use a 32 hole rim with 28 spokes, maybe skip a hole every seven spokes?


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Steel Calf said:


> No. But just yesterday a guy was debating me on 29ers and I didn't know what to say - so I punched him in the face!


I love a proportional response.



Cornfield said:


> Can I use a 32 hole rim with 28 spokes, maybe skip a hole every seven spokes?


please don't


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

Cornfield said:


> I'd have a Dually on there but Speshy only gave me 28 spokes!
> 
> Can I use a 32 hole rim with 28 spokes, maybe skip a hole every seven spokes?


Yes but how about getting a 32 hole Hub? I'd be more cornered that the tire will grow too wide on that wider rim thus not fitting inside that fork anymore. Maybe should mount the tire on the naked rim first to check clearance before building a new wheel?


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

Steel Calf said:


> Yes but how about getting a 32 hole Hub? I'd be more cornered that the tire will grow too wide on that wider rim thus not fitting inside that fork anymore. Maybe should mount the tire on the naked rim first to check clearance before building a new wheel?


This is my plan. I will order a Dually as soon as funds become available, mount the tire to check fit on two different bikes, front and back. Then I'll proceed to order three more rims and a front hub, or maybe a hubset, and a couple more tires. I'm patiently waiting for the 26X3" WTB Ranger to come out.


----------



## Soundbud (Oct 21, 2013)

Cornfield what size fork s that?


----------



## Soundbud (Oct 21, 2013)

*29er tyre looks bigger than 650 +*

This image from dirtrag clearly shows the 29er 2.3 tyre is a good bit bigger than the 650b plus size tyres.

It's snapshot by the way taken from the website on my ipad a while back.

the fat nimble 3.5 next to the wtb trail boss looks like the difference between my 26 x 2.4 rocket Ron tyre compared to my 27.5 x 2.1 thunder burt.

i have some 28er furious Fred tyres too that actually measure 28.2 meant for 700c (29er rims).

rim widths will also play a big part in how tall the tyre will be.

also when running low pressure the tyre won't run as high, giving a smaller real world daimeter.


----------



## Soundbud (Oct 21, 2013)

singletrackmack said:


> "Vee Rubber Crown Gem 27.5 x 3... I got the tires mounted on my Nextie 50 rims (45mm internal). they measure 73mm knob to knob and 75mm at the widest part and have 723mm"


723mm is 28.46 inches, still in the 28er realms or would you prefer to call it 28 and a halfer? :-D

dont get me wrong, I'm not having a go at the 650b plus' I quite like the idea, as you can see from my research on plus size tyres. My impression was that they were always in the 28er size, which suits me quite well actaully.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Soundbud said:


> rim widths will also play a big part in how tall the tyre will be.


I'm pretty sure i've read multiple times that rim width has little to no effect on the height of a tire (ERD)


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

Soundbud said:


> Cornfield what size fork s that?


26" Fox F120 RL that came stock on my 2011 Camber. I heard something mentioned somewhere that the Dirt Wizard was designed around a F140 RL, I could be totally wrong about that, tho.


----------



## Soundbud (Oct 21, 2013)

*OneSpeed* said:


> I'm pretty sure i've read multiple times that rim width has little to no effect on the height of a tire (ERD)


There is a good article here to prove that wrong:

Tyre Size Matters | Continental

Can I Change Motorcycle Tyre Size? ... This variation will depend on the type of tyre you have fitted. ... wider, but it will almost certainly make it taller as the rim is too narrow and pinches in the sidewalls.

I ride motorbikes too :-D but the tyre / rim scenario is exactly the same principle.


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

*OneSpeed* said:


> I'm pretty sure i've read multiple times that rim width has little to no effect on the height of a tire (ERD)


Although it may sound illogical at first there is some truth behind this.

If you move from a relatively narrow rim towards a wider rim the same tire will appear much wider without significant change in height. Think of a triangle that's standing upside down and whose sides are being moved apart so it suddenly appears like an open recangle, yes it will be a bit taller but coming back to the tires we're not starting with a 1mm inner width rim here so there's far less change in height


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

Steel Calf said:


> Although it may sound illogical at first there is some truth behind this.


I agree, and I also think tire width doesn't change all that much with wider rims, although I'm hoping I'm wrong. Grab a tire out of the tire pile and hold it by the sidewalls with both hands and move them in and out to simulate different rim sizes, the tread area remains fairly consistent in width and height. The thing that changes the most is the volume of air the tire will hold..


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Soundbud said:


> Rim size just makes the bikes control more precise with smaller tyres, less float etc..


Um, what are you talking about?



Soundbud said:


> 650b plus 3 inch tyre measures about 28.2 so it's more like a 28er  than a 29er. But yes I like this concept.


650b running a 3" wide tire runs about 28.9 in diameter.
BikeCalc.com - How to calculate Bicycle Wheel Size



Soundbud said:


> 723mm is 28.46 inches, still in the 28er realms or would you prefer to call it 28 and a halfer? :-D


Ok then, so by your categorizing a 29er running a 2.1" wide tire would be a 28er? Hmm, don't think so.

Also, what is a 28er?

Regardless, a 29er with 2" wide tires run right at 723mm in diameter which is also what the diameter of a 650b running 2.75" wide tires is. So yah, I would call 650b+ tires well within the 29er realm and far from a 27.5".

Just so you are aware (and this is a great mtb beginner tip :thumbsup: ) in general, you can vary the overall diameter by an entire inch by going from a 2" wide tire to a 2.5" wide tire regardless of wheel size. So running regular mtb tires from 2" to 2.5" wide on a 26" wheel will run from 26" to 27" in diameter, on a 27.5" wheel will run from 27" to 28" in diameter and on a 29er will run from 28.5" to 29.5" in diameter.

So if plus size tires run around 28.5" to 29.3" then that is basically the same diameter of a 29er running 2" to 2.3" wide tires.


----------



## Soundbud (Oct 21, 2013)

Hi guys, here is another pic I collected with a RR 2.4 tyre on a 35mm external diameter rim. It measures 71mm wide.

I had this tyre in the past on 24 external rim (21mm internal) and it measured 62.5mm wide.

So this is my experience, which is why I'm pointing it out. If it's not has wide on a narrow rim the extra tyre volume has to go somewhere and thus, creates a taller tyre on a narrow rim.


----------



## Soundbud (Oct 21, 2013)

Singletrack Mac, the reality is 27.5 plus tyres dont run quite as tall as a 29er not quite the same diameter, I agree may be not far off but you will be able to feel the difference between the two.

My neighbour runs 29 x 2.35 tyres and they measure 29.5 inches, the 29 inches is usually measured between 2.1 - 2.25 size, it's just a generalisation. There are lots of reviews about 27.5 plus stating its not quite the same size as a 29er.

