# Small kids on 29ers



## jabrabu (Aug 2, 2010)

I decided to cross-post this from the NICA forum since more folks seem to be here.

I see a number of middle school kids on 29ers, and it looks kind of ridiculous, but seems to work okay for them. I was just wondering if there was any general consensus on 29ers for small kids.

My son just turned 12, but is very small for his age - 4'7". He is still on a 24" bike, and it still fits him okay, but he could fit on a bigger bike and larger diameter tires would have some advantages in rolling over roots and rocks.

I was looking at the Trek hardtails because in the XS and S sizes they come with 27.5 wheels, and my son is within their sizing recommendation for an XS 27.5er. I was considering the Procaliber 6 since it has a decent fork and drivetrain.

However, the Trek alloy bikes are kind of heavy, and I just saw that the 2020 Specialized Epic hardtail comes with a light carbon frame and similar components and fork for just a bit higher price, and it comes in an XS size, but as a 29er. I have a Specialized connection, so I can get it at wholesale price. I'm just wondering how the XS 29er would work for a smaller kid.

https://www.specialized.com/us/en/ep...dtail/p/171127


----------



## regiobike (Apr 23, 2017)

jabrabu said:


> I decided to cross-post this from the NICA forum since more folks seem to be here.
> 
> I see a number of middle school kids on 29ers, and it looks kind of ridiculous, but seems to work okay for them. I was just wondering if there was any general consensus on 29ers for small kids.
> 
> ...


When my son was that hight i bought a scott genius 27.5 in S and he used great. Now he is 13 years old and use a hightower lt 29 in M. Hes about 1.64cm tall


----------



## jabrabu (Aug 2, 2010)

regiobike said:


> When my son was that hight i bought a scott genius 27.5 in S and he used great. Now he is 13 years old and use a hightower lt 29 in M. Hes about 1.64cm tall


1.64 cm would be about 5/8 inch. I'm surprised he fits on a medium.


----------



## MXIV424 (May 30, 2018)

It’s not a popular opinion, and there is a lot to consider, but the modern geo xc 29ers are so light and well mannered that you could get away with being a tad under 5’ and enjoy the benefits. Chloe Woodruff is 5’2” and used to run 27.5, but has been very successful with a 29er at the highest level of racing, where any real or perceived advantages have been accounted for. I think that helps answer the “can” question. 

As to the “should” you get a 29er for your kid; you and he are the only ones that can answer that. Ride a couple and see...does he look like he fits? Is he comfortable? Is he confident? Does the bike make him want to ride more? 

My daughter can climb very well, but is a tad cautious on the decents. I had her try a 14” 29er, thinking the larger wheels would benefit her in the downhill. Within 15 seconds of her riding it I could tell it wasn’t for her, and that her 13” 27.5 bike would benefit her for at least another year. There’s a number of very fast racers in her age group that rip on 29ers, she just isn’t one of them yet. 

To me, there’s no question your boy would be better on a xs 27.5 bike. You would have to demo a 29er to see if it’s for you. Oh and that new Epic HT would be towards the top of the list! Some other xs (under 15”) carbon bikes are the Ibis dv9, pivot les, niner air 9 rdo, and Norco revolver. 

Good luck! Hope you find something awesome for your boy!


----------



## regiobike (Apr 23, 2017)

jabrabu said:


> 1.64 cm, would be about 5/8 inch. I'm surprised he fits on a medium.


Me too, but he loves to ride it!(1.64 meters meters lol sorry for the mistake) 
30mm stem
80mm dropper
HTLT M size frame (on the picture the bike looks small lol)


----------



## 2melow (Jan 5, 2004)

jabrabu said:


> I decided to cross-post this from the NICA forum since more folks seem to be here.
> 
> I see a number of middle school kids on 29ers, and it looks kind of ridiculous, but seems to work okay for them. I was just wondering if there was any general consensus on 29ers for small kids.
> 
> ...


I cringe every time I see a kid on an xs 29er with a setback seatpost turned forward, slammed, and a 30mm stem.

You know, my son can ride my 250cc dirt bike just fine on the groomer trails and in the fields. It's a bit big and unwieldy for him but he can ride it just fine. Would I let him take it out on technical terrain with rocks, roots, exposure (cliffs, dropoffs, etc.) - hell no.

Just because kids can "ride it" doesn't mean they can ride it as well as a properly fitting bike.

