# Will the 26er ever rise from the ashes?



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

Being a diehard vintage MTB guy I just can’t let go of the 26” wheel. I can see the advantages of a 29er. But a 650B just doesn’t have any real advantage over a 26 or 29.. It’s almost like the worst of both worlds. It just doesn’t do anything well enough to justify even tooling up a separate bike model. These are just the ramblings of an old guy stuck in the Seventies.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

No. Never. If you want another bike, buy a new 29" bike. They absolutely rock. If you are not looking to buy a new bike, ride the bike you have. You can still get 26" tires pretty easily on eBay and through European sites. I still ride a 26" 5-Spot and also have a new Ripley that I ride. Love both.


----------



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

Do you still have green shag carpet in your living room?


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

My prediction is that the industry will need to shift buyers into a new product line. 27.5 will be "obsolete" next. The press will rave about the newly discovered size, wonder how anyone ever ever rolled on any other size. Buy a new bike.

But seriously, I'm hearing more and more about riders who are sick of the whole "$3000 bike" phenomenon digging out the old 26 and remembering how much fun it can be to FEEL the trail instead of CRUSHING it. The best way to revive the 26 market is to buy parts. There are still wheel builders making new wheelsets in 26, tires are still available, marketing is the only reason the size "went away".


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

At least one pro on here still rides 26" tires. Personally I like something between 26 x 2.4 and 26 x 2.8, and I do put them on a 27.5" frame often. There is nothing necessarily wrong with a 26" tire if it's wide enough. After all, a 26 x 2.8 measures (depending on the rim width) somewhere between 26.8 and 27.2 inches high, so it's really not a 26" tire, it's a 27" tire. 

It's the 26" frame that sucks for downhill mountain biking, as in more than an 8% decline. For lighter riding it's perfectly fine. For steeper declines it's not very reassuring to feel like you are going to tip forwards right over the bars at the slightest divot in the trail. A dropper post can help but only so much. 

But there is a way around this:
BEIOU 3K Carbon Fiber Mountain Bike Frame 26-Inch Glossy Unibody External Cable Routing T700 Ultralight MTB B005X $299

It's modern geometry!!! However, I still got a 27.5 version from a similar Chinese manufacturer...because I don't want to ride 26" tires all the time. Yes, I know that sometimes you can fit a skinny 27.5 x 2.1 in the back. But I want the option of going burly, as in 2.4 to 2.6 front and back with 27.5 tires and so I got a 27.5 frame, because you can always put on 26" tires but not always vice-versa.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

richj8990 said:


> At least one pro on here still rides 26" tires. Personally I like something between 26 x 2.4 and 26 x 2.8, and I do put them on a 27.5" frame often. There is nothing necessarily wrong with a 26" tire if it's wide enough. After all, a 26 x 2.8 measures (depending on the rim width) somewhere between 26.8 and 27.2 inches high, so it's really not a 26" tire, it's a 27" tire.
> 
> It's the 26" frame that sucks for downhill mountain biking, as in more than an 8% decline. For lighter riding it's perfectly fine. For steeper declines it's not very reassuring to feel like you are going to tip forwards right over the bars at the slightest divot in the trail. A dropper post can help but only so much.
> 
> ...


I have an old Stumpjumper with 217 rims and nice hubs. Made tubeless and with lite 26 X 2.0 tires (Wild Racer Advanced) the bike absolutely flies. And with the old style set up (26, 36, 46) you can really hammer and the speed is shocking. Technically a lot more challenging to ride - both up and down, but fun none the less.


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

MattiThundrrr said:


> My prediction is that the industry will need to shift buyers into a new product line. 27.5 will be "obsolete" next. The press will rave about the newly discovered size, wonder how anyone ever ever rolled on any other size. Buy a new bike.


Yep , exactly !!

Maybe the 26er will be the next big thing (when completely extinct) to make us buy new bikes but my guess is another new wheel size.


----------



## JPL65 (Jul 20, 2008)

Vespasianus said:


> I have an old Stumpjumper with 217 rims and nice hubs. Made tubeless and with lite 26 X 2.0 tires (Wild Racer Advanced) the bike absolutely flies. And with the old style set up (26, 36, 46) you can really hammer and the speed is shocking. Technically a lot more challenging to ride - both up and down, but fun none the less.


 Would you say your 26" bike climbs and accelerates faster than your big wheeled bike?


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

lighter wheels will always accelerate/descelerate faster

Basic physics


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

fokof said:


> lighter wheels will always accelerate/descelerate faster
> 
> Basic physics


When was the last time a hydraulic disc brake with a 180 mm rotor had trouble stopping due to the difference between a 26" wheel and a 29"wheel?

It may be basic, but it seems you haven't done the physics on it.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## Pisgah (Feb 24, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> Do you still have green shag carpet in your living room?


That's hitting below the belt.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

I think it's possible we'll see 26'' in the shops again simply because there is so much 26'' hardware out there already. Tyre and rim manufacturers could reintroduce or ramp up 26'' production very easily so making a few bikes would no be too hard to do.


----------



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

Pisgah said:


> That's hitting below the belt.


What? I never mentioned bell bottoms and platform shoes.


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

tfinator said:


> When was the last time a hydraulic disc brake with a 180 mm rotor had trouble stopping due to the difference between a 26" wheel and a 29"wheel?
> 
> It may be basic, but it seems you haven't done the physics on it.


Is the conversation about brakes ?

I might have missed something .....


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

Pisgah said:


> That's hitting below the belt.


It's green but it isn't shag.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

26ers will be re-introduced when the Dynamic VR17 in a 207 cm gets re-introduced. I get it. I'm 67 and possess some degree of nostagia....just not if it impedes my ability to kick the a$$es of young whipper-snappers! On a 29er, I can do that, at least for the next couple of years.


----------



## twodownzero (Dec 27, 2017)

I think the problem as of this year is that the tire selection in 26" has really waned. I have two 26" bikes and the tire selection is just terrible compared to even 3-4 years ago. There are tires in every category, but even with dozens of tires available, the selection is less than ideal compared to 584 and 622. Sadly, I think this will be the death of 26.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

JPL65 said:


> Would you say your 26" bike climbs and accelerates faster than your big wheeled bike?


If the trails are right, the gearing on that bike allows me to be faster then on my Ripley. This is an old bike at my parents house. I ride it in a park that is pretty flat with smooth trails and lots of miles on grassy fields. You can really move in a 46 big ring with a 11-28 cassette! But this bike would kill me in a place like Pisgah.

But, if the ride is longer, I am always faster on the 29er. After about 2 hours on the old bike, my neck and ass hurts.There are trails where I am faster on my other 26" bike (5-spot) as well. But overall, the 29er is faster and leaves me much less fatigued.


----------



## Sickmak90 (May 27, 2012)

26er's will come back. "They are so light!" "The acceleration is amazing!" "Stiffer wheels!". 

Some of my fastest strava times were from 2012 when I was riding a Rush SL6 that was too big and using crappy flat pedals. I could gain speed really fast with that bike and I was riding it with a 1x9... 

I think a 26er with modern geo would be pretty awesome.


----------



## JPL65 (Jul 20, 2008)

MSU Alum said:


> 26ers will be re-introduced when the Dynamic VR17 in a 207 cm gets re-introduced. I get it. I'm 67 and possess some degree of nostagia....just not if it impedes my ability to kick the a$$es of young whipper-snappers! On a 29er, I can do that, at least for the next couple of years.


 As a ski racer I remember the VR17. Our ski area had a retro weekend a couple years ago, cracked out the Fischer RC4 SL's in 207cm, best weekend of the year.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

JPL65 said:


> As a ski racer I remember the VR17. Our ski area had a retro weekend a couple years ago, cracked out the Fischer RC4 SL's in 207cm, best weekend of the year.


Indeed....people can still rock them....and 26ers too (just not me!).
You may have seen this, pretty funny.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

They're still making new 26 wheelsets
Bicyclewheelwarehouse.com


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Ironically 650b is exactly where 26" was in 2014. We no longer hear anything about 650b being fast, or the "best of both worlds," It's the "fun" size now, not the sweet spot that was supposed to take over the indusry. We hear the exact same pros and cons for 650b as we did for 26. Considering people have accepted 650b as the size for fun and play, instead of speed and rollover, I wouldn't get my hopes up. We are only talking about 1" after all. That said, never underestimate the industry's wllingness to change standards. Fox is about to bring back 20mm axles, steerer tubes are going to 1.8". Standards will never stop changing. If 650b sales contiue to slump, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we see a marketing push for fun retro 26'ers.It would take little to no investment bring it back considering all the major tire companies still have tire molds, and geo modes to size down 1" are easier from the manufacturing side of things compared to sizing up 1". Companies like Banshee are still producing bikes that can run 26 and 27 wheels by just changing the dropouts.


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

fokof said:


> Is the conversation about brakes ?
> 
> I might have missed something .....


I thought so - how do you decelerate on your bike?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> Do you still have green shag carpet in your living room?


So you're saying we don't have a retro trend pattern in our culture? When I look at kids today I see what I looked like in the 80's and 90's lol. Many riders today started on 650b. 26" very well could be the cool retro thing anytime in the future. I'm surprised how long the current 80's 90's retro trend has lasted. What's next? Shag carpet!


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

slimat99 said:


> Ironically 650b is exactly where 26" was in 2014. We no longer hear anything about 650b being fast, or the "best of both worlds," It's the "fun" size now, not the sweet spot that was supposed to take over the indusry. We hear the exact same pros and cons for 650b as we did for 26. Considering people have accepted 650b as the size for fun and play, instead of speed and rollover, I wouldn't get my hopes up. We are only talking about 1" after all. That said, never underestimate the industry's wllingness to change standards. Fox is about to bring back 20mm axles, steerer tubes are going to 1.8". Standards will never stop changing. If 650b sales contiue to slump, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we see a marketing push for fun retro 26'ers.It would take little to no investment bring it back considering all the major tire companies still have tire molds, and geo modes to size down 1" are easier from the manufacturing side of things compared to sizing up 1". Companies like Banshee are still producing bikes that can run 26 and 27 wheels by just changing the dropouts.


Just call 26" 559 and and no one will be the wiser.


----------



## JPL65 (Jul 20, 2008)

MSU Alum said:


> Indeed....people can still rock them....and 26ers too (just not me!).
> You may have seen this, pretty funny.


 Thats a great video, Bridger is my favorite place to ski out West.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

26" still exists. On fatbikes. And in the kids dep't.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

mikesee said:


> 26" still exists. On fatbikes. And in the kids dep't.


So sayeth the guy with lacemine29 dot com in his signature.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

MattiThundrrr said:


> So sayeth the guy with lacemine29 dot com in his signature.


You mean the guy that builds wheels all day every day?

The guy that builds whatever people need (or want) for their bikes?

The guy with a pile of 26" rims on his shelves collecting dust? And, for that matter, a pile of 27.5" rims with an equal amount of dust?

I thought so.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

Nope, I meant the guy with stakes in the game. The guy profiting off 29er hype. The guy on the 26" forum. If 26 is dead, why would you still be building them?


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

MattiThundrrr said:


> Nope, I meant the guy with stakes in the game. The guy profiting off 29er hype. The guy on the 26" forum. If 26 is dead, why would you still be building them?


Hype? Ohhhhhhh -- I thought we were having a rational conversation. My bad!

If you remove fatbike wheels and kids wheels from the equation, I've built one set of 26" wheels in this calendar year. That's exactly as many as people have asked me to build.

I'm not trying to get you to remove your head from the sand. You get to put it wherever you want to, and besides -- it seems like a good spot for it.

I'm merely telling you that no one is asking for 26" wheels anymore, except for people that need them for their fatbikes, or for kids.

You can do with that info whatever you like.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

Your business is called LaceMine29, with the tagline _'29" wheelset for your...'_ and you expect 27.5 and 26 to be flying off the shelf? And that, to you, seems rational?


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

MattiThundrrr said:


> Your business is called LaceMine29, and you expect 27.5 and 26 to be flying off the shelf? And that, to you, seems rational?


I don't expect anything to be rational to you.

I build at least as many 27.5+ wheels as I do 29". And roughly the same amount of fat.

Neither of those -- by my maths -- have anything to do with the 29" moniker you seem so afraid of.


----------



## eatdrinkride (Jun 15, 2005)

MattiThundrrr said:


> Your business is called LaceMine29, with the tagline _'29" wheelset for your...'_ and you expect 27.5 and 26 to be flying off the shelf? And that, to you, seems rational?


Not that I have a dog in this fight however from where I sit you're attitude seems irrational at best.

Mikesee does not manufacture 29'' hoops. He builds wheelsets from parts widely available, hoops/spokes/hubs. Makes no difference to him if you pay him to build a 26'' wheelset or 29''. Dude still gets paid. He's just saying he's in the wheel building game, all day every day so I'm gonna bet he has a finger or two on the pulse of what people are asking for, more so than you I'm guessing.

Just watch, when 26'' wheels are all the rage, his website will be WWW.lacemine26.com


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

eatdrinkride said:


> Just watch, when 26'' wheels are all the rage, his website will be WWW.lacemine26.com


But that doesn't rhyme 

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

If 26 does come back, I'm sure zero percent of the old 26 frames, wheels, forks, etc will be compatible with the new standards.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

chazpat said:


> If 26 does come back, I'm sure zero percent of the old 26 frames, wheels, forks, etc will be compatible with the new standards.


26" wheels, now with *NEGA-BOOST!!!!*


----------



## sturge (Feb 22, 2009)

MSU Alum said:


> 26ers will be re-introduced when the Dynamic VR17 in a 207 cm gets re-introduced. I get it. I'm 67 and possess some degree of nostagia....just not if it impedes my ability to kick the a$$es of young whipper-snappers! On a 29er, I can do that, at least for the next couple of years.


Oh man...VR17's were awesome! The sweetspot was about 50mph LOL.

If we are all 'supposed to be' on 29ers I'm still behind the times. Ridden 30 years and just got a 27.5 last year by choice. Tight, technical trails combined with an XL frame makes for a HUGE bike at any size so I went with 27.5. I still see a fair amount of 26ers on the trails around me.

EDIT...I've never had a 29er but my next bike will be 29 just to see what all the fuss is about!


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

I want to be clear, I have nothing against 29" wheels, people who build them in general, people who ride them, and nothing against mikesee specifically either. I am not afraid of the moniker 29, or the wheels either. I've ridden 29. It was fun. However, this thread is about wether 26 will rise from the ashes. So when a person comes on and says that 26ers are for kids, and fat bikes, a person with a business selling 29 wheels, I'm pointing that out! It's called disclosure: you indicate that you have a financial interest in the discussion.
Please explain how I'm being irrational in doing this. I'll admit, I was a wee bit snarky, though! Sorry if I got too edgy.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

mikesee said:


> Hype? Ohhhhhhh -- I thought we were having a rational conversation. My bad!
> 
> If you remove fatbike wheels and kids wheels from the equation, I've built one set of 26" wheels in this calendar year. That's exactly as many as people have asked me to build.
> 
> ...


And you're surprised people aren't asking for custom 26" wheels years after the industry replaced 26" with 27"? How many 135mm QR hubs are you selling? Or 142 for that matter? 27" is just another standards change. Had the industry started with 27", then marketed 26" like they did 650b you would be talking about how no one askes for 27" wheels anymore.


----------



## Sickmak90 (May 27, 2012)

29ers are just hype? CRAP I have to sell my fuel now. 

I too hated 29ers until I found the right 29er. Now I’m in love. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

MattiThundrrr said:


> My prediction is that the industry will need to shift buyers into a new product line. 27.5 will be "obsolete" next. The press will rave about the newly discovered size, wonder how anyone ever ever rolled on any other size. Buy a new bike.
> 
> But seriously, I'm hearing more and more about riders who are sick of the whole "$3000 bike" phenomenon digging out the old 26 and remembering how much fun it can be to FEEL the trail instead of CRUSHING it. The best way to revive the 26 market is to buy parts. There are still wheel builders making new wheelsets in 26, tires are still available, marketing is the only reason the size "went away".


But it'll be an ebike.

There are other options besides going expensive and 26er. A rigid plus size or even standard bike is all one needs to feel the trail and are actually worth the fun you will have.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

I am still surprised how there is still angst against wheel sizes. 

I rode 26ers for decades. Tried all the things, the tires, the tubeless, the over the bars. Then I got a 29er and realized that riding could be better. I stopped going over the bars, started cleaning climbs I could never clear before, descended faster, lamented the lack of tire options but realized it was the future. Still have my old 26er but it just hangs in the garage with flat tires, kinda sad really. I have been debating have a local builder add disc mounts to it so I can put 650b commuter tires on it and use it a commuter to supplement my gravel bike, just so I gets use. Otherwise it is just a Ind Fab Deluxe no longer enjoying life. 

I understand 27.5 as it can fit in a 29er frame in a larger size, similar to how I could put 650b fat tires in my 700c Width limited gravel bike if I wanted and get a much fatter tire, if that was what I was looking for, or you could mullet it or whatever but I can't imagine that 26ers will come back as a mountain biking size. Even with the newer progressive geometries it wouldn't make sense.


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

When i first saw this thread I thought about posting but refrained. 

I feel bad for Mikesee, as it’s a new low/twist in the wheel size “wars” to get accused of bias for how you name your business. 

Okay, so 26” wheels will come back when you, the general riding public with $ to spend demand them.

Why not email a brand like Santa Cruz and tell them you want a 26” option. Encourage others to do the same. Tell us how that works out.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

MattiThundrrr said:


> when a person comes on and says that 26ers are for kids, and fat bikes,


Go back and re-read what I originally wrote.

I stated a fact -- that those are the places that 26" bikes/wheels exist these days.

You presumed the derogatory context.


----------



## fredcook (Apr 2, 2009)

Was riding some trails on Colorado's front range last week, and while talking shop at a trail head after a run down Lower Bitterbrush at Hall Ranch, two of the riders in the group I was following admitted they'd consider buying a modern geo 26" with good components if someone made it. They prefer the agility of 26" over larger wheels _on the trails they ride_. I feel wheel size really needs to align with what you're riding. Lower Bitterbrush is about as technical as it gets with its rock gardens and boulders. Me personally, I'd wouldn't even consider a 29" on that trail _for me_. For the same reason these guys would consider riding it on a 26". I tend to agree with them.

If all I rode was XC kinda stuff without the slow steep techy, rooty, rocky, ups and downs I like to hit, I might consider a 29". But that's not what I like to ride, so I'm on a 27.5 I've tried 29" on and off since my first attempt in 2001 on one of Gary's bikes. I know other's will disagree, but for me... just not as nimble and playful as a non-plus 27.5. And far less confident feeling for me on real technical stuff.

I'm one of those that believe 27.5 is "best of both worlds". A bit more roll over ability, a bit longer wheel base, but not as unwieldy tall. I do believe 27.5 allows a good height to length ratio design. But I'm 5-10 with shoes. So that's another factor. Someone at 6' will feel differently.

Every now and then I take out my old '08 Fisher full suspension 26". Every time, the first thing I notice is how quickly it accelerates, and how quickly I can climb a technical obstacle. It's slower coming down, but with it, I can hop it where I need to be.

After thinking about what the guys at Bitterbrush said, and if I frequented that type of trail on a daily basis, I do believe I'd also go against hype and marketing push, and consider a new decent 26"er if it were available. I think 26, 27.5, and 29, all have their place. It's like comparing off road vehicles. Some are meant to rock crawl (26"), some are meant for Baja (29"). Choose your weapon.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

cjsb said:


> When i first saw this thread I thought about posting but refrained.
> 
> I feel bad for Mikesee, as it's a new low/twist in the wheel size "wars" to get accused of bias for how you name your business.
> 
> ...


Santa Cruz already offers a 26" option, it's called the Jackal. It's been in their line up since their days of in house welding. You would be better off contacting Pon Holdings who owns SC now anyway. That goes for most companies now who are under the umbrella of larger corporations many of which don't even have roots in the sport. Times have changed since the days of rider owned companies. The industry drives what we buy, not the other way around.

If 26 comes back it won't be because riders demand it. It will be because 650b sales are so poor companies decide to rehash something old to a new audience. The new fox 38 appears to have 110x20 spacing. Sound familiar? Many riders never owned that spacing so it's new! To think the industry won't rehash 26 to a new audience is being ignorant of how the industry functions. They will probably make it slightly different though kind of like how 110x20 in 2020 is different than 110x20 in 2002.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

slimat99 said:


> Santa Cruz already offers a 26" option, it's called the Jackal. It's been in their line up since their days of in house welding. You would be better off contacting Pon Holdings who owns SC now anyway. That goes for most companies now who are under the umbrella of larger corporations many of which don't even have roots in the sport. Times have changed since the days of rider owned companies. The industry drives what we buy, not the other way around.
> 
> If 26 comes back it won't be because riders demand it. It will be because 650b sales are so poor companies decide to rehash something old to a new audience. The new fox 38 appears to have 110x20 spacing. Sound familiar? Many riders never owned that spacing so it's new! To think the industry won't rehash 26 to a new audience is being ignorant of how the industry functions. They will probably make it slightly different though kind of like how 110x20 in 2020 is different than 110x20 in 2002.


Are 650b sales will plummeting? Last I hear, they were not doing so well but don't know if it had turned around. I could see 26" bikes coming back in ebike form.


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

cjsb said:


> Okay, so 26" wheels will come back when you, the general riding public with $ to spend demand them.
> 
> Why not email a brand like Santa Cruz and tell them you want a 26" option. Encourage others to do the same. Tell us how that works out.


It's the other way around : it's the industry , the magazines , the sponsored race riders who creates, promotes new standard and post how it's the best thing since hot water , then people follow blindly.....

Do you think people will buy a 26er when everyone and their mother says that it's not cool to ride them ?

26ers looks so bad on Instagram....

Make 26er with "modern" approach , it will be more fun than any 26er you've ever tried. 
I know , I custom ordered a 26er frame wich is my main MTB.
(because nobody makes them anymore)

And cycling is not the only place where industry imposes trends , I work in music business....


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Vespasianus said:


> Are 650b sales will plummeting? Last I hear, they were not doing so well but don't know if it had turned around. I could see 26" bikes coming back in ebike form.


No idea, just speculating. It's pretty clear 29'ers are moving in on every market not currently occupied by 26", so it's not hard to imagine declining 650b sales. So much will hinge on if 29'ers continue to grow in popularity. All signs point to yes. So imagine a market where 29'ers dominate sales in every market other than tiny markets like SS, DJ... Where does that leave 650b? In that market it actually makes sense to rehash 26". Hybrid slope style/trail bikes along side 29'er trail/race bikes. 650b was always an attempt to blend those two worlds but it seems that marketing push has died. If people buy 29'ers in the xc through DH markets, 650b starts to look kind of silly compared to 26. Does anyone think the 50 to 01 crew is better off on 650b? They ride 650b because that's what their sponsors make, not because it's better than 26 for how they ride.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

twodownzero said:


> I think the problem as of this year is that the tire selection in 26" has really waned. I have two 26" bikes and the tire selection is just terrible compared to even 3-4 years ago. There are tires in every category, but even with dozens of tires available, the selection is less than ideal compared to 584 and 622. Sadly, I think this will be the death of 26.


It's really only new mold tires that are absent. Maybe it's where you're shopping that's giving you trouble finding tires? Chainreactioncycles right now has nearly as many 26" tires as 29. Minion's are still offered in 26". If there are better tires I haven't tired them and my main bike is 650b so I've tried multiple options I can't get in 26. Currently on the new Assegai. I'm going back to DHF/DHR like my 26'er.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Sickmak90 said:


> 26er's will come back. "They are so light!" "The acceleration is amazing!" "Stiffer wheels!".
> 
> Some of my fastest strava times were from 2012 when I was riding a Rush SL6 that was too big and using crappy flat pedals. I could gain speed really fast with that bike and I was riding it with a 1x9...
> 
> I think a 26er with modern geo would be pretty awesome.


One of the most talented DH racers going today feels the same way. He says in this interview he timed faster on 26" compared to 650b, geo held constant. He raced 650b because that's what his sponsor makes.

https://www.vitalmtb.com/features/Maybe-26-Aint-Dead-Is-Laurie-Greenland-Being-Serious,1853


----------



## skankingbiker (Jan 15, 2010)

Yes....the bike industry is in the midst of doing so as we speak! Ponder the new 650 PLUS gravel bikes


----------



## dir-T (Jan 20, 2004)

JPL65 said:


> Thats a great video, Bridger is my favorite place to ski out West.


It's toss up between BB and Big Sky for me but I did just by my 21st season pass for Bridger Bowl yesterday!


----------



## jupiter58 (Jan 13, 2016)

CS2 said:


> Being a diehard vintage MTB guy I just can't let go of the 26" wheel. I can see the advantages of a 29er. But a 650B just doesn't have any real advantage over a 26 or 29.. It's almost like the worst of both worlds. It just doesn't do anything well enough to justify even tooling up a separate bike model. These are just the ramblings of an old guy stuck in the Seventies.


 who cares? I love riding my NOS 26er and also enjoy my 29er and 650b. I don't care if people think i'm a dork. My 26er is FUN...nuff said. As a side note here is an affordable 26er frame from NS bikes, hard to come by any 26er frame these days other then dodgy frames from China. https://www.chainreactioncycles.com/us/en/ns-bikes-surge-evo-frame-2019/rp-prod152990


----------



## Sickmak90 (May 27, 2012)

I think I’m actually picking up a 2006 stumpy FSR tomorrow. I’ve been looking for a cheap but rideable bike for camping and it might just fit the bill. 

I’m no geo expert but the geo on it doesn’t look that bad. I expect it will be pretty fun on my local trails but I bet it’s gonna suck on technical climbs. Sometimes I need my bulldozer to clear roots and rocks while climbing. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Emax (Dec 4, 2005)

I think that the 26er will come back... It may take some time but it will happen. The comeback will be announced on the internet with articles titled "Are 26ers more fun to ride than 29ers?"... then some folks in Colorado who never rode 26ers will try them and love them... so the new fashion of riding the antique bikes will be a thing.

These days I'm riding my Ventana Pantera and Titus Loco Moto - very similar but different bikes with the single pivot design that makes them quite durable and fun to ride. Both are over 16 years old, they weigh 24 and 26 pounds respectively. Very quick to turn and still looking great with their black anodized finish... riding them with flat narrow bars and bar ends - and I love that set up. If they last another 16 years, I'll be in my 60's so who knows what I'll be doing then.


----------



## Dung Hopper (Jun 24, 2013)

A 26" wheel is the perfect size for a BMX cruiser. I think it is dead for mountain biking anywhere with rocks.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

mikesee said:


> Go back and re-read what I originally wrote.
> 
> I stated a fact -- that those are the places that 26" bikes/wheels exist these days.
> 
> You presumed the derogatory context.


And dirt jump bikes.

There are always going to be 26in wheels as long as people are riding DJs.


----------



## Phiu-x (Mar 23, 2010)

The way I see it : the other sizes (27.5 and 29) did not negate the need for 26er. Along with + tires and geometry its all tech evolution , it just made certain things to do with bike better. There is no need to revert back to less standards because the 3 we have now each found their niche. That and the fact that each niche overlap (geo, tire sieze) but you'd be hard pressed to convince me that we need yet another size at the moment. Actually we are going back to a geometry standardization across each niche. 

More and more like the way all small SUVs tend to look alike because each has to pass the same wind turbine test . Manufacturers keep the change that is working is working until they all look alike and then the sport evolve and then the cycle repeat.


----------



## Dung Hopper (Jun 24, 2013)

I will never go back to 26" but the rider is more important than the bike. I ride with a guy who rides a 26" and he has no problem kicking my ass.

FWIW, I don't see much need for a fat bike. They are probably not the best tool for the job in most conditions. People still have fun riding them all the same. If you like 26", go for it.


----------



## Phiu-x (Mar 23, 2010)

Dung Hopper said:


> I will never go back to 26" but the rider is more important than the bike. I ride with a guy who rides a 26" and he has no problem kicking my ass.
> 
> FWIW, I don't see much need for a fat bike. They are probably not the best tool for the job in most conditions. People still have fun riding them all the same. If you like 26", go for it.


Skills > tool, we agree.

Where you saw a fatbike I saw an all around bike with swappable wheels than I can use all year round for everything , everywhere. The early Fatbikes were really awfull for all of that, but the ones right now are stellar! And they they too found their niche.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

slimat99 said:


> So you're saying we don't have a retro trend pattern in our culture? When I look at kids today I see what I looked like in the 80's and 90's lol. Many riders today started on 650b. 26" very well could be the cool retro thing anytime in the future. I'm surprised how long the current 80's 90's retro trend has lasted. What's next? Shag carpet!


Yeah, but that's just fashion. You may see people start dressing like it is 1985 and pretending that Phil Collins' music did not suck at the time, but they are not buying tubed TVs and carrying around cell phones the size of toasters.