I was talking about more precise control with smaller tyres since there is less tyre volume you get less float and this creates more feedback to the rider, just like a rigid fork use to years ago. I occasionally ride on a rigid bike off road and although this feels more harsh I find it gives much better feedback than suspension, I find it to be more precise  sorry don't mean to cause any confusion, just trying to explain my own experience.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

Different horses for different courses.


----------



## natrat (Mar 20, 2008)

Soundbud said:


> I occasionally ride on a rigid bike off road and although this feels more harsh I find it gives much better feedback than suspension, I find it to be more precise  sorry don't mean to cause any confusion, just trying to explain my own experience.


I have been alternating riding on a full squish stumpy and a light weight rigid both with the same tire setup. The rigid is deceptive because the steering is so light and precise but throw it into a turn on anything but smooth hardpack and that precision goes out the window. The stumpy tracks cleanly through the turn without the need for constant steering correction. Kind of like monster truck vs ferrari


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

Miker J said:


> Different horses for different courses.


no no, not so easy. 27.5" is the superior wheelsize. Everyone else is either sitting on a fat cow (29+/27.5+), a camel (29") or a pony (26").


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Steel Calf said:


> no no, not so easy. 27.5" is the superior wheelsize. Everyone else is either sitting on a fat cow (29+/27.5+), a camel (29") or a pony (26").


if i ever need advice on a new farm animal i now know who to go to. however, I've read better bike advice in MBA.


----------



## Soundbud (Oct 21, 2013)

Steel Calf said:


> no no, not so easy. 27.5" is the superior wheelsize. Everyone else is either sitting on a fat cow (29+/27.5+), a camel (29") or a pony (26").


Lol :-D I'm going I'm going inbtween for next trail bike build of 11.5kg weight - 27.5 3 inch front tyre and 2.4 rear 27.5.


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

singletrackmack said:


> 650b running a 3" wide tire runs about 28.9 in diameter.
> BikeCalc.com - How to calculate Bicycle Wheel Size


Theoretically it should, but the reality is 27.5+ are barely bigger than 27.5.

Pinkbike review of the Mojo 3:



> ... Ibis' Scot Nicol does stress that the new bike is far from being a plus-only machine. ''We've found that the [width] numbers printed on tire sidewalls mean very little when it comes to their height,'' Nicol explained after experimenting with just how much of a difference there is in diameter between plus and standard 27.5'' tires. ''The Schwalbe and Maxxis 2.8s are only 0.15" taller in section height than a 2.3'' tire, whereas 3.0'' tires are 0.4" taller.
> 
> ''That means with the 2.8s you get the added traction but without bounce and vagueness in corners. They also allow for those short 425mm chainstays which would not be possible if we tried to fit tires bigger than 2.8 inches.''
> 
> In other words, Nicol is saying that the minimal, 0.15'' difference in tire height between a 2.8'' tire and a 2.3'' tire means that the bike should ride well when rolling on either. Making the Mojo 3 compatible with 29" wheels is another story, however, as you can read below.


Also, Santa Cruz had to put a flip chip in the Hightower to make it work between 29 and 27.5+, because the travel distance changed so much due to the smaller wheels.

It's definitely making my new FS bike shopping complicated, because I really dig the roll-over of the 29, but want the plushness of the 27.5+, and there are so few 29+ double squishies available.


----------



## Soundbud (Oct 21, 2013)

Natrat, sound about right. But does depend on your ability to ride a rigid bike. Constantly looking for the line with the least bumps :-D and using your limbs as suspension.


----------



## Soundbud (Oct 21, 2013)

Also bike manufacturers are now adding quick links to the frame to adjust the bottom bracket height and or head tube angle between 27.5 + and 29er wheels.


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

now scientifically proven:
http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/gear/article/are-27-5-wheels-and-tyres-better-than-29ers-47047/


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Steel Calf said:


> now scientifically proven:
> Are 27.5+ wheels and tyres better than 29ers? - BikeRadar


you can read a discussion of that article here

http://forums.mtbr.com/26-27-5-29-plus-bikes/bikes-appear-faster-1011996.html


----------



## Soundbud (Oct 21, 2013)

Nice find steel calf, very interesting. 27.5 + Looks better for trail use but will be too heavy for XC.

That being said, I think this is review is flawed in the sense of not using the correct geometry for both wheel sets. I think it was Trek I was reading that you could switch between the two wheel sizes with the same frame by adjusting the quick links' I will have to try and dig it out unless anyone else here can help me?

From my own experience I have noticed huge traction benefits and better handing with a lower bottom bracket height even with skinny 2 inch tyres, which would normal just slide out if the BB height was raised. 

Of course the plus tyres have the added benefit of traction, braking later and softer ride on the trails, which is going to be a lot of fun and appeal to a lot of people, myself included.

I do think the reviewer would have had a lot more confidence if he could have had the possibility of lowering the BB height for the 29er wheels, resulting in faster times.

For me anyway the 27.5 plus is going to be a great trail bike, but for XC racing I will be sticking to skinny tyres, either 27.5 or 29.


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

Based on the conclusion of this article I think all wheelsizes apart from 27.5+ will be wiped out in the near future. 29" will be silently tolerated because it fits into the same frame.


----------



## Steezus (Jul 25, 2007)

All I know are 4 things:

1. 27.5 has won, but 29 will still be around. The vast majority of bikes I see on the trail are 27.5 as well as what is mostly for sale in bike shops.

2. Geometry has come a long, long way in the last decade. My current 27.5 bike (SC Solo) is so much more fun than any 26inch bike I ever rode before. So far in fact, that I would be absolutely bummed if I had to go back to my old 26 inch bikes.

3. 29's seem to be best for really tall people. I am 6' 1" with most of it in my torso and I personally think a 29 inch bike isn't a great fit for me. 

4. Being mad about changing standards is kind of dumb. Bikes have undoubtedly become miles and miles better than they where before. And the kicker is that if you ride a lot, none of them will ever last. You will always be buying new parts as old ones wear out, so there is always ample opportunity to switch to new parts, frames, etc, without being felt like you were forced into the switch.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Steel Calf said:


> now scientifically proven:
> http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/gear/article/are-27-5-wheels-and-tyres-better-than-29ers-47047/


You should refrain from making any statements about "science". You know not what it means.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

For some reason, perhaps fitness related, people on 27.5 bikes in VA seem much more likely to be pushing their bikes up the hills as opposed to riding them.

Same with the Front Range.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Here's how we do 26ers and 29ers in So Cal.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Soundbud said:


> There is a good article here to prove that wrong:
> 
> Tyre Size Matters | Continental
> 
> ...


Not the same principle. That kind of tire has a rigid casing that is purposely shaped. A mtb tire is on a much more flexible casing that balloons up to as round and full as the casing allows.

Also, a 190 profile tire is taller than a 180 profile tire on almost all rims, except on an extremely narrow or extremely wide rim. Same case with a 2.3 generally being taller than a 2.2...