A 29er with just 3" of exposed seatpost showing and a 30mm stem, or a 28-29" standover height 29er under a kid with a 26" standover height is inviting the possibility of some bad accidents on blue/black level trails IMHO.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

It seems that many have taken this whole '29ers are faster' thing as a determinant that that then they must be better.

You could argue that the terrain is the same for the bike, regardless of the rider size, therefore a 29er is always a better solution.

I disagree and feel that absolute speed should just be one consideration, and besides speed is a factor of comfort, control, and fun at our level. Frankly a Pro woman racing XC, or a 5'11" tester choosing a 29er doesn't make it the best for your shortie imo.

The problems that I see with 29ers is chassis fit, but also all that extra inertia, both work against the smaller less experienced rider in many circumstances. Stand over height is lacking. The front tire hits their foot when turning. Due to wheel inertia the things don't do as well starting and stopping on the trails or turning, ya know, typical beginner riding. Sure 29ers offer some slight roll over advantage on serious chunk(seriously it's pretty small) when you maintain momentum but that's just one aspect of trail riding a bike.

Tell you what, the anti-27.5" message has really gotten out far and wide. I had a petite 5' woman look at purchasing my wife's high end, light, efficient, and very physically small 27.5" Giant Advanced Anthem SX for trail riding and she stated and I quote "Oh I thought it was a 29er, not interested in demo riding it cause these 27.5s aren't any good..." It's hard to blow me away with ignorance these days but she did, and I get it, she is reading reviews and that's the message she is getting. Thinking at her size for trail riding that she would have had more fun, learned more, and been faster on most trails on the well fitting nimble 27.5" bike.

Don't care if the 27.5" die off or not (after all bicyclist are very subject to fashion) I recently purchased my petite wife a very high end 27.5" trail bike because I believe it to be the best fit for her body type and application and it seems to have worked as she has never been faster.


----------



## svinyard (Aug 14, 2017)

My kids don't XC race, so I'm sure there are some factors in picking a 29er that are alien to me. That being said, in playing and coaching sports, there are lots of Dad's that will prioritize something for short term gain results; which later limit the child's long term skill development and often lead to less than ideal habits. I think putting kids on bikes too big or with giant wheels is similar to this. That's my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt...but I can say with some certainty that it occurs with my 7yro when he's ridden larger wheel, slightly big bikes. His straight speed increases a bit but his bike handling skills fade quickly in some areas. He didn't drift, jump, drop, manual etc as good. Def a less fun ride for him. Small sample size but I think there is something to it.


----------



## kabayan (Oct 25, 2004)

You should definitely consider a 29er for your kid if he's primarily doing XC riding/racing, he can handle a bike, and most importantly, since you've got connections :thumbsup:! My oldest is a couple of inches taller than your son but he can handle a bike. He's not on a 29er yet. I didn't think he'd like a 29er for the same reasons mentioned above, but I was surprised he preferred the 29er he demo'ed over the 26er and 650b bikes. I wasn't as surprised when, just as you noted, a lot of the kids showed up on 29ers for the XC race the following day. He hasn't demo'ed a 29er yet for shuttle or resort riding but small 29ers are rare for that type of riding based on what we've seen.


----------



## BATRG3 (Dec 11, 2012)

My own thoughts are that if the tire diameter is too big to reasonably manage, maybe for better rollover you could pick a higher tire volume. So if you want a 29er but they're a size XS, get a 26+.


----------



## jabrabu (Aug 2, 2010)

Doing the math, I could put 27.5 wheels on the 29er bike, and swapping the cranks to 152mm would provide the same pedal to ground clearance as original. This would also provide a lower standover height and lower center of gravity, so it seems like it would work well.

The new Epic Hardtail carbon looks like a great deal, but the XS size is not available until at least late October, after this racing season has ended. 

The Chisel Comp looks like a solid option, and is available now. Frame weight is about one pound heavier than the Epic, but it would cost me about $300 less. I've also read that the Chisel is less stiff and has a more compliant ride than the Epic, which might actually be better for a small middle school kid.

Another option is the Women's Chisel Expert (the men's Chisel Expert is not available in XS). Per the specs, the only differences between the women's and men's are the saddle and grips. Compared to the Comp, the Expert upgrades the fork from a Judy to a Reba, and the drivetrain from Eagle SX to Eagle NX. Per online reviews, these reduce weight by about 1.5 lbs. My cost would be about $250 more, so I'm trying to decide if it's worth it. My son is very small for his age -- about 4'7" and 70 lbs., so I don't want him to have a heavy bike.