MTB fashion may bring back purple anodized components and neon paint schemes, but canti brakes, elastomer shocks, and 26" wheels are probably done for trailbikes, outside of niche markets.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Dung Hopper said:


> A 26" wheel is the perfect size for a BMX cruiser. I think it is dead for mountain biking anywhere with rocks.


So you never rode a 65 or slacker 26'er? Such angles create front attack angles that are more aggressive than 650b's with steeper HA's. Rear attack angle is more about your frames axle path not wheel size. A more vertical axle path on a 26"er will carry more speed though chunk than a 650b with a less vertical axle path. Remember, the difference between 650b and 26" is not 1.5", it's 1", and you half that for attack angle. If you bog down in the chunk on 26", you will bog down on 650b too. There simply isn't enough difference in the radius between those sizes to make a real difference in attack angle. This is a big reason why 29'ers are selling like hot cakes. 650b does not do big wheel things like naturally providing an aggressive attack angle.

BMX curisers are 24" right? Never heard of a 26" BMX cruiser. That's called a DJ, or SS bike.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

You've never heard of 26" bmx? You need to learn some history! The whole reason for 26 on mtb is because of the new 26" bmx class that came out in like '79. Suddenly, alloy wheels were available in 26, and became the MTB standard Otherwise we might all be arguing over wether VV of America's 20" mountain bikes would ever rise from the ashes.
Heard of Cook Bros? Put your bib on to catch the drool, here's a 26" Cooks BMX.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

kapusta said:


> Yeah, but that's just fashion. You may see people start dressing like it is 1985 and pretending that Phil Collins' music did not suck at the time, but they are not buying tubed TVs and carrying around cell phones the size of toasters.
> 
> MTB fashion may bring back purple anodized components and neon paint schemes, but canti brakes, elastomer shocks, and 26" wheels are probably done for trailbikes, outside of niche markets.


Yeah, but the point is that 26" wheels and tires are lighter and faster than 27.5" wheels and tires. It is like having the iPod and going to the Sony Walkman and being told it was better!


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Vespasianus said:


> Yeah, but the point is that 26" wheels and tires are lighter and faster than 27.5" wheels and tires. It is like having the iPod and going to the Sony Walkman and being told it was better!


Actually, the point is the one I was responding to: retro-fashion (Look at what I was quoting and responding to)


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

kapusta said:


> Yeah, but that's just fashion. You may see people start dressing like it is 1985 and pretending that Phil Collins' music did not suck at the time, but they are not buying tubed TVs and carrying around cell phones the size of toasters.
> 
> MTB fashion may bring back purple anodized components and neon paint schemes, but canti brakes, elastomer shocks, and 26" wheels are probably done for trailbikes, outside of niche markets.


True. My fashion/pop culture analogy isn't directly relevant. What is relevant is the industry has a history of rehashing old stuff to a new audience. Examples: wide rims, 2.6 to 3.0 tires, coil forks, inline coil shocks, tri spoke composite wheels... 26" is just a rim size, it's hardly like digging up canti brakes.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

MattiThundrrr said:


> You've never heard of 26" bmx? You need to learn some history! The whole reason for 26 on mtb is because of the new 26" bmx class that came out in like '79. Suddenly, alloy wheels were available in 26, and became the MTB standard Otherwise we might all be arguing over wether VV of America's 20" mountain bikes would ever rise from the ashes.
> Heard of Cook Bros? Put your bib on to catch the drool, here's a 26" Cooks BMX.
> View attachment 1283805


Did not know about 26" BMX and I raced BMX from 83 to 85. Everyone at my local tracks rode nothing but 20"ers. I always heard 26" came from beach cruisers well before 79. The only BMX cruisers I've ever seen were 24".


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

fredcook said:


> Was riding some trails on Colorado's front range last week, and while talking shop at a trail head after a run down Lower Bitterbrush at Hall Ranch, two of the riders in the group I was following admitted they'd consider buying a modern geo 26" with good components if someone made it. They prefer the agility of 26" over larger wheels _on the trails they ride_. I feel wheel size really needs to align with what you're riding. Lower Bitterbrush is about as technical as it gets with its rock gardens and boulders. Me personally, I'd wouldn't even consider a 29" on that trail _for me_. For the same reason these guys would consider riding it on a 26". I tend to agree with them.
> 
> If all I rode was XC kinda stuff without the slow steep techy, rooty, rocky, ups and downs I like to hit, I might consider a 29". But that's not what I like to ride, so I'm on a 27.5 I've tried 29" on and off since my first attempt in 2001 on one of Gary's bikes. I know other's will disagree, but for me... just not as nimble and playful as a non-plus 27.5. And far less confident feeling for me on real technical stuff.
> 
> ...


If you want to try a modern 26'er, try a mini mullet. Just drop a 26" rear wheel in your frame. I'm doing that with a nomad3. 180mm fork sets my BB back to stock but even with the same fork you won't drop much. There's some synergy going on with 26/27 wheels. It's like the rear follows the arc the front carves in corners just a little tighter which lends itself to drifting, and tight inside lines. Of course acceleration is pure 26'er, and the whole attack angle benefits of 650b which is way over emphasized IMO, ends up being essentially identical to full 650b assuming you're not on a hardtail.

Mini mullet is the ticket for riders that want 26" but also want new geo. My mini mullet's numbers are pretty dialed: 64 HA, 75 ST, longer reach, 13.4" BB. Maybe one day we'll see 26'ers with such numbers. Until then, you can basically have it with a mini mullet.


----------



## Dung Hopper (Jun 24, 2013)

There are a few still made. The Fairdale Taj is an example.


----------



## Phiu-x (Mar 23, 2010)

slimat99 said:


> This is a big reason why 29'ers are selling like hot cakes. 650b does not do big wheel things like naturally providing an aggressive attack angle.


Yup : A single front sus 29er with 2.8 tire is a do everything go anywhere fun machine that define the sport I call MTB in 2019. IMO. You can call it a trail bike.

Other bikes are for MTB "Discipline" -> DH, Vert, DJ, 4X, Enduro, Their popularity tend to vary per decade.


----------



## fredcook (Apr 2, 2009)

slimat99 said:


> If you want to try a modern 26'er, try a mini mullet. Just drop a 26" rear wheel in your frame. I'm doing that with a nomad3. 180mm fork sets my BB back to stock but even with the same fork you won't drop much. There's some synergy going on with 26/27 wheels. It's like the rear follows the arc the front carves in corners just a little tighter which lends itself to drifting, and tight inside lines. Of course acceleration is pure 26'er, and the whole attack angle benefits of 650b which is way over emphasized IMO, ends up being essentially identical to full 650b assuming you're not on a hardtail.
> 
> Mini mullet is the ticket for riders that want 26" but also want new geo. My mini mullet's numbers are pretty dialed: 64 HA, 75 ST, longer reach, 13.4" BB. Maybe one day we'll see 26'ers with such numbers. Until then, you can basically have it with a mini mullet.


Yeah... the mullet thing. That may have some influence on whet the OP originally asked (_Will the 26er ever rise from the ashes?_). 26" may find new mainstream life in that way. Not really a new idea though. Our motocross bikes were 'mullet' back in the 1970's. We didn't call 'em mullets though.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

I'd honestly like to see 26in make at least a mini comeback. I think at this point 29ers are going to continue to dominate the mountain bike market and for good reason. 27.5 will continue to be around because of 27.5+. 

But there is a reason why dirt jumpers haven't switched from 26 and why they are still loved by park guys. They are better for trick based riding and they always will be. With jibbing and the like becoming more popular (see the 50 to 01 guys), it would make sense for some companies to release bikes that are more trail capable then dirt jumpers for this kind of riding. A 26in wheel is going to be stronger for when a 360 or 180 is landed sideways. A smaller wheel is going to make the bike more flickable. This is always going to be a niche market but so is fat biking or rigid or single speed but people still make bikes for that and I am glad that they are. 

I highly doubt they are ever going to make a comeback for XC or enduro bikes though.


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

93EXCivic said:


> I highly doubt they are ever going to make a comeback for XC or enduro bikes though.


Maybe they will make a comeback, maybe they won't. But everything old is new again. I'm heavily vested into Eighties MTB's so that's the only reason I like them. It's a good size wheel for just tooling around. The 650B just doesn't do anything that much better than a 26" to justify its existence. But it exists so people are voting with their wallets and that is all that matters.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

CS2 said:


> Maybe they will make a comeback, maybe they won't. But everything old is new again. I'm heavily vested into Eighties MTB's so that's the only reason I like them. It's a good size wheel for just tooling around. The 650B just doesn't do anything that much better than a 26" to justify its existence. But it exists so people are voting with their wallets and that is all that matters.


I mean enduro bikes are increasing going 29er and XC bikes have been that way for a while and 29ers are faster that is what matters on those bikes. I agree that regular 27.5 doesn't do anything better then a 26er but unless 29+ kills off 27.5+, 27.5 will be around in some form. My big worry is smaller wheels will pretty much die completely.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

93EXCivic said:


> I mean enduro bikes are increasing going 29er and XC bikes have been that way for a while and 29ers are faster that is what matters on those bikes. I agree that regular 27.5 doesn't do anything better then a 26er but unless 29+ kills off 27.5+, 27.5 will be around in some form. My big worry is smaller wheels will pretty much die completely.


27.5 plus is already on its way out unless the industry starts calling 2.6 plus. We are already seeing fewer 27.5+ options in both tires, and frames. There's been little to no marketing for it so that should tell us the industry isn't looking to make further investments in tire molds, frames...


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

slimat99 said:


> 27.5 plus is already on its way out unless the industry starts calling 2.6 plus. We are already seeing fewer 27.5+ options in both tires, and frames. There's been little to no marketing for it so that should tell us the industry isn't looking to make further investments in tire molds, frames...


I don't completely agree with that. It seem that more and more aggressive hardtails offer the ability to run 27.5+ as well as 29 and a lot of rigid and adventure bikes offer 27.5+. It does seem to be going away on full sus bikes though and becoming more of a niche thing but I don't think it will die. Much like fat bikes it is settling into a niche.

Personally I see the market becoming mostly 29. With 27.5+ becoming a niche for adventure/touring/rigid/ hardtails. 29+ for adventure/touring/rigid. 27.5 for the bike park/ trick based trail riding group (another niche). Fat bikes for snow, sand and adventure (niche). 26 for dirt jumping.

The only way I see 27.5+ dying completely is if 29+ takes over the adventure/touring market.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

For 2020, there is a high end trek remedy in 27.5. There is a 27.5 high end carbon enduro from spec for 2020. Giant has 27.5 high end carbon trances for 2020. 

Thats just the big 3, a gagillion small brands offer an array of 27.5 bikes. 

Not only is it not on the way out, brand new models, forks, tires, and wheels are rolling out all the time. Full blown support and innovation.

The problem with mullet 26/27 bikes is that the rear wheel is already pretty close in size. You end up running an old outdated rim for no good reason.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

One Pivot said:


> For 2020, there is a high end trek remedy in 27.5. There is a 27.5 high end carbon enduro from spec for 2020. Giant has 27.5 high end carbon trances for 2020.
> 
> Thats just the big 3, a gagillion small brands offer an array of 27.5 bikes.
> 
> ...


Anyone that wants to run a 26" rear wheel doesn't have to run an "outdated rim". I'm running the same rims Bruni just took worlds and the overall title in 26". We are one is offering in house made 26" carbon rims for 2020. Yes options are limited and that might get worse, but kind of like tires, some of the best options are still available. Yes 26/27 wheels are similar in actual size but there are real differences in handling. You get the acceleration and snappiness of 26" with the extra .5" of attack angle of 27, but what really stands out to me is how that .5 difference in radius plays out in the corners. It's almost like you're angled better for cornering like camber on a sports car.

Anyway, it's a good option for anyone that wants a "modern" 26'er that's not made by banshee.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

Dung Hopper said:


> A 26" wheel is the perfect size for a BMX cruiser. I think it is dead for mountain biking anywhere with rocks.


Somewhere, Nicolas Vouilloz is drinking a nice glass of wine, reading this and muttering "quelle chatte"...


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

CS2 said:


> Being a diehard vintage MTB guy I just can't let go of the 26" wheel. I can see the advantages of a 29er. But a 650B just doesn't have any real advantage over a 26 or 29.. It's almost like the worst of both worlds. It just doesn't do anything well enough to justify even tooling up a separate bike model. These are just the ramblings of an old guy stuck in the Seventies.


I guess the short answer is likely a "NO" from your title question.

I don't see why it matters really though. 
Ride what you like or love, keep it up and in good operation. Buy parts as you need or available, make them if you have to. 
Your fun and enjoyment isn't defined by how many others are riding 26 at any given moment or if it is, get some counseling or help.

People are still shootin' black powder or carrying revolvers, I see sourpuss faces on people riding around in those $58,000 Wranglers and happy grins in 72 CJ-5's that sold new for $2,955. I have two 26 ers too sturdy to burn. Whatever the ashes, they were born of something else.

:thumbsup:


----------



## riyadh (Feb 13, 2015)

26"wheels rock, the industry sucks!! 
I only last year changed my dual sus to 27.5. Honestly cant see myself riding a 29er. I dont like it, its dead, not as playful as a 26er neither is 27.5 but at least its a little better. I was the last of our group to change wheel size. I was faster than all of them 29" and 27.5" guys and some of them are better riders than me as well as at least 5 years younger. I am mid 40's. Probably is an old man thing but 26 are much more agile and playful. A friend of mine went from 29er hardtail to hightower, to a 27.5 bronson and guess what. He bought himself and old 26er dual suspension mtb. He rides the 26er the most. He started on 29 as thats what everyone convinced him to buy as its "industry standard" 
I still have some parts and would like to build another 26er, but the 26er bmx(I know about these, but forgot) sounds very tempting too!!


----------



## Sickmak90 (May 27, 2012)

I really like my 29er but I can see why some people don’t like them. IMO they are faster in a lot of situations but they do kinda dub down some trails. I’ve been setting a lot of PRs this season with my FS 29er and a lot of it is due to it being a tank. 

Most of my PRs were set on a 2007 Rush SL6 which I really liked. I had a HT XC 29er that I hated and then a 27.5 Breezer repack that I hated. 

Big wheels have their place but I would like to see some smaller wheel options out there. Acceleration and DH was amazing on the Rush. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

mikesee said:


> 26" still exists. On fatbikes. And in the kids dep't.





mikesee said:


> Go back and re-read what I originally wrote.
> 
> I stated a fact -- that those are the places that 26" bikes/wheels exist these days...


bike park? 26" dominates there. Pump track, dual slalom, DJ, rhythm dirt jumps, flow track, slope style etc. Not just for fat bikes and kids, at tournament I went to a couple weeks ago most all were riding 26". My next new mtb will be a DJ and of course 26" .

Now, with 26" the go to size there and 29ers now pretty much dominate all other forms of mtb, what is it that 27.5" is best at again?


----------



## EBasil (Jan 30, 2004)

Where the return to prolific 26" would be great, and where the hole is now, is for youth and other such short people who are ready for a real MTB but too short for a decent 27.5"-wheeled bike -- and that's a lot of people who are then shunted off to department store crap.

For those with 26ers still out there, it's the tire availability that's killing us over time: wider, better tires are rare and expensive. Narrow stuff is still out there, of course.


----------



## riyadh (Feb 13, 2015)

I sold my 2014 commencal meta sx to a 14 year old. His dad was are you sure you dont want a 29er, he was like no, this is better.
Even the geo of the commencal is modern. I bought new tyres for it early last year. Continental de kaiser projects. You still get a range from continental.


----------



## pedalinbob (Jan 12, 2004)

In this corner, we have the 29er, a 2018 Trek Top Fuel. 100mm front and rear, and the highly regarded RE:aktiv shock.
Weight: 28.5lbs, including trail bell, bottle cage, mini frame pump, a saddlebag with a spare tube, patch kit, Crank Bros multitool, tire levers, extra zip ties, padded bag for keys, and extra chain link.
Has bar ends (yes, bar ends, I like them), a carbon post, Bontrager XXX front wheel with Schwalbe Rocket Ron 29x2.25 Addix Speedgrip tubeless, and custom built rear with DT Swiss 350, Stan's rim, with a Continental Race King protection (Black Chili) tubeless. Two of the fastest tires out there.
XT and SLX 1x11 drivetrain, Fox Rhythm 32 fork with Push seals.
Shimano hydraulic disks. Nice, short 50mm stem, 730bars, mino link in the low, slack position.
In short, it has all the goodies to make it a slayer of the old-school.

In the other corner, we have the 26er: a lowly 2001 GT I-Drive Team, 80mm front and rear.
Weight 28lbs fully loaded, including trail bell, bottle cage, mini frame pump, a saddlebag with a spare tube, patch kit, Blackburn multitool, tire levers, extra zip ties, small knife, padded bag for keys, and extra chain link. Also has a wired computer and wheel weight.
Has bar ends, old XTR/Mavic 217 front wheel and LX/217 rear. Specialized S-Works 2.2 Fast Traks with Michelin Aircomp Latex tubes. 3x9 drivetrain, mix of XT and LX stuff from the early 2000s.
2002 or so Manitou Six Deluxe: coil and a small elastomer with TPC damping.
The elastomer and seals are hardened, and one of the seals is missing the foam ring. It is on its last leg.
Shimano V-brakes with Kool Stop pads.
100mm stem, grips are 610mm apart. 
It has a short wheelbase, low BB, tiny wheels, narrow low-tread tires, narrow bars, long stem!!!
This doesn't look like a fair fight.
Oh, the horror! I'm gonna die trying to ride that thing on a trail!

The trail: 7.3 miles of fun, intermediate twisty singletrack in Southeast Michigan. Dry, fairly smooth, loose over hardpack, with blown out sandy gravelly corners. Some very fast downhills, jumps, with bermed and non-bermed switchbacks. About 700' climbing. 
Some guys ride with full face helmets because you can get some serious air on numerous jumps.
It isn't a hard trail. But, it tricks you into riding faster and faster until you hit a sandy gravelly turn at speed and the bike shoots away from you so fast you don't even have time to get your hands off the bars to help break the fall.

The results, excerpted from my log:

July 14
Trek: 70 degrees, somewhat humid, nice trail conditions. Slowed 3 times to pass other riders.
39:49. This was my first time under 40mins. I rode the Trek 5 more times over the next 2 weeks. 

July 28
First ride on the GT this year: 85 degrees, very humid 77%. Hard to breathe. Trail very nice.
Slowed by 3 riders. Pulled off trail for a pair of faster riders about 20 seconds apart.
39:41. This was the second time under 40mins.

There are more examples like this in my log.

Ok, so the times are pretty close.
But, how is this even possible? 
For the past 2 years I have ridden the Trek about 20x as often as the GT, so I am very used to it.
29ers are supposed to be all that and a bag of chips. It has super fast/wider tubeless tires, better suspension, newer geometry (pretty long and slack compared to the GT), light weight.

I know how it is possible: the GT handles beautifully. It is quick handling, but not twitchy (but it will punish inattention). It is supremely confident on tight switchbacks. It feels composed almost everywhere (the Trek is better over some giant roots and rocks).
In fact, the front tire on the GT sticks better in the corners than the Trek, probably because of better weight distribution and a shorter wheelbase. ?

Lately, I've been running much more aggressive tires on the Trek (DHF, DHR and XR4) to try to get better grip. The front end tends to feel just a bit pushy, I think because of the rearward weight bias, length of the bike and the big wheels.
Isn't the big 29er contact patch supposed to lay down amazing grip?

On another related note, I've measured weight distribution on both bikes. 
In order to make the fore/aft weight the same on the Trek, I have to drop the bars to shift the weight forward. 
This places a lot of pressure on my hands. I have never had hand pain before. The combo of wider bars and short/low stem is the primary reason.
The same weight distribution on the GT has less pressure on the hands, because the overall weight is a bit more forward.
My engineer father in law helped confirm this with scales and pressure sensors on the grips.

Back on topic: The GT also accelerates quickly, and despite some differing opinions, I firmly believe that the bigger 29 wheels require much more effort to accelerate and turn. I can feel the bike trying to remain straight, whereas the GT dutifully follows subtle commands.
I waste a lot of energy forcing the Trek to turn.

On bigger, more open trails (the Poto, in my area) the long, low, slack bikes are probably better. But on the tight, twisty singletrack with a lot of accelerations and shorter, punchy climbs, (DTE, Brighton, Maybury) the little GT reigns.

I'm an artifact in that I had a period of nearly a decade (2006-2016) where I was mostly out of the mountain biking scene. I rode, but didn't have time to pay attention to the trends.
I was excited to try the newer tech, and treated myself to a 27.5 Anthem, but couldn't get comfortable on it, so I picked up a Top Fuel.

Will 26ers rise again? Probably not.
I can see where larger wheels benefit taller riders in particular. Many like the modern geometry.
I get it. If you are having fun, that is what counts.
I'm torn. Certain aspects work for me, but overall I prefer oldish geo, and smaller wheels.

Another side note:. The GT isn't as short and steep as you may think. The HT angle is 70-70.5 degrees. The reach is within millimeters of the Trek (the I-Drive Team model had longer reach than other GT models), the stack is actually 20mm higher.
The biggest difference with the Trek is the giant wheels, and the wheelbase, which is 100mm longer.

I see some posters proclaiming that new geo is universally awesome, but this doesn't reflect my experience.
I paid way more for the Trek than I did for the GT, yet in my experience, they are roughly equal in performance and fun. 
Long live the 26er...

Bob


----------



## Radium (Jan 11, 2019)

I'm considering a "Maxi-mullet: a 29" fork and wheel on the front of my old Ellsworth Joker.
I've done such a conversion before on an all-rigid Jamis Dragon frame, and it worked well on the downhill handling. 

So, anybody know of where I can still get a 170mm 29er fork with a straight 1/18" steer tube?

-Ray


----------



## riyadh (Feb 13, 2015)

Well yesterday I just blew my friends bubble with his newly acquired jeffsey. His previous bike was a 27.5 reign. On the climb up we were chatting, he was like this thing is so plush, it rolls over stuff and feels very coil like etc etc. So I ask him, dont he think the playfulness is less and its almost as if its dumbing down the trails. He goes quiet for a while. ANyway, he has 2.6 inch tyres front and back and he was like this is the first bike he feels so confident about. So i talk to him about tyres and widths and how they react. Wider tyres helps alot.
So anyway on the decent this is a guy who is normally on my wheel ended up being 20 or so seconds back. He certainly was not slow as we left the other guys for days. Could of been due to all the extremely tight, some steep, some wall ride berms. 
On another day, maybe he will be faster, but I can certainly agree, no one bike is faster, no one wheel size is faster. Ride what you like, and enjoy. Industry is there to push sales, survive the world of business and continue to grow. If not, then they will have to close.


----------



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

pedalinbob said:


> July 14
> Trek: 70 degrees, somewhat humid, nice trail conditions. Slowed 3 times to pass other riders.
> 39:49. This was my first time under 40mins. I rode the Trek 5 more times over the next 2 weeks.
> 
> ...


I don't doubt that you're faster on your old 26" bike but without power meter data and a lot more runs that info doesn't prove anything one way or the other. Interesting nonetheless.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

I've decided to send my custom Ventana back to be reconditioned and inspected rather than buy a new bike. The geo is the same as current bikes, except for the HT angle. I feel I"m slack enough at 67* and can always get a -1* headset if I want. I don't want to ride a chopper.

The CCDB and Zoke 44 RC3 Ti both need to be serviced and I could probably bump up from 9spd. 

Other than that, there's no need to spend any more money.


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

It did it's called 26 plus...now dead also!


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

For those that want a "modern" 26'er here's one way to do it. I ran this as full 650b, mini mullet, and full 26'er as seen here. I sold this frame because it was longer than I like (444 reach), but I will say it was super fast and stable at speed, I just prefer a shorter wheel base and a more compact feel. Here's the numbers you can have with 26" wheels: 64 HA, 75 ST, 14.5 BB, longer reach. This frame was great to try as a 26'er because it had a taller than average BB. Basically any 650b frame can be set up for 26" or mini mullets. The used market is spilling over with killer deals on 650b stuff because it's no longer the new thing everyone wants. No need to ***** about a lack of "modern 26'ers" for those that build rather than buy complete bikes. Just because you can't order up a 26"er with the geo you want doesn't mean you can't have it.


----------



## fredcook (Apr 2, 2009)

slimat99 said:


> For those that want a "modern" 26'er here's one way to do it. I ran this as full 650b, mini mullet, and full 26'er as seen here. I sold this frame because it was longer than I like (444 reach), but I will say it was super fast and stable at speed, I just prefer a shorter wheel base and a more compact feel. Here's the numbers you can have with 26" wheels: 64 HA, 75 ST, 14.5 BB, longer reach. This frame was great to try as a 26'er because it had a taller than average BB. Basically any 650b frame can be set up for 26" or mini mullets. The used market is spilling over with killer deals on 650b stuff because it's no longer the new thing everyone wants.* No need to ***** about a lack of "modern 26'ers" for those that build rather than buy complete bikes. Just because you can't order up a 26"er with the geo you want doesn't mean you can't have it.*


Good point! That opens things up for the smaller and younger rider looking for a "real" bike.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

fredcook said:


> Good point! That opens things up for the smaller and younger rider looking for a "real" bike.


 Probably tough to build a 650b with 26" wheels for a kid considering how long bikes are now. The bike pictured is size M but has a TT and reach of a size L or XL from 2012. Even this frame in size S runs longer than all the size M's I ran in the past. A kid would be better off buying an old 26'er in size S or XS. A great kids bike would be a 24/26 old 26'er. Considering old bikes are tall you would still have a manageable BB height.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

pedalinbob said:


> In this corner, we have the 29er, a 2018 Trek Top Fuel. 100mm front and rear, and the highly regarded RE:aktiv shock.
> Weight: 28.5lbs, including trail bell, bottle cage, mini frame pump, a saddlebag with a spare tube, patch kit, Crank Bros multitool, tire levers, extra zip ties, padded bag for keys, and extra chain link.
> Has bar ends (yes, bar ends, I like them), a carbon post, Bontrager XXX front wheel with Schwalbe Rocket Ron 29x2.25 Addix Speedgrip tubeless, and custom built rear with DT Swiss 350, Stan's rim, with a Continental Race King protection (Black Chili) tubeless. Two of the fastest tires out there.
> XT and SLX 1x11 drivetrain, Fox Rhythm 32 fork with Push seals.
> ...


And on both bikes you are basically averaging 11 mph. With 700 ft climbing in 7.2 miles, that is impressive and your level of fitness and the trail itself may be playing a role here.


----------



## pedalinbob (Jan 12, 2004)

Wow, thanks for the compliment Vespasianus!
I last raced in 2001. I'm in decent shape, and generally ride for fun but also love to compete against myself sometimes.

And you are correct: I tend to excel on trails that aren't super technical, but have shorter/steeper climbs (don't like rough trails too much).
I'm guessing must race because you have a keen sense of my performance.

I must say, I'm impressed by the folks that ride some of the super-techy stuff, especially out west. I've ridden some of it, and it was fun but some of it scares me.
Our trails are not as crazy, but sure are a LOT of fun!

Anyway, if ya like your bike, just proudly ride it and have a good time. I'd love to clone my little GT, because the handling is so intuitive.

Take care,
Bob


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

pedalinbob said:


> Wow, thanks for the compliment Vespasianus!
> I last raced in 2001. I'm in decent shape, and generally ride for fun but also love to compete against myself sometimes.
> 
> And you are correct: I tend to excel on trails that aren't super technical, but have shorter/steeper climbs (don't like rough trails too much).
> ...


Agree. This weekend in a group ride there was a giant guy - maybe 6"7 ridding an old 26" HT. Guess who was the fastest guy there?


----------



## smokehouse4444 (Apr 24, 2011)

I ride my 29er probably 85% of the time, but I still love to ride my frankenstein 26er on certain trails. I just ride with a bit more concentration, a bit more attention to detail with lines, etc...









Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## iRider (Nov 15, 2005)

mikesee said:


> The guy with a pile of 26" rims on his shelves collecting dust?


Do you by any chance have super light 26" XC rims on the shelves? Specifically: Stans Valor?


----------



## gravityryder26 (Feb 11, 2013)

I had a brand new set of Atomlab Pimplite hoops hanging on the wall in my garage for years. I decided it was time to lace them up to a new pair of Hope Pro-4 hubs and set up my old SX Trail with a 1x11 drive train. I'm so glad I did, this thing is a beast.


----------



## Ecurb_ATX840 (Feb 27, 2014)

I could imagine in like 10 years a retro come back to 26.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

iRider said:


> Do you by any chance have super light 26" XC rims on the shelves? Specifically: Stans Valor?


Silly human! You aren't supposed to want those. The industry said so. Remember, ashes, never to rise from, and all that?
JK, Stock up on sixes, if you got a pile of them, it doesn't matter what the trend is!