Putting a 2.2 and 2.3 tires on a rim width narrower than 18mm ID or wider than 55mm ID would shorten their height. ~18/19mm is about as narrow as you can go yet get close to max height out of the tire, hence one reason why it was used for so long, but there was an emphasis on weight savings back then.


----------



## Steezus (Jul 25, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> For some reason, perhaps fitness related, people on 27.5 bikes in VA seem much more likely to be pushing their bikes up the hills as opposed to riding them.
> 
> Same with the Front Range.


That would make sense since most people that ride 27.5 bikes usually bike about 50 miles more a day than your average 29'er that I see, making them more tired by the time you finally see them. That makes about as much sense, right?


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Soundbud said:


> Singletrack Mac, the reality is 27.5 plus tyres dont run quite as tall as a 29er not quite the same diameter, I agree may be not far off but you will be able to feel the difference between the two.
> 
> My neighbour runs 29 x 2.35 tyres and they measure 29.5 inches, the 29 inches is usually measured between 2.1 - 2.25 size, it's just a generalisation. There are lots of reviews about 27.5 plus stating its not quite the same size as a 29er.
> 
> I was talking about more precise control with smaller tyres since there is less tyre volume you get less float and this creates more feedback to the rider, just like a rigid fork use to years ago. I occasionally ride on a rigid bike off road and although this feels more harsh I find it gives much better feedback than suspension, I find it to be more precise  sorry don't mean to cause any confusion, just trying to explain my own experience.


I agree with you on the rigid, but I wouldn't call it more precise, but rather more responsive. I find skinnier tires to be less precise since they provide less traction, slide around easier and break traction much easier than wider tires. My '91 Singletrack is much more responsive than my '88 MB1. Some of it has to do with the modern 2.4" up front paired with some 2.3" out bike while the Mb1 is rolling on some 1.9" old school tires that slide all over the place. The singletrack also benefits from more aggressive geometry and a stiffer frame and fork which helps the resonsiveness as well.



















schnee said:


> Theoretically it should, but the reality is 27.5+ are barely bigger than 27.5.
> 
> Pinkbike review of the Mojo 3:.


That mojo 3 is as much a plus bike as my singletrack shown above is a 27.5". Ya, it can't fit a 27.5", but nothing bigger than a 2.1" wide, so what's the point? That mojo has as much clearance as my '2004 fisher cake which can easily fit a DH 2.75" wide tire. But that doesn't make my cake a plus bike does it? Not being able to fit anything bigger than a 2.8" is pretty pathetic for a plus bike and really is just a regular bike that can fit big DH tires.

As for how tire width effects tire diameter, that site I posted a link to is pretty damn accurate.

First of all there is a huge difference between a real plus size tire and what is basically a large volume DH tire:









As for how a true plus size tire match up to 29ers here is a great shot. Keep in mind that the 29" in this pic is a 2.3" and runs well over 29" in diameter:









And for what people who develop plus size bikes and tires and those in the industry who live this sh!t day in and day out have found to be true for 27.5" plus size tire diameters here you go. Hard to dispute all this:



























So, one more time, plus size 27.5" tires run right around 29" in diameter.

This, plus the fact that fat bikes run about 29" in diameter and 29+ runs even bigger and the popularity of the regular 29er is why bikes that can run 29" in diameter tires are hands down beating bikes that can only run 27.5" in diameter in popularity and have won the 27.5" vs 29er battle.

Plus, as I pointed out a few pages earlier, 27.5" is the least popular tire diameter on this web site. That pretty much speaks for it's self.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Forgot one


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

That chart is empirically wrong.

Otherwise, go talk to Ibis and Santa Cruz, and ask them why they engineered the Mojo3 and Hightower like they did - as in '27.5+/27.5 without any adjustment necessary' (Ibis) or '27.5+ and 29er with a flip chip and different length fork to handle the different BB drop'.


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

Engineer90 said:


> View attachment 1069584
> 
> 
> I found it interesting that at the time I was looking at the main forums page, 295 were viewing 29er bikes and only 103 were viewing 27.5. 29er has 50,510 theads and 27.5 has 6,880 threads.





singletrackmack said:


> If your looking at what is more popular on mtbr, then I would say 27.5" diameter is the least popular, even less popular than 26"......
> 
> 29" diameter popularity: (26+ is not talked about much in the plus thread)
> View attachment 1069730
> ...


The way how you measure wheelsize popularity is deeply flawed and misleading.

Of course there are more posts in the 29er sub forum than there are in the 27.5 because they've been on the market for longer time and everyone with a 29er posted in that forum no matter if it was a bike, frame, wheel, suspension specific topic.

Many current 27.5 users are former 26" users who were never restricted to some 26" forum and therefore posted directly in the corresponding subforums like wheels and tires, brake time, suspension. So you cannot use the number of posts in the dedicated 27.5 forum alone as an indicator for its popularity without factoring in that the 27.5 community is more evenly spread over the whole mtbr forum.

Am I pointing out the obvious here?


----------



## legitposter (Feb 16, 2015)

Its important to remember that a higher ratio of 29er riders are less experienced or just plain more recreational about it. This explains why more of them need to get help on forums. 27.5 riders tend to be the hardcore crowd that don't need as much help. These are important points to remember when basing popularity on internet forum use.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

legitposter said:


> Its important to remember that a higher ratio of 29er riders are less experienced or just plain more recreational about it. This explains why more of them need to get help on forums. 27.5 riders tend to be the hardcore crowd that don't need as much help. These are important points to remember when basing popularity on internet forum use.


yes, 29ers are for beginners, 27.5 are for hardore. got it, good to know.

who rides fat bikes old men and children? tell me more...


----------



## Haymarket (Jan 20, 2008)

legitposter said:


> Its important to remember that a higher ratio of 29er riders are less experienced or just plain more recreational about it. This explains why more of them need to get help on forums. 27.5 riders tend to be the hardcore crowd that don't need as much help. These are important points to remember when basing popularity on internet forum use.


"Important to remember" like it's fact, huh?...that's funny stuff. I'd love to see the stats you saw that led you to that conclusion.


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

*OneSpeed* said:


> yes, 29ers are for beginners, 27.5 are for hardore. got it, good to know.
> 
> who rides fat bikes old men and children? tell me more...


Good, I thought I was crazy because I'm pretty much a beginner and I ride 27.5 moved from 26 and never expect to own a 29er (just a personal preference)


----------



## muddytire (Aug 27, 2009)

Haymarket said:


> "Important to remember" like it's fact, huh?...that's funny stuff. I'd love to see the stats you saw that led you to that conclusion.


dude...his name is "legitposter" so there's basically no reason to question it. by default it's legit.