----------



## SactoGeoff (Aug 11, 2017)

I've posted elsewhere about this. But my girls are 54" right now and at the top of their 24" bikes. They can handle them really well. I know I could fit them onto a 29er and they'd "ride it just fine" in a race situation. But the other 95% of the time, When we're riding for for fun, they would benefit from a 26" wheel. Of course I want them to win races and keep stoked about bikes. But with the variety of riding we do, pump tracks, flow trails, lots of xc riding and the rare chairlift day. I'm leaning towards a 26".

Based upon your commentary above, I would suggest the 27.5 option. And add a few bucks for racing wheels. Or skip the whole Specialized discount and buy a Trailcraft. It will be much lighter than anything you're looking at.


----------



## Steve-XtC (Feb 7, 2016)

MXIV424 said:


> To me, there's no question your boy would be better on a xs 27.5 bike. You would have to demo a 29er to see if it's for you.


A wider issue is a XS 29er simply isn't the same bike as an L 29er in the same model and manufacturers didn't design a 29er around an XS frame.

I might drop the Spez discount over a manufacturer that refuses to sell XS 29ers (in general) as that at least shows they put some thought into it.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Steve-XtC said:


> A wider issue is a XS 29er simply isn't the same bike as an L 29er in the same model and manufacturers didn't design a 29er around an XS frame.
> 
> I might drop the Spez discount over a manufacturer that refuses to sell XS 29ers (in general) as that at least shows they put some thought into it.


Spesh put thought in to it, they decided correctly that there is a market and they can make money selling them to that market and that's essentially the end of their concerns as long as they build a safe reliable product.

That said I agree with you that 29ers are rarely an ideal fit for physically small riders and frames. The exception would be maybe a very stocky strong male, or a female that rides very XC type constant speed trails and prioritizes race results over riding enjoyment and bike control.


----------



## Steve-XtC (Feb 7, 2016)

Suns_PSD said:


> Spesh put thought in to it, they decided correctly that there is a market and they can make money selling them to that market and that's essentially the end of their concerns as long as they build a safe reliable product.


Hmmm. if they were smart they might realise they don't need to make money on kids bikes directly. You can't beat brand loyalty you get as a kid.. (IMHO)



> That said I agree with you that 29ers are rarely an ideal fit for physically small riders and frames. The exception would be maybe a very stocky strong male, or a female that rides very XC type constant speed trails and prioritizes race results over riding enjoyment and bike control.


Even then it's hard to know... just because they race on one, very few sponsored riders can really refuse but yep a really stocky XC rider would get away with it (assuming they exist, its hardly the discipline for stocky builds).

EDIT...
Forgot ... what I was really saying is the whole geo is completely different. 
Being blunt its usually just a shorter top tube, same chainstays etc. so the whole balance of the bike is completely different.


----------



## jabrabu (Aug 2, 2010)

When I compare XS size XC bikes that come with 27.5 wheels (like Trek and Pivot) with ones that come with 29" wheels (like Specialized), the geometries are very similar. I think modern 29ers have the geometries pretty dialed now, including those in S and XS sizes. 29ers do tend to have higher stack heights, which might be an issue from some very small riders, and there may be some additional toe-wheel overlap issues with the bigger wheels, but overall I think it really comes down to individual preference.

Personally, I have gone back and forth between some 29ers and 27.5 bikes. At 5'7" I'm not that big and felt like the 27.5 just fit me better, and was also a bit more playful. However, I ultimately decided that I liked how the 29ers rolled through rocks and roots better, so I have settled on 29ers now.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

For sure boost spacing in the rear really assisted with 29er geometry and rear end stiffness getting to where it needs to be.
But like for like there's no getting around the additional inertia large wheels have. 

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


----------



## BATRG3 (Dec 11, 2012)

I'm thinking that slacker head tubes and longer front-center would make it easier to make a 29er fit a smaller rider. On account of the low toe overlap. Shorter chainstays would most likely help and not hurt.

As far as stack goes, am I the only person who thinks inverting a riser bar is a perfectly appropriate way to compensate? I've used that hack when I needed space under the stem for accessories, flipping it up when it should have been down.


----------



## jabrabu (Aug 2, 2010)

I built up a new Chisel Comp with 27.5 wheels for my son as a step up from his 24" bike. I swapped out some parts partly to fit him better and also to shed some weight.