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

gravityryder26 said:


> I had a brand new set of Atomlab Pimplite hoops hanging on the wall in my garage for years. I decided it was time to lace them up to a new pair of Hope Pro-4 hubs and set up my old SX Trail with a 1x11 drive train. I'm so glad I did, this thing is a beast.
> 
> View attachment 1286943


That's one 26'er that will not lose value. As I'm sure you know the trail sx has a cult following. Bearclaw's SX from Roam had me drooling for one. I just watched that vid for the first time in many years because of Lunn passing.


----------



## Radium (Jan 11, 2019)

OP, I gotta admit your thread title is quite comical. 26"ers will never go away. The industry just wants more funding on the inflow, or the other wheel sizes would be things of the ephemeral realm. 26ers will continue to be able to do everything you could want from a bicycle, and do them very well. 

Just wait a bit, and see what's still there.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Radium said:


> OP, I gotta admit your thread title is quite comical. 26"ers will never go away.


They'll never come back either though. Quill stems, bar ends, rigid forks, triple chainrings and 1.9" tyres haven't gone away either....


----------



## LionelB (Dec 25, 2015)

pedalinbob said:


> In this corner, we have the 29er, a 2018 Trek Top Fuel. 100mm front and rear, and the highly regarded RE:aktiv shock.
> Weight: 28.5lbs, including trail bell, bottle cage, mini frame pump, a saddlebag with a spare tube, patch kit, Crank Bros multitool, tire levers, extra zip ties, padded bag for keys, and extra chain link.
> Has bar ends (yes, bar ends, I like them), a carbon post, Bontrager XXX front wheel with Schwalbe Rocket Ron 29x2.25 Addix Speedgrip tubeless, and custom built rear with DT Swiss 350, Stan's rim, with a Continental Race King protection (Black Chili) tubeless. Two of the fastest tires out there.
> XT and SLX 1x11 drivetrain, Fox Rhythm 32 fork with Push seals.
> ...


Very good post ! I sold my last two 26 a while back but sort of miss them (RacerX and RM Blizzard). Recently built a custom Seven 27.5 HT and really like it in CA. Also ride a Fuel EX.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

David R said:


> They'll never come back either though. Quill stems, bar ends, rigid forks, triple chainrings and 1.9" tyres haven't gone away either....


I mean rigid forks are still a thing that really isn't that uncommon....

Unlike those other things (minus rigid forks) though I think there is a good reason for 26s to come back.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

93EXCivic said:


> Unlike those other things (minus rigid forks) though I think there is a good reason for 26s to come back.


What significant advantage do they offer over 27.5"? If there was no real reason to change from 26" to 27.5" (other than the bike industry illuminati creating more marketing hype) then surely the same logic applies for the reverse now that 27.5" has become entrenched as the industry standard "small wheel" size for most MTBs?


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

David R said:


> What significant advantage do they offer over 27.5"? If there was no real reason to change from 26" to 27.5" (other than the bike industry illuminati creating more marketing hype) then surely the same logic applies for the reverse now that 27.5" has become entrenched as the industry standard "small wheel" size for most MTBs?


26in wheels should be stronger and can allow for short back ends. Also less rotational mass to make them more flickable To me they make more sense for park riding, jibbing, freeriding and obviously street and dirt jumping. Basically any trick based riding. There is a reason dirt jumpers and slopestyle bikes still run 26. And why you still see 26s on bikes at Rampage and the Fest series.

To me the question is what advantages do 27.5 offer over 26.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk


----------



## UPSed (Dec 26, 2010)

gravityryder26 said:


> I had a brand new set of Atomlab Pimplite hoops hanging on the wall in my garage for years. I decided it was time to lace them up to a new pair of Hope Pro-4 hubs and set up my old SX Trail with a 1x11 drive train. I'm so glad I did, this thing is a beast.
> 
> View attachment 1286943


I had an '07. My favorite of all the bikes I've owned.


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

93EXCivic said:


> To me the question is what advantages do 27.5 offer over 26?


Exactly why I started the thread.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

93EXCivic said:


> To me they make more sense for park riding, jibbing, freeriding and obviously street and dirt jumping. Basically any trick based riding. There is a reason dirt jumpers and slopestyle bikes still run 26. And why you still see 26s on bikes at Rampage and the Fest series.


So basically everything other than the normal every day mountain biking that about 90-something percent of mountain bikes sold are used for?


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

David R said:


> So basically everything other than the normal every day mountain biking that about 90-something percent of mountain bikes sold are used for?


Yeah but for 90 percent of the time 29ers make the most sense...

I think 26s make sense to come back as a niche market like fat bikes or 29+. I mean why not why would it hurt. I wouldn't own a 26 as my only bike but as a dick around bike for jibbing, pump tracks, 4x, etc, I would. I am planning on building one up just for that.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

93EXCivic said:


> Yeah but for 90 percent of the time 29ers make the most sense...
> 
> I think 26s make sense to come back as a niche market like fat bikes or 29+. I mean why not why would it hurt. I wouldn't own a 26 as my only bike but as a dick around bike for jibbing, pump tracks, 4x, etc, I would. I am planning on building one up just for that.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk


What all the people who say 26" will never come back are underestimating is just how much of the market 29'ers could takeover. Since the early days of 29'ers there have been people saying one day 29" will be the standard. People laughed at that but look at where we are now.

29'ers could kill 650b because they compete in the same markets. 650b never completely killed 26" because 26" occupies its own markets. If 29" swallows the 650b market it will actually die. The idea that 26" is coming back like before 650b and before 29'ers became really popular is what's laughable. 26" being an alternative to 29, is looking more and more likely.


----------



## TimoA (Dec 22, 2014)

You could be on to something here. At least I as a 29er trail bike driver am pining for something more nimble and less expensive to complement the big beast. Actually I'm going to build a SS street/dirt/light trail rig out of a 2008 Jamis Komodo next winter. It's going to be the first 26" I have ever owned.


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

93EXCivic said:


> To me the question is what advantages do 27.5 offer over 26.


None
It will make you buy a new bike and a lot of new parts and tires.

If you look at odometer charts , a 650 with 2,1 tire is 75mm more than a 26er with a 2,1.
I call BS for the "so much better roll over" of 650.









My 700 wheeled MTB is collecting dust.
These wheels feels like boat anchor.
(I agree for the better roll over though)


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

It won't come back as 26. It will come back as 26.75! That way, everything will have to be all new!


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

fokof said:


> None
> It will make you buy a new bike and a lot of new parts and tires.
> 
> If you look at odometer charts , a 650 with 2,1 tire is 75mm more than a 26er with a 2,1.
> ...


I don't think anybody sells a bike with a 27.5 X 2.1 tire anymore! Bikes with 27.5 X 2.6 tires are interesting and very different than the old 26" bike. In some ways, they are the gateway drug to 29er.


----------



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

fokof said:


> I call BS for the "so much better roll over" of 650.


One could just as easily call bs on 26" wheels being "so much lighter and more flickable" than 27.5


----------



## sfr4dr (Dec 24, 2004)

I have a 2012 Transition Covert that had about the most "modern" geo at the time. 150/160 travel and the 26" wheels don't hold it back too badly. My new 147/160 Ripmo though, climbs even better and descends and jumps vastly easier. Stability over large jumps is not even close. It's the geo, tires, wide wheels and latest suspension that make all the difference. The best modern 29ers are so nimble handling wise, there's no reason to ever go back.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

J.B. Weld said:


> One could just as easily call bs on 26" wheels being "so much lighter and more flickable" than 27.5


Then why are dirt jumpers still using 26in wheels...


----------



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

93EXCivic said:


> Then why are dirt jumpers still using 26in wheels...


Probably because dirt jumpers ride on super smooth groomed tracks but that wasn't really my point.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

J.B. Weld said:


> Probably because dirt jumpers ride on super smooth groomed tracks but that wasn't really my point.


Or maybe it is cause it allows for stronger wheels when you land sideways on a 360 attempt, allows for a shorter backend and all things being equal lighter wheels which make the bike more flickable.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> One could just as easily call bs on 26" wheels being "so much lighter and more flickable" than 27.5


Yep but my 26er is paid.
The 650 that I will not buy isn't.


----------



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

93EXCivic said:


> Or maybe it is cause it allows for stronger wheels when you land sideways on a 360 attempt, allows for a shorter backend and all things being equal lighter wheels which make the bike more flickable.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk


Why not 20" wheels? They're even stronger and more flickable.


----------



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

fokof said:


> Yep but my 26er is paid.
> The 650 that I will not buy isn't.


:thumbsup:

I'm by no means anti 26, they have their place for sure. Can't see them making a comeback for mountain bikes though.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

J.B. Weld said:


> Why not 20" wheels? They're even stronger and more flickable.


Because they don't have the rollover needed for mountain biking...

Whereas 40+ years of mountain bike has shown 26in has adequate rollover.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

My 6fattie is the same od as a 29'r, hell I dunno even know who to argue with. 

Oh, and my 26'r won't goes to ashes. Just remembered the Black Forest Fire from years ago and our friends aluminum ladder. It was a liquefied stream. I guess my bike will just be a puddle I step over. 
I'll be ready !!

When's this gonna happen ?


----------



## Emax (Dec 4, 2005)

sfr4dr said:


> The best modern 29ers are so nimble handling wise, there's no reason to ever go back.


Road bikes are so smooth riding - there is no reason to ever go offroad... Yeah, that is not how biking works - everyone rides where they like and what they like - hey - you want to go off road on 1 wheel - have fun! I don't really get the whole "26er is dead" mantra that some folks seem to keep repeating - does it offend you to see 26ers on the trails? I'm equally amazed at manufacturers that they don't see an opportunity to make good parts for folks who want to maintain their older bikes - they don't want to make money? 
I love mountain biking as a whole package - riding and building my bikes up from a frame - I have 4 bikes Titus Loco Moto, MotoLite, Yeti 575, and Ventana Pantera - and even though thesa re different manufacturers and the bikes were made between 2002 and 2006 - I can swap all the parts between the Ventana and MotoLite, and between the LocoMoto and 575 (except for front derr). What that means is that at any given time I can keep at least 1 bike running. These bikes all ride differently and each is a ton of fun, I've had them all since new, built them all up, modernized over time and they suit my riding style on the technical east coast trails.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

sfr4dr said:


> I have a 2012 Transition Covert that had about the most "modern" geo at the time. 150/160 travel and the 26" wheels don't hold it back too badly. My new 147/160 Ripmo though, climbs even better and descends and jumps vastly easier. Stability over large jumps is not even close. It's the geo, tires, wide wheels and latest suspension that make all the difference. The best modern 29ers are so nimble handling wise, there's no reason to ever go back.


Your 2012 covert didn't have the most modern geo at the time. You had the same geo as an 2006 nomad, or enduro for example. If you want to compare apples to apples you need similar geo to suss out what wheel size is doing for you.


----------



## johnnyrmxd (Nov 23, 2014)

In the near future it is highly unlikely. It is not just a question of availability of frames, hoops, and other 26" components. It is a question of how are bikes being used - and more and more people are going for more rough technical trails.

However in some years, we might experience some small vintage market, and of course, if it happens that bmx/dirt/freeride disciplines became more popular (which is not very likely) 26" are coming back in big style. But the problem is - those few disciplines where 26" inch wheels are clear advantage are themselves a bit adolescent-gimmicky, to say the least. And adolescents do not have a big disposable incomes to lure bike companies back into the 26" game.

Maybe, but this is a highly hypothetical stretch - if China (and India, and some other developing countries) develop MTB culture, we might see return of 26" in big style. The logic is, that USA and Europe are the main markets for bikes, and people in those regions (especially Europe) tend to be a lot higher on average. People in China are a lot smaller, and they simply do not fit 29" geometry properly. So if Chinese people start riding proper MTB (instead of just producing bikes and parts), we might se future with 29" and 26" bikes (as it was a few years ago).


----------



## Radium (Jan 11, 2019)

26" wheels can handle any trail that 29" wheels can. The rougher more tech trails are more easily negotiable because of suspension improvements, mostly, and frame geo for the rest. 

Don't ever forget that the big corporations control the way you think. 









'


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

johnnyrmxd said:


> In the near future it is highly unlikely. It is not just a question of availability of frames, hoops, and other 26" components. It is a question of how are bikes being used - and more and more people are going for more rough technical trails.
> 
> However in some years, we might experience some small vintage market, and of course, if it happens that bmx/dirt/freeride disciplines became more popular (which is not very likely) 26" are coming back in big style. But the problem is - those few disciplines where 26" inch wheels are clear advantage are themselves a bit adolescent-gimmicky, to say the least. And adolescents do not have a big disposable incomes to lure bike companies back into the 26" game.
> 
> Maybe, but this is a highly hypothetical stretch - if China (and India, and some other developing countries) develop MTB culture, we might see return of 26" in big style. The logic is, that USA and Europe are the main markets for bikes, and people in those regions (especially Europe) tend to be a lot higher on average. People in China are a lot smaller, and they simply do not fit 29" geometry properly. So if Chinese people start riding proper MTB (instead of just producing bikes and parts), we might se future with 29" and 26" bikes (as it was a few years ago).


More and more are riding rough technical trails? I've rode all over the country. Hands down trials are easier and more sanitized than in the past. here's one example: I recently rode the whole enchilada. It's laughable at how much more tame it is now. They built a bridge over the burrow pass creek gap, sanitized the notch even after putting in the snotch for those that can't ride it; all the technical sections of pork rim single track have been rock ramped or rerouted to easier lines. I can go on and on just in the moab area. Don't get me started on machine built "modern" trails compared to hand built, or old school DH tracks. There's no comparison, bikes have become more capable, trails have become easier. Maybe when 29'ers take over people will want technical again? I won't hold my breath though. The pattern has been clear over the past 10+ years. It's going to take a major culture change in the MTB community that I'm not seeing any signs of.


----------



## iRider (Nov 15, 2005)

MattiThundrrr said:


> Silly human! You aren't supposed to want those. The industry said so. Remember, ashes, never to rise from, and all that?
> JK, Stock up on sixes, if you got a pile of them, it doesn't matter what the trend is!


I already have stocked up. ;-)
And in contrast to many I can think for myself and find out what works for me. Building a super light 26" XC bike ATM, this is why I need light rims. If 29" wheels can go down to below 1200 g, then 800-900 g 26" wheels should be possible as well.


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

Radium said:


> 26" wheels can handle any trail that 29" wheels can. The rougher more tech trails are more easily negotiable because of suspension improvements, mostly, and frame geo for the rest.
> 
> Don't ever forget that the big corporations control the way you think.


Through the years, I've seen a lot of those 'test' videos putting rubber to the trail. Same bike and variations on wheel size with same tire have proven many specs on paper and fractions of an inch or a few mm here or there doesn't really show up at the finish line or on the timed runs. 
The same rider trying to hold the exact same line each run and variations on the dirt or traction in any 10 foot path of the route does make a difference though. A slight stumble or a more confident run will be just the nuance to make a difference as well. When it's clear the riders exploit the traits and personality of the bike adapting to it's strengths and work around the rest, you see the tire choice or even the psi they run can be "the" differential.

Maybe for some, the specs really just spark a mind set for expected results or a slight advantage like leading witness testimony or the red Mustang looks faster than a blue one.


----------



## johnnyrmxd (Nov 23, 2014)

slimat99 said:


> More and more are riding rough technical trails? I've rode all over the country. Hands down trials are easier and more sanitized than in the past.


I am coming from the XC world, and here where I live (Austria) XC is pretty much 90% of mountain biking. And it IS getting more and more technical. Also, majority of people here do NOT ride in parks, we ride in nature (Austria is nicknamed "Alpine Republic").
Perhaps it is truly different where you live.


----------



## johnnyrmxd (Nov 23, 2014)

Radium said:


> 26" wheels can handle any trail that 29" wheels can. The rougher more tech trails are more easily negotiable because of suspension improvements, mostly, and frame geo for the rest.
> 
> Don't ever forget that the big corporations control the way you think.
> '


True.
However, all other things being equal - 29" are more capable. And majority of sold bikes are still HT bikes, and for them 29" is a clear advantage.
I must also confess - I am a bit unfairly in favour of 29". That is because I am 193cm tall (6'4''), and therefore for me 26" wheels are like clown wheels (I look a bit clownish when riding a 26"). That being said - I am soooooo happy 26" died and along came 29"!


----------



## riyadh (Feb 13, 2015)

Everyone or most people appose dumbing down trails. Then ride 29ers because of the better rollover etc created by a 29" wheel. So now you are mechanically dumbing down the trail. 26ers are fun. Guys who have only ridden a 29er on a trail, please try a 26er, see how much work u put in and what you rewarded with.


----------



## pedalinbob (Jan 12, 2004)

bachman1961 said:


> Through the years, I've seen a lot of those 'test' videos putting rubber to the trail. Same bike and variations on wheel size with same tire have proven many specs on paper and fractions of an inch or a few mm here or there doesn't really show up at the finish line or on the timed runs.
> The same rider trying to hold the exact same line each run and variations on the dirt or traction in any 10 foot path of the route does make a difference though. A slight stumble or a more confident run will be just the nuance to make a difference as well. When it's clear the riders exploit the traits and personality of the bike adapting to it's strengths and work around the rest, you see the tire choice or even the psi they run can be "the" differential.
> 
> Maybe for some, the specs really just spark a mind set for expected results or a slight advantage like leading witness testimony or the red Mustang looks faster than a blue one.


Nicely stated.
I do like my 29er a lot. I've worked to adapt to its strengths and weaknesses, and to adapt it to me. I have 6 different stems, 5 handlebars, multiple seatposts etc to allow me to fine tune my position. 
It really is a great bike, but I admit that it doesn't readily mesh with my style. I bought it because it looked the most similar to the GT.

I'm able to exploit the GTs capabilities in ways that I can't with the Trek. We have a lot of tight turns and switchbacks, and it can easily turn inside the Treks line. 100mm shorter wheelbase results in a much tighter turn radius.
There are trail sections where you are turning every 5-10 seconds for minutes at a time.
The GT slaughters this stuff.

I think a person used to 29ers would flail on the GT. You must ride very quiet, with small inputs, or it will dart all over. 
Whereas the (much stronger than me) 29er rider would probably employ much more body input (steering from the hips), and get into trouble.

I'm hoping I can find a 29 or maybe 27.5 that more closely mirrors the GT's handling, as it is getting pretty long in the tooth.
I hear Ibis may have something...

Bob


----------



## johnnyrmxd (Nov 23, 2014)

riyadh said:


> 26ers are fun. Guys who have only ridden a 29er on a trail, please try a 26er, see how much work u put in and what you rewarded with.


Well, I'm not that young - for the good part of my life I was forced to ride 26er. They were always sketchy to me cause, like I said, I'm 193cm, so I have a high centre of gravity. Also, 26er of those days had really steep HT angle, which was even worse for a tall rider like myself. And I did not had more direct feeling of trail cause my handlebar was kinda far away from front hub axis.
Now I say again, I am 193cm tall. That basically mean that everything (including the trail itself) is relatively smaller for me. If someone is let's say, 174cm tall, pretty much the whole universe is about 10% bigger from his or hers perspective. Hence, that person thinks that tight turn of the trail is 2.70 meters in diameter, for me it is 3.0 m.
Also, I had more traction issues with 26er, for the same reason, me being taller and heavier. And the facts that my peak power is above 1000W and I have +85kg, and good part of that is upper body, was also problematic for 26er.
So to conclude, if someone is let's say 174cm tall, has 70kg, and peak power 700W, it makes sense that 26er is more fun for that person. For me it is the 29er thats more fun. But I admit, that perhaps 28er would be ideal for me.


----------



## Emax (Dec 4, 2005)

I just came across this video on youtube:





I think there is some truth to what they say in the video. The timing of Gravel bike emergence certainly coincides with the "sunsetting" of the 26er. And make no mistake about it - 26er was sunsetted to force people not to buy them. The first 29ers that everyone was so eager to buy did not have the modern geometry, or all the new standards that emerged to address the shortcomings of the 29er... so essentially they were buying fairly imperfect bikes just because they heard they were better.

There is certainly truth to the fact that most people don't live in Alpine Edens of Europe or Colorado, and in truth, if the 29er is so much easier to ride - then where is the challenge? I've noticed that on east coast the trend is to build new trails that are smooth and flowy, yet the main benefit of the 29er was to roll over rocks better... so why not making the trails more rocky? Where I ride the terrain is pretty technical with rock gardens (actually man made by farmers over a hundred years ago) and glacial slickrock - I love riding these on my FS 26ers.

So why sunset the 26er? Truly, I have no idea. I have a sneaking suspicion that with the 26er present, the 29er and 27.5 would not have taken off as they did. So sunsetting was done to disrupt the sport for commercial reasons. How else to explain that time, effort and money was spent on promoting gravel bikes, fat bikes etc, yet 26 was deemed unworthy? Why were so many new standards generated and then lastly what has happened to parts pricing, serviceability, and manufacturer support? I feel that the industry is now much more calculating and less passion driven - which is good for the bottom line, but I'm not sure it is great for the consumer.

What does all this have to do with 26er coming back from the ashes - well... if money motivates this industry, then that's it - if there is money in bringing back the 26ers back then they will be back.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

Its funny that people still think its a conspiracy. 

These are luxury items that none of us in any way "need". Its pretty hard to force someones hand on completely optional purchases. Even now in 2019, I still see people trail riding on 90's bikes. The standards that people claim to be "forced" into, you can still readily buy the old stuff anywhere you look. 

People just dont want to buy it. Riders overwhelmingly want the new stuff. Its always been rider driven.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

johnnyrmxd said:


> I am coming from the XC world, and here where I live (Austria) XC is pretty much 90% of mountain biking. And it IS getting more and more technical. Also, majority of people here do NOT ride in parks, we ride in nature (Austria is nicknamed "Alpine Republic").
> Perhaps it is truly different where you live.


You are right, xc has become more technical than in the past. I'm referring to general trail riding and DH in USA. I live on Colorado so I'm well familiar with Alpine riding. A lot of our alpine gets dumbed down. It's only the remote, less frequently used trails that stay natural and technical. Basically anytime a trail becomes a popular MTB trail either individual riders or trail crews sanitize it to some degree. I've seen this pretty much everywhere I ride outside of my local trails too. I'm jealous of your MTB culture over there. You guys seem to value technical challenging terrain a lot more than here.


----------



## Radium (Jan 11, 2019)

bachman1961 said:


> Through the years, I've seen a lot of those 'test' videos putting rubber to the trail. Same bike and variations on wheel size with same tire have proven many specs on paper and fractions of an inch or a few mm here or there doesn't really show up at the finish line or on the timed runs.
> The same rider trying to hold the exact same line each run and variations on the dirt or traction in any 10 foot path of the route does make a difference though. A slight stumble or a more confident run will be just the nuance to make a difference as well. When it's clear the riders exploit the traits and personality of the bike adapting to it's strengths and work around the rest, you see the tire choice or even the psi they run can be "the" differential.
> 
> Maybe for some, the specs really just spark a mind set for expected results or a slight advantage like leading witness testimony or the red Mustang looks faster than a blue one.


Another thing to acknowledge is that the very forums we discuss this stuff on are industry driven. So, corporate funded, industry 'research comes up with the conclusion that the latest is better than the prior, and the retail sales keep going.

Then the products are 'tested' by forum staff, who always praise whatever it is they test. Especially if it's coming from a big corporate sponsor. The forums shill the products, and the regular joes then endlessly argue the merits of them, or just parrot the reviews or that 'research'.

The motto here used to be "swag ho!"

Of course, there's an exception to every rule. My favorite bike for the last 6 years has been a 29"er, but then again, I'm an 'old man'. I'm out of the 'loop' of bs altogether...


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> One could just as easily call bs on 26" wheels being "so much lighter and more flickable" than 27.5


There's no BS about 26" being lighter. That's like saying it's BS that a 2.3 tire is lighter than a 2.5. All things equal a 26" wheelset with tires will be around .25lbs lighter. While that's not a ton it's worth more to me than .5" bigger attack angle.


----------



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

^you missed the point, I never said they weren't lighter.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

Emax said:


> I just came across this video on youtube:


I think there is a lot of truth to that. Honestly back in the early 90's, in some of the races people showed up on cross bikes and schooled us on mountain bikes. I partly think that is one reason people started to think of 700cc wheels (29ers) for mountain biking.

Today, I see more people on gravel and cross bikes on the trails than ever. As the video says, I think it is partly because the trails are easier and on a 29er with 2.6" tires, pretty uninspiring.


----------



## Emax (Dec 4, 2005)

One Pivot said:


> Its funny that people still think its a conspiracy.
> 
> These are luxury items that none of us in any way "need". Its pretty hard to force someones hand on completely optional purchases. Even now in 2019, I still see people trail riding on 90's bikes. The standards that people claim to be "forced" into, you can still readily buy the old stuff anywhere you look.
> 
> People just dont want to buy it. Riders overwhelmingly want the new stuff. Its always been rider driven.


Believe what you want... but these days marketing is pretty advanced, and with the use o "influencers" bikers aren't forced to buy anything they are influenced to buy. Spending money makes people feel good about themselves - and the newer and more expensive thing they can buy the better they feel. People can have a tom of fun on their old 26ers, but the marketing materials switched on the 29ers right away - and that's what people wanted. Look - single speed, unsuspended bikes are still around - and that's not the latest tech - so why so much hate for the 26er? When you say that you can buy old stuff everywhere you look - that's true - but what? they can't make the new old stuff? And it's not like there is much choice in a straight 1/8 steerer 26er forks out there, or triple cranksets, and even the choices of tires are getting slim... there is only so much new old stock that's going to be out there.
To me the clearest evidence of industry imposing its will on riders is the disc brake on road bike thing... pros resisted it, and the majority of riders didn't ask for it (after all how many folks ride road in the rain). But like I said - believe what you want.


----------



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

Emax said:


> To me the clearest evidence of industry imposing its will on riders is the disc brake on road bike thing... pros resisted it, and the majority of riders didn't ask for it (after all how many folks ride road in the rain). But like I said - believe what you want.


I don't ride my mtb's in the rain but I still like disc brakes on them, and if you live in a mountainous area disc brakes on a road bike are a really good thing imo. With most bike models the choice is yours so the market will decide which is preferable.

I don't think there's any hate for 26'ers, I just don't think most people care much one about them one way or the other as long as there are good bikes available to ride. And there are.


----------



## digitalayon (Jul 31, 2007)

stay off the internet and go back to your radio.....this modern stuff is too new for you


----------



## DeoreDX (Jul 28, 2007)

slimat99 said:


> Basically anytime a trail becomes a popular MTB trail either individual riders or trail crews sanitize it to some degree.


I started riding during the rise of mountain biking in the 90's stopped riding around 2k when the grown up world caught up with me. I recently started riding again when my 11 yo son picked up mountain biking. I dusted off the old 26'r and he's been riding a 26r we built up for him. People talk about how different the bikes are, to me the trails are the biggest difference between now and then. They feel like an amusement park ride with all of the pumps to jumps and big banked berms. All the trails feel like they are about carrying big speed and hitting big jumps. All the technical bits where you can't carry speed and you need balance and good bike handling to make it through without putting your foot down seem to be gone. Sanitized is a good way to word it.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Vespasianus said:


> I think there is a lot of truth to that. Honestly back in the early 90's, in some of the races people showed up on cross bikes and schooled us on mountain bikes. I partly think that is one reason people started to think of 700cc wheels (29ers) for mountain biking.
> 
> Today, I see more people on gravel and cross bikes on the trails than ever. As the video says, I think it is partly because the trails are easier and on a 29er with 2.6" tires, pretty uninspiring.


It does make sense. I just read today's PB article on the Pisgah. The guy was talking about the Black mountain trail being reworked because it was rutted and un ridable. Riders used to handle that and tougher Pisgah trails in a more raw technical condition with no suspension, rim brakes, and OTB geo. Eroded root drop offs, ruts with rocks and woods litter in the middle... That's always been its condition and we never had to walk anything even with crap bikes. I know the Pisgah, especially the northern Pisgah still has proper tech, but more and more areas that used to be known for technical terrain are being widened and smoothed out so we can go faster on our stretched limo, raked out, 29'ers. It's just a weird era we are in were bikes are better and trails are easier. If I could take a young enduro bro back in time with their modern 29'er they would probably struggle with what parts of the Pisgah used to be like, but they think today's wide bermed out trails are gnarlier because now there's a built sender that gaps 20' out but requires no more skill than the ability to hit it at speed and not freak out in the air. I like to send it as much as the next guy, but let's leave tech trails technical, and not widen and smooth out everything thinking you can bring back the challenge in the form of a built jump. Jumps can be built in Kansas, you can't build Pisgah tech.


----------



## mnpikey (Sep 18, 2017)

I believe they've already made a comeback. They just call them gravel bikes now.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

digitalayon said:


> stay off the trails and go back to your internet.....this mountain biking stuff is too old for you


Fixed it for you!