----------



## yangpei (Apr 18, 2004)

I've had several 29er bikes (Gunnar Ruffian rigid SS, Vassago OptimusTi rigid SS, Niner RIP9 FS, Jones Spaceframe rigid 1x6). They never were able to replace my core stable of 26" bikes and (except for the Jones) are no longer around. The 27.5 bikes (Knolly carbon Warden, Pivot Mach 5.7 650b conversion), on the other hand, have replaced my regular bikes. Now, the only 26" bike I own is my Canfield Jedi DH rig. 

For me (and a lot of the guys I ride with) 29ers were a niche product that we tried but never really adopted. The 27.5 bikes, however, have become the standard for most riding disciplines for us.


----------



## muddytire (Aug 27, 2009)

*OneSpeed* said:


> who rides fat bikes old men and children? tell me more...


Now I'm going to have bad dreams about kids on fat bikes. At least it'll replace the "clowns on merry-go-rounds" dream, I can't stand that one.


----------



## Hollis (Dec 19, 2003)

*OneSpeed* said:


> yes, 29ers are for beginners, 27.5 are for hardore. got it, good to know.


and 26ers are for Seasoned Pros who can't afford a new $5400 bike to replace the $2000 bike they've been happily riding since 2012.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

i learned so much today, i feel like we've all grown.


----------



## goto11 (Jun 12, 2009)

*It's not all about wheel size...*

I have to state the obvious fact that many newer bikes ride better than many older bikes because the manufacturers figured out geometry, gearing and suspension, wheel size aside.

Many people are comparing crappy old prototype or revision 1 26ers to flashy new revision 4+ 29ers and 27.5ers. It's not a fair comparison unless all things except the rim diameter are as equal as possible, and the market moved to bigger wheels so quickly that there was only a very brief period where such a comparison (among new bikes) was even possible.

The 26" bike began its decline right about the same time that mountain bike companies figured a lot of stuff out, and many folks give all the credit to the wheel size, when the improved performance characteristics are due to geometry, gearing and everything else. Wheel size plays a part, but if you've had the pleasure of riding a really nice 26" bike, with dialed suspension and good tires, then you would know that the wheel size plays only a small part in the quality of today's rides, and simple physics tells us smaller wheels are more nimble because they have less angular momentum, while larger wheels plow through stuff for the same reason. The ~4% difference in attack angle makes some noticeable difference, but a plush suspension fork on a 26" bike will roll over stuff better than a stiff suspension fork on a 29er, so you can't generalize and say "all 26ers are X and all 29ers are Y." It's a lot more complicated than that.

In short, if you've got a great bike that you love, forget about the wheel size and go out and enjoy it. If you need or want another bike, it's worth test riding some used 26ers, especially the ones with suspension designs like DW-Link and VPP that haven't changed much. Then go out and test ride some 27.5 and 29er bikes. Buy the one that has the best stoke to price ratio... It might be a 26er, and you might save a grip of cash.


----------



## zephxiii (Aug 12, 2011)

Lol this thread just got featured on fb... silly thread!!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

goto11 said:


> In short, if you've got a great bike that you love, forget about the wheel size and go out and enjoy it.


End thread


----------



## muddytire (Aug 27, 2009)

zephxiii said:


> Lol this thread just got featured on fb... silly thread!!


That's awesome. Now it's like a really stupid domestic that spills out onto the front lawn and someone calls the cops and we end up looking stupid in front of the whole neighborhood instead of just each other.

Kind of like when someone stabs their brother over a burrito, or an argument about Tom Brady.


----------



## SimonsJ (Apr 23, 2011)

The premise of this whole thread is already misleading simply by how it is presented. First off... There are NO 27.5" wheels!!! The companies that publicly claimed they would never make a 29ner and had to scramble to save their company's market share after loosing badly named a 650b wheel "27.5". It is not 27.5... it is 27.1" but how many customers would've upgraded from 26" if they knew that they were only going up 1.1" and NOT getting a lot of the benefit that the 29" bikes have?

Marketing and damn marketing... agendas and lies.

While we are at it... 27.1+ IS NOT equivalent to 29" with respect to size. It is quite a bit smaller. The 29" 2.4" tire is almost an inch taller than 27.1" 3.0" tire... and that doesn't include the 0.5-0.75" of squat that you get in the 27.1. 

As our wheels get stronger and lighter AND the rubber gets better/lighter... I have to ask where is a great 29+ full suspension bike? I can't believe there isn't one on the market yet. What a great wheel for a trail bike to use on backcountry trails here in the Rockies (AND please do not lower the BB below 13.5"... the wheel squat will already lower it to 13").


----------



## TomactypeX (Aug 8, 2010)

Haha.. Yeah. I saw that too.

I've heard that 29 are better for hardtails and 27.5 better for squishy. My 2 cents



zephxiii said:


> Lol this thread just got featured on fb... silly thread!!
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## SimonsJ (Apr 23, 2011)

Haymarket said:


> "Important to remember" like it's fact, huh?...that's funny stuff. I'd love to see the stats you saw that led you to that conclusion.


Mr LegitPoster... Your post is hilarious. I'm glad Haymarket asked the real question... show us the facts.

Fact: Virtually the entire Pro Men's XC field has been racing 29" for over 5 years now. The only question is whether they grab their Full squishy 29ner or their hardtail 29ner. His assumptions and bias are nutty... hopefully, LegitPoster's mis-info doesn't propagate.


----------



## brncr6 (May 15, 2014)

26ers are out riding, apparently 29ers are spending a lot of time online talking about there 29ers.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

brncr6 said:


> 26ers are out riding, apparently 29ers are spending a lot of time online asking questions about there 29ers, and 650b is hardcore where ever they are.


fify


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

A friend of mine bought a 29er because they told him in the shop it's more suited for beginners and easier to use.

I tried to take him on a real trail once but he couldn't clear the corners with these huge wheels and was pretty disappointed.

Hopefully he sooner or later is gonna find this forum where he can communicate with other "skilled" 29er riders and gain all their knowledge (like how to true the wheels as they're pretty weak)

so from my experience, not every wheelsize fits everyone...

26 -> broke people that cannot afford a real bike, black people in Africa (world bicycle relief)
27.5 -> boys, strong men
29 -> girls, women, pussies or just ordinary people that got kinda screwed in the store like my dear dear friend


----------



## Engineer90 (Apr 10, 2015)

I'm happy it got featured on fb


----------



## elder_mtber (Jan 13, 2004)

OneSpeed - I hope I did not accidentally give you neg rep, intended to give approval - don't know if I can check it.

Sorry
TR


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

haha, no worries


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

elder_mtber said:


> don't know if I can check it.


Upper right, above the search bar, click on 'Settings', then scroll down till you see 'Latest Reputation Given'.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Engineer90 said:


> I'm happy it got featured on fb


not this



muddytire said:


> That's awesome. Now it's like a really stupid domestic that spills out onto the front lawn and someone calls the cops and we end up looking stupid in front of the whole neighborhood instead of just each other.


^ this


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

Wow!