I calculated that if I went from 29" wheels to 27.5" wheels and installed shorter cranks the pedal to ground clearance would be about the same, so I got some Stans Crest 27.5 wheels with Rocket Ron tires set up tubeless. For the cranks I got Trailcraft 52mm cranks with a 26t chainring to give him some nice low climbing gears.

I had an old 11-speed XX1 group in the garage, so I installed that to save some weight. The stock SRAM SX Eagle group is pretty heavy -- the cassette and bottom bracket felt especially heavy.

I also cut the bars down from 750mm to 690mm. This still seems wide for a small kid, but a good starting point for now. I also installed a shorter stem that I had.

The 24" bike still fits him (he's about 4'7" and 70 lbs.), and he still feels a little more comfortable on it, but I think this bike will work well for him once he gets used to it. And I think he can ride it for a long time, since as he grows I can swap to longer cranks, 29er wheels, longer stem, etc.

Stock Chisel Comp weight was about 26.1 lbs. Bike is now at 22.3 lbs. I'm pretty happy with that.


----------



## svinyard (Aug 14, 2017)

So nice, well done!


----------



## MXIV424 (May 30, 2018)

jabrabu said:


> I built up a new Chisel Comp with 27.5 wheels for my son as a step up from his 24" bike. I swapped out some parts partly to fit him better and also to shed some weight.
> 
> I calculated that if I went from 29" wheels to 27.5" wheels and installed shorter cranks the pedal to ground clearance would be about the same, so I got some Stans Crest 27.5 wheels with Rocket Ron tires set up tubeless. For the cranks I got Trailcraft 52mm cranks with a 26t chainring to give him some nice low climbing gears.
> 
> ...


Rad.


----------



## VThuckster (Jul 10, 2010)

My 12 year old is on a small Marin Hawk Hill. This was his second year on it. He is very light and average height and it works great. He stole my 2019 medium Aluminum Transition Sentinel a few weeks and wouldn’t give it back. It’s big and heavy and he loved it up and down. He couldn’t stop talking about the cornering, which is one of the things I like about it. When I finally got it back we agreed he can have it next year, and I will have to get a new bike.


----------



## Kingfisher2011 (Nov 1, 2011)

Dang! That chisel looks sharp! For sub 5', depending on growth rate, 26" is still an excellent option. My son is almost 4'11" and even though he's got enough seatpost out on the 26" I built him to be able to run a 100mm dropper, he hasn't outgrown it yet. More importantly, he absolutely rips on that thing. The smaller frame and light weight (I got it down to 22 lbs) have allowed him to really learn how to throw the bike around. One of the few limitations right now, atleast on his bike is the lack of frame clearance for chunkier tires, particularly in the rear. The RR's just don't have enough meat for the loose over hard here when the going gets rough.


----------



## MidnightFattie (Jun 13, 2017)

The problem with putting a kid on a 29er, or overly large bike for their size, or full suspension for that matter is that they hinder skills development. Too easy to just plow over stuff. 

Kids tend to be lazy, these days more than ever in the zombie/device generation. If you set up a kid's bike to be comfortable sitting, then the kid will probably just sit and plow. There is no meaningful skill development there. 

First goal should be to get them standing. All technical riding is done standing. Get the seat so low that it's uncomfortable to sit and plow. The kid will start standing and figuring stuff out, naturally. Small wheeled BMX bikes are great for this; even better are trials bikes. 

Big frames and big wheels get in the way of this. The seat can be completely lowered but still so far up the kid's butt that they might as well be on a road bike. It's physically impossible for them to squat down or get their butt behind the rear axle, such as in a manual. Technical riding requires being in a standing position and able to move your butt low and back, and to be able to use the legs to absorb drops. 

The big wheels make a huge difference when rolling over trails that are less than smooth. There are tradeoffs that need to be considered depending on what type of terrain you ride on. If your kid rides smaller wheels, they'll no doubt learn how to read the trail better. 

I realize we all live in different places and ride different terrain and styles. If you are into racing XC and counting every second, perhaps the road-centric setup is the way to go. 

For most others though, I really do believe that it's best to keep your kid on a bike with low standover height, smaller wheels, and to lower the seat to a point where it is uncomfortable to sit and spin. Do shorter rides, and focus on fundamentals; how to lift each wheel, manuals, bunnyhops, and jumping. Skateparks are amazing for skills progression, as are MTB parks and BMX tracks. Long, seated XC rides; not so much.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

I don't necessarily agree with all of your points but your overall theory that small people have riding development stunted by moving to 29ers, I agree with. 