----------



## johnnyrmxd (Nov 23, 2014)

mnpikey said:


> I believe they've already made a comeback. They just call them gravel bikes now.


And on the roady side now they are trying to spread the story about that new (actually) forgotten „french" road wheel standard.
Personally I find the gravel thing to be both fascinating and dull.
Fascinating for blurring borders between road and mtb world, and dull for bringing no truly new technology and no truly new capabilities of bikes (in terms of where and how you can ride bikes).
And yes, 26" old school rigid mtb is the closest thing to gravel in 2019.
But here is one thought - that „french" standard is damn close to 26" mtb. Maybe we see some „quasy gravel 26" mtb love story" in the near future???

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

johnnyrmxd said:


> Maybe we see some „quasy gravel 26" mtb love story" in the near future???
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Is this the sort of thing you mean by '„quasy gravel 26" mtb love story"'?

https://forums.mtbr.com/gravel-bikes/garbage-gravel-bike-1113641.html

The debate over whether it should be done gets pretty heated at times.

https://forums.mtbr.com/gravel-bikes/why-not-gravel-hardtail-1022755.html


----------



## johnnyrmxd (Nov 23, 2014)

Hard to say. World market is so complex that even high paid marketing expert teams make misses (27.5 anyone?)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Schulze (Feb 21, 2007)

Wheel size didn't matter to me but when I broke my 26" frame I tried to get a nice light one with clearance for 2.6 tires and couldn't find one. Got a 27 instead. It's basically the same.


----------



## Tristan Wolf (Oct 21, 2019)

Not likely in the near future but not impossible and here are the reasons:

- Trends often come multiple times (like those air soled sneakers).
- Technology is already there cause machines that are now being used for budget 26“ do not care if you use more quality materials for more expensive 26“.
- Marketing teams coping with market saturation might push them again.
- China is a huge market and they are getting richer. If they got into MTB sport, they could opt for 26“, cause people are a lot smaller there and 29“ geometry is not optimal for most.
- Rise in more upscale bike market for kids/adolescents could spark general 26“ reemergence.

That being said, I believe 29“ are here to stay for a long time cause they do offer clear advantages. However, if 26“ were „dumb“ or „weak“ they would not last for decades.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DarknutMike (Jun 2, 2013)

I do think 26 will come back but it will be a long while & in the meantime 26 will stay a niche size, that a lot more people than the bike co's will admit, still ride. I do know is I will never own a 29'er I can't stand them & I have tried many many of them ... & yes the latest ones. They are about as much fun as going to the dentist.


----------



## DarknutMike (Jun 2, 2013)

I do think 26 will come back but it will be a long while. In the meantime 26 will stay a niche size, that a lot more people than the bike co's will admit, still ride.

I do know I will never own a 29'er I can't stand them & I have tried many many of them ... & yes the latest ones. They are about as much fun as going to the dentist.


----------



## kk2 (Sep 29, 2014)

IMO 26ers are done forever - unfortunately. That's why I got a 27.5 in a not too slack geometry. And 27.5 in a XC geometry has also disappeared. Sure 29ers are more stable and tad faster on more open terrain but, in my area there is still plenty of tight and twisty trails where small wheels outshine the large ones. That's why I have the small wheeled bikes. Depending where I ride that's the bike I take. If I was going to keep only one bike it would be 27.5. As for my 26er one thing that I would like to change in it is the taper head tube and through axle. The bike feels a bit flexy. Also due to its size it is the easiest bike to toss in the back of my station wagon when I go for longer trips or put it on the plane.


----------



## DH_Rider_JaKoby (Oct 22, 2019)

I think that 26ers are dead, and will not come back. The Mountain biking industry is shifting from maneuverability, to speed, fast. 26ers are the best for maneuvering around, and dirt jumping, while 27.5s offer a mix of speed, and maneuverability, and 29ers don’t turn, or jump as well, while still going faster. This is a rick/trade off that major bike company’s are willing to take.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

DH_Rider_JaKoby said:


> I think that 26ers are dead, and will not come back. The Mountain biking industry is shifting from maneuverability, to speed, fast. 26ers are the best for maneuvering around, and dirt jumping, while 27.5s offer a mix of speed, and maneuverability, and 29ers don't turn, or jump as well, while still going faster. This is a rick/trade off that major bike company's are willing to take.


The industry is "shifting from maneuverability, to speed." Speed has been the focus since enduro and Strava blew up many years ago. It's hard to say what future trends hold, but we won't just keep trending exactly the same. What bikes look like when trends change is speculation, whether trends change isn't speculation, it's guaranteed.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

Anyone need some 26er tires... 

The whole thing is a bit of a joke in the end.

My "26x2.35" nobby nics have the same actual diametre and my "27.5x2.1" thunder burts, and also the same as my "700x33" x-one's.

Point being, theres tons of overlap, and between the super extremes of say, 26x1.5 vs 29x3, most of its in your head regarding the actual wheel diametre. The geometry of the bike is mostly what you are going to notice. 29ers are built tall and long... they dont necessarily have to be, but they usually are to accommodate the extreme end of things. If you built a 26 with the same proportions, you likely would have a hard time telling the difference. 

sorry


----------



## Tristan Wolf (Oct 21, 2019)

You know that Steve Jobs famously said that he does not give to people what they want cause people do not know what they want before being told. And he therefore tells people what they want.
I guess we should wait till key industry people tell us that speed is soopid, and we should love maneuverability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

Well, when you have an industry that makes a product that is basically "good enough" and lasts years and years, you need to invent reasons for everyone to throw it away and buy new bikes.

Tell everyone their wheels are wrong. That's a good one. Change the diameter by a few mm. Change the axles by a few mm. oh my god, how are you riding that obsolete POS?!

Then find that picture of john tomac in 1989 racing with drop bars... Whole new industry selling you the bike you already had before they told you it was all wrong!

I do like that things are not being driven by pro racing anymore at least. Road being the last to really snap those ties with discs being considered more important than UCI rules. In this 90's, you could buy race inspired mountain bikes, and race inspired road bikes, and very little else. Even the $99 department store bikes were "race bikes".

I also used to be able to ask for a "mountain bike wheel" and that meant something that would fit on my bike... So there is a downside. I have 4 mountain bikes and none of them can share a wheel. 

26 is dead. It didn't need to die, but it did. It wont come back because there's no reason to, since there was no reason to change in the first place, other than to sell more new bikes.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Trends come and go. 650b had its day in the sun. It never killed 26" but 29 very well could kill 650b. I'm not betting on a return of 26", but it's safe to say it's not going anywhere. I have zero confidence the industry won't pull the plug on my 650b super enduro bike sometime in the future. 26" died in the mainstream, it never went anywhere for the most skilled riding styles in the sport. It's good to see the goat of slope back in the mix this year!

https://www.vitalmtb.com/photos/fea...randon-Semenuks-Trek-Session,134655/sspomer,2


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

They seem to be doing something inteligent with 29 now. it was fading away a few years ago.

But, the trend now is that smaller sizes get 27.5, and larger ones get 29. I could imagine a point where the extra small / women's bikes get 26. 

My GT is a small, with 27.5, the size up has 29.


----------



## kk2 (Sep 29, 2014)

smashysmashy said:


> Well, when you have an industry that makes a product that is basically "good enough" and lasts years and years, you need to invent reasons for everyone to throw it away and buy new bikes.
> 
> Tell everyone their wheels are wrong. That's a good one. Change the diameter by a few mm. Change the axles by a few mm. oh my god, how are you riding that obsolete POS?!
> 
> ...


Excellent Point. The same now applies to geometry of XC bikes. I hear "As the XC trails evolve and become more technical the racers need more stable bikes with more suspension". Sounds more like the industry is pushing for more technical trails so that they can sell new models of XC bikes. Today XC bike is more like yesterday trail bike.


----------



## Leopold Porkstacker (Apr 21, 2010)

I’m eagerly looking forward to the return to popularity of the 12er bikes. Smaller the wheel size, the greater the rider skill involved.

I deem the subject matter involved in this thread to be a waste of anyone’s time posting; go out and RIDE your 12er.


----------



## Tristan Wolf (Oct 21, 2019)

kk2 said:


> Excellent Point. The same now applies to geometry of XC bikes. I hear "As the XC trails evolve and become more technical the racers need more stable bikes with more suspension". Sounds more like the industry is pushing for more technical trails so that they can sell new models of XC bikes. Today XC bike is more like yesterday trail bike.


I still think most of the MTBs of today are overengineered and more capable that the trails really need. But hey I'm just a guy who rides only HT bikes, and do not salivate when watching those red-bull rampage videos or whatever. And the main reason I ride 29" is because I'm very tall and I ride XC. Otherwise, I would ride 650B for XC, and 26" for FS technical.

To conclude, even though 29" and FS are more capable, 26" and HT are capable enough for the most of the trails most of the guys ride.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

smashysmashy said:


> Well, when you have an industry that makes a product that is basically "good enough" and lasts years and years, you need to invent reasons for everyone to throw it away and buy new bikes.
> 
> Tell everyone their wheels are wrong. That's a good one. Change the diameter by a few mm. Change the axles by a few mm. oh my god, how are you riding that obsolete POS?!
> 
> ...


Very well said.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

smashysmashy said:


> Well, when you have an industry that makes a product that is basically "good enough" and lasts years and years, you need to invent reasons for everyone to throw it away and buy new bikes.
> 
> Tell everyone their wheels are wrong. That's a good one. Change the diameter by a few mm. Change the axles by a few mm. oh my god, how are you riding that obsolete POS?!
> 
> ...


Actually bikes are being driving more by pro racing than ever before. Long, low and slack all came from eduro racing. The whole "down country" thing stems from XC race tracks being more technical than in the past. 29'er DH bikes are all from racing. If you like bikes that aren't influenced so much by racing that era has passed. AM and FR bikes were developed for trail riding and jibbing, not racing. Enduro replaced both those markets with race bread bikes that are highly biased towards stability at speed. My guess is before long we will see trends swing away from race bread bikes to something akin to AM of the past. Meaning trail bikes meant to be capable of whatever the rider wants while not being focused on anything in particular. My guess is such a bike will be steeper in the HA say no slacker than 66, reach will be shorter but not old school compact. I say this because I don't see today's stretched limo, raked out, speed machines trending for too much longer. Most don't have access to enough gravity to make use of such bikes. As far as being able to go into a shop knowing they have what you need? We'll never see that again. It was nice while it lasted wasn't it! Tires, rims, axle standards, BB's, chain rings.... Never did we wonder if any given shop had what we needed. Shops blame online shopping for their struggles. It's like the industry wasn't to make life as tough as possible for shops which in turn makes our lives more difficult too. No matter, the money is flowing like never before so there is no problem from their standpoint.


----------



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

slimat99 said:


> As far as being able to go into a shop knowing they have what you need? We'll never see that again. It was nice while it lasted wasn't it!


Well stocked shops still exist.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

J.B. Weld said:


> Well stocked shops still exist.


It's not about well stocked. its about being all different. if I taco the rear wheel on my GT pantera, I cant take the wheel from my giant, or my other gt, or my cannondale. 3 spare high end wheels, all useless for each other.

Now, im the dumbass that bought them, soo....


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

slimat99 said:


> Actually bikes are being driving more by pro racing than ever before. Long, low and slack all came from eduro racing. The whole "down country" thing stems from XC race tracks being more technical than in the past. 29'er DH bikes are all from racing. If you like bikes that aren't influenced so much by racing that era has passed. AM and FR bikes were developed for trail riding and jibbing, not racing. Enduro replaced both those markets with race bread bikes that are highly biased towards stability at speed. My guess is before long we will see trends swing away from race bread bikes to something akin to AM of the past. Meaning trail bikes meant to be capable of whatever the rider wants while not being focused on anything in particular. My guess is such a bike will be steeper in the HA say no slacker than 66, reach will be shorter but not old school compact. I say this because I don't see today's stretched limo, raked out, speed machines trending for too much longer. Most don't have access to enough gravity to make use of such bikes. As far as being able to go into a shop knowing they have what you need? We'll never see that again. It was nice while it lasted wasn't it! Tires, rims, axle standards, BB's, chain rings.... Never did we wonder if any given shop had what we needed. Shops blame online shopping for their struggles. It's like the industry wasn't to make life as tough as possible for shops which in turn makes our lives more difficult too. No matter, the money is flowing like never before so there is no problem from their standpoint.


I've largely ignored enduro. I think all my "newer" bikes (2015, 2018, 2019 models) would be classed as trail riding hardtails. Not XC (well maybe someone would call a cannondale trail sl1 xc), not enduro for sure. The base bikes are not "high end" though. they run in the 1-2k range as sold in the store. (i've made them all more fancy of course)

The market differs in different countries as well I think.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

Leopold Porkstacker said:


> .
> I deem the subject matter involved in this thread to be a waste of anyone's time posting; go out and RIDE your 12er.


Translation: "I have time to waste, and advice that's good for others doesn't apply to me"


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

MattiThundrrr said:


> Translation: "I have time to waste, and advice that's good for others doesn't apply to me"


Agreed 100%. It's starting to get cold so we all need to put our 2 cents in.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

smashysmashy said:


> I've largely ignored enduro. I think all my "newer" bikes (2015, 2018, 2019 models) would be classed as trail riding hardtails. Not XC (well maybe someone would call a cannondale trail sl1 xc), not enduro for sure. The base bikes are not "high end" though. they run in the 1-2k range as sold in the store. (i've made them all more fancy of course)
> 
> The market differs in different countries as well I think.


Regardless of whether you care about the enduro trend, or even actively try to avoid it, it likely influenced the HT's you ride. If your HT's are longer, lower, or slacker than their predecessors, they were influenced by enduro racing. It's hard to find anything from 2015 and up that didn't grow in reach, slacken to some degree, and lower a bit. All that came from enduro racing. I guess you could say DH was doing it first, but enduro brought it to every market even XC hardtails. Now we call xc bikes with enduro influenced geo "down country."


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> Well stocked shops still exist.


That's a good one. Made me laugh.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

Enduro sucks.



Those are fair points.

Now excuse me while i take my new 12 speed SLX hub to the lathe so it can fit a QR frame.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

slimat99 said:


> That's a good one. Made me laugh.


i had to go to 6 shops today to find someone that sold.. SPOKES!


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

smashysmashy said:


> Enduro sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Haha. The things we do for compatibility. I'm sticking with sram because I have three xd drivers. If Shimano would have used that standard I would go shimano. No matter, every shop always has sram or shimano 11 and 12 speed standards, as well as everything I need for my 26'er. It's not like adding another spline standard makes anything more difficult for riders or shops. It's just a matter of being well stocked.


----------



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

smashysmashy said:


> i had to go to 6 shops today to find someone that sold.. SPOKES!


Spokes are about the hardest thing for shops to stock, you can have $10,000 tied up in spokes and still not have the ones a customer comes in for.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

What is this, 1902? Order your spokes online like a civilized human, you savages!

Things change. Even the well stocked bike shop is on its way out. It's just plain not necessary. I can have anything I need in any standard or size, usually by tomorrow morning. Sometimes same day. It's seriously faster to sit home and order than wait until I can swing by the bike shop on a Saturday.

But that has nothing to do with bikes. Entire malls are closing down, people just dont shop like that anymore. 

We get a new iPhone every year that sells out before it's even released. People buy a weird amount of "upgrade" TV's all the time. For some reason people still believe it's a conspiracy when bikes make a small change every so often.


----------



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

One Pivot said:


> Things change. Even the well stocked bike shop is on its way out. It's just plain not necessary.


You and many others on this forum are you the minority. There are people who have no idea how to even inflate a tire, much less install one. Lots of people don't have the tools or knowledge to do basic repairs like installing a cassette or a chain and have no desire to buy the tools and learn how to use them.

Good shops are still busy and I'm guessing they'll be around for awhile.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

In fairness, if you're looking for spokes, you are probably doing your own work


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> You and many others on this forum are you the minority. There are people who have no idea how to even inflate a tire, much less install one. Lots of people don't have the tools or knowledge to do basic repairs like installing a cassette or a chain and have no desire to buy the tools and learn how to use them.
> 
> Good shops are still busy and I'm guessing they'll be around for awhile.


You're talking about service. All the comments have been about parts in stock. You even said "well stocked shops still exist." Even when I worked at a shop in 08 before standards went off the rails, and 90% of riders were on 26, I can't tell you how many times I said "we can order it for you." The shop I worked at was a big one in Denver that had three locations to move parts around and still, "we can order it for you."


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

"You cant sell what you don't have...."

It only takes a few days to a week to order stuff in these days, but, it also takes me a few days to get it from an online seller in a different country - where its almost always cheaper.

Local shops are all but entirely out of the mid to higher end parts game - regardless of how shimano and sram try to manipulate cross border sales.

But spokes!?


----------



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

slimat99 said:


> You're talking about service. All the comments have been about parts in stock. You even said "well stocked shops still exist."


Well stocked shops do exist, depending on what your definition of"well stocked" is. Any good service shop needs to have a healthy parts & components inventory.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> Well stocked shops do exist, depending on what your definition of"well stocked" is. Any good service shop needs to have a healthy parts & components inventory.


You're delusional if you think times haven't changed. I don't believe any of your LBS's have all the bases covered for any rider that walks in with whatever bike. Those days are gone, and you are living in lala land.


----------



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

Yes, all of our shops have every base covered for any rider on any bike. Pretty sure that's what I said.

Times have changed?


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

J.B. Weld said:


> Yes, all of our shops have every base covered for any rider on any bike.


A good selection of 26er rims with QR hubs? That's awesome! Exactly what this thread is all about! Care to share the name? The best way to keep it going is to support the shops and manufacturers that cater to this market.


----------



## JPL65 (Jul 20, 2008)

Our local shop has a sign that reads" if its in stock, we have it"


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> Times have changed?


Yep

Let's just talk rear axle standard , a guy with a 170mm QR 36 spokes hub fat bike enters the shop and a guy with a 150mm TA 32 spokes enters , the chances that the shop has both standard in stock are very slim me thinks. And that's very sad.
With the multiplication of different standards , shops simply can't keep up with all this gear for the "who knows , someone might need this someday"


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

smashysmashy said:


> In fairness, if you're looking for spokes, you are probably doing your own work


Yes, or you broke a spoke, and need a shop to fix it for you. Any good shop needs to be a reliable service center for those that don't know how to replace a spoke. It's sad, but we can't even count on shops to stock 26" j bends anymore. Times have changed.


----------



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

MattiThundrrr said:


> A good selection of 26er rims with QR hubs? That's awesome!


I didn't say that shops carried antique stuff, most don't stock 52" solid rubber tires for those old high wheel bikes either.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

Sorry! My mistake. I thought I was in the 26er forum, discussing wether or not 26 would rise from the ashes. Will 52 ever rise?


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> I didn't say that shops carried antique stuff, most don't stock 52" solid rubber tires for those old high wheel bikes either.[/QU
> 
> So well stocked shops still exist, but well stocked doesn't include "antiquated" 26" rims or QR hubs? It's only been 5 years since 26" was the main wheel size, and while QR hubs have been replaced for almost 10 now that doesn't change the fact that there are lots of bikes out there with old standards that need service. You can't have it both ways buddy. You want to argue that "well stocked shops still exist," but then you make excuses for shops not supporting standards that are only 5 years old? There was a time, and it really wasn't that long ago, when we never wondered if a shop could take care of us. Those days are gone. Gone like your sanity.


----------



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

Man, you guys are touchy, I guess that's how the term "retro grouch" came about.

^that's a joke, apparently my jokes are so lame I have to explain to them 

Anyway my posts were only half in jest. There are well stocked shops, I know this for a fact because I work in one. If people were clamoring for nice 26" 135mm qr wheels we'd definitely stock them if it were possible but as it is we just have basic ones that people occasionally buy for their kids or beater bikes.

I don't think 26" will rise from the ashes any time soon but that's only my opinion.


----------



## moonshinecycles (Nov 4, 2019)

Biospace chain rings came back and they were a lot less popular than 26 inch wheels. lol I, for one will not let the 26ich wheel die. I am a father of 7 and those wheels are great for the smaller riders. I think they will always have a place somewhere in the market.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Here's some interesting data just posted by vital:

https://www.vitalmtb.com/features/W...-Think-Vital-MTB-Audience-Survey-Results,2787

Notice the wheel size data. In 2012 most riders were buying 26 even more than 29, then of course 650b took off like wild fire, now 29 has passed 650b. 650 is on a downward trend much lower than 26 in 2102. So if this downward trend continues, what will the industry do to ramp up sales for smaller wheels? Or will the industry just let 29 take over the entire mainstream market?


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

I think wheels will become bike size dependent in the end. It's already happening. GT avalanche for example, is a 29'er in larger sizes, and 650b in smaller sizes. Trek caliber 8 I looked at last year was the same. 26 would slot in on the very small to "big kid" kids sizes.

People just need to get over the idea of one size fits all now. Why would a 5'0 tall woman try to ride a 29er that is more fit for a person 6'3? And why would someone 6'9 ride a 29er when a 32" wheel would fit better? (someone is already jumping on the giant wheels for giant people idea)


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

slimat99 said:


> It's sad, but we can't even count on shops to stock 26" j bends anymore. Times have changed.


26" spokes for exactly what hub/rim/count/cross/butting combination?

You sound like you are under the impression you can go in and just get a '26" spoke' and it's going to work for any 26" wheel,

Yeah...no.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

I posted this elsewhere too, but I think it is useful here too. 27.5 and 27.5+ size sales have fallen to where 26 was 6 years ago. 







Is 27 going out like 26 did, and if the standard becomes "obsolete", could that possibly contribute to a resurgence in 26? To me, if we have 2 sizes to choose from, it would make the most sense to spread em out to broaden the range.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> 26" spokes for exactly what hub/rim/count/cross/butting combination?
> 
> You sound like you are under the impression you can go in and just get a '26" spoke' and it's going to work for any 26" wheel,
> 
> Yeah...no.


Yes I am saying we used to be able to go into any shop and know they had spokes that would work. There's a 1 to 2mm window so it's not hard for a shop to carry every possible flange/rim combo length. The shop I worked at had a library of 26" j bends. There was no hub flange size or rim we couldn't work with. Now some shops aren't stocking 26" spokes period. Just to be clear I'm talking generic j bends, not straight pull or anything proprietary.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

MattiThundrrr said:


> I posted this elsewhere too, but I think it is useful here too. 27.5 and 27.5+ size sales have fallen to where 26 was 6 years ago.
> View attachment 1290993
> 
> Is 27 going out like 26 did, and if the standard becomes "obsolete", could that possibly contribute to a resurgence in 26? To me, if we have 2 sizes to choose from, it would make the most sense to spread em out to broaden the range.


I agree, 26 and 29 makes a lot more sense. The interesting thing about this data is the ratio of riders interested in 29 vs 650b is far more lopsided than 26 vs 29 before 650b. I guess a lot of that has to do with how crappy 29'ers were in 2012. It's just nuts that in 2012 80% of riders preferred 26" over 29, and in 2019 only 32% prefer 650b over 29.


----------



## Emax (Dec 4, 2005)

This graph is so interesting to see... 2012 seems to be the year when the industry decided to kill off the 26er. The way the graph behaves - it's clear that 27.5 was used to replace the 26er - you can see that the 26er and 27.5 graphs are corelated and show a drastic change in short amount of time, while the 29 graph shows a more organic change. 
The rapid drop in 26er sales coincided with a rapid rise in 27.5 sales, yet the difference between these 2 sizes is not so significant to warrant such rapid replacement of one by the other - unless the customers were forced to buy 27.5 by the mere fact that 26ers were unavailable. Drop in sales like that would normally not happen unless there was some sort of a major safety concern relating to a 26er - which there wasn't. What other explanation can there be for such rapid drop in sales of 26er that coincides with such rapid growth in 27.5 bikes?


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Emax said:


> This graph is so interesting to see... 2012 seems to be the year when the industry decided to kill off the 26er. The way the graph behaves - it's clear that 27.5 was used to replace the 26er - you can see that the 26er and 27.5 graphs are corelated and show a drastic change in short amount of time, while the 29 graph shows a more organic change.
> The rapid drop in 26er sales coincided with a rapid rise in 27.5 sales, yet the difference between these 2 sizes is not so significant to warrant such rapid replacement of one by the other - unless the customers were forced to buy 27.5 by the mere fact that 26ers were unavailable. Drop in sales like that would normally not happen unless there was some sort of a major safety concern relating to a 26er - which there wasn't. What other explanation can there be for such rapid drop in sales of 26er that coincides with such rapid growth in 27.5 bikes?


It's because the industry pulled the plug on 26 basically overnight. This graph isn't a reflection of actual sales, it's a survey of what people want to buy at the time. Of course very few said they were going to buy 26" after 2012. There were nearly no options at that point. I'm not saying the graph would look dramatically different if equal options had existed, but we can't say one way or the other. Add in the biggest marketing push we've ever seen, geo changes, new tires and wheels only available in 650b, and even hold outs like me bought 650b. The most interesting thing about this data to me is how few want to buy 650b in 2019 compared to 26 in 2012. While vital might not be the best gage for the market as a whole, it's a good representation of what experienced riders are interested in. Clearly 650b is less desirable in 2019 than 26" was in 2012. Not just by a little bit either. The industry will take note of this data.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

MattiThundrrr said:


> I posted this elsewhere too, but I think it is useful here too. 27.5 and 27.5+ size sales have fallen to where 26 was 6 years ago.
> View attachment 1290993
> 
> Is 27 going out like 26 did, and if the standard becomes "obsolete", could that possibly contribute to a resurgence in 26? To me, if we have 2 sizes to choose from, it would make the most sense to spread em out to broaden the range.


This is NOT a graph of sales. This graph represents what people were INTENDING to buy in the future, according to a VitalMTB readership survey.

Here is the complete graphic:








Here is the article that comes from: https://www.bicycleretailer.com/product-tech/2018/11/21/rise-shreddy-29er

You can find a link to the VitalMTB study there.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Emax said:


> This graph is so interesting to see... 2012 seems to be the year when the industry decided to kill off the 26er. The way the graph behaves - it's clear that 27.5 was used to replace the 26er - you can see that the 26er and 27.5 graphs are corelated and show a drastic change in short amount of time, while the 29 graph shows a more organic change.
> The rapid drop in 26er sales coincided with a rapid rise in 27.5 sales, yet the difference between these 2 sizes is not so significant to warrant such rapid replacement of one by the other - unless the customers were forced to buy 27.5 by the mere fact that 26ers were unavailable. Drop in sales like that would normally not happen unless there was some sort of a major safety concern relating to a 26er - which there wasn't. What other explanation can there be for such rapid drop in sales of 26er that coincides with such rapid growth in 27.5 bikes?


See my response above with the full original graphic.... That graph is NOT showing sales. It is being incorrectly interpreted.


----------



## Emax (Dec 4, 2005)

kapusta said:


> See my response above with the full original graphic.... That graph is NOT showing sales. It is being incorrectly interpreted.


My mistake - thank you for clarifying - I wonder what was the sampling size of this survey.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Emax said:


> My mistake - thank you for clarifying - I wonder what was the sampling size of this survey.


I updated my post above with a link to the article it came from.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

kapusta said:


> This is NOT a graph of sales. This graph represents what people were INTENDING to buy in the future, according to a VitalMTB readership "study".
> 
> Here is the complete graphic:
> View attachment 1291211


Thank you for the correction. My attention to detail isn't always the greatest!



Emax said:


> My mistake - thank you for clarifying - I wonder what was the sampling size of this survey.


Here is the full article I pulled the graph from:
https://www.vitalmtb.com/features/W...-Think-Vital-MTB-Audience-Survey-Results,2787
They say their sample size was 10,000 "mountain bikers". Not sure if that means they asked riders, or readers of their page. There is some other interesting stuff in there as well.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

MattiThundrrr said:


> Thank you for the correction. My attention to detail isn't always the greatest!
> 
> Here is the full article I pulled the graph from:
> https://www.vitalmtb.com/features/W...-Think-Vital-MTB-Audience-Survey-Results,2787
> They say their sample size was 10,000 "mountain bikers". Not sure if that means they asked riders, or readers of their page. There is some other interesting stuff in there as well.


Vital runs surveys all the time. I participated in this one I'm sure but they didn't say the data would be public. I just assumed it was to sell to their sponsors like PB does.

On another thread someone posted actual sales charts that mirror vital's data. 650b sales have tanked.


----------



## GSJ1973 (May 8, 2011)

slimat99 said:


> It's because the industry pulled the plug on 26 basically overnight. This graph isn't a reflection of actual sales, it's a survey of what people want to buy at the time. Of course very few said they were going to buy 26" after 2012. There were nearly no options at that point. I'm not saying the graph would look dramatically different if equal options had existed, but we can't say one way or the other. Add in the biggest marketing push we've ever seen, geo changes, new tires and wheels only available in 650b, and even hold outs like me bought 650b. The most interesting thing about this data to me is how few want to buy 650b in 2019 compared to 26 in 2012. While vital might not be the best gage for the market as a whole, it's a good representation of what experienced riders are interested in. Clearly 650b is less desirable in 2019 than 26" was in 2012. Not just by a little bit either. The industry will take note of this data.





craigsj said:


> The three rim sizes are 559, 584, and 622 but unless you ride without tires you need to pick a reasonable tire size and apply it to each.
> 
> With a 58mm tall tire, the three wheel sizes are 675, 700, and 738. Using these numbers:
> 
> ...