There are currently 4489 users browsing this thread. (52 members and 4437 guests)


----------



## elder_mtber (Jan 13, 2004)

I wish my 29 steered quicker and manualed easier. Especially quicker steering.


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

Cornfield said:


> Wow!
> 
> There are currently 4489 users browsing this thread. (52 members and 4437 guests)


I see competition for the Giant thread ..  How come that didn't make it to FB?


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

jcd46 said:


> I see competition for the Giant thread ..  How come that didn't make it to FB?


Because they don't make 29'ers anymore?


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

I always hear people say that "bigger is better". 

29er wheels are bigger, so...


----------



## cyclelicious (Oct 7, 2008)

"Different horses for different courses."


----------



## AngryPirate (Feb 24, 2008)

jjaguar said:


> The manufacturers won. They managed to convince everyone that their 26ers that were perfectly fine for decades were suddenly obsolete and needed to be upgraded.


Exactly this. I'm sure there have been some gains in performance, but making everyone believe the upgrades are necessary and ultimately forcing an upgrade due to lack of compatible parts for your older rig is purely profit driven.


----------



## CRWLN (Feb 9, 2015)

Engineer90 said:


> I'm actually happy with 29er, 27.5, and fattie. They all have their advantages.


Quote from page 1^^^
I just picked up my 2nd wheelset from my LBS: 29+ front tire & 27.5+ rear tire for my Mutz(Mutz Mixer I guess ya could say). Now I have the best of all three worlds. Haters will not be acknowledged.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Cornfield said:


> Wow!
> 
> There are currently 4489 users browsing this thread. (52 members and 4437 guests)


It's really slowed down since your post 3 hours ago.ut:

A plethora of lurkers. Afraid to jump in people?

There are currently 3162 users browsing this thread. (26 members and 3136 guests)


----------



## shawnbbiking (Mar 6, 2015)

Unfortunately, each MTB has a specific purpose.  Plus tires, hard tail, FS, 26, 27.5, 29, long travel, short travel, single speed, 1x11, 2x11, etc. That's why we need at least 4 bikes. It's an expensive sport.


----------



## Lopaka (Sep 7, 2006)

Wow. Am I happy this question is finally settled.


----------



## mmatrix (Aug 20, 2007)

i had two brilliant 26 inch bikes,( HT AND DUALLY 120CM) then sort of tricked myself into upgrading them both and got 29ers, did i have more fun, not really, therefore Im staying with what i have got now.
not going for 27.5 not going for 29+, just going to stay out on the trails having fun.

PS. I rode the 26 the other day, just before i sold it, It has XTR 3 x 9. WOW what a great group. why did i ever up grade, it was smooth LIGHT STIFF and worked great.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Lopaka said:


> Wow. Am I happy this question is finally settled.


I'm looking forward to "Clipless vs. flats--who do you think won?"

:lol:


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

Zowie said:


> I'm looking forward to "Clipless vs. flats--who do you think won?"
> 
> :lol:


Anybody using anything other than toe clips has been brainwashed by the industry!


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

29" riders need clips because they cannot bunny hop using flats like 27.5 do


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Steel Calf said:


> 29" riders need clips because they cannot bunny hop using flats like 27.5 do


The sad thing is that other people were just joking...

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## muddytire (Aug 27, 2009)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> A plethora of lurkers. Afraid to jump in people?
> 
> There are currently 3162 users browsing this thread. (26 members and 3136 guests)


It can't be a circus without people in the stands!


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

muddytire said:


> dude...his name is "legitposter" so there's basically no reason to question it. by default it's legit.


legit... CRAAAAZY


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

shawnbbiking said:


> that's why we need at least 4 bikes


yup.


----------



## adumesny (Apr 11, 2009)

JoePAz said:


> 26 - 26" Rocky Mtn Switch - 7" free ride bike. Well this one is a bit strange in descends like rocket, but climbs like tank with a bad motor. (ie it does not really). Again this has less to do with wheelsize and more to do with geometry and frame, but I will say that tying put 29" wheels on this bike is an exercise in futility. It will make a big bike even bigger, but not better. I took this down a pretty nasty trail here in Phx and smoked my friend on an Enduro 29er. He had been down this trail a few times and knew it. I was riding it first time never having seen it and rocketed away. The extra suspension travel and beef in the frame and parts make it easy to just bomb down stuff wheel size be damned. Interesting it looks like I could stuff 27.5 wheels on this bike. I can directly use my 27.5 wheels on it due to hub config, but there is the space up front and I believe in the rear. That said in this type of bike strength is important and the 26 wheels are strong.


So I have a dedicated DH bike (26" Giant Glory 8" travel 64deg) and now an Enduro 29 which I really like as an AM/Trail bike (coming for years an Ibis Mojo HD with similar 67deg/160mm travel but small wheels). Recently did some DH gnar shuttling and decided to try the Enduro instead as I find the 29" rolls so much better over rough rocky/rooted stuff and I find myself faster on it than my prev trail bike. It did really well (with different wheels/tire than sworks config I use everyday) and thought it got me out of dicey situation where my small 26" wheel would have been stuck - an even slacker (wrechoning ?) version would be ideal for me... I'm 6'3" so that size may make more sense too (the XL Giant and Mojo HD felt cramped).


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Cornfield said:


> Anybody using anything other than toe clips has been brainwashed by the industry!


Sorry Corn, doesn't fit into the dichotomy.

There can be no third choice, the industry can't support it.


----------



## adumesny (Apr 11, 2009)

Jayem said:


> They are already there, with the E29 and Evil Wreckoning.


and Lenz pbj 29"/170mm
PBJ - Lenz Sport

there has been a couple prototype DH 29 - came across this thread

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/MTB/comments/3jsglg

I own an E29 and been thinking of using it to replace my DH bike for the few days I do due to better rolling of 29 vs 26 (and plusher Pike vs Boxxer WC).
Surprising that you don' find it to smooth out rough terrain. 29" does that for me so far... I'll be curious to pick your brain what mod you did since you can't easily slacken it. Dumb Specialized...



Jayem said:


> Although I see more entries in this market, the more aggressive and "DH" like the riding, the less 29ers you'll see and I don't think 29ers will ever be used for straight "DH". Even though I "raced" my E29 DH, this will never be mainstream. The wheel limits travel too much with any kind of reasonable chainstays and seat-tube and the hit on all-out speed is pretty big. That rotational mass difference hanging 2.5 or similar tires out there on fatty rims is absolutely huge. I'd even notice a big difference in rotational weight and acceleration if I switched out to my "trail" tires that were ~800g, as opposed to the 1100+g DH ones.
> 
> In fact, a few years back I did predict that DH would change, just that it would never go to 29.
> 
> ...


----------



## nauc (Sep 9, 2009)

easy....