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


----------



## jabrabu (Aug 2, 2010)

I agree with most of those points, and there are trade offs as you stated.
My son is on a NICA race team, and he is very small for his age -- the smallest kid on his team. He still fits his 24" bike. He is actually a pretty good climber and has a decent level of fitness, but he lacks confidence in the roots and rocks, and he finishes towards the back of the pack in races. I think at this age the bigger, stronger kids have an advantage.

On his new 27.5" bike he definitely has more confidence in the roots and rocks. He was immediately riding over stuff that he never had before, and I think he's overall faster on the bigger bike. However, I think he is also developing some bad habits on it. He is hitting small logs without lifting his front wheel. The bike is able to roll over them, but this isn't going to work with bigger logs. We are working on his wheel lifts, and I'm sure he'll learn better log-hopping technique, but the big wheels probably do encourage the development of some bad habits. As far as getting out of the saddle on technical stuff, he is getting better at this on both bikes, so this doesn't seem to be a concern for us.


----------



## Tristan Wolf (Oct 21, 2019)

jabrabu said:


> I decided to cross-post this from the NICA forum since more folks seem to be here.
> 
> I see a number of middle school kids on 29ers, and it looks kind of ridiculous, but seems to work okay for them. I was just wondering if there was any general consensus on 29ers for small kids.
> 
> ...


650 (or even 26") is the way to go. Its simple laws of physics behind, not just bike geo.
Imagine yourself on 32" wheels and there is your answer.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TimTucker (Nov 9, 2011)

Tristan Wolf said:


> 650 (or even 26") is the way to go. Its simple laws of physics behind, not just bike geo.
> Imagine yourself on 32" wheels and there is your answer.


Sometimes I imagine myself on 36" wheels and the physics of being able to ride straight up stairs looks pretty sweet in my head:


----------



## Tristan Wolf (Oct 21, 2019)

TimTucker said:


> Sometimes I imagine myself on 36" wheels and the physics of being able to ride straight up stairs looks pretty sweet in my head:


Hahahaha. But pay closer attention to the video - that guy cannot even reach the ground with his foot. And I am able to ride up even worse stairs on my 29"
That being said Im 193cm (6'4") and if I were under 6', even I would ride 650b.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TimTucker (Nov 9, 2011)

Tristan Wolf said:


> Hahahaha. But pay closer attention to the video - that guy cannot even reach the ground with his foot. And I am able to ride up even worse stairs on my 29"
> That being said Im 193cm (6'4") and if I were under 6', even I would ride 650b.


Not sure about the handling, but this 39er concept looks like it'd have a bit better standover:
https://www.bikeradar.com/news/ridiculous-bikes-39er-puts-29er-wheels-in-their-place/

If I had money to burn, I'd be really curious to try adding something with larger than standard wheels to my stable. I'm 5'10" and right now I switch back and forth between a 29" hardtail MTB (medium Niner), a older 26" Trek 830 with touring tires and a rack (22" frame), and a 20" BMX.

Here's an interesting read with some thoughts on why it might be beneficial to vary training beyond just a single bike with "ideal" geometry:
https://www.sparkbmxtraining.com/the-anti-fragile-bmx-racer/


----------



## GSJ1973 (May 8, 2011)

MidnightFattie said:


> The problem with putting a kid on a 29er, or overly large bike for their size, or full suspension for that matter is that they hinder skills development. Too easy to just plow over stuff.
> 
> Kids tend to be lazy, these days more than ever in the zombie/device generation. If you set up a kid's bike to be comfortable sitting, then the kid will probably just sit and plow. There is no meaningful skill development there.
> 
> ...


I'd agree with most of this and the problem with these extra small 29ers and kids sub 5 feet tall is that the out of saddle climbing is tough too on a bike too stretched out. Throw in technical riding, and kids will try to stay seated then they end up spinning out and having to walk.

That said, if you are plowing smooth non technical singletrack always then the bigger wheels might make a difference.



craigsj said:


> The three rim sizes are 559, 584, and 622. With a 58mm tall tire, the three wheel sizes are 675, 700, and 738. Using these numbers:
> 
> 26 to a 27.5 = +3.7%
> 27.5 to 29 = +5.4%
> 26 to 29 = +9.3%


With this in mind, sometimes choosing a lower standover bike, and a bike with a lower front end and and chainstay length would be the better way to go. Most women's 27.5 bikes are now pretty close to where a 26" used to be , but I've noticed the cheaper 27.5 hardtails are still like 27-30 pounds, and full suspension even heavier.