.
.
.
.
Marketing at its finest. 
(quote stolen from the 27.5 forum/thread)


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

kapusta said:


> Here is the complete graphic:
> View attachment 1291211


Actually, the graph mattithunder posted is more complete since it shows 2019 and the one you posted does not. Same chart, just the other one has an additional year of data.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

Hes referring to the text under the graph that tells you what its actually a graph of...


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

tahoebeau said:


> Actually, the graph mattithunder posted is more complete since it shows 2019 and the one you posted does not. Same chart, just the other one has an additional year of data.


Ah, good catch!

However, my point was that the text was not included, which explains out what the graph actually is. This is important because the chart was assumed to be representing sales when it was not. The text explains this.


----------



## Emax (Dec 4, 2005)

Looks like the survey reflects the views of Californians - being that they constituted by far the largest group of survey respondents... That explains the results for sure, and makes for not a very reliable reflection of the mountain bikers' preferences as a whole.

Even so, the prominence of the 27.5 in the chart and it's rapid rise that coincided with the co-related drop in the preferences for 26ers still gives the sense that something made people view 27.5 more favorably than both 26er and 29er - yet the size isn't as fun/tossable/stiff as 26er nor does it roll over stuff as well as a 29er... I think the only explanation is that the industry decided to promote that size more than any other and that is the result in people's perceptions. Unless there is another explanation?


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

Emax said:


> Looks like the survey reflects the views of Californians - being that they constituted by far the largest group of survey respondents... That explains the results for sure, and makes for not a very reliable reflection of the mountain bikers' preferences as a whole.
> 
> Even so, the prominence of the 27.5 in the chart and it's rapid rise that coincided with the co-related drop in the preferences for 26ers still gives the sense that something made people view 27.5 more favorably than both 26er and 29er - yet the size isn't as fun/tossable/stiff as 26er nor does it roll over stuff as well as a 29er... I think the only explanation is that the industry decided to promote that size more than any other and that is the result in people's perceptions. Unless there is another explanation?


The vast majority of people are followers not leaders. They're told what to do and for the most part they do it. The people who are on forums are usually better informed. Our opinions are less subjective and more objective.They give well thought answers like you did.


----------



## Lelandjt (Feb 22, 2008)

CS2 said:


> I can see the advantages of a 29er, but a 650B just doesn't have any real advantage over a 26 or 29.. It's almost like the worst of both worlds. It just doesn't do anything well enough to justify even tooling up a separate bike model.


26" will have a place for sub 5ft people (kids too big for 24"), sub 5'8" people on a tight budget, and dirt jumpers. There's nowhere else that 650b isn't better. When 650b came out I did a lot of testing and timing. It was faster everywhere, only a tiny bit heavier, and I couldn't find any situations where I disliked the feel compared to 26 (I don't ride very steep BMX style dirt jumps). Basically, the wheels were big enough to feel smoother and more stable than 26 but not big enough to handle slower. When "new gen" 29ers got popular a couple years ago I got the most cutting edge XC and Enduro bikes (Spark RC & Capra 29) and did a bunch of testing. The XC bike was faster everywhere and I liked the feel. The Enduro was faster in most situations and I generally liked the feel but noticed downsides as well. Since then I've done all my racing on 29s but about 1/3 of my riding is still on 650b. For riders under 6'3" who don't race and prioritize nimbleness 650b will always have a place and you'll continue to see lots of 650b rear wheels in DH and enduro. My 2020 DH bike will be full 650b.

Oh, and beach cruisers, the originators of 26", they'll keep the flame alive.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Lelandjt said:


> 26" will have a place for sub 5ft people (kids too big for 24"), sub 5'8" people on a tight budget, and dirt jumpers. There's nowhere else that 650b isn't better. When 650b came out I did a lot of testing and timing. It was faster everywhere, only a tiny bit heavier, and I couldn't find any situations where I disliked the feel compared to 26 (I don't ride very steep BMX style dirt jumps). Basically, the wheels were big enough to feel smoother and more stable than 26 but not big enough to handle slower. When "new gen" 29ers got popular a couple years ago I got the most cutting edge XC and Enduro bikes (Spark RC & Capra 29) and did a bunch of testing. The XC bike was faster everywhere and I liked the feel. The Enduro was faster in most situations and I generally liked the feel but noticed downsides as well. Since then I've done all my racing on 29s but about 1/3 of my riding is still on 650b. For riders under 6'3" who don't race and prioritize nimbleness 650b will always have a place and you'll continue to see lots of 650b rear wheels in DH and enduro. My 2020 DH bike will be full 650b.
> 
> Oh, and beach cruisers, the originators of 26", they'll keep the flame alive.


The biggest issue with 650b is it's a compromise size. 650b is like what soccer mom crossovers are to SUV's and cars. They try to offer the best of both worlds but you're left with something that doesn't excel at anything. 650b was supposed to give us the rollover of 29 and the agility of 26 but it just rides like a bloated 26'er. Racing of all styles are being dominated by 29'ers, Rampage was just won on 26". So what is it that 650b does well again? I won't be surprised at all if in a few years we look back at 650b as an attempt to have our cake and eat it too. It's just a rim size. Just another standard the industry has played with. Nothing is immune from becoming obsolete. 650b has no niche to keep it going. Maybe it will live on at Walmart?


----------



## Lelandjt (Feb 22, 2008)

slimat99 said:


> 650b try to offer the best of both worlds but you're left with something that doesn't excel at anything. 650b was supposed to give us the rollover of 29 and the agility of 26 but it just rides like a bloated 26'er.


Well, that's where we disagree. I felt and the stop watch showed that 650b had better rollover and traction than 26". Like I said above, I was immediately faster and felt better in every situation compared to 26". I didn't feel any negatives compared to 26" and the weight gain was miniscule (I don't do extremely steep jumps or spins).
With 29" I do feel some negative effects on handling and the weight gain is greater. Saying any more would be repeating my last post but the end result is there's things 650b does better than 29 so I think it will stick around (WC DH and Enduro races were won on it this year). The only things I think 26" does better than 650b are dirtjumps and fit very short riders. For what it's worth I stock the tires at my shop and will keep a decent selection of 26s for many years to come. We sell plenty since there's a deep inventory of used bikes in our town that work just fine for riders on a budget who don't race.

P.S. I really think height affects how wheel sizes feel, I'm 6'2" and prefer a 465 reach.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Lelandjt said:


> When 650b came out I did a lot of testing and timing.


unless you used the same tires on both bikes and they both had similar geometry and components the test would be pretty pointless. Plus, it has been tested before (in what would be a significantly better controlled test than anything you did) and 27.5" looses.

Regardless of all that, recent sales numbers (just a few years after 27.5" introduction) have shown 27.5" looses and that the majority of mtbrs have finally been able to see past the marketing hype as the performance of 27.5 didn't hold up to **** the was being flung. Most of it was straight lies about the performance of 27.5" anyways and now is the backlash.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Lelandjt said:


> Well, that's where we disagree. I felt and the stop watch showed that 650b had better rollover and traction than 26". Like I said above, I was immediately faster and felt better in every situation compared to 26". I didn't feel any negatives compared to 26" and the weight gain was miniscule (I don't do extremely steep jumps or spins).
> With 29" I do feel some negative effects on handling and the weight gain is greater. Saying any more would be repeating my last post but the end result is there's things 650b does better than 29 so I think it will stick around (WC DH and Enduro races were won on it this year). The only things I think 26" does better than 650b are dirtjumps and fit very short riders. For what it's worth I stock the tires at my shop and will keep a decent selection of 26s for many years to come. We sell plenty since there's a deep inventory of used bikes in our town that work just fine for riders on a budget who don't race.
> 
> P.S. I really think height affects how wheel sizes feel, I'm 6'2" and prefer a 465 reach.


So you tested 26 against 650b with geo constant? I don't believe height affects how 26" and 27" wheels handle. A 6'1" rider just won rampage on a 26'er. The difference between 26" and 27" is negligible in regards to rider height. There's no reason you can't have a 465 reach with 26" wheels. That would just help bring some mobility back that's been lost to such a long wheel base. 27" is just the new 26" with 27" proponents using the same arguments 26" proponents used in 2013. It's pretty comical really. The biggest difference between now and 2013 is 26" still has a niche to keep it around.

You mentioned that some EWS and DH races were won on 650b this year. Were you watching the EWS and DH in 2013? 26" didn't just win races it won the first EWS title against all the new 650bs. Brycland got his first win ever on one of the last 26" bikes in competition. How'd that work out for 26" in the long run? If 26" didn't have a niche outside of racing it really would be dead. Don't get your hopes up for 650b just because it won a few races last year.


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

650 is NOT an in between 26/700.

650 is 3% bigger than 26 (2148mm circumference 650 X 53)
700 is 10% bigger than 26 (2288mm circumference 700 X 53)

(2068mm circumference 26 X 2.1 )

They made 650 so you have to buy a new bike and new tires , not because it's an "in between".


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

fokof said:


> 650 is NOT an in between 26/700.
> 
> 650 is 3% bigger than 26 (2148mm circumference 650 X 53)
> 700 is 10% bigger than 26 (2288mm circumference 700 X 53)
> ...


You can't use the numbers "650" and "700" the way you are using them for comparison. Those measurements are diameters to the outside of the tire treads, but they are based in different tire sizes (thus the B and C parts)

Do the math using the actual bead-to-bead rim widths (or add on a consistent tire width for good measure) and you will see that 27.5/650b is about 40% of the way between 26er and 29er in both diameter and circumference.

If 650b was going to be given a number between 26 and 29 (two numbers that were never measuring the same thing to start with) it should have been "27.2".


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

Lelandjt said:


> There's nowhere else that 650b isn't better. When 650b came out I did a lot of testing and timing. It was faster everywhere, only a tiny bit heavier, and I couldn't find any situations where I disliked the feel compared to 26 (I don't ride very steep BMX style dirt jumps). Basically, the wheels were big enough to feel smoother and more stable than 26 but not big enough to handle slower. When "new gen" 29ers got popular a couple years ago I got the most cutting edge XC and Enduro bikes (Spark RC & Capra 29) and did a bunch of testing. The XC bike was faster everywhere and I liked the feel. The Enduro was faster in most situations and I generally liked the feel but noticed downsides as well. Since then I've done all my racing on 29s but about 1/3 of my riding is still on 650b. For riders under 6'3" who don't race and prioritize nimbleness 650b will always have a place and you'll continue to see lots of 650b rear wheels in DH and enduro. My 2020 DH bike will be full 650b.
> .


The use of the word "testing" here offends my scientific nature.

The only way any of this is valid is if you have the exact same bike, same tires, compensated geometry for BB height, gearing compensated for diametre, and zero other changes..


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Out of 14 bikes only 3 650b's. What will 2021 look like?

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/video-welcome-to-the-2020-pinkbike-field-test.html


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

I find it interesting when 27.5 naysayers explain the move from 26 to 27.5 as the industry forcing it on people, yet the move from 27.5 to 29 and rider-driven. 

Companies offering fewer 26” models in the early 2010s was an industry plot, but offering fewer 27.5 is a response to rider preference.

People dumping their 26ers for a larger wheel size was a sign of them being duped, dumping their 27.5s for a larger wheel size is somehow different, and a sign of them knowing better than the industry.


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

kapusta said:


> I find it interesting when 27.5 naysayers explain the move from 26 to 27.5 as the industry forcing it on people, yet the move from 27.5 to 29 and rider-driven.
> 
> Companies offering fewer 26" models in the early 2010s was an industry plot, but offering fewer 27.5 is a response to rider preference.
> 
> People dumping their 26ers for a larger wheel size was a sign of them being duped, dumping their 27.5s for a larger wheel size is somehow different, and a sign of them knowing better than the industry.


The point is that 700 DOES make a roll over difference , but 650 ?
I still call BS ......

700 does roll over better but 650 only has disadvantages over both wheel sizes.
And I don't care about the sales..... I work in the music industry 
I live the effect marketing over the consumer/indusrty every day !!

I ordered a custom made frame around 2014 as nobody made interesting 26ers anymore with "modernish" geometry and it's Perfect.
I could have asked them to invent a new wheel size even.

I'm 185cm tall , my 700 MTB is sleeping in the basement.


----------



## wightweenie26er (Sep 28, 2017)

Thank heavens for https://www.extralite.com/mountain-bike.php they still make/sell top end 26er wheels for disc and V's They stop selling 27.5
I hope they continue i'd be lost with out them.


----------



## jupiter58 (Jan 13, 2016)

Interesting discussion. What wheel size to use? I have all three size hoops.....fun!. So how does the 2019 UCI world downhill championship bike figure into this discussion of wheel size? or does one give full credit to the rider? to the best of my knowledge 29ers have not won a UCI downhill championship yet.Seems to carry over somewhat into all mountain etc. smaller rear wheel has advantages on this particular bike?


----------



## jupiter58 (Jan 13, 2016)

brings back memories of this Carver 96er frame, it can be run as 9'27.5er. my next build will be such an odd interesting bike.


----------



## jupiter58 (Jan 13, 2016)

Actually not real sure of a 29er has won a UCI downhill crown, what are the facts on that?


----------



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

jupiter58 said:


> Actually not real sure of a 29er has won a UCI downhill crown, what are the facts on that?


Google knows. https://www.uci.org/news/2018/27-5-vs-29-the-debate-continues


----------



## jupiter58 (Jan 13, 2016)

I see, two years ago. to add to the mix this guys bike for 2019 was a 29er.The mixed wheel size is quite intriguing


----------



## jupiter58 (Jan 13, 2016)

my apologies for the double pics....me dumb.


----------



## mtbmike24 (Jul 25, 2009)

jupiter58 said:


> I see, two years ago. to add to the mix this guys bike for 2019 was a 29er.The mixed wheel size is quite intriguing


Yep the fastest Cross country rider in the world whipped everyone on 29ers with a low profile 27.5 bike all the way up to 2015. 
Wheels were probably not much bigger than 26 inch wheels. He changed over in 2016. Nino apparently was never happy with the geometry of the 29ers. Scott worked with him to get the geometry comfortable for him for years apparently.
He finally changed to 29 inch wheels and guess what he still beat everyone ass. 
Here is his 2015 27.5 hardtail in medium frame. I think it weighed around 18 lbs. 
Shurter was and is the perfect example of the saying "it's the rider not the bike".
The fitter more skilled rider will win most of the time.








Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## wightweenie26er (Sep 28, 2017)

Agree. Having tried to ride the bigger wheels. I still come back to what i know rides perfectly well. The 29er is just too big and unwieldily. So i'll be staying with 26. If people keep buying it then the manufacturer will have to keep making some in limited numbers. They are hard to find but worth the extra effort.


----------



## mnigro (Jul 31, 2007)

Even if 26 did make a comeback the new frames will have hub spacing that is 2 iterations newer than an old 26 wheel set. I was hell bent on keeping my 26 alive and didn’t move to a 27.5 for any reason other than wanting a bigger bike with more dh capabilities. 

I honestly can’t really tell that much difference in the rollover department... not like going to a 29er. Otherwise, there’s too much change from old bike to know bike for me to make a fair comparison on any other attributes. 

I’d still rock the old 26er Yeti though. Great bike, 26 wheels and all.


----------



## weeblebiker (Oct 15, 2018)

Sickmak90 said:


> I think I'm actually picking up a 2006 stumpy FSR tomorrow. I've been looking for a cheap but rideable bike for camping and it might just fit the bill.
> 
> I'm no geo expert but the geo on it doesn't look that bad. I expect it will be pretty fun on my local trails but I bet it's gonna suck on technical climbs. Sometimes I need my bulldozer to clear roots and rocks while climbing.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I picked up an 07 stumpy pro carbon last year because I thought it was the best bike form my trails, my wife said I could by new and I spent some time really pondering before pulling the trigger. 26 is still the best for Indiana where 5 foot radius turns and downhills that are over in less than a 5 count that go straight into a climb just as steep and short with roots everywhere are the norm. The only place a 29er can get up to speed around here in on the fire roads.

Not everyone rides in bike parks or groomed trails with chair lifts, although I think the industry would prefer that.


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

mnigro said:


> Even if 26 did make a comeback the new frames will have hub spacing that is 2 iterations newer than an old 26 wheel set. I was hell bent on keeping my 26 alive and didn't move to a 27.5 for any reason other than wanting a bigger bike with more dh capabilities.
> 
> I honestly can't really tell that much difference in the rollover department... not like going to a 29er. Otherwise, there's too much change from old bike to know bike for me to make a fair comparison on any other attributes.
> 
> I'd still rock the old 26er Yeti though. Great bike, 26 wheels and all.


I'm still rocking my 84 Stumpjumper. It doesn't see much off road action at all. But it sure looks nice.


----------



## DarknutMike (Jun 2, 2013)

For me the bike industry is at a all time low point. I loathe 29'ers & E-bikes & that is all that gets talked about in bike media now. I will never own a 29'er even if that means never owning another new bike. I have tried out many & they feel like crap to me ... all of them.
Most people are not technical & in my experience buy the bike they are "told" to buy for the most part.

Just a few days ago I ran into an acquaintance on the trail & she had a new bike. It was a 29'er of course & she didn't understand why it felt sluggish & heavy. Her old bike was a 26 FSR that she had had for years.


----------



## JPL65 (Jul 20, 2008)

I'm guessing that if the bike industry didn't offer up some new stuff, they would be history. Kind of sucks that something has to go to make room for new stuff, but I do understand how that goes. My guess is we will eventually see some new improved '90's NORBA geometry 26ers for the people that don't ride extreme DH trails, like nimble light bikes and in my case full rigid. If not I'll just adapt to what they are offering, beats quitting.


----------



## noblefishing (Jul 23, 2010)

Yet another old guy retro rider gotta weigh in - I'm stuck on mid-90s Super Vs, as well as the 26" wheels they require. Advantages of 26" wheels, performance category: they spin up quick, due to less inertia to overcome on every shift. I shift a lot, and the difference is noticeable. Ease of transport/storage category: My bikes, with medium frames, 21" bars and 100mm pedals are easier to get into and out of a vehicle, and to store. 26" wheels are typically lighter than 27.5's or 29's, but that is changing with carbon rims and spokes.


----------



## Emax (Dec 4, 2005)

While I don't hate the 29ers or any other bike types as I think they all have their place. I do think that the industry did desert 26er fans and the marketing machine kicked in the high gear to erase the 26er from the memory. If you listen to some youtubers you'd think that the ONLY 2 mountain bike wheel sizes are 27.5 and 29 - that's it... and that is a little short sighted in my opinion, because it's not like people will start tossing their Sevens, Moots, IF, Ventana, and Titus in their recycling bin. I took my Ventana Pantera out for a spin last week and it felt great to ride it - that single pivot frame is 16 years old and it looks like I bought it 4 months ago. All I need to do is replace the components and it will last probably anther 30 years if not longer. I'm not getting any younger and I don't take chances that I would when I was younger... so why would I change it? The thing is, if someone was making 26er compatible components - say on XT level, or mid price/weight range fork - then I'm pretty sure they would still be able to make money on that stuff - especially if these were older designs, what work great and don't need any further R&D.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Emax said:


> , if someone was making 26er compatible components - say on XT level,


What new XT components don't fit a 26" bike?


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

slapheadmofo said:


> What new XT components don't fit a 26" bike?


I was wondering the same thing. The only 26" specific components I can think of are rims, tires, and forks.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

kapusta said:


> I was wondering the same thing. The only 26" specific components I can think of are rims, tires, and forks.


Even forks are kinda debatable; no reason you can't run a 27.5" fork on a 26" frame.
Highly doubt most people could actually tell the difference, and even those who might can easily put in a little homework to make it negligible.


----------



## The.Dude.Abides. (Feb 22, 2014)

26 inch wheels still have a special place in my heart..

On my dirt jumper, my fat bike, and my mildly antiquated DH sled.

On a modern trail bike? Not for Colorado's Front Range chunk. Might as well hike. Narrow radius switchbacks? two words; Pivot Turn


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

The.Dude.Abides. said:


> 26 inch wheels still have a special place in my heart..
> 
> On my dirt jumper, my fat bike, and my mildly antiquated DH sled.
> 
> On a modern trail bike? Not for Colorado's Front Range chunk. Might as well hike. Narrow radius switchbacks? two words; Pivot Turn


Switchbacks? Smaller wheels do that better, no?


----------



## Emax (Dec 4, 2005)

The.Dude.Abides. said:


> 26 inch wheels still have a special place in my heart..
> 
> On my dirt jumper, my fat bike, and my mildly antiquated DH sled.
> 
> On a modern trail bike? Not for Colorado's Front Range chunk. Might as well hike. Narrow radius switchbacks? two words; Pivot Turn


That all comes down where you ride doesn't it? I don't ride on the luge style single track trails that are built for the modern bikes... I'm still riding the hiking trails that multi-use, narrow and twisty and rocky. The funny thing is that all those modern bikes leave one big clue on these trails - the multiple pedal or crank strikes on the rocks - I can't remember a time when I'd see so many rocks adorned with the white strike marks.

Come to think of it... I don't remember crank strike to be so much of a concern in the 26er age, that you could get crank arm protectors for your cranksets...


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Vespasianus said:


> All the ones that don't work with 3x system.


FWIW, "3x" has nothing at all to do with wheel size. I'm sure you already know that though.

As far as availability, went through this same conversation (with the same guy ) a few weeks ago.

Nothing has changed in that time; anyone can still easily get 3x cranksets and shifters, from entry level all the way up to XTR. Universal Cycles alone offers 30 different options for mountain triples.

https://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/index.php?category=64

Tires and rims are the only 26" specific items.


----------



## The.Dude.Abides. (Feb 22, 2014)

Vespasianus said:


> Switchbacks? Smaller wheels do that better, no?


No. but shorter wheelbases do.



Emax said:


> That all comes down where you ride doesn't it? I don't ride on the luge style single track trails that are built for the modern bikes... I'm still riding the hiking trails that multi-use, narrow and twisty and rocky. The funny thing is that all those modern bikes leave one big clue on these trails - the multiple pedal or crank strikes on the rocks - I can't remember a time when I'd see so many rocks adorned with the white strike marks.
> 
> Come to think of it... I don't remember crank strike to be so much of a concern in the 26er age, that you could get crank arm protectors for your cranksets...


You don't chalk that up to the increased volume of newer riders?

I'm still riding and building narrow, twisty, rocky multi use trails that were all burned in by hikers and rigid 3x 26ers.

We've added very little new bike only trails anywhere near Colorado's Front Range. Even our multi use trail reroutes do not cater towards "Luge style single track for modern trail bikes"

Trails are built to scrub speed when they're multi use to keep trail users safe.

Even our latest directional/bike only trails aren't "luge style" they favor newer (longer slacker) bikes though because of the degree of difficulty and steepness.


----------



## Emax (Dec 4, 2005)

slapheadmofo said:


> FWIW, "3x" has nothing at all to do with wheel size. I'm sure you already know that though.
> 
> As far as availability, went through this same conversation (with the same guy ) a few weeks ago.
> 
> ...


I would argue that the 3x system is absolutely associated with the 26ers as it was developed for that very wheel size, and the chain ring sizes, cassette range and ratios were all built for that wheel size. Which is by the way, why with the arrival of the big wheel bikes all of a sudden cassette cogs got so huge... and why changes to those drivetrains keep taking place.

Are you arguing that because Universalcycles has some square taper, octalink, no-name and old stock Shimano parts that will accommodate 3x systems, the 3x as a system is alive and well? That's like saying that the industry is fully behind the 26ers because you can get 26 inch wheels, tires and tubes. We all know that's not the case.


----------



## Emax (Dec 4, 2005)

Deleted


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

Emax said:


> I would argue that the 3x system is absolutely associated with the 26ers as it was developed for that very wheel size, and the chain ring sizes, cassette range and ratios were all built for that wheel size. Which is by the way, why with the arrival of the big wheel bikes all of a sudden cassette cogs got so huge... and why changes to those drivetrains keep taking place.


What????

3x has nothing to do with wheel size. 1x has nothing to do with wheel size. You can run 1x on a 26in not problem. I am so confused why this whole 3x thing even came up.

The only 26in specific parts IMO are tires, rims, forks and frames. And as slapheadmofo said you can use 27.5in forks.

I mean I don't like that the selection of tires is dying and new off the shelf frames have pretty much disappear but 3x has nothing to do with 26in.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Emax said:


> I would argue that the 3x system is absolutely associated with the 26ers as it was developed for that very wheel size, and the chain ring sizes, cassette range and ratios were all built for that wheel size. Which is by the way, why with the arrival of the big wheel bikes all of a sudden cassette cogs got so huge... and why changes to those drivetrains keep taking place.
> 
> Are you arguing that because Universalcycles has some square taper, octalink, no-name and old stock Shimano parts that will accommodate 3x systems, the 3x as a system is alive and well? That's like saying that the industry is fully behind the 26ers because you can get 26 inch wheels, tires and tubes. We all know that's not the case.


I'm going to argue that you really don't have much of a grasp on this stuff. You are obviously wildly confused when it comes to distinguishing what issues are actually due to wheel size and what are due to thinking every 26" bike is required to be built completely of antique/retro/vintage parts. Except bottom brackets I guess? Then you only want the latest and greatest? 

Speaking of BBs, the higher end cranksets don't use the ST, OL, etc BBs. The lower end ones do, which makes sense, and it means you can easily get new cranks to fit on your vintage BB in your vintage frame, which I believe was another 'issue' you were complaining about previously, or at least something similar.

Do you need someone to go into the descriptions on the page I linked and read them for you? Every Shimino crank from Alivio on up is available in 'modern' BB types. That includes the XTR ones that I linked you too last previously as well as the EXACT model you brought up in this thread, XT. I would suggest that maybe if you do a little better with your own research, you would be able to easily get past a lot of these roadblocks you seem to keep bringing up.

Here, to get you started, is the link to the XT crank with the modern BB style you say you couldn't find. It's right on the page I linked earlier, in among the other ones you're saying don't exist.

https://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=75030&category=64

:madman:


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Emax said:


> That all comes down where you ride doesn't it? I don't ride on the luge style single track trails that are built for the modern bikes... I'm still riding the hiking trails that multi-use, narrow and twisty and rocky.
> 
> Come to think of it... I don't remember crank strike to be so much of a concern in the 26er age, that you could get crank arm protectors for your cranksets...


I ride in the same area you ride. Where exactly are all these luge-style singletracks? I'd like to hit a few for a change of pace.

Here's what the "26er" age did to my chainrings:









That's nothing compared to what it did to cranks, and I lost count of how many pedals I completely demolished; easily well over a dozen. If you get around the area a bit with your riding, I can guarantee you've been looking at my rock strikes for decades. The big difference now is definitely the added traffic.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> FWIW, "3x" has nothing at all to do with wheel size. I'm sure you already know that though.
> 
> As far as availability, went through this same conversation (with the same guy ) a few weeks ago.
> 
> ...


Where the heck does that quote come from (says it is from me)? I can't find in this thread and have no idea what it was about.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

The.Dude.Abides. said:


> No. but shorter wheelbases do.


I am confused. 26" bikes tend to have much shorter wheelbases.


----------



## The.Dude.Abides. (Feb 22, 2014)

Vespasianus said:


> Switchbacks? Smaller wheels do that better, no?





Vespasianus said:


> I am confused. 26" bikes tend to have much shorter wheelbases.


All I was trying to point out is that the wheel size isn't the determining factor of turning radius. It's the wheelbase.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

Vespasianus said:


> Where the heck does that quote come from (says it is from me)? I can't find in this thread and have no idea what it was about.


post #256


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

MattiThundrrr said:


> post #256


Yeah, but not anymore. Weird.


----------



## Radium (Jan 11, 2019)

BTW, where are these ashes that 26ers are supposed to rise out of? I'd really like to rummage through them. Might be a free bike in there for me!


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> Yeah, but not anymore. Weird.


The quote I am referring to was this:









I don't remember ever saying that and can't find it in this thread at all. What the heck is going on here!


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Emax said:


> I would argue that the 3x system is absolutely associated with the 26ers as it was developed for that very wheel size, and the chain ring sizes, cassette range and ratios were all built for that wheel size. Which is by the way, why with the arrival of the big wheel bikes all of a sudden cassette cogs got so huge... and why changes to those drivetrains keep taking place.
> 
> Are you arguing that because Universalcycles has some square taper, octalink, no-name and old stock Shimano parts that will accommodate 3x systems, the 3x as a system is alive and well? That's like saying that the industry is fully behind the 26ers because you can get 26 inch wheels, tires and tubes. We all know that's not the case.