29 for XC

27.5 for everything else


----------



## adumesny (Apr 11, 2009)

nauc said:


> easy....
> 29 for XC
> 27.5 for everything else


WRONG and clearly ignorant - tell that to the Enduro 29 (my bike), Pivot 429, Evil Following & Wrecknoning, etc... plenty of gnar 29 Am bikes... 29" are great for taller people. 
Think about it, why should S/XS frame share the same wheels as XL frames in the first place ?


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

elder_mtber said:


> I wish my 29 steered quicker and manualed easier. Especially quicker steering.


Can people make up their minds? I thought one of the original complaints of 29r's was that they steered too slow. Manufacturers changed that...and now people are complaining that they are too twitchy and are going slacker and slacker. Pretty soon its going to go back to steeper angles for "quicker" steering.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Twitchy is as twitchy does


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

wheel size is about personal preference, riding style, and local terrain. the "winners" are the ones who are out enjoying their bikes. the losers are the keyboard warriors who are arguing about it on the internet.


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

Wheelsize debate is like American politics:

27.5 -> balanced wheelsize ridden by democrats. Some of them have a battery on their bicycle...

29 -> the extremist wheelsize for our republican friends. Global warming, immigrants, ISIS -> they just gonna roll over it!

26 -> the wheelsize for our green party friends who like to greet every stone on the trail.


----------



## adumesny (Apr 11, 2009)

Steel Calf said:


> Wheelsize debate is like American politics:
> 
> 27.5 -> balanced wheelsize ridden by democrats. Some of them have a battery on their bicycle...
> 
> ...


now that's funny.... thanks for the good laugh.


----------



## Power Meter City (Mar 28, 2016)

Steel Calf said:


> Wheelsize debate is like American politics:
> 
> 27.5 -> balanced wheelsize ridden by democrats. Some of them have a battery on their bicycle...
> 
> ...


That's good stuff...not sure about the group it places me in...but good stuff none-the-less


----------



## Ryder1 (Oct 12, 2006)

Many Republicans are still on 26" bikes - the half that don't believe in Evolution.

And Democrats love to free ride!

Were my comments fair and balanced???


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

Yes you're qualified to moderate the next fox news presidential debate.

It will be about the question if a national mtb wheel size programm run by the government is suited to lower everyone's spare parts cost ("mandatory wheelsize") or if every citizen should be able choose the preferred wheelsize on his own.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

Steel Calf said:


> It will be about the question if a national mtb wheel size programm run by the government is suited to lower everyone's spare parts cost ("mandatory wheelsize") or if every citizen should be able choose the preferred wheelsize on his own.


Wouldn't it be more like if you had all the wheel sizes, and someone else had none, you'd give them at least your old shitty wheels?

I'm not a politician, so maybe I'm interpreting this whole analogy wrong.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

The activity in each category will answer the question of who won (this round). I don't know why I included 26er in the screen shot. :lol:


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

Hawg said:


> The activity in each category will answer the question of who won (this round). I don't know why I included 26er in the screen shot. :lol:


29ers are all boxed in this single sub forum for a reason. You may feel safe now but when the political wind turns we can very easily shut you guys off. It's gonna happen soon, real soon, you just wait.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Hawg said:


> The activity in each category will answer the question of who won (this round). I don't know why I included 26er in the screen shot. :blush:


Oh sure, kick the 26'ers in the nuts when they are down. If you included the fat bike forum in with the 26" forum then it might be a different story.


----------



## brncr6 (May 15, 2014)

I ride a 26" cuz I'm poor (really) I need government hand outs to upgrade from 26".


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

brncr6 said:


> I ride a 26" cuz I'm poor (really) I need government hand outs to upgrade from 26".


yeah sure but socialist government controlled mountainbike means:

27.5 mountainbike for everyone but only rigid frame with 9 gears because "this should be enough for everyone"

waiting list for even basic parts like a spare tube

tax payers burdened with the high costs the system involves


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Oh sure, kick the 26'ers in the nuts when they are down. If you included the fat bike forum in with the 26" forum then it might be a different story.


Actually, the fat bike forum page is usually slammed. That would have just been another kick in the nuts of your dinosaurs. I excluded out of respect...


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

26" riders are either just not into mountain biking enough to waste their time on these forums or are super proud of their resolve to not change. 29" riders feel the need to identify as such and band together to justify their need to make trails easier to ride. 650b riders don't care about wheelsize as much as which category they fit into, eg. All-mountain, trail, or enduro, which is why their numbers are not properly represented in the 27.5 forum. That, and they may not realize that 650b is the same thing as 27.5, or that 27.5 is actually 27.2.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> 26" riders are either just not into mountain biking enough to waste their time on these forums or are super proud of their resolve to not change. 29" riders feel the need to identify as such and band together to justify their need to make trails easier to ride. 650b riders don't care about wheelsize as much as which category they fit into, eg. All-mountain, trail, or enduro, which is why their numbers are not properly represented in the 27.5 forum. That, and they may not realize that 650b is the same thing as 27.5, or that 27.5 is actually 27.2.


What about guys like me who own all three?

Call us hypocrites?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Hawg said:


> What about guys like me who own all three?
> 
> Call us hypocrites?


That makes 2 of us! I'm just confused and don't really know what's going on. Seriously though, I have a difficult time choosing a bike and trail sometimes.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Hawg said:


> What about guys like me who own all three?
> 
> Call us hypocrites?


tri-polar


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

mountainbiker24 said:


> 27.5 is actually 27.2.


So, if my 26+ is actually a 650b... then the 27.5+ guys are on 29'ers?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Tri-curious?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Cornfield said:


> So, if my 26+ is actually a 650b... then the 27.5+ guys are on 29'ers?


Technically, based on how wheelsizes were historically measured, then... Maybe?


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> That makes 2 of us! I'm just confused and don't really know what's going on. Seriously though, I have a difficult time choosing a bike and trail sometimes.


I look at it like this:

It gives mountain bikers something to debate. Pointless political debates. :lol:


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

*OneSpeed* said:


> tri-polar


I also have 700c so does that make me quadraploar??? :skep:


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Cornfield said:


> So, if my 26+ is actually a 650b... then the 27.5+ guys are on 29'ers?


No, no, no. The plus sized combos are a whole different classification.


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

I'm so confused. Dammit, I don't know who I am anymore!

*slams fists on desk*


----------



## muddytire (Aug 27, 2009)

My 29er self-identifies as a 26'er...so can I hang out in the 26er forum?

Who the hell are you to tell me my 29 inch wheel ISN'T actually 26?!?


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

muddytire said:


> My 29er self-identifies as a 26'er...so can I hang out in the 26er forum?
> 
> Who the hell are you to tell me my 29 inch wheel ISN'T actually 26?!?


LOL, muddytire, my friend, if you would kindly wash away the coating of mud on your muddy tire(s), you might indeed see a 26er.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Cornfield said:


> I'm so confused. Dammit, I don't know who I am anymore!
> 
> *slams fists on desk*


Oh, I know the answer to this. I know the answer!!!