I read something over on Pinkbike.com recently where many of the shorter female racers were actually going back to 27.5 on some of the more technical courses because they said the smaller/lower bikes just seemed to feel/power/maneuver better. Emily Batty at 5'2" was one of them as I recall.


----------



## twodownzero (Dec 27, 2017)

This thread is kinda painful to read. I'm 5'5" and I've never really liked any 29er. I understand that's the flavor of the month and those of you who are average sized and up love yours. But for us smaller people, the smaller wheels have advantages. I still think that within reason, we can kinda go either way, but at 5' and smaller, the geo compromises are getting a bit ridiculous. I'm going to try to demo more 29ers next year as I admit I've never focused on them, but the tradeoffs, at least from the bikes I have ridden, of having to muscle those larger wheels around, don't seem to fit with the minor benefit of rollover. Fortunately there are tons of great tires for both, so there's something for all of us. For little people, 27.5 is the big wheel/tire choice!


----------



## GSJ1973 (May 8, 2011)

twodownzero said:


> This thread is kinda painful to read. I'm 5'5" and I've never really liked any 29er. I understand that's the flavor of the month and those of you who are average sized and up love yours.


Haha...5 or 6 years ago on this very forum it was with 26" bikes and parents putting a 4'3" kid on xs 26ers with the saddle slammed and 80mm stems.

*Lets just skip this 24" wheel size and go straight from 20" to 26"! It works, he can pedal it!! It really doesn't matter if he can't lift the front wheel, does it? *


----------



## Tristan Wolf (Oct 21, 2019)

twodownzero said:


> This thread is kinda painful to read. I'm 5'5" and I've never really liked any 29er. I understand that's the flavor of the month and those of you who are average sized and up love yours. But for us smaller people, the smaller wheels have advantages. I still think that within reason, we can kinda go either way, but at 5' and smaller, the geo compromises are getting a bit ridiculous. I'm going to try to demo more 29ers next year as I admit I've never focused on them, but the tradeoffs, at least from the bikes I have ridden, of having to muscle those larger wheels around, don't seem to fit with the minor benefit of rollover. Fortunately there are tons of great tires for both, so there's something for all of us. For little people, 27.5 is the big wheel/tire choice!


I totally agree. I ride only 29ers cause I'm 193cm (6'4"). If I were under 6', I would opt for 650b. And if I were under 5', I would search hard for some decent 26".

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hogfly (Mar 6, 2018)

I replied in the NICA thread, but I'll echo my sentiments here to keep the discussion going:

If you can get two bikes and your kid is mainly racing NICA courses for XC, then there is a definite advantage in having a 29er, imo. NICA courses aren't very technical, so bike handling doesn't factor in that much. Fast rolling tires will give you similar advantages.

That being said, if the kid is also riding trail and all mountain AND you can only get one bike, then I wouldn't necessarily go the 29er route, as the 27.5" may be more enjoyable to ride and encourage better development of bike handling and jumping skills.

My 12 year old son (5'1") has gotten more and more into XC in conjunction with his enduro, DH, park riding, so we're going to be getting him a light hardtail 29er (probably Ibis DV9) to go along with his "bigger" FS bike that is a 27.5". He's tested both size bikes and feels that the 27.5" is much more fun for him to ride and jump on a daily basis, but also recognizes that the 29er is more fun and faster in XC race situations.

Then of course, we also have his BMX and DJ bikes... and we're in the market for a cyclocross/gravel as well (though his XC bike is likely going to have to sufficee for a while).

N+1 is awful. And now my wife is ALSO getting into riding along with my older son. Luckily they're not to the level that they are picky about what they ride... YET.


----------



## ilmfat (Mar 10, 2007)

*Getting gassed by a 55" girl on a Small 29er*

4'7"

She actually likes the Sm 29 more than the Xs 27.5.

Most of what we ride is blue, but there is some black towards the top of our run. I'm "sure" some riders would label it blue.

That said, her friend is the same height and walked her 24" down most of the easy trail.

Her little sister has always liked the smaller wheels/tires longer.

Confidence on two wheels trumps tire size.

Heck, I'm 5'10" was #29er4Lyfe until this last season, when I found out 27.5x2.8 is pretty cool, too.