 You're got your drivetrain history all messed up. The first dinner plate cassettes were developed on 26'ers. 1x11 was developed in 2011, came out in 2012. Of course 27" took over in 2013/14 so we associate dinner plate cassettes with the new wheel size. Below shows the first EWS champ's 1x11 26'er.

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/Cannondale-Jekyll-Enduro-World-Series-jerome-clementz.html


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Vespasianus said:


> The quote I am referring to was this:
> 
> View attachment 1298173
> 
> ...


Yeah, it was there, then it was gone. I thought you went back and changed it.


----------



## mtbmike24 (Jul 25, 2009)

slapheadmofo said:


> I ride in the same area you ride. Where exactly are all these luge-style singletracks? I'd like to hit a few for a change of pace.
> 
> Here's what the "26er" age did to my chainrings:
> 
> ...


Wow... All my bikes are 26ers and while I do get the occasional pedal strike here and there on my full suspension it's really not a issue there just pedal strikes not chain ring strikes. I have never damaged any of my chain rings like that. 
If I get in some nasty rock gardens I soft pedal or ratchet my crank arms and concentrate on my lines. I have popped up and over 12 inch water bars and not touched my chain rings. 
BTW I live in Colorado and we have lots of rocky trails here. 
Plus those look like 3x chain rings today's bikes are running basically 30-34 single rings up front. You can't blame 26ers for damaged chain rings you would probably be in the same boat if bikes of today came with a 44 tooth big ring.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> I ride in the same area you ride. Where exactly are all these luge-style singletracks? I'd like to hit a few for a change of pace.
> 
> Here's what the "26er" age did to my chainrings:
> 
> ...


Why didn't you swap your big ring for a bash? 2x bash was the no brainer set up starting in the early 2000's for riders killing big rings. If you preferred having a really tall high gear than you can't complain about smashing big rings. I'm surprised you aren't having more issues with today's bikes in regards to pedal and crank smashing. I know I do compared to the tall BB monster truck 26'ers I used to ride.

I'm happy to trade some clearance for better cornering but I find most bikes today are a bit too low. I really have to be mindful of clearance like I never did back in the day. I would like to see BB's go up .25" or so for anything 140mm and up.


----------



## mtbmike24 (Jul 25, 2009)

I mountain biked Fruita, Porcupine Rim, Amasa Back, Poison Spider and several others in Moab on a 3x9. It was a 2007 Novara Pondarosa. I didn't hit the big ring once. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## mtbmike24 (Jul 25, 2009)

slimat99 said:


> You're got your drivetrain history all messed up. The first dinner plate cassettes were developed on 26'ers. 1x11 was developed in 2011, came out in 2012. Of course 27" took over in 2013/14 so we associate dinner plate cassettes with the new wheel size. Below shows the first EWS champ's 1x11 26'er.
> 
> https://www.pinkbike.com/news/Cannondale-Jekyll-Enduro-World-Series-jerome-clementz.html


I though 1x11 was introduced in 2012. That article was written in 2013. 29ers were already mainstream by 2010 as the 26er forced faze out started as early as 2010 by Trek, specialized and Giant. 
I remember the time well. 2010 was the first year I was going to race and was looking for a race bike. I had my eyes onna Trek 9.9 elite SSL because I love hard tails. I couldn't afford the 8,000 dollar price tag so I settled for the 3,000 dollar 2010 Trek 8500 which took 3 months to get. The Trek rep and all the salesman were floored that I would spend 3,000 dollars on a 26er when I could buy a Superfly 100 29er

The 2013 specialized epic 29er I believe was the first bike to be sold on the show room with a 1x11 in 2013 could be wrong on this.

26 down hill bikes lasted a couple of years more but were still on their way out. I really don't see that it matters what wheel they used to develop 1x systems. I saw the article states they implemented a 1x but didn't develop. Did I miss read or miss something.

I guess you can say that 1x started with 26 inch wheels because people have been running single rings up front since forever ago they just weren't 11 speed and nothing was sold as a complete system.

I would think the 1x or " the dinner plate" rear cassette might have been designed around 29er wheels not 26 for the added range of not having the 2 other chain rings up front and the wheel diameter difference. The added benefit that they saw was a weight reduction and could solve clearance issues with the elimination of the front derailleur while trying to get the geometry correct with 29er frames. 
Since the 1x11 was the first 1x system developed and sold to manufactures as a complete system in 2012 to put on new bikes there wasn't much available in 26 at that time even in downhill bikes. 
I could be completely off base here.

With all this said the adoption of 29ers there is a silver lining, it ment I could finally afford to build up a 2012 trek elite SSL just like Trek sold it in 2012 with all brand new parts I found off ebay in 2015. I still have the Trek 8500 as well that I converted to my single speed.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

slimat99 said:


> Why didn't you swap your big ring for a bash? 2x bash was the no brainer set up starting in the early 2000's for riders killing big rings. .


Totally agree; those were all from well before 2000. Before that, I was just trashing RockRings along with the chainrings (like you can see on the set on the left).

It was really nice when you could start getting bashrings for 2X systems.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

mtbmike24 said:


> I mountain biked Fruita, Porcupine Rim, Amasa Back, Poison Spider and several others in Moab on a 3x9. It was a 2007 Novara Pondarosa. I didn't hit the big ring once.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


Congratulations.

I rode Lynn Woods, Vietnam and similar trail systems a lot throughout the 90s and into the early 00s. If you were taking the same lines I was attempting, unless you were a good trials rider (I wasn't then and still ain't), you were trashing rings.


----------



## mtbmike24 (Jul 25, 2009)

slapheadmofo said:


> Congratulations.
> If you were taking the same lines I was attempting, unless you were a good trials rider (I wasn't then and still ain't), you were trashing rings.


Yep good skilled fit rider is what makes a bike 80% capable in pretty much every type of terrain no matter the components or wheel size.

A saying that for some reason has to keep getting pounded into people head time after time after time.

And still won't change long after I'm gone.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

mtbmike24 said:


> I though 1x11 was introduced in 2012. That article was written in 2013. 29ers were already mainstream by 2010 as the 26er forced faze out started as early as 2010 by Trek, specialized and Giant.
> I remember the time well. 2010 was the first year I was going to race and was looking for a race bike. I had my eyes onna Trek 9.9 elite SSL because I love hard tails. I couldn't afford the 8,000 dollar price tag so I settled for the 3,000 dollar 2010 Trek 8500 which took 3 months to get. The Trek rep and all the salesman were floored that I would spend 3,000 dollars on a 26er when I could buy a Superfly 100 29er
> 
> The 2013 specialized epic 29er I believe was the first bike to be sold on the show room with a 1x11 in 2013 could be wrong on this.
> ...


1x11 was available to the public in 2012. Riders around Colorado Springs may have seen Sram testers running dinner plate cassettes in 2011 so it was developed when a big portion of the market was on 26. Of course it was designed with 29 in mind too. Considering 1x11 had a taller low gear than 2x10 and 2x9 it certainly wasn't designed to make pedaling bigger wheels easier. I know I gave up a little low end even with a 30t. I personally wouldn't have wanted 1x11 on a 29'er until bigger than 42t became a thing. I remember seeing some 29'ers running 28t 1x11. As far as I'm concerned, if you need a 28t with 1x, you're better off with 2x. I'm not saying that to make a case that 1x11 was designed for 26, but it certainly wasn't designed for 650b because it came out too early, and it was pretty tough gearing for 29 unless you gave up your top end. .


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

mtbmike24 said:


> I mountain biked Fruita, Porcupine Rim, Amasa Back, Poison Spider and several others in Moab on a 3x9. It was a 2007 Novara Pondarosa. I didn't hit the big ring once.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


That's because all those places are sanitized now lol. Actually lunch loops (technicaly not Fruita but close enough) is one of the few places that put up signs to discourage dumbing down the trails. Kudos to them for doing that. Moab on the other hand doesn't seem to value the technical nature of their trails.

Back to the topic. The following was copied from pinkbike's 2019 bike of the year awards:

That's right, for the first time ever, all of the bikes that were nominated roll on big wheels. The pool of new 27.5" wheeled bikes was shallower than ever this year, and while there were several solid contenders, they didn't quite make the cut to get into the final round.

650b ain't dead might be the mantra for 2020. It's said in jest now, it's about to get real.


----------



## mtbmike24 (Jul 25, 2009)

slimat99 said:


> That's because all those places are sanitized now lol. Actually lunch loops (technicaly not Fruita but close enough) is one of the few places that put up signs to discourage dumbing down the trails. Kudos to them for doing that. Moab on the other hand doesn't seem to value the technical nature of their trails.
> 
> Back to the topic. The following was copied from pinkbike's 2019 bike of the year awards:
> 
> ...


Well good... I'm glad I made you laugh. That was 12 years ago dude not recent on a brand new 2007 bike. I don't own that bike anymore.

I was simply making a point I road those trails on a 100mm 27 speed hardtail with a 3x crank plus several other trails here in Colorado and we have Rocky trails here and I did it without issue. Despite what you think there are many spots you can take out a big ring on any of those trails in Moab.

I'm glad you find those trails simple lunch loops and easy from technical perspective I never said they were hard trails just many places you can take out a 44 tooth big ring but I always picked a line keeping my big ring out of harm's way. It's kind of like 4 wheeling got to watch out for diffs and shock mounts. People road 3x for years on technical nasty trails without issue.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Here's the best case I've head for 26" coming back. I'm not saying 26" is coming back because of these rumors, but if these rumors are accurate, we will be back to 26 and 29 for the most part. The following is from the linked article below.

"I've had a handful of conversations with folks on the product side who have all essentially told me that the end of 27.5″ is near. It was hard to believe at first, but the claims were validated across a few brands who manufacture various products. Starting with a couple of bike brands, I was told that virtually everything is going 29″ for next year and that 27.5″ will be offered for some smaller sizes and women's models. Then to back this up, I heard the same thing from wheel and parts manufacturers who were surprised at the fact that 90% of their OEM orders were for 29″ and the remaining fraction were for 27.5″. They were all rather caught off guard by this."

https://www.mtb-mag.com/en/opinion-27-5-is-dead/


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

18" frame size was already hard to find anything but 29" wheels when I checked. 

What I have seen, 27.5" bikes allow wider tires to be used for what 26" bikes used to offer, if 26" bikes would be offered with same tire widths and component sets, I don't see why 26" would not sell. 

Riding same bike with 27.5x2.2 wheels and 26x1.9 wheels, I'm just wondering what is the buzz, difference is not huge. 

Riding 29" bike, well quite often I ride at walking speeds or less on some soft stuff and 29er is not floating there either, like smaller ones are not floating, don't get gains from speed differences either.

Problem for me is this rearward weight balance move that has happened, it is probably good for faster riding, but for my riding I would prefer some 50/50 weight distribution.

So I do hope some old 26er styled bikes come back with good component sets and good wheels, but I think 26 is not coming back, it is fashion driven business and 29 is going to be only option for most bicycle buyers for coming years. 

I think it is fatbike for me in future, might suit better for my kind of riding.


----------



## mtbmike24 (Jul 25, 2009)

slimat99 said:


> Here's the best case I've head for 26" coming back. I'm not saying 26" is coming back because of these rumors, but if these rumors are accurate, we will be back to 26 and 29 for the most part. The following is from the linked article below.
> 
> "I've had a handful of conversations with folks on the product side who have all essentially told me that the end of 27.5″ is near. It was hard to believe at first, but the claims were validated across a few brands who manufacture various products. Starting with a couple of bike brands, I was told that virtually everything is going 29″ for next year and that 27.5″ will be offered for some smaller sizes and women's models. Then to back this up, I heard the same thing from wheel and parts manufacturers who were surprised at the fact that 90% of their OEM orders were for 29″ and the remaining fraction were for 27.5″. They were all rather caught off guard by this."
> 
> https://www.mtb-mag.com/en/opinion-27-5-is-dead/


Interesting the article brings up a point I realized right away but never really brought it up in fear of making everyone butt hurt.

It states when 29ers first came out and were being mass marketed to everyone with a pulse that they were the greatest thing ever.

The article specifically states they road like ****... This is the same thing I thought as well. Wheels were flexy frames were flexy and had bad geometry and the bikes were very heavy and they just felt weird and definitely had deficiencies. You would never know it based on all the early BS marketing.

Everyone was duped in believing they were the best thing ever made. Some of the early YouTube videos were the worst and very suspect and ridiculously lop sided it was almost comical and I lost a lot of respect for some of the journalist from major bike magazines. It was something that had to be done in order to have 29er take over and it worked.

Then Mr. Make Piece guy gets on the internet and says "don't worry what anybody else rides just ride what you want and be happy I don't understand why your so upset".

The problem with that statement is the bike industry was taking away what I like to ride and not replacing it. Pretty much dropped it like a hot rock with biased marketing like I described above.

Fast forward to today and 29ers are much improved and I can definitely see advantages over 26 but 26ers are great and just as capable as 29ers imo.

Really at the end of the day it's rider skill and fitness that makes the real difference and nothing else.

For the sake of the subject at hand I personally believe 26 is done for at least my life time and don't see it ever coming back but who really knows. Nothing really surprises me anymore.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

Trails didn't get sanitized for 26ers. They got smoothed out for low bottom brackets and long wheelbases on the new geo big bikes. Ironic that the "increased roll over" required that, no?


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

MattiThundrrr said:


> Trails didn't get sanitized for 26ers. They got smoothed out for low bottom brackets and long wheelbases on the new geo big bikes. Ironic that the "increased roll over" required that, no?


Trail sanitation has nothing to do with wheel size or geo.

It was going on (and being argued over) back in the day when we were all on old geo 26ers.


----------



## mtbmike24 (Jul 25, 2009)

kapusta said:


> Trail sanitation has nothing to do with wheel size or geo.
> 
> It was going on (and being argued over) back in the day when we were all on old geo 26ers.


True statement 

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Radium (Jan 11, 2019)

Welp, I still have a pretty damn nice riding 26er in the garage, so who knows, maybe I'll be a trend setter in my 80's, if I make that far!
@Mattithunder, that was a very insightful article, but I'm really not surprised a bit.
-Ray.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

mtbmike24 said:


> True statement
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


Yeah, dumbing down was always a thing but it's never been this extreme. It's ironic that trail sanitization dramatically ramped up along side bigger wheels and aggressive geo. We should have seen the opposite trend. The facts are the proliferation of bigger wheels is perfectly correlated with easier trails. Regardless of whether wheel size actually played a roll, it's where we are now. Bums me out. I hope we get back to hand built, skinny trails that maintain the natural character of the terrain, instead of mowing down everything with a trail machine, rock ramping every ledge, and widening corners so a stretched limo 29'er can handle it.


----------



## mtbmike24 (Jul 25, 2009)

slimat99 said:


> Yeah, dumbing down was always a thing but it's never been this extreme. It's ironic that trail sanitization dramatically ramped up along side bigger wheels and aggressive geo. We should have seen the opposite trend. The facts are the proliferation of bigger wheels is perfectly correlated with easier trails. Regardless of whether wheel size actually played a roll, it's where we are now. Bums me out. I hope we get back to hand built, skinny trails that maintain the natural character of the terrain, instead of mowing down everything with a trail machine, rock ramping every ledge, and widening corners so a stretched limo 29'er can handle it.


Good points

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

mtbmike24 said:


> Interesting the article brings up a point I realized right away but never really brought it up in fear of making everyone butt hurt.
> 
> It states when 29ers first came out and were being mass marketed to everyone with a pulse that they were the greatest thing ever.
> 
> ...


I think it's pretty well accepted now that early 29'ers rode like crap for anything other than logging miles and going straight. There was an interview with Rob Roskopp, former owner of Santa Cruz, who said SC would never make 29'ers because they sucked. In addition to actual handling characteristics, 29'ers simply were not cool. It's pretty amazing how 29'ers and MTB culture towards them has changed. Given that, there's no telling what MTB culture will be like regarding 26" in the coming years. Based on the vital survey, rumors from the manufacturing side, and what the bike media has been focusing on it's looking like 650b will be fazed out. There's zero chance 26" is dying out for SS, DJ, FR... It's looking like a tough argument to make that we won't be back to 26 and 29 soon. The wild card is what will MTB culture be like in regards to 26? Right now 26 coming back is laughable. People make fun of 26". Similar stuff to 29'ers before they become cool.

My money is on there being a movement for playful bikes after a year or two of 29'ers occupying 95% of the mainstream market. No matter what anyone says about 29'ers being fun, agile... they don't come remotely close to 26'ers when it comes to that stuff, and 26'er are far from slow when piloted by a rider that knows how to work small wheels. I don't see 650b playing much of a role other than for mullets, and size S bikes that are really designed to ride like 29'ers for shorties. 29 and 26 play bikes as early as 2021! 650b will probably be made fun of as being so 2015. worst of both worlds! I for one will be scooping up old stock 650b stuff lol.


----------



## mtbmike24 (Jul 25, 2009)

slimat99 said:


> I think it's pretty well accepted now that early 29'ers rode like crap for anything other than logging miles and going straight. There was an interview with Rob Roskopp, former owner of Santa Cruz, who said SC would never make 29'ers because they sucked. In addition to actual handling characteristics, 29'ers simply were not cool. It's pretty amazing how 29'ers and MTB culture towards them has changed. Given that, there's no telling what MTB culture will be like regarding 26" in the coming years. Based on the vital survey, rumors from the manufacturing side, and what the bike media has been focusing on it's looking like 650b will be fazed out. There's zero chance 26" is dying out for SS, DJ, FR... It's looking like a tough argument to make that we won't be back to 26 and 29 soon. The wild card is what will MTB culture be like in regards to 26? Right now 26 coming back is laughable. People make fun of 26". Similar stuff to 29'ers before they become cool.
> 
> My money is on there being a movement for playful bikes after a year or two of 29'ers occupying 95% of the mainstream market. No matter what anyone says about 29'ers being fun, agile... they don't come remotely close to 26'ers when it comes to that stuff, and 26'er are far from slow when piloted by a rider that knows how to work small wheels. I don't see 650b playing much of a role other than for mullets, and size S bikes that are really designed to ride like 29'ers for shorties. 29 and 26 play bikes as early as 2021! 650b will probably be made fun of as being so 2015. worst of both worlds! I for one will be scooping up old stock 650b stuff lol.


I hope your right. However it doesn't really matter much for me as I think I'm set with 4 high end 26ers a hard tail single speed. A all carbon XTR 2x10 trek 9.9 elite a all carbon XTR full suspension Zaskar team 100 and Ellsworth sub22 1x10. As long as I can still get tires I'm good. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

slimat99 said:


> I think it's pretty well accepted now that early 29'ers rode like crap for anything other than logging miles and going straight. s before they become cool.


I don't think that is well accepted at all. I think opinions differ now just as they did then.

If I had to choose an HT from 2006 it would abso-freaking-lutely be a 29er.

The first rock garden I hit on my 2006 Karate Monkey made me a believer. Sure the geo still had bugs to work out, but I would still take that bike over any 26er HT I had ridden. And this is for tight old-school singletrack.

I never found a FS 29er I was interested in (though I have not looked in the past 6 years), but for HT I was fully on board after just one ride, and would do it all over again.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

kapusta said:


> I don't think that is well accepted at all. I think opinions differ now just as they did then.
> 
> If I had to choose an HT from 2006 it would abso-freaking-lutely be a 29er.
> 
> ...


We also used to hand build trails which kept width in check and maintained natural terrain compared to today's trail machine built trails.

Opinions will always vary. I know you're not the only one that liked old 29'ers. Just because you would choose a crappy 29'er over a crappy 26'er doesn't change anything. Geo makes bikes, not wheels size. You can have poor handing bikes with any wheel size. 29' wheels most certainly aren't immune from poor designs. We can all learn to cope with whatever drawbacks our bikes might have. Being able to do things people say any given bike sucks at means nothing. We overemphasize things bikes do poorly anyway. old 29'ers sucking compared to new is relative. A good rider can kill it on an old 29'er no problems, but I would still say they sucked compared to today's bikes.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

slimat99 said:


> We also used to hand build trails which kept width in check and maintained natural terrain compared to today's trail machine built trails.
> 
> Opinions will always vary. I know you're not the only one that liked old 29'ers. Just because you would choose a crappy 29'er over a crappy 26'er doesn't change anything. Geo makes bikes, not wheels size. You can have poor handing bikes with any wheel size. 29' wheels most certainly aren't immune from poor designs. We can all learn to cope with whatever drawbacks our bikes might have. Being able to do things people say any given bike sucks at means nothing. We overemphasize things bikes do poorly anyway. old 29'ers sucking compared to new is relative. A good rider can kill it on an old 29'er no problems, but I would still say they sucked compared to today's bikes.


I am unsure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me 

I was responding to the claim that early 29ers rode like crap, and the assertion that it is now widely accepted that they did. In that context, what matters is to me is how they compared to 26ers of the time, not bikes of today.

Wheelsize and geo BOTH make a difference. It is not either/or. But I will say that no geometry tweek would make me want a 26er HT over a 29er HT. Even an older 29er HT.


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

Everything is relative : each time I take my 700 wheeled MTB (2018 model) , I abso-****ing-lutly hate the Boat anchor/slugishness feeling of handling in more technical section compared to my 26er. (2015 model)

That bike makes for an excellent spare bike.

Relativity is still a theory though , not a law


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

Between 27.5" and 26" I have around 10mm difference in trail, 2mm in offset and 26" is much more stable at speeds where grandma passes me limping (that is under 3mph which is where I spend most of the time when pedaling). 

So 27.5" has 10mm more trail and 2mm more offset, but it just absolutely refuses to go straight at slow speeds. Other measurements are pretty much the same, seat tube is shorter in 27.5" as it is 18 inch frame, while 26" is 19.5 frame, but top tube, chain stays, headtube angle etc. all are same. 
Seattube angle is different, but I just have to set saddle 2cm more forwards to match knee-pedal position of 26".

27.5" is a rut radar, even the slightest of rut bumps steering and jolts my balance at slow speeds, 26" wins a lot there.

Going speeds above 10mph, not sure if there is much difference, 26" just have this feeling of auto steer where it goes where I point without effort, while 27.5" is not trust inspiring, but most of the time no drama, even steering goes from side to side lot more without me wanting to steer. 

29" has probably even more trail which makes handling suck in slow speeds as well as ruts and alike will be a pain (unless they don't run along the riding path, hitting rut 90 degree angle surely is better with 29"), long trail is cause of flip flop wheel at slow speeds and that sucks. 

Considering 26" bike has already 76mm of trail and 27.5" bike has motorbike territory of 86mm of trail, this trend is alarming. 
Also that is quite small change in amount of trail that does make clear difference. 

Would prefer more offset or steeper head tube angles at least, but it seems modern bikes are made for people who ride downhills mostly, so even at low cost segment bikes have changed to less fun for slow riding. 

26" wheel at front of 27.5" bike actually seems to improve handling, front axle drops about an inch with not so tall 26" tire and that shortens trail a bit, also weight moves tiny bit more forwards.

Surely not all 27.5" bikes are same, like not all 29" bikes are same, but I would really like to see some wide rubber 26" that has short trail and generous offset, rider position should be bit more forwards too to get more weight on front tire. 

Certainly not a DH bike, but for my slow riding that kind of bike would work miles better than modern stuff.


----------



## Skooks (Dec 24, 2008)

The answer to the original question is simple. No, the 26-er will never 'rise from the ashes'. Anyone who thinks it will is dreaming.


----------



## mtbmike24 (Jul 25, 2009)

Skooks said:


> The answer to the original question is simple. No, the 26-er will never 'rise from the ashes'. Anyone who thinks it will is dreaming.


Doesn't matter much too me I will ride my 26 until I can't buy tires anymore. I refuse to ever give another bike company my money thanks to bike manufactures telling me I can't ride 26 anymore and that I have to ride 29 inch if I want the latest and greatest.

I learned how to build bikes because of this and I have become quite good at it. I built my son a 2x10 Marin 26er at 8 years old 4'3" tall. bike weights 27 lbs and has tons of gears and index shifters and hydro brakes guess what he still rides it and it's almost 3 years old now and can easily go another summer on it and when he out grows it I will simply transfer all the parts to a larger frame. The frame of his current bike cost me 30 bucks and it was brand new.

If and when the time comes I will build my own 29er or 27.5 out of used parts and never support the bike companies as long as I live because they seem to think I should be riding something I don't like and took my choice away.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## mtbmike24 (Jul 25, 2009)

2 summers my neighbor and I went riding we were meeting his friend who 
Apparently rides a lot. 
One hour into the ride I was spanking him bad and he actually told me I had a unfair advantage on this trail because of the bike I was riding I was on my Trek elite 9.9 I just laughed and said yep. Truth is it was probably a little bit of both but fitness was the biggest difference. 
I'm not going to sit here and say 29er are sluggish and slow because I have been passed by some fast dudes in really technical sections on them but I do my fair bit of passing as well. It's so much rider skill and fitness more than anything.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## mtbr_admin (Apr 1, 2011)

Will 26-inch wheels ever make a comeback?​
Despite the complete dominance of larger-wheeled 27.5 and 29-inch mountain bikes, some mountain bikers still prefer the agility of 26-inch wheels. A lively discussion is taking place in our forums about the future of 26-inch mountain bikes. One member posed the question: Will the 26er ever rise from the ashes?

One die-hard 26-inch fan claimed that he would keep riding 26-inch wheels until he can't buy tires anymore. Lucky for him, that day is unlikely to come-26-inch tires are still popular with dirt jumpers, children's mountain bikes, and fat bikes. That said, some forum members expressed their frustration with the lack of components options available these days. A common lament is that it is getting increasingly difficult to find high-end wheels and suspension forks for the smallest of the three mountain bike wheel sizes.









There's still room for 26-inch wheels on children's mountain bikes, like the Trailcraft Maxwell 26.​
Another forum member pointed out that 29-inch mountain bikes have eclipsed 27.5 mountain bikes over the past two seasons. If 27.5 is on the way out, does it follow that 26-inch wheels could see a resurgence?

What do you think? Have 26-inch wheels been relegated to mountain biking's past, or will the cycling industry take a turn back to 26-inch wheels once again? Join the conversation here.


----------



## gregorysmithj1 (Mar 13, 2011)

I just picked up my 2nd Ibis mojo-slr after selling mine in 2014. I put on newer brakes and rear shock and it preforms just as good as anything on the market today with a few pounds less! 27.1 (27.5) was a mistake IMO 26 is lighter weight and better for the short folks. I will always love my 29in hardtails tho!


----------



## Staktup (Jan 21, 2016)

I can't imagine having to transition from a 24" wheel bike over to 27.5, or even worse, 29, when you are in that tweener middle school age.

My 11 y.o. rode his first pedal-bike for 1 year when he was 5, got a new 20" bike when he turned 8, and outgrew that in 2 seasons. Used 26" bikes were more affordable and it was a no-brainer to get him on a Diamondback Splinter 24. After 2 years, we got a pair of light, XC 26" wheels. Then he spent a year on 26 on the same bike and had his best climbing days. He also ran it reverse mullet but got more pedal strikes aqq

This August, the boy got on a brand new (albeit heading toward obsolescence) Yeti SB5 with 27.5 carbon wheels. He just measured 5'2" tall which is the lowest height recommended for this S frame. Shame Yeti for what seems to be popular to do by the masses these days, but they designed their XS and S frames to get more smaller & possibly younger riders on a hi-po quiver killer- running on 650b wheels...


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

Staktup said:


> Shame Yeti for what seems to be popular to do by the masses these days, but they designed their XS and S frames to get more smaller & possibly younger riders on a hi-po quiver killer- running on 650b wheels...


Pretty sure Yeti were one of the first to do this, they resisted going to 27.5 for a long while and when they did they went this way...it was the big companies that jumped on the bandwagon some time later.


----------



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

Staktup said:


> I can't imagine having to transition from a 24" wheel bike over to 27.5, or even worse, 29, when you are in that tweener middle school age.


Luckily for the young ones some manufactures still make 26" wheeled bikes for kids.


----------



## 802spokestoke (Jun 20, 2012)

smokehouse4444 said:


>


This picture sums up the debate for me:

Here in New England, if I had to borrow a bike for a week, I'm taking that yeti all day, everyday...Different strokes for different folks though


----------



## 802spokestoke (Jun 20, 2012)

93EXCivic said:


> Then why are dirt jumpers still using 26in wheels...


Most of the kids at our jumps ride 20's.

Danny Macaskill is on 24's most of the time.

Kona killed the shonky


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

802spokestoke said:


> Most of the kids at our jumps ride 20's.
> 
> Danny Macaskill is on 24's most of the time.
> 
> Kona killed the shonky


20in is a BMX size. Danny Macaskill rides a 24in trials bike not a dirt jumper and so what on Kona.