Your are KORN, aka Korndog, Kornkernel, Kornholio, ...

Master of Iron Maiden metal, Master of paint, Master of the Great Plains, and Undermaster of the Santa Monica Mountains.

How's that for a title?! :eekster::thumbsup:


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

I guess I'm bi 



polar!


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

Hawg said:


> Oh, I know the answer to this. I know the answer!!!
> 
> Your are KORN, aka Korndog, Kornkernel, Kornholio, ...
> 
> ...


I guess it's ok... perhaps I shall go get some Starbucks, as DJ would, to make myself feel better...


----------



## muddytire (Aug 27, 2009)

Hawg said:


> LOL, muddytire, my friend, if you would kindly wash away the coating of mud on your muddy tire(s), you might indeed see a 26er.


That is a very good point. :eekster:


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Hawg said:


> I also have 700c so does that make me quadraploar??? :skep:


I'm 50% sure 700c is the same as a 29er, but I've never been good with the metric system.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I'm 50% sure 700c is the same as a 29er, but I've never been good with the metric system.


It is indeed the same but my 700c is a ROAD bike and it's absolute suicide to user the term "29er" in road biker talk. :lol:


----------



## thecanoe (Jan 30, 2007)

My road bike has 650C wheels. Where does that fit in the mix?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Lopaka (Sep 7, 2006)

Without me knowing, my bike checked itself into the LBS for rear wheel size reassignment surgery.

I am so confused! :eekster:


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Cornfield said:


> I guess it's ok... perhaps I shall go get some Starbucks, as DJ would, to make myself feel better...


Well.....did you?


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Hawg said:


> I also have 700c so does that make me quadraploar??? :skep:


Quadra-pus


----------



## GSJ1973 (May 8, 2011)

mountainbiker24 said:


> 26" riders are either just not into mountain biking enough to waste their time on these forums or are super proud of their resolve to not change.


I was thinking about this as I saw a saw a whole bunch of 26" bikes being ridden over the weekend.

Honestly I think 50% of the riding population or more buys a bike every 10 years and don't bother reading forums or even knows what a 650b/27.5" is, nor do they care that it is 3.7% bigger than their 26" current bike.

I _still_ have to look at the hot patches on tires to tell the difference between 26/27.5"! But I still see a lot of V-brakes too, so you can tell there are a ton more 26" and the market for 26" replacement parts will thrive for a very long time.


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

thecanoe said:


> My road bike has 650C wheels. Where does that fit in the mix?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


we call that a technical monstrosity


----------



## Steel Calf (Feb 5, 2010)

GSJ1973 said:


> I was thinking about this as I saw a saw a whole bunch of 26" bikes being ridden over the weekend.
> 
> But I still see a lot of V-brakes too, so you can tell there are a ton more 26" and the market for 26" replacement parts will thrive for a very long time.


You saw a "whole bunch" ? I wonder where you are riding. Russia? Somewhere in Africa?

We in the western world have fully embraced the technical superior 27.5" wheelsize. Yes there are some holdouts on their now obsolete 29" but they'll soon be either converted or expelled from mountainbike community.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Steel Calf said:


> You saw a "whole bunch" ? I wonder where you are riding. Russia? Somewhere in Africa?
> 
> We in the western world have fully embraced the technical superior 27.5" wheelsize. Yes there are some holdouts on their now obsolete 29" but they'll soon be either converted or expelled from mountainbike community.


At this weekend's XCO WC, every bike on the front row will be a 29er.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

I don't know about you guys, but this whole thread is making me pretty damn thirsty.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

More for your viewing enjoyment,

Soho Bikes TV Episode 03 - Which Bike And Wheel Size is Best? - iceman2058 - Mountain Biking Videos - Vital MTB


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

29'ers lost. Why buy anything other than a 27.5'er Giant?


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Curveball said:


> I don't know about you guys, but this whole thread is making me pretty damn thirsty.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

*OneSpeed* said:


> if i ever need advice on a new farm animal i now know who to go to. however, I've read better bike advice in MBA.


That was harsh.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

schnee said:


> That chart is empirically wrong.
> 
> Otherwise, go talk to Ibis and Santa Cruz, and ask them why they engineered the Mojo3 and Hightower like they did - as in '27.5+/27.5 without any adjustment necessary' (Ibis) or '27.5+ and 29er with a flip chip and different length fork to handle the different BB drop'.


The reason the Hightower needs a flip chip to go from 29" to 27.5"x2.8" is because their 2.8" tire is actually a 2.6" wide. And the reason the ibis can run a 27.5" and a 27.5"x2.8" is because the 2.8" tire they run also runs only 2.6" wide.

I gave a great beginner tip on how you can vary bikes tire diameter by an entire inch by going from 2" wide tires to 2.5" wide tires. So here is another great beginner tip for you :thumbsup: : mtb tires often are not actually wide as they claim they are. For example, maxxis is notorious for stating their tires are wider then they actually are.

So now that you know this, how about we look at the actual width of the so called "plus" size tires these two bikes you are talking about actually run.

Here is what the maxxis 2.8" actually measure on a 45mm rim:


Tor said:


> I mounted my tire on a nextie rim. 45mm internal. Easy to mount and mine was actually tighter than my nobby nic. Same measures as STS. 66 thread and 68 casing at 20psi.
> Good clearance in a standard 27.5 34 FOX fork.


http://forums.mtbr.com/26-27-5-29-plus-bikes/maxxis-rekon-ikon-986838-7.html
The fact you can run this tire on a standard fork shows this is not a real plus size tire.

And from the same thread:


teamdicky said:


> Eyeballing it with a ruler, 66-67mm. On this rim:


http://forums.mtbr.com/26-27-5-29-plus-bikes/maxxis-rekon-ikon-986838-3.html

And here is a pic of the true width:








As for the so called 27.5" plus tires that come on the ibis here is what people who own them have found:
"Ibis on their New Mojo 3 (which is the bike that's creating a lot of interest in the NN 2.8 ) is using a 30mm aluminum rim (Arc30) on their lower builds and their own carbon rims with 35mm on higher end ones. 
So I'd think 29mm would be ok."
Does 27.5+ tyres like nobby nic 2.8 fit a 27.5 pike? - Pinkbike Forum

And from later in that thread:
"Yeah, only 2.6". Same for the 2.8 Rekon and Ikon. With some pressure and time they'll stretch out to 2.7"+"
"29mm ID will suffice as the Nobby Nic's 2.8" are reported to being closer to a true 2.6" (67-69mm) than a 2.8"."
"So I got hold of my tyre, clearance is no issue on the 650b pike. On a 29 ID rim I measured the tire (knob to knob, widest width) to 67mm which translate to approximately 2.6". Hence, it was true that the 2.8" NN is closer to a true 2.6" than a 2.8."

Here is pic of the ibis mojo 3 running the 2.8" claimed, but actual 2.6" wide tires. There is barely enough clearance for the 2.6" wides, so calling that bike a plus bike is what their marketing department wants you to think.