Time on a bike>Good equipment>Specific wheel size

This thread is fun.


----------



## ilmfat (Mar 10, 2007)

Getting a kid using a dropper effectively is a game changer for them.


----------



## TimTucker (Nov 9, 2011)

I was playing around in BikeCAD and take this idea of small kids on 29ers to the extreme...

I came up with a design for a 29er that I think my 5 year old could ride (29+ was just a little too much to make the geometry work out without going to a rigid fork):








Geometry:

Heat angle: 65
Seat Tube Angle: 83
Seat Tube: 280mm
BB Height: 260mm
BB Drop: 110mm
Chainstay length: 440mm
Reach: 350mm
Stack: 620mm
Based on 500mm A2C fork with 0% sag

Saddle height is pretty close to what his 20" is set to right now so I know he could get onto it.

Stack and reach are both lower than my BMX bike with 10" bars that he finds amusing to ride up and down the street, so I know he could control it (somewhat).

Probably a terrible idea?


----------



## rton20s (Aug 27, 2010)

TimTucker said:


> View attachment 1365877
> 
> 
> Probably a terrible idea?


Yes. 

Seriously, can you imagine what that back tire would do to your kiddo?


----------



## TimTucker (Nov 9, 2011)

rton20s said:


> Yes.
> 
> Seriously, can you imagine what that back tire would do to your kiddo?


Rear mudguard to cover the tire, problem solved?


----------



## RMCDan (Feb 28, 2008)

Somewhat off-topic question:

What's the consensus regarding small adults on 29ers? I'm thinking about getting my wife a new bike for Christmas and the current frontrunners are the new Trance X 29 and Meta TR 29. She's 5-4, a strong rider and really strong in general (loves to lift and spends a lot of time in the gym, can do strict pullups for sets of 6-8). 

She rode a friend's Salsa El Mariachi a bit last summer while her bike was in the shop and thought it was really fun, so I'm thinking she'd do well on a modern geo'd FS 29er. But, I was also looking at the Privateer 141 and their small comes with 27.5 wheels. Canyon does this as well.

Yeah, yeah, I know, "demo first," but that would ruin the surprise.


----------



## TimTucker (Nov 9, 2011)

RMCDan said:


> Somewhat off-topic question:
> 
> What's the consensus regarding small adults on 29ers? I'm thinking about getting my wife a new bike for Christmas and the current frontrunners are the new Trance X 29 and Meta TR 29. She's 5-4, a strong rider and really strong in general (loves to lift and spends a lot of time in the gym, can do strict pullups for sets of 6-8).
> 
> ...


Probably another "depends on the rider" / "depends on where you ride" situation.

My wife is the same height and somewhat the opposite (i.e.: not very experienced at all).

For her, standover was king -- she wasn't super comfortable with the motion of leaning a bike to get on / off, so FS bikes were pretty much out of the question since they all had higher top tubes at rest.

When we demoed hardtails, she found that she liked the feel of 27+ better than 29 and I wound up building up a small Kona Big Honzo ST for her since it was about the lowest of the low for standover of "real" mountain bike frames.


----------



## RMCDan (Feb 28, 2008)

TimTucker said:


> Probably another "depends on the rider" / "depends on where you ride" situation.


For sure. Living in the Wasatch we ride buff XC trails, rugged alpine and desert trails and everything in between depending on season and mood. She's currently on a DB Release and likes it but it needs a refresh so I'm weighing whether to go new bike vs upgrade. DB's Level Link is actually a great suspension platform and a full suspension overhaul from Suspension Syndicate or Diaz plus a set of nice wheels would make the Release pretty sick. The geo is pretty good too, but the STA is 73* after getting a GG Megatrail for myself last year I'm all in on steep STA bikes and would like to get her on one.


----------



## rton20s (Aug 27, 2010)

RMCDan said:


> Somewhat off-topic question:
> 
> What's the consensus regarding small adults on 29ers? I'm thinking about getting my wife a new bike for Christmas and the current frontrunners are the new Trance X 29 and Meta TR 29. She's 5-4, a strong rider and really strong in general (loves to lift and spends a lot of time in the gym, can do strict pullups for sets of 6-8).
> 
> ...


My wife is the same height (with quite short arms), but probably not as athletic or experienced as yours. After much debating and extensive shopping she settled on the Norco Fluid FS 2 Women's in a small. The bike is equipped with 27.5 x 2.6 tires. The bike seems to fit her well, and is on the lower end of modern "small" bikes (Reach: 410, Stack: 577, Standover: 654, Seat Tube: 390).