Most dirt jump bikes are 26in and tons of companies still make them. There are a 24in bikes but they aren't overly common due to lack of forks.


----------



## mtbmike24 (Jul 25, 2009)

Staktup said:


> I can't imagine having to transition from a 24" wheel bike over to 27.5, or even worse, 29, when you are in that tweener middle school age.
> 
> My 11 y.o. rode his first pedal-bike for 1 year when he was 5, got a new 20" bike when he turned 8, and outgrew that in 2 seasons. Used 26" bikes were more affordable and it was a no-brainer to get him on a Diamondback Splinter 24. After 2 years, we got a pair of light, XC 26" wheels. Then he spent a year on 26 on the same bike and had his best climbing days. He also ran it reverse mullet but got more pedal strikes aqq
> 
> This August, the boy got on a brand new (albeit heading toward obsolescence) Yeti SB5 with 27.5 carbon wheels. He just measured 5'2" tall which is the lowest height recommended for this S frame. Shame Yeti for what seems to be popular to do by the masses these days, but they designed their XS and S frames to get more smaller & possibly younger riders on a hi-po quiver killer- running on 650b wheels...


 I built this bike up for my boy he went from 20 inch to 26 inch. He was 9 when I built it for him he's 12 now and a bit on the short side still at 4'9 but it fits him we just need to raise the seat. He probably has at least 1 more year on this maybe 2 and then I have a bigger full suspension frame waiting for him to transfer all these parts to it.

All his friends bikes are crap and not very good at all. Very heavy flexy and cheap. 
I found a brand new 13.5 inch 26er Marin frame on eBay brand new for 30 bucks 3 years ago that included a bottom bracket and headset.

I bought a 2x crank 39-22 for 40 bucks and 11-36 cassette in the rear. Deore Index shifters not stupid grip shift and Julie hydro front brakes I also have the rear but this frame will only accept rim brakes in the rear they will go on his next frame. 
Bike cost me 330 bucks to build from the wheels up thanks to the masses thinking 26 is obsolete. 
The bike weighs 27 lbs and has all the gearing he needs. He's already been riding it for 3 years.

We put the seat all the way down and my sisters 8 year old was riding it and he was blown away. Here is a picture of him at 8 years old riding it he is about 4'4 maybe 4'5 in this picture. You can actually see the grin on his face as he's riding lol. His current bike is a 20 inch.

The wheel in the front is off of one of my bikes at the time of the picture because my son left the bike behind his friends mom's car and she ran over the front wheel and ruined it so I had to steel mine and put it on so he could ride it. He loves to ride my sons bike and so do all his friends.

If you have the ability you would do yourself a big favor learning how to build your own bikes and free yourself from the death grip of bike manufactures.

When my son out grows this frame I will post it up for sale it's a great frame.









Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Radium (Jan 11, 2019)

When the last 26er finally breaks, this thread will die.


----------



## Nick_M (Jan 16, 2015)

Why people so obsessed with wheel size of the mtb?

Cars have gazzillione of wheel sizes per each manufactured unit, mx the same;

You are buying system as the whole to perform specific task, why are you care about wheel size/ bar diameter/ hub width/ wtf other dimension??

I do have several bikes with 14, 16, 20, 24, 26, 27,5 etc wheel sizes each dos specific job; 

In case i’ll purchase next one, wheel size will be the last one thing i’ll think about


----------



## mtbmike24 (Jul 25, 2009)

Nick_M said:


> Why people so obsessed with wheel size of the mtb?
> 
> Cars have gazzillione of wheel sizes per each manufactured unit, mx the same;
> 
> ...


Because your lungs and legs are the motor of the bike the balance and skill are you as well. That bike can't move or balance without a rider not same regarding vehicles with motors. With regards to motocross, well you don't have to worry about the biggest part of riding a bike (a motor) and skill plays the biggest difference.

Factor this in then it matters depending on were and how you ride. Lots of people still prefer 26inch wheels depending on there size and riding style and terrain they are riding. Despite what everyone has been led to believe 26 still has advantages over 29 in areas. I see it practically every time I ride.

The bike industry has decided that everyone should be riding 29 inch wheels regardless of height, male, female, young, old, expert, or novice or skill level as well as in every condition. That's just ignorant and it pissed people off.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Nick_M said:


> Why people so obsessed with wheel size of the mtb?


Perhaps because....


Nick_M said:


> wheel sizes each dos specific job;


----------



## mtbmike24 (Jul 25, 2009)

kapusta said:


> Perhaps because....


Right!! The fact there is any obsession or debate at all regarding wheel size is directly related to the lack of choice which the bike industry forced upon the consumer.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Joe_510 (May 19, 2014)

Close friend of mine was a 26" wheel-ite for years. He finally got a Transition Sentinel. GUESS WHO LIKES 27.5 NOW?!


----------



## PDXooo (Nov 21, 2019)

I STRONGLY BELIEVE that 26 wheels\bikes should be given a second chance... 

1. 26 wheels are stronger... 
2. 26 wheels are stiffer... 
3. The advent of plus tyres gives 26 wheels more rollover ability... 
4. Said advent also gives better grip from the wider contact patch... 
5. 26 wheels are lighter than larger ones with the same components(generally)... 
6. Any point I may have forgot...

I really wish MTB manufacturers would introduce a 26 Plus bike... #DontGiveUpOn26


----------



## sebbyr (Feb 28, 2007)

Joe_510 said:


> Close friend of mine was a 26" wheel-ite for years. He finally got a Transition Sentinel. GUESS WHO LIKES 27.5 NOW?!


Isn't a Sentinel a 29er?


----------



## Bermstyle (Jan 7, 2018)

One of the problems with these types of threads is that it seems that few of those contributing have actually gone and bought a bike with 29" or 27.5" wheels. 

My garage currently contains bikes of the three wheel sizes and the reality is I only use my 26" wheels at the bike park or pump track. I've tried to take them out on real trail rides, but I'm just over it. My 26" Santa Cruz Nomad C (ie the loaner) has hung on the wall for over two years now and is getting listed on Craig's List for dirt cheap.

I have a 29" for when I want to go fast - IE, I'm riding with my racer buddies - and I'm getting another 27.5" bike for when I just want the best of both worlds. The chatter about 27.5" going away is just silly.


----------



## Fastskiguy (Jan 15, 2004)

Aren't 26" wheels and 27.5" wheels damn near the same size?

I admit...when I switched from 26 to 29 back in the 90's my climbing went to ****.

I'm 6' 4" just for reference.


----------



## mtbmike24 (Jul 25, 2009)

Fastskiguy said:


> Aren't 26" wheels and 27.5" wheels damn near the same size?
> 
> I admit...when I switched from 26 to 29 back in the 90's my climbing went to ****.
> 
> I'm 6' 4" just for reference.


Yes 25mm difference between the 2 rim sizes.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## PDXooo (Nov 21, 2019)

The difference that matters is a 12.7mm difference in wheel & hence tyre radius - where 29ers are 31.5mm more than 26 wheels of the same tyre size...


----------



## PDXooo (Nov 21, 2019)

Performance isn't everything for everyone...

Just because a 29 & 650B wheel may have advantages over a 26 wheel, doesn't mean that everyone HAS to get them...

We also have the right not to get them - but the industry isn't recognising that right... 

& I am certain that you would not appreciate being forced to buy something - when you'd prefer something else - just because other people made a choice to do something that suits them...


----------



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

Fastskiguy said:


> Aren't 26" wheels and 27.5" wheels damn near the same size?
> 
> I admit...when I switched from 26 to 29 back in the 90's my climbing went to ****.
> 
> I'm 6' 4" just for reference.


They're so close that they're damn near the same yet so different that one is nimble and the other is a slug.

Did they even have 29'ers in the 90's? Why did you let your climbing go to ****?


----------



## mtbmike24 (Jul 25, 2009)

Bermstyle said:


> One of the problems with these types of threads is that it seems that few of those contributing have actually gone and bought a bike with 29" or 27.5" wheels.
> 
> My garage currently contains bikes of the three wheel sizes and the reality is I only use my 26" wheels at the bike park or pump track. I've tried to take them out on real trail rides, but I'm just over it. My 26" Santa Cruz Nomad C (ie the loaner) has hung on the wall for over two years now and is getting listed on Craig's List for dirt cheap.
> 
> I have a 29" for when I want to go fast - IE, I'm riding with my racer buddies - and I'm getting another 27.5" bike for when I just want the best of both worlds. The chatter about 27.5" going away is just silly.


If you want to go fast you ride your 29er... humm well I will keep this short Nino Shurters Scott scale 700 cross country bikes tire size was a Dugast Tubular FastBird 50mm 27.5x1.95 tire and his bike weighed 17.8 lbs. It's the same damn tire size as a 26x2.3
I think we can put to rest wheel size doesn't make you slow and basically doesn't even make this a debate anymore.
He won and and won big on a 26 inch wheel and guess what when Scott finally was able to make him happy in 2015/16 with a 29er he still won. Go ahead and keep believing what the industry is trying to sell you for me there is zero reason to move to 29er I will always put fitness and skill above everything else.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## PDXooo (Nov 21, 2019)

I don't imitate people - I do what I want...

I do not have to be the fastest rider - I am not a professional racer...

I want to ride 26 plus bikes - but the majority of mankind is soo content by following\being led by others, I am being forced to ride with bigger wheels because said majority's wants & needs are what the industry dictates...

This......'crap'......has to stop...


----------



## mtbmike24 (Jul 25, 2009)

PDXooo said:


> I don't imitate people - I do what I want...
> 
> I do not have to be the fastest rider - I am not a professional racer...
> 
> ...


My very same frustration. But I'm not going to listen to people say 26 wheels are slow and that there kids bikes it's a jab below the belt and a ignorant statement when the rider is the one making the bike move.
One of the biggest pushes for 29inch wheels is they are superior mostly in speed. It's more complicated than that.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

PDXooo said:


> I don't imitate people - I do what I want...
> 
> I do not have to be the fastest rider - I am not a professional racer...
> 
> ...


LOL!

I ride 24.85" wheels. 26" wheels are for followers!!!


----------



## itsnotbroken (Jul 7, 2013)

*Specialized 26 Plus before it's time*



PDXooo said:


> I STRONGLY BELIEVE that 26 wheels\bikes should be given a second chance...
> 
> 1. 26 wheels are stronger...
> 2. 26 wheels are stiffer...
> ...


They already did. 
Specialized HardRock circa 2007-2008 has HUGE tire clearance. My wife has a small frame running 26x2.8 WTB Trail Boss and still has room for mud. Best Upgrade since the dropper post. Great bike. I'm looking for a large frame to do the same thing.

And the Surly Instigator. And the Jamis Dragonfly.


----------



## PDXooo (Nov 21, 2019)

&......full suspension bikes dude... O.O #ComeOn


----------



## Radium (Jan 11, 2019)

I went for a nice 12 mile scoot on my obsolete 26", single pivot, long travel, (175-180 mm) 
Ellsworth Joker yesterday. I was pleasantly reminded of how quickly those 26" wheels accelerate compared to my 29er, which has the same tires on it. (Both have Maxxis DHF 2.5/ Maxxis Ardent 2.4). 
It was nice until I discovered my hydration pack was outta water. Hence the early turnaround time.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> They're so close that they're damn near the same yet so different that one is nimble and the other is a slug.
> 
> Did they even have 29'ers in the 90's? Why did you let your climbing go to ****?


Funny how that works isn't it. I attribute it to the fact that there's a .5" increase in rollover, but we feel 1" everywhere else. It's an exaggeration to say 26" is nimble, 650b isn't, but I can certainly feel a difference. I can feel a difference in rollover too but for my money, the extra rollover isn't worth the trade. Others will feel differently and welcome that trade, but the facts are we feel the 1" difference in more ways than we feel .5".


----------



## PDXooo (Nov 21, 2019)

& what about tyre lag?

One of the reasons I believe the MTB industry is forcing larger wheel sizes is due to the fact that tyres are routinely being run at lower pressures which - if you think about it - negates the rool over advantage as the tyre sags...

So a sagging 29 wheel really has the roll over capability of a 27.5 wheel & so on...

PS: I neither like oversized\heavy wheels, nor running excessively low pressures(tyre abuse)... >.>


----------



## Fastskiguy (Jan 15, 2004)

Just to be clear, I'm saying 26" and 650b are close, 26" to 29" is a fair jump in size. 

I think (and this is just opinion) that when there was a huge push to 29" that some companies realized it isn't best for every single thing. Instead of going back to 26" they had to come up with something "better" and thus, the return of the old 650B standard. 

As for climbing, I think (also opinion) that's where you feel the advantages of a lighter, stiffer wheel with less inertia and that's why the 26" feels like it climbs faster. I had a Bike Friday for awhile with the 20" wheels and that little sucker always climbed great.


----------



## macduff (Sep 4, 2012)

My Mtb history started a few decades ago on 26" tyre bikes and I stuck with that size for a long time (mostly as I tended to not change bikes that often and I had a fat Elvis phase in my 30s). I updated to 650b about 5 years ago replacing my aged Orange X2 with a Ibis HD3 and just recently obtained a 29er Ti hardtail (felt the need to ?) . As I also occasionally ride the missus('s) Transition Covert (26er 2011ish vintage) for maintenance check purposes I have all 3 wheelsizes at my disposal and I tend to ride the same trails on these which tend to err on converted deer trails through trees than anything like a bike park trail is (in my imagination at least) and if I'm honest I feel the differences between these are mostly down to frame geo /size fork length (and fork offset- very important that bit) than the wheelsize debate. My strava times don't vary much between the bikes , or no more than my strava times vary due other stuff like feeling fit or knackered during a ride has on them. Maybe I paying too much attention to the just enjoying the ride rather than the wheel size underneath me to notice ?


----------



## Matt37 (May 19, 2018)

Day 10 of the article and the only other comment besides this is spam. I guess this answers the "Will 26-inch wheels ever make a comeback?" question. Hot topic


----------



## DPeper (Jan 24, 2013)

sure enough my 10 year old rode one the whole season 2 years ago.


----------



## Shredman69 (Apr 1, 2007)

*My 26+ rips!*

Here's my 26+ Uzzi. 180mm travel front and rear with 2.8 Maxis DHRII. weighs in at 28.5lbs as it sits. Has super wide range gearing so I can climb or bomb anything! I'll keep it forever and I'll never buy a 29er. 26 for life!


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

Radium said:


> When the last 26er finally breaks, this thread will die.


Lol, that's not how it works. Say anything catchy, pro 26" or anti 26" years after their "death" and you'll have a tornado of contrary posts three pages long. 
Besides, you called it.
When the last 26'r breaks sounds a lot like; 
"We think all newer bikes are built better, sturdier and will last longer !!"

Look at all the love for the vintage stuff that still looks great and held up fine from the mid to late 1980's. :madman:
My 91 Hard Rock isn't old but my 34 year old kid might think so.



Fastskiguy said:


> Just to be clear, I'm saying 26" and 650b are close, 26" to 29" is a fair jump in size.


Also- by a very slim margin, 27'5 plus is very close to the o.d. of a 29. Rev's/mile will be slightly off though.


----------



## Shredman69 (Apr 1, 2007)

slimat99 said:


> There's no BS about 26" being lighter. That's like saying it's BS that a 2.3 tire is lighter than a 2.5. All things equal a 26" wheelset with tires will be around .25lbs lighter. While that's not a ton it's worth more to me than .5" bigger attack angle.


Not only are they lighter, but they're stronger, stiffer and because they're lighter and a smaller diameter, they accelerate and brake quicker. And because of all of these, they handle better.


----------



## Shredman69 (Apr 1, 2007)

mtbmike24 said:


> Right!! The fact there is any obsession or debate at all regarding wheel size is directly related to the lack of choice which the bike industry forced upon the consumer.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


I agree 100%


----------



## Skooks (Dec 24, 2008)

PDXooo said:


> I STRONGLY BELIEVE that 26 wheels\bikes should be given a second chance...
> 
> 1. 26 wheels are stronger...
> 2. 26 wheels are stiffer...
> ...


26 inch wheel bikes will never be main-stream again no matter what you stongly believe. If you have one and enjoy it, I suggest you ride it for as long as you can, then buy another bike with bigger wheels and enjoy that too!


----------



## Skooks (Dec 24, 2008)

Radium said:


> I went for a nice 12 mile scoot on my obsolete 26", single pivot, long travel, (175-180 mm)
> Ellsworth Joker yesterday. I was pleasantly reminded of how quickly those 26" wheels accelerate compared to my 29er, which has the same tires on it. (Both have Maxxis DHF 2.5/ Maxxis Ardent 2.4).
> It was nice until I discovered my hydration pack was outta water. Hence the early turnaround time.


Just curious, if you could only have one bike, which one would it be?


----------



## Skooks (Dec 24, 2008)

Anyone who has ridden a current bike with modern geometry will understand just how much better they ride compared to older bikes with shorter, steeper geo. None of these new-school bikes have 26 inch wheels, but so what? I ride bikes for fun, and a modern bike with larger wheels is way more fun, at least for me.


----------



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

Shouldn't this thread be in the retro-vintage forum?


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

Skooks said:


> Anyone who has ridden a current bike with modern geometry will understand just how much better they ride compared to older bikes with shorter, steeper geo. None of these new-school bikes have 26 inch wheels, but so what? I ride bikes for fun, and a modern bike with larger wheels is way more fun, at least for me.


Depends on the person, for me I have all 3 wheel sizes, a bunch of older 26 HT's the one that I have ridden the most in the last bunch of years is my GT Zaskar reissue, that bike is bonkers, i love it, it is SO much fun, I'm just grinning ear to ear every time I get on it, its funtastic...but i can only ride it for so long before my back gives out. A Scott Spark, this is the most un-funtastic bike i have ridden (well since my Specialized Epic), it's comfy for sure, but i dont find it fun at all. I have the ability to ride it for longer than the GT, and it's very capable, but I just don't get a fun thrill from it. My newest is an Intense Sniper, this bike is fast, it good on the uphill, great on the flat, and crazy fast for me on the DH. And that in itself is a lot of fun...that i dont get on the Scott. Its a great bike, but for absolute thrill/fun, the old GT still beats them all.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

I think it’s hysterical that 29ers have been standard equipment on the WCDH circuit for years now, along with 27.5 at Rampage, but buncha dudes on a forum prefer 26” wheels because they’re stronger and stiffer.


----------



## Shredman69 (Apr 1, 2007)

evasive said:


> I think it's hysterical that 29ers have been standard equipment on the WCDH circuit for years now, along with 27.5 at Rampage, but buncha dudes on a forum prefer 26" wheels because they're stronger and stiffer.


Just because 29ers have been on the WCDH for a couple years doesn't mean it's by the riders choice. They run what their sponsors give them to ride. The reason lots of them are on mullet bikes is because they don't want to ride 29ers. And lots of the Rampage guys are still on 26ers, because they prefer them, for a reason. They are stronger and more maneuverable. And the people in this forum, (myself included) who prefer 26ers, ride them because we ride what we like, not what the bike industry and media marketing tells us what we should ride.


----------



## vcolf (Apr 8, 2006)

I just got rid of my very capable 26er all mountain rig after holding out for a very long time. Test rode a fair amount of new geo 29ers and only compromise I could find was in super steep slow tech lines. The new frame geo and boost wheels got rid of any of the early gen compromises. I still have a 26 dj bike but for most all mountain I like the wagon wheels. IMO, really think that the engineers have figured it out. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Shredman69 said:


> Just because 29ers have been on the WCDH for a couple years doesn't mean it's by the riders choice. They run what their sponsors give them to ride. The reason lots of them are on mullet bikes is because they don't want to ride 29ers. And lots of the Rampage guys are still on 26ers, because they prefer them, for a reason. They are stronger and more maneuverable. And the people in this forum, (myself included) who prefer 26ers, ride them because we ride what we like, not what the bike industry and media marketing tells us what we should ride.


Fine. Nobody argues against riding what you like. But you're missing the point of my post. Stronger/stiffer is a pointless argument because you aren't seeing failures in those applications. Clearly the bigger wheels are strong and stiff enough.


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

evasive said:


> I think it's hysterical that 29ers have been standard equipment on the WCDH circuit for years now, along with 27.5 at Rampage, but buncha dudes on a forum prefer 26" wheels because they're stronger and stiffer.





Shredman69 said:


> Just because 29ers have been on the WCDH for a couple years doesn't mean it's by the riders choice. They run what their sponsors give them to ride. The reason lots of them are on mullet bikes is because they don't want to ride 29ers. And lots of the Rampage guys are still on 26ers, because they prefer them, for a reason. They are stronger and more maneuverable. And the people in this forum, (myself included) who prefer 26ers, ride them because we ride what we like, not what the bike industry and media marketing tells us what we should ride.





evasive said:


> Fine. Nobody argues against riding what you like. But you're missing the point of my post. Stronger/stiffer is a pointless argument because you aren't seeing failures in those applications. Clearly the bigger wheels are strong and stiff enough.


I'd argue there's a few buncha dudes on forums that might not be WCDH racers, riders or sponsored and that could have something to do with preferring, owning or riding ATTW any thing they want. 
Maybe I'm missing it &#8230;. what's the connection of the forum dudes to WCDH ? Can't we all just buy and ride what we like ?


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

bachman1961 said:


> I'd argue there's a few buncha dudes on forums that might not be WCDH racers, riders or sponsored and that could have something to do with preferring, owning or riding ATTW any thing they want.
> Maybe I'm missing it &#8230;. what's the connection of the forum dudes to WCDH ? Can't we all just buy and ride what we like ?


Sure, but you're missing the point, too.

Arguing that 26" wheels are better because they're stiffer and stronger (which has been done several times above) is silly. Because 29" and 27.5" have proved to be stiff and strong enough for the extreme end of the spectrum.

My point about a bunch of forum posters is that unless you all are 400 lbs, I doubt that you need stiffer and stronger wheels than elite pros.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

J.B. Weld said:


> Shouldn't this thread be in the retro-vintage forum?


Why would a discussion about 26" wheeled bikes not belong in the "26er bikes" forum? Or are you proposing the entire 26er forum be moved to retro?


----------



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

MattiThundrrr said:


> Or are you proposing the entire 26er forum be moved to retro?


That seems sensible.


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

evasive said:


> Sure, but you're missing the point, too.
> 
> Arguing that 26" wheels are better because they're stiffer and stronger (which has been done several times above) is silly. Because 29" and 27.5" have proved to be stiff and strong enough for the extreme end of the spectrum.
> 
> My point about a bunch of forum posters is that unless you all are 400 lbs, I doubt that you need stiffer and stronger wheels than elite pros.


There are plenty of 26" wheels and they've been around a long, long time. The sport has become more competitive so lighter weight or stronger wheels (not always the same thing) makes sense. Any resolution as to what wheels are stronger is likely a case by case situation IMO. This makes sense though -


evasive said:


> "29" and 27.5" have proved to be stiff and strong enough for the extreme end of the spectrum."


I might be mistaken but I thought part of the feedback was related to the entire 26" design in including frame as per acceleration, braking and responsive handling or stiffness / strength. Likely, preferences some have or advantages they felt a 26" was for them on the trails they ride / bikes they compared them to. ie: Much of this is / can be our own perspectives and experiences. 
Anything else can be proven or cited by facts if strength is a debate (and thank you for including the source/s in advance). :thumbsup:

As for 400# riders, that's nothing compared to the hits a bike/wheels take in motion countless times a minute in some cases with more 'average rider weights' and not necessarily 400#r's.
I'm not going to research the era, years or longevity for 26 verses the newer stuff but I don't think 26" went away due to catastrophic failures and weaknesses. That covered a helluva time span though.
Marketing and engineering favored 27'5 / 29 and the frames they support- It's natural to assume the wheels had to be as good or better in most cases. As always, Everybody enjoy your ride/s & bike/s.


----------



## blizzardpapa (Jan 19, 2004)

I am in my late 40's and I started riding in late 80's. I missed 26ers because I have 29" inseam when wearing my riding shoes. I have tried and 650b and 29ers but none of the bikes fit me well. Most bikes are designed to fit the average height and most deisgners can figure out how to design bikes for male riders with short inseams when using 650b or 29 wheels.

Even the bigger wheels are better but the bigger sizes may not work well for smaller riders.


----------



## Radium (Jan 11, 2019)

Skooks said:


> Just curious, if you could only have one bike, which one would it be?


It would be the 29er. It's a 4- bar 120mm travel Ellsworth Evolution. I stuck a 140 mm Fox fork on it to slacken it out a couple degrees, and I can actually ride it on the pavement around here, where our streets are full potholes. 
The Joker is a more "fun" bike, and it does feel more solid on trails, but it but to ride the same stretch of pavement on it really makes it clear that it covers distance much more easily than the Joker does.

So yeah, it would be the 29er.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> That seems sensible.


And they would kick it straight back out as anything after 1997 is classed as new and therefore not to be in that forum section


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

mik_git said:


> And they would kick it straight back out as anything after 1997 is classed as new and therefore not to be in that forum section


Yeah, the cutoff date could use an update.


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

MattiThundrrr said:


> Why would a discussion about 26" wheeled bikes not belong in the "26er bikes" forum? Or are you proposing the entire 26er forum be moved to retro?


I'm a bit confused on that. My screen at top reads- 
Forum
Classic Mtb bike forums
26er bikes

The subject matter at hand !! 
No foul -everything is in it's place just like one would filter search and find.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

Yes, all the forums are Classic MTB bike forums. 26er is one sub forum, Vintage, Retro, Classic is another.


----------



## Skooks (Dec 24, 2008)

blizzardpapa said:


> I am in my late 40's and I started riding in late 80's. I missed 26ers because I have 29" inseam when wearing my riding shoes. I have tried and 650b and 29ers but none of the bikes fit me well. Most bikes are designed to fit the average height and most deisgners can figure out how to design bikes for male riders with short inseams when using 650b or 29 wheels.
> 
> Even the bigger wheels are better but the bigger sizes may not work well for smaller riders.


I don't know what bikes you have been looking at, but Knolly has some pretty low standover Heights on their bikes.

https://www.knollybikes.com/size-guide


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

bachman1961 said:


> There are plenty of 26" wheels and they've been around a long, long time. The sport has become more competitive so lighter weight or stronger wheels (not always the same thing) makes sense. Any resolution as to what wheels are stronger is likely a case by case situation IMO. This makes sense though -
> I might be mistaken but I thought part of the feedback was related to the entire 26" design in including frame as per acceleration, braking and responsive handling or stiffness / strength. Likely, preferences some have or advantages they felt a 26" was for them on the trails they ride / bikes they compared them to. ie: Much of this is / can be our own perspectives and experiences.
> Anything else can be proven or cited by facts if strength is a debate (and thank you for including the source/s in advance). :thumbsup:
> 
> ...


What? I don't follow the points you're making.

I made one point. Saying this:



PDXooo said:


> I STRONGLY BELIEVE that 26 wheels\bikes should be given a second chance...
> 
> 1. 26 wheels are stronger...
> 2. 26 wheels are stiffer...


Means that 29" and 27.5" wheels aren't strong or stiff enough. How much stronger do your wheels need to be if they're strong enough for the WCDH circuit?

Ride what you like. 26ers ride differently, and if you prefer that, fair enough. But claiming that the larger wheels aren't strong enough makes no sense when they're holding up to elite racers on WC tracks.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

evasive said:


> Sure, but you're missing the point, too.
> 
> Arguing that 26" wheels are better because they're stiffer and stronger (which has been done several times above) is silly. Because 29" and 27.5" have proved to be stiff and strong enough for the extreme end of the spectrum.
> 
> My point about a bunch of forum posters is that unless you all are 400 lbs, I doubt that you need stiffer and stronger wheels than elite pros.


I'm sure you understand it's an all things equal thing. No one said 29 can't be made stiff and strong.

One thing that doesn't get talked about is how 29 requires DH width hub spacing to address lateral flex. 26, and 27 can get away with really narrow spacing which saves weight but most importantly adds clearance. Hope uses 130mm spacing for their enduro 650b bike while allowing for 2.6 tires. 26" naturally resists lateral flex so well we could have desired flex patterns with really narrow spacing. 148 spacing on trail bikes is stupid, and we might be going to 157 lol. Why the industry went boost for 27 is beyond me? People just think wide is cool I guess? And please don't tell me 148 is for tire clearance and chain line. Hope has proven you can have those things with 130mm spacing.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

slimat99 said:


> I'm sure you understand it's an all things equal thing. No one said 29 can't be made stiff and strong.
> 
> One thing that doesn't get talked about is how 29 requires DH width hub spacing to address lateral flex. 26, and 27 can get away with really narrow spacing which saves weight but most importantly adds clearance. Hope uses 130mm spacing for their enduro 650b bike while allowing for 2.6 tires. 26" naturally resists lateral flex so well we could have desired flex patterns with really narrow spacing. 148 spacing on trail bikes is stupid, and we might be going to 157 lol. Why the industry went boost for 27 is beyond me? People just think wide is cool I guess? And please don't tell me 148 is for tire clearance and chain line. Hope has proven you can have those things with 130mm spacing.