As you get more experience with mountain biking, you'll start to catch onto these tricks mtb manufacture's marketing departments use to make you think your getting something your not. However, beginners often think that manufactures (whether bike, tire or other mtb parts manufactures) are completely honest with all their claims.

So, again... True 27.5"+ size tires run about the same diameter as a 29er. So given that all the current mtb innovation is in bikes that can run about 29" diameter tires (27.5"+, fat bikes, 29er and 29er+) and there is almost no innovation for bikes that can't run anything bigger than a 27.5" or so in diameter, my opinion is that bikes that can run 29" diameter tires are clearly winning the wheel size battle and are the future of the sport.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

True 2.6s are coming. There's already a Bontrager 2.55. You speak of 2.6 as if they're inferior to authentic 2.8s. Different horses for different courses. Maybe a fast rolling, non-DH, 2.6 would appeal to some more than a 2.8 or 3.0, which may be too big for them, and they go fast enough to notice the undesirable effects of the bigger tires at high speed. Maybe they should jump in on these 2.8s, knowing that what they're watching for is already out there.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Hawg said:


> The activity in each category will answer the question of who won (this round). I don't know why I included 26er in the screen shot. :lol:


You should have included the VRC user thread instead of the 26". At any given time there could be more viewing the VRC thread than the 27.5" thread. Kinda says a lot.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Varaxis said:


> ...You speak of 2.6 as if they're inferior to authentic 2.8s. Different horses for different courses..


That's not what I was getting at and I sure did not say that and don't even think I implied that. 2.6" wide is my horse as that is what I run on my AM bike and they are perfect for Tahoe riding (they are claimed 2.5" but measure right at 2.6"). I was just pointing out that these 2.8" tires are not really plus size tires since they actually run 2.6" and that true plus size tires run much closer to 29" in diameter. Glad to see some more 2.6"ish tires coming out. Hopefully they actually run as big as 2.6".


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

We will find the answers here:

https://www.specialized.com/us/en/w...6a8&utm_source=&utm_term=FIND YOUR WHEEL SIZE


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

^^ short and to the point


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Said the same things that most people who have actually ridden each wheelsize have said.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Said the same things that most people who have actually ridden each wheelsize have said.


EXACTLY.

My pointy is, this conversation about wheel size verse wheel size is pointless to the point of being immature because it has gone on and on and on and on and on for so long.

Ride what works for you, and nothing more.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Hawg said:


> EXACTLY.
> 
> My pointy is, this conversation about wheel size verse wheel size is pointless to the point of being immature because it has gone on and on and on and on and on for so long.
> 
> Ride what works for you, and nothing more.


Then why do you consistently try to push me off my 26'er for a larger wheel size? Is it also the color of my bike that makes you see red.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Then why do you consistently try to push me off my 26'er for a larger wheel size? Is it also the color of my bike that makes you see red.


In truth, I could care less what anyone rolls on as long as they are still rolling.

I just did what I did because I know what revs you up.


----------



## otb-klunker (Jun 3, 2016)

I see a bunch of really nice 27.5 and 29ers passing me uphill and down in Boulder County but I'm glad to be still rolling and able to get decent 26" tires.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Mountainbikers won b/c now there are great choices that allow everyone to enjoy riding even more than before. If the 29er revolution wouldn't have happened, nobody would have realized the advantages of other wheels sizes besides 26.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

TiGeo said:


> Mountainbikers won b/c now there are great choices that allow everyone to enjoy riding even more than before. If the 29er revolution wouldn't have happened, nobody would have realized the advantages of other wheels sizes besides 26.


Except on mtbr of course. On here it's a non stop argument of what wheel size is better. Kinda not as enjoyable arguing rather than sharing the ride stoke. Back with one wheel size the conversations were all about the sharing of great experiences out on the trail.


----------



## Engineer90 (Apr 10, 2015)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Except on mtbr of course. On here it's a non stop argument of what wheel size is better


I opened a can of worms here didn't I?

"Some men just want to watch the world burn"


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Except on mtbr of course. On here it's a non stop argument of what wheel size is better. Kinda not as enjoyable arguing rather than sharing the ride stoke. Back with one wheel size the conversations were all about the sharing of great experiences out on the trail.


Yeah, but that was pre-internet and I can tell you, the emergence of front suspension forks would have sparked just as lively of a debate. It still comes down to folks arguing about things they haven't tried...for the most part...


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

TiGeo said:


> Yeah, but that was pre-internet and I can tell you, the emergence of front suspension forks would have sparked just as lively of a debate. It still comes down to folks arguing about things they haven't tried...for the most part...


Pre Internet? The Internet was going strong [this site included] far before the wheel size debate.

My memory fails me but I'm sure we were arguing about something. Back then it was more about the different suspension designs. Human nature leads us to debate and argue no matter what the subject.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Pre Internet? The Internet was going strong [this site included] far before the wheel size debate.
> 
> My memory fails me but I'm sure we were arguing about something. Back then it was more about the different suspension designs. Human nature leads us to debate and argue no matter what the subject.


I was referring to a time when front suspension came out in the early '90s. Yes, I was on mtbr around 2000...probably fussing about V vs. disc brakes and as you say, FS designs...I mean, common...URT4lfye *****ES!


----------



## muddytire (Aug 27, 2009)

Hawg said:


> EXACTLY.
> it has gone on and on and on and on and on for so long.


Like the trail itself...


----------



## Beardog (Jun 7, 2016)

I have recently returned to riding a mountain bike, following a long (10 years) hiatus. The explosion in technology and options/offerings boggles my mind. I have enjoyed reading this thread!


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

TiGeo said:


> I was referring to a time when front suspension came out in the early '90s. Yes, I was on mtbr around 2000...probably fussing about V vs. disc brakes and as you say, FS designs...I mean, common...URT4lfye *****ES!


Actual argument from Usenet dated 1994:



Rider A said:


> ...To shocks. Clearly, and I rarely see anything clearly, the basic
> choice boils down to the quality of ones own own character. I know
> many riders and without a doubt those who choose NOT to use shocks
> are; TOUGHER, BRAVER, SMARTER, more INTERESTING, more SELF-CONFIDENT,
> ...





Rider B said:


> You are just another example of people who refuse to accept a little technology
> to make your ride a little better and controllable. I suppose with the same
> frame of mind someone could defend going back to steel frames that weigh ungodly
> amounts of weight and back it up with the fact that those riders are, I quote,
> ...


----------



## OmaHaq (Jun 1, 2010)

But what will bike mags (ex: Dirtmag), bloggers (ex: GuitarTed) and other bike marketing psuedo-sci people talk about if they can't talk about:
- wheel size
- frame material
- pro-LBS politics

Riding a bicycle seems so boring in comparison huh?

Not really. give me the "Passion" stories any day over technical debates.


----------