She has also ridden several hardtail 29ers in small and never had an issue with the larger wheel size.

I know it can be tough to get demos right now, but that is probably her best bet. Along with the bikes you listed, at a similar price point I would also look at the Ibis Ripmo AF. Yes, it has 29" wheels, but the reach and stack are in a similar ball park to the other bikes you are considering and it has a nice short seat tube which is great for smaller riders. (Reach: 431, Stack: 613, Standover: 705, Seat Tube: 355)


----------



## TimTucker (Nov 9, 2011)

V2 of the Kindergarten 29er:
- Shorter reach / stack
- Longer chainstay to fit in a rear fender / mudguard for safety









Designing as a rigid bike with a shorter A2C carbon fork might make the numbers a little less crazy, but where's the fun in something like this if you don't go for full-on crazy?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

TimTucker said:


> View attachment 1368253


----------



## svinyard (Aug 14, 2017)

RMCDan said:


> Somewhat off-topic question:
> 
> What's the consensus regarding small adults on 29ers? I'm thinking about getting my wife a new bike for Christmas and the current frontrunners are the new Trance X 29 and Meta TR 29. She's 5-4, a strong rider and really strong in general (loves to lift and spends a lot of time in the gym, can do strict pullups for sets of 6-8).
> 
> ...


I'm in the midst of the same thing. I had my wife demo my buddies 8k$ Pivot Switchblade 29er (carbon Reynolds rims, sick tires, XX1 everything blah blah). She also demo'd a mid-level Devinici Troy 27.5. She is 5-6-ish.

She immediately missed the playful side of the 27.5 while on the Pivot. She said it was really "sturdy feeling" (aka Stable I'm sure) but that she couldn't pop off all the stuff as easily on our single track and it was as nimble. She also slightly buzzed her butt on some rock rolls and stuff. I'm not saying she couldn't adapt and be happy but it didn't seem ideal, hard to say.

Its also tough because all of the new hot-sauce is 29in unless you are looking at the short travel 27.5 like Ibis Mojo/Santa Cruz 5010. I'd really like her to have a bit more travel tho. A friend of mine (bro coach) moved his wife up from a Scout to a Patrol and he said her riding was immediately more confident and she rode stuff she always skipped and had a blast. My wife isn't super sendy but she isn't timid by anymeans (grew up on moto stuff) so I don't want her on something that is just fast. She isn't racing either.

Personally we are skipping the 29er for her...BUT the mullet bike is definitely interesting! A local gal at the shop in town recently got an Intense Primer in their mullet build and loved it. I think the mullet bike with geometry/suspension that doesn't require super-speed to be fun might be the best of both worlds.

From what I read, the 29in wheels can be an issue for shorter riders for a number of different reasons, not just the larger wheels/tires (enertia) and required leverage to manipulate them but also stuff like the BB being lower relative to the BB, thus with equal weight...it kind of "stands the bike up" and resists leaning over. Not an issue for me being 6-4, but for a smaller lady who isn't ultra-aggro rider, there seems to be a bit more to muscle there.

On the other side, my buddy that works for Jenson got his wife a Orbea Occam. She is a bit taller and mellow rider (nothing steep to buzz your butt) and she likes the bike. He rides it too and freaking LOVES it...tho his main ride is a Ripmo V2.

Fwiw I just helped my nephew buy a Trance X 29 in their lowest mid-level package @ 2300$. Great bike for the money with a nice suspension package (Maestro) on a Fox DPS. The fork isn't great but its not terrible either. He was able to buy it in the shop too after I called every shop in Colorado and some in Utah lol. Polygon Siskui T8 is another awesome bike for 2300$-ish with nice geo and Fox suspension. We looked at the new Meta TR and I traded messages with Mike Kaismer about it (PB editor). He liked the geometry and loved how the bike rode gnarly enduro stuff. He was concerned about the cheap coil fork on the low end build for that price point. The bike is also a tank at 35lbs in a size small. That seems a bit too much for an all-arounder...but hard to say without riding it. Maybe Trance is similar weight? I don't recall, but I'd pass on the coil fork build.

Giant Trance X Advanced in 27.5 is freaking 3300$ with a carbon frame with carbon wheels in a killer trail bike package (geo is a touch dated for better or worse).


----------