The reason nobody talks about the problem of boost spacing is because it is not a problem. If there is a downside to 148mm spacing, it eludes me.

A I understand it, in terms of the spacing between the dropouts and width of the hub body, 142TA is actually the same as 135QR. 148mm is only 6mm wider.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

evasive said:


> I think it's hysterical that 29ers have been standard equipment on the WCDH circuit for years now, along with 27.5 at Rampage, but buncha dudes on a forum prefer 26" wheels because they're stronger and stiffer.


You know the winner of Rampage was on 26s right.... As well as quite a few of the other guys.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

93EXCivic said:


> You know the winner of Rampage was on 26s right.... As well as quite a few of the other guys.


Not surprising. Rampage runs involve a lot of aerial tricks, and 26" wheels are still standard for that. Maneuvering a bike midair brings different requirements than race runs.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

kapusta said:


> The reason nobody talks about the problem of boost spacing is because it is not a problem. If there is a downside to 148mm spacing, it eludes me.
> 
> A I understand it, in terms of the spacing between the dropouts and width of the hub body, 142TA is actually the same as 135QR. 148mm is only 6mm wider.


The downside is added weight and reduced clearance for your heels and mech/hanger. Many were bending mechs and hangers with 135 so losing any clearance with 148 is moving in the wrong direction. We skim by stuff at the cranks, pedals, and mech all the time. It's easy to write off small numbers like 5mm difference between 175mm and 170mm cranks, but for many it makes all the difference. Same applies to mech clearance. This is why Hope went with 130mm spacing which created substantially more clearance compared to boost. Like 10mm range.

For 29" wide spacing is mandatory to not have wet noodles for wheels. For 26, we could go as narrow as 130 or less. We could have a nice weight reduction and 10mm or more extra clearance. Maybe you would recognize the downside of 148 if the numbers grew like when comparing Hope's 130mm standard to boost. While the differences now aren't as pronounced, my point is they could be because of the natural traits of 27 and 26 wheels. 29 has no choice but to hang that dangly thing out there. There's your downside. Pretty easy to see when you look at what the different wheel sizes need to have desired flex patterns and durability.


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

evasive said:


> What? I don't follow the points you're making.


Just that bikes and wheels size specifics are so variant, it's really tough to generalize and be accurate about which is stronger but as you say, it often doesn't seem to matter. Everything has gotten better (generally). 



evasive said:


> But claiming that the larger wheels aren't strong enough makes no sense when they're holding up to elite racers on WC tracks.


Yeah, somebody may have made such a claim but it was not me. No doubt wheel strength differs by many variables but it doesn't seem to be a widespread concern or problem represented here.

Considerations and some less modern info represented here: Fun reading ? Maybe. :thumbsup:

https://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel_index.html


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

Although we've already determined that the 27.5 and 29 inch wheels are tough enough for the pros, and thus also for all recreational riders, there is some interesting stuff to be gleaned from Sheldon.

"Smaller wheels are stiffer than larger wheels. If they are built on the same hubs, then the bracing angle is larger for smaller rims. If everything else is the same, 650C wheels are about 25% stiffer than 700C wheels"


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

evasive said:


> Not surprising. Rampage runs involve a lot of aerial tricks, and 26" wheels are still standard for that. Maneuvering a bike midair brings different requirements than race runs.


Yes, so if 29 is being used for all forms of racing, what's the point of 650b? Oh yeah, it rolls so much faster lol.


----------



## Joe_510 (May 19, 2014)

sebbyr said:


> Isn't a Sentinel a 29er?


It was a Patrol, my bad.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

slimat99 said:


> The downside is added weight and reduced clearance for your heels and mech/hanger. Many were bending mechs and hangers with 135 so losing any clearance with 148 is moving in the wrong direction. We skim by stuff at the cranks, pedals, and mech all the time. It's easy to write off small numbers like 5mm difference between 175mm and 170mm cranks, but for many it makes all the difference. Same applies to mech clearance. This is why Hope went with 130mm spacing which created substantially more clearance compared to boost. Like 10mm range.
> 
> For 29" wide spacing is mandatory to not have wet noodles for wheels. For 26, we could go as narrow as 130 or less. We could have a nice weight reduction and 10mm or more extra clearance. Maybe you would recognize the downside of 148 if the numbers grew like when comparing Hope's 130mm standard to boost. While the differences now aren't as pronounced, my point is they could be because of the natural traits of 27 and 26 wheels. 29 has no choice but to hang that dangly thing out there. There's your downside. Pretty easy to see when you look at what the different wheel sizes need to have desired flex patterns and durability.


You need to rethink the logic of your derailleur clearance argument. While boost spacing does push the RD 3mm out, a 29er also raises it around 30mm. So overall, an RD on a boosted 29er has much better clearance than on a non-boosted 26er.

Weight? The hub is a whopping 6mm wider. The weight penalty for boost is so small as to be irrelevant.

Heel clearance? Who is having heel clearance issues? Chainstays can easily be shaped to accommodate that.

Hope's 130mm rear spacing: the reduction in width is all on the non-drive side. The drive side is the same. It (and the RD) sticks out just as far as on a 148mm rear). Look at a picture from the rear and you'll see the rear stays are asymmetrical.

Also, Hope uses that 130 spacing for their 29er. Doesn't the fact that Hope built a 29er with a 130mm rear spacing kind of negate the argument that 29ers REQUIRE a 148mm rear spacing?

In any event, I just don't see what point Hope's design is proving here.

I'm sorry but the idea that needing to go boost somehow incurs any meaningful compromises is a bit nonsensical, IMO.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

kapusta said:


> You need to rethink the logic of your derailleur clearance argument. While boost spacing does push the RD 3mm out, a 29er also raises it around 30mm. So overall, an RD on a boosted 29er has much better clearance than on a non-boosted 26er.
> 
> Weight? The hub is a whopping 6mm wider. The weight penalty for boost is so small as to be irrelevant.
> 
> ...


You misunderstood. My whole argument was based on if smaller wheels used 130mm, and 29'ers 148. I would take it back if 29'ers used narrow spacing like hope's 29'er. I didn't realize they did that. Makes you wonder why boost is said to be mandatory for 29 doesn't it. Anyway, the weight savings between 130 and 148 would be pronounced. 18mm of material in the axle and hub would add up. You haven't changed my mind about mech clearance, 148 sticks it out further than any trail bike standard we've had regardless of wheel size. Raising the mech up via bigger wheels does little to nothing to reduce impacts. When BB's were tall, impacts were still an issue. 148 just exacerbates an issue that's always been there.

All I'm saying is small wheels would allow us to tuck it in much better than 148. If 29'ers can do the same then my argument is baseless, but as it sits now, the industry is saying 29'ers need wide spacing to match smaller wheel rigidity.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

slimat99 said:


> You misunderstood.


Internet forum, so par for the course.



slimat99 said:


> My whole argument was based on if smaller wheels used 130mm, and 29'ers 148. I would take it back if 29'ers used narrow spacing like hope's 29'er. I didn't realize they did that. Makes you wonder why boost is said to be mandatory for 29 doesn't it. Anyway, the weight savings between 130 and 148 would be pronounced. 18mm of material in the axle and hub would add up. You haven't changed my mind about mech clearance, 148 sticks it out further than any trail bike standard we've had regardless of wheel size. Raising the mech up via bigger wheels does little to nothing to reduce impacts. When BB's were tall, impacts were still an issue. 148 just exacerbates an issue that's always been there.
> 
> All I'm saying is small wheels would allow us to tuck it in much better than 148. If 29'ers can do the same then my argument is baseless, but as it sits now, the industry is saying 29'ers need wide spacing to match smaller wheel rigidity.


To be honest, I don't really understand why Hope did what they did. I read that they wanted to make the spoke lacing symmetrical (not offset), but what they seem to have done is just make the non-DS as narrow as the DS. Maybe I am missing something here. It reminds me of what Surly did with the Pugsly.

I am curious how the 130mm is measured. For example, what we call "135mm" and "142mm" frames are essentially the same overall width, it is just a matter of where the ends of the hub are in the frame. There is no difference in where they place the cassette, Disc, or hub flanges. I am curious how hope measures this.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

kapusta said:


> Internet forum, so par for the course.
> 
> To be honest, I don't really understand why Hope did what they did. I read that they wanted to make the spoke lacing symmetrical (not offset), but what they seem to have done is just make the non-DS as narrow as the DS. Maybe I am missing something here. It reminds me of what Surly did with the Pugsly.
> 
> I am curious how the 130mm is measured. For example, what we call "135mm" and "142mm" frames are essentially the same overall width, it is just a matter of where the ends of the hub are in the frame. There is no difference in where they place the cassette, Disc, or hub flanges. I am curious how hope measures this.


I'm not positive how they measure their spacing? I just remember when 130 first hit the market they talked about mech clearance. I know spec played with 135 spacing for the Demo to save weight and add clearance. To me narrow spacing makes more sense unless wider flanges are required. If 29'ers can get away with the same spacing as 26/27 that's great, but all we hear is how boost is a game changer for 29er's. Too bad Hope hasn't shown data proving they can match boost with 130mm. I don't' think it would matter though because people like wider based on marketing and because it looks totally badass compared to wimpy little 130. If and when we go to 157, there will be a strong argument for the weight and clearance benefits of 130.


----------



## Greg_S (Jan 14, 2020)

Yes it will. But they won't call it 26 inch and it won't be compatible with any 26 inch stuff. It will be something like 25.5 of 585 and will be the new ideal setup for quick handling mountain bikes. 25.5 for 2025


----------



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

I remember 126mm rear hub spacing, those were the days!


----------



## Fastskiguy (Jan 15, 2004)

Yeah for sure guys, the fact that 29" wheels are not as inherently strong as 26" wheels simply doesn't matter, they are strong enough. 

Just like square taper road bb's are strong enough so we don't need those heavy complicated bb "standards" anymore and can just run square tapers these days. Oh wait.....


----------



## dashskullsasq (Nov 28, 2019)

bought 2 months ago some brand new DTSwiss rims 26 and tubeless


----------



## weeblebiker (Oct 15, 2018)

Wheel size is like ski or snowboard length. 26" will come back around for smaller riders or for people wanting more maneuverability. I don't want long skis or boards for my local Midwest ice patches, I don't want 29" wheels for my tight twisty rooty short up and down Midwest trails. new won't be around until the used market is depleted, then lighter weight more flick-able 26" bikes will appear in the catalogs. 

or rather two frame styles 26+through 27.5 and 27.5+through 29.

oh wait, where did 26ers go?

That said I'd strongly consider a 29er if any of my local trail downhills or straights that lasted more than 15 seconds. 

The rest is kinda arm chair engineering nonsense like adding 20 mm longer crown to axle suspension fork is gunna drastically change your bike geometry and BB height, like full extended fork length has much to do with where the fork and/or rear shock is in the travel at a particular moment.


----------



## Chris_PA (Apr 25, 2019)

Trying to go back on topic: 
I hope 26" wheels don't die, I feel the acceleration is really unique compared to 27.5 or 29. Here in PA most trails are lots of short descents and climbs, 26" wheels can really make a difference. I got the idea to build a 26 rear 27.5 front with modern specs. I found an old 26er frame and the wheel lift in front gives it a reasonable slack head angle, I build it with a Pike and Eagle GX. Finding a reasonable priced rear wheel was indeed a problem, everything stock has quite narrow rims and the hubs have wide engagement, same was true for finding a light and tough tire. It rides great!

Now I have a 29" Epic a 27.5" Santa Cruz 5010 and the Mini mullet (based on a Fuji Reveal). They all do what one would expect. The 29er keeps the momentum is fast and rolls but sluggish to get up to speed, the 5010 is the do everything fun bike and the Mini mullet is the spring-loaded acceleration machine. I don't care much about times, I more ride bikes like snowboards or skies (the line counts not the time), and all 3 are tons of fun.

I know it's an ugly Fuji design but I wouldn't give it away.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

Chris_PA said:


> Trying to go back on topic:
> I hope 26" wheels don't die, I feel the acceleration is really unique compared to 27.5 or 29. Here in PA most trails are lots of short descents and climbs, 26" wheels can really make a difference. I got the idea to build a 26 rear 27.5 front with modern specs. I found an old 26er frame and the wheel lift in front gives it a reasonable slack head angle, I build it with a Pike and Eagle GX. Finding a reasonable priced rear wheel was indeed a problem, everything stock has quite narrow rims and the hubs have wide engagement, same was true for finding a light and tough tire. It rides great!
> 
> Now I have a 29" Epic a 27.5" Santa Cruz 5010 and the Mini mullet (based on a Fuji Reveal). They all do what one would expect. The 29er keeps the momentum is fast and rolls but sluggish to get up to speed, the 5010 is the do everything fun bike and the Mini mullet is the spring-loaded acceleration machine. I don't care much about times, I more ride bikes like snowboards or skies (the line counts not the time), and all 3 are tons of fun.
> ...


Nice looking bike. Is that really a 27.5 front/26" rear? Looks very similar!


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

Chris_PA said:


> Trying to go back on topic:
> I hope 26" wheels don't die, I feel the acceleration is really unique compared to 27.5 or 29. Here in PA most trails are lots of short descents and climbs, 26" wheels can really make a difference.
> 
> I know it's an ugly Fuji design but I wouldn't give it away.
> ...


Sounds like a sensible strategy for ride areas you have.
I wouldn't call that bike ugly. 
If not a fan of pop-out colors, that graphic design or yellow, You can do simple to fix it.



IMO- Whatever happens to 26 in the long term, Marketing will always be testing trying and building bikes or correcting their mistakes to fit and sell bikes to all people of all sizes. Something about money from what I heard.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

Vespasianus said:


> Nice looking bike. Is that really a 27.5 front/26" rear? Looks very similar!


Might be because 26 and 27.5 ARE VERY SIMILAR! With the right tire selection, you can almost eliminate the difference. A big 26 and small 27.5 have almost equal diameter when mounted.


----------



## EpicAKRydr (Sep 9, 2019)

I don't forsee a resurgence amongst adults. I could see it gaining popularity amongst kids but the jump from 24" to 27.5" isn't so large that 26" arguably really needs to be present. I see support, especially high-end support of 26", fading since every adult in the market for a MTB is going for a 27.5 and 29 these days. It all depends on how popular mountain biking becomes in grade school, particularly for ages 12-18. If junior high's/middle school's and high school's have mountain bike teams, and if mountain biking becomes popular amongst peers in that age range then 26" bikes could make a resurgence. The need for high quality and inherently expensive equipment to facilitate that is a major hurdle, but multiple organizations are trying to change that not limited to but including an organization spearheaded by Gary Fisher himself.


----------



## Sir.Pinkie (Mar 9, 2020)

I personally love my 26ers.


----------



## Kenny_D (Apr 16, 2020)

I prefer my 26er to my 29er, just cos it's so light and responsive.


----------



## george_humphreys (Apr 16, 2020)

I hope 26 makes a resurgence at some point, I have a Gary Fisher Hifi (2008) which is fantastic to ride, under 24lbs it doesn't feel like the bikes around these days. Trying to keeping it going though is a challenge as parts become scarce. I have had to change to 1x11 as the componentry was unavailable, and now changed brakes to XT. I do have all the shims/bolts for the frame should I need to replace. I'm on the hunt for good quality wheels as originals are getting signs of fatigue and there really isn't much choice.


----------



## rweakley (Sep 7, 2008)

I put brand new groupset on my FSR 26er a few years ago, and then again about a year and a half ago had my HT powder coated and rebuilt in its ENTIRETY with new parts (down to the water bottle holders). You can still find NOS parts available on eBay. For example, I got a brand new (i.e. still in OEM box)several years old Reba dual air for the HT. I had a Recon on the FSR. It had nothing but air and rebound. I added in a Reba cartridge after speaking with Rock Shox about compatibility. Now it has hi/low speed compression damping and threshold adjustment. Wheels are still available too if you know where to look. And I got a set of tubeless tires for Christmas too. Long live my 26ers!


----------



## Sunray (Jun 24, 2020)

I rode 26" Gary Fischer Joshua F2 for past 20yrs. Best bike I ever owned. Lightweight and fast. Never a tiring ride regardless of the terrain. Decided to upgrade because it appeared to be outdated when compared to other bikes on the trail. Just bought 2020 27.5" Giant Trance 3. Big mistake. Bike is just too heavy (33lbs) when compared to my GF. Add water bottle, pump, tool kit etc now up to 37lbs. The bike excels on downhill but for regular trail it is very tiring. I ride half the distance of my GF then peeter out. Time to sell and go back to my GF. Bring back 26ers!


----------



## al_mandell (Oct 5, 2020)

industry Nine still makes a 26" wheel. It will be costly, but well worth it


----------



## yomtnbiker111 (Mar 25, 2006)

I ride Seven Sola 26. It feels so agile and responsive on actual mtn bike trails vs a 29 er. Maybe I am just used to the way the bike handles?? Or perhaps it's the type of trails that I ride?? I love the bike and will ride it until one of my kids needs it. 

I was worried about the supply of 26 inch wheels / rims until recently. Every time I go to the Mavic site it seems that fewer and fewer 26 er rims are available. But I just found Velocity Wheel located in Michigan. They carry a load of 26 inch rims. As I shop there are 8 different 26 inch rims in which to choose. I am about to get a 30 mm outer, 25 mm inner wide Velocity Cliffhanger rim and see if it can be squeezed into my old titanium frame...


----------



## Mattman (Feb 2, 2004)

With bikes out of stock and back-ordered in many shops and online retailers, the market for use bikes is hot. A lot of 26" bikes are coming out of garages and being ridden again by their old owners or sold to new owners who would know the difference anyway. I just sold my nice old 26" wheeled bike and bought a very similar one for my son in his smaller size. I even came out $200 ahead. I've converted his now to 1x11 and is as good a bike as it ever was, better in some ways. I'm hearing tire selection and availability is not what it used to be in 26"; I guess that makes sense.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Bump for merge


----------



## RicoMack (Jun 29, 2020)

I recently refurbished a Litespeed Owl Hollow and found trying to get decent 26 wheels and tires a PITA, but finally was able to find the parts I needed. I also had problems finding v-brakes, levers, decent 26 fork, etc. One can find these parts but they don't seem to be of the quality of the 26 parts that we became accustom to back in the day when 26'er were the thing.

I've had a 29'er and didn't care much for it, but I never had a 27.5'er. I can imagine that might be a nice compromise between a 26'er and 29'er. I wish 26'er would make a come back but unfortunately I don't see that happening. Oh sigh...


----------



## diamondback1x9 (Dec 21, 2020)

MattiThundrrr said:


> They're still making new 26 wheelsets
> Bicyclewheelwarehouse.com


man this place is like the harbor freight of bike wheels.


----------



## KeithD42 (Mar 5, 2016)

I still ride my 2003 Giant full sus along with my new Scott Spark. I think there will always be a market for 26’s.


----------



## freetors1 (Sep 19, 2019)

I wouldn't mind riding a 26er if they had received all the modern updates that happened simultaneously as 27.5 and 29ers became mainstream. Things like boost axles, dropper posts, more stable geometry, better suspension kinematics, etc. I think a thoroughly modern 26er would actually be quite fun to ride.

It is quite noticeable how much better a 29er roll over stuff though


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

CRC got some new 26" Conti tires in (the nice ones), so apparently they are still making them.

Now I gotta figure out what to do about the declining health of my 26er forks.

So...._from my cold dead hands.... _or as long as I can get parts.


----------



## fly4130 (Apr 3, 2009)

My 26 inch dirt jumper is waiting on a new Circus fork, and I have some shiny new Kenda K-Rads waiting to mount once it is back. I know that is not exactly what this thread is about, but 26 will never truly die! I have also seen some kids bikes spec 26 inch wheels now. That really helps bridge the gap between 24 and adult sizes nicely. 24 gets outgrown so fast. My old Cannondale has been relegated to a rigid extra bike as the headshok became unserviceable a while back. Still rolls just fine.


----------



## Buster Bluth (Sep 11, 2008)

BOOM!


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

ghettocruiser said:


> Now I gotta figure out what to do about the declining health of my 26er forks.


Last month I scored a NOS 26" fork online. So another few years, at least.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

ghettocruiser said:


> Last month I scored a NOS 26" fork online. So another few years, at least.


I have never maintained a fork so diligently as I do the 26" straight steerer Lyrik I have on my Turner 5 Spot. Finding a similar replacement at this point would not be easy or cheap.


----------



## Old school dude (Sep 29, 2021)

26" wheels are not dead. A week ago my boy and me hit up a local ski resort riding the lifts up and we saw alot of 26" wheels up there. There was downhill, xc up there. And of course I was on my old 26" wheels up there. One day I'll get a new bike, but not till I feel I can justify it.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

kapusta said:


> I have never maintained a fork so diligently as I do the 26" straight steerer Lyrik I have on my Turner 5 Spot. Finding a similar replacement at this point would not be easy or cheap.


I have a 150mm Marzzochi RC3 Ti on mine. It's butter. I recently installed a custom fillet brazed straight blade fork with canti bosses on my SS

If anyone's interested in a Marzocchi Marathon S, Lemme know. 2004, disc tabs and canti bosses. 115mm, straight 1 1/8 steerer cut for a 18" frame. Coil n' oil, ETA, black, needs oil change, have an Enduro seal and wiper kit. 9/10. Super rare.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Old school dude said:


> 26" wheels are not dead. A week ago my boy and me hit up a local ski resort riding the lifts up and we saw alot of 26" wheels up there. There was downhill, xc up there. And of course I was on my old 26" wheels up there. One day I'll get a new bike, but not till I feel I can justify it.


what is there to justify?

THe real issue is not 26 inch wheels IMO, its that everything with 26 inch wheel has really bad geometry.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

I hope 26 doesn't rise from the ashes. Picked this one up for cheap on the weekend. I like the ashes


----------



## Eric F (May 25, 2021)

BushwackerinPA said:


> THe real issue is not 26 inch wheels IMO, its that everything with 26 inch wheel has really bad geometry.


Yet, somehow, people on 26ers manage to ride the same roads and trails as people on modern geo bikes. From my observation, the mountains haven't moved a lot in the last 20 years. Is a new, squishy, big-wheel bike faster than an old 26er? Probably. Not everyone is concerned about being the fastest.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

This month's project: the 12-speed QR135 26er.

Mostly because I was getting tired of overpaying for used or NOS 9-speed artifacts.

That big 8100 derailleur is admittedly hanging a bit close to the ground.


----------



## Old school dude (Sep 29, 2021)

BushwackerinPA said:


> what is there to justify?
> 
> THe real issue is not 26 inch wheels IMO, its that everything with 26 inch wheel has really bad geometry.


I feel like I can't justify spending $4000 plus on some of the bikes I'm looking at and wanting whe I'm lucky if I ride twice a month. I work 80 hour work weeks. So as much time as I'm working I feel like it would be a waste buying a new bike and mostly sitting in the garage. When I can start riding 1 or 2 times a week like I used to than I'll buy a new bike. I'm waiting for the wife to finish grad school and get her license and make good money. More than I'm making at both jobs.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

BushwackerinPA said:


> what is there to justify?
> 
> THe real issue is not 26 inch wheels IMO, its that everything with 26 inch wheel has really bad geometry.







  








Why do you guys build your own bikes?




__
milehi


__
May 10, 2012




this photo is from the thread &quot;Why do you guys build your own bikes?&quot; in the Mtbr...






Not everything. Long, low and slack and 15 years old. 18" 24"TT 74SA 66.5HA 13.25BB


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

that is still pretty poor geo^^^^ also with out saying how tall you are the reach is meaningless. If your 5'11 or tall that is borderline short. 

Namely the slack seat angle and long STA. My 600mm TT only has 17 inch seat tube which lets me run a 200mm dropper.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Eric F said:


> Yet, somehow, people on 26ers manage to ride the same roads and trails as people on modern geo bikes. From my observation, the mountains haven't moved a lot in the last 20 years. Is a new, squishy, big-wheel bike faster than an old 26er? Probably. Not everyone is concerned about being the fastest.



being able to do something is hardly justification. I am not concerned with being fastest, I just dont like having my bike work against me. Does that lead to being faster? on Strava yes.....but I no longer race XC.


----------



## Eric F (May 25, 2021)

BushwackerinPA said:


> being able to do something is hardly justification. I am not concerned with being fastest, I just dont like having my bike work against me. Does that lead to being faster? on Strava yes.....but I no longer race XC.


Maybe I'm self-justifying because I can't afford a new bike. Meanwhile, every time I ride my 20+ year old hardtail 26er singlespeed, I enjoy the ride. I'm not quite sure how a new bike would make things more enjoyable. Easier? Yes. I'm not looking for easier any more than I'm looking to be faster. Maybe I'm just ignorant. It's certainly a possibility.

All that said, I don't see 26" wheels making a significant comeback into the MTB world. Generally speaking, "progress" is largely driven by what makes riding faster and/or easier. 26" wheels don't have an advantage in any of that.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

BushwackerinPA said:


> what is there to justify?
> 
> THe real issue is not 26 inch wheels IMO, its that everything with 26 inch wheel has really bad geometry.


I am well aware that geo has improved over the past 10 years. However, over the past ten years since I got my 5-spot, and all my friends have moved on to newer bikes (bigger wheels, newer geo), the difference I am seeing in what everyone can ride has essentially not changed. They are faster on DHs, but it is not by much. I used to be mid-pack in our group on the way down, and I still am. The one guy who I used to be a little faster than is now a little faster than me. That's about it. I used to be on the upper half of the group in clearing technical steep climbs.... and I still am. We have all been riding since the 90s.

Does that justify tossing my bike and dropping $4K-$6K on a new bike? No, not to me. I know some people will just keep paying whatever they need to in order to be on the very best bike they can, and keep dishing out a very 2-3 years to keep up with the latest and greatest. I used to be one of those people. I stopped playing that game 10 years and $10-12K ago.

I am going to be getting a new bike in the next year or so (it is getting impractical to maintain what I have), and I look forward to the new geo and larger wheels, but the idea of tossing a perfectly functioning, perfectly tuned, high end bike for just to move up one spot in the pecking order is silly.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

kapusta said:


> I am well aware that geo has improved over the past 10 years. However, over the past ten years since I got my 5-spot, and all my friends have moved on to newer bikes (bigger wheels, newer geo), the difference I am seeing in what everyone can ride has essentially not changed. They are faster on DHs, but it is not by much. I used to be mid-pack in our group on the way down, and I still am. The one guy who I used to be a little faster than is now a little faster than me. That's about it. I used to be on the upper half of the group in clearing technical steep climbs.... and I still am. We have all been riding since the 90s.
> 
> Does that justify tossing my bike and dropping $4K-$6K on a new bike? No, not to me. I know some people will just keep paying whatever they need to in order to be on the very best bike they can, and keep dishing out a very 2-3 years to keep up with the latest and greatest. I used to be one of those people. I stopped playing that game 10 years and $10-12K ago.
> 
> I am going to be getting a new bike in the next year or so (it is getting impractical to maintain what I have), and I look forward to the new geo and larger wheels, but the idea of tossing a perfectly functioning, perfectly tuned, high end bike for just to move up one spot in the pecking order is silly.


I agree with you on this for the most part.

A great Rider on an older bike will always be better than
a mediocre ride on a great bike

But there are somethings about newer bikes that just don't exist on 26ers, boost spacing for one. I think for me personally that has been the biggest improvement in technology I have personally experienced, and if you could get it on a 26er (maybe you can?) I would see no major benefit to my 275 of a 26 inch wheel.


----------



## Eric F (May 25, 2021)

Klurejr said:


> I agree with you on this for the most part.
> 
> A great Rider on an older bike will always be better than
> a mediocre ride on a great bike
> ...


Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand Boost spacing to be a reaction to the use of larger diameter wheels in order to provide the laterals stiffness (spoke angle) of rim-brake 26" wheels.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

BushwackerinPA said:


> that is still pretty poor geo^^^^ also with out saying how tall you are the reach is meaningless. If your 5'11 or tall that is borderline short.
> 
> Namely the slack seat angle and long STA. My 600mm TT only has 17 inch seat tube which lets me run a 200mm dropper.


I'm 5'11. The stem on it now is 40mm and the chainring is a 34T, not the 36T in the photo. The geo is nearly identical to my 2018 GG Smash. As for the dropper, it was the only one available in 2006 and it has the shortest drop Gravity Dropper made. Two inches. For Super D racing (how I came up with my geo numbers back then) it's perfect. The bike is an absolute joy for the riding I do on it. I like twisty singletrack and technical chunk. I don't huck or session rocks and I don't care for enduro race formats. Soft pedaling the transitions to the next timed section is lame. The climbs need to be part of entire timed event.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Eric F said:


> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand Boost spacing to be a reaction to the use of larger diameter wheels in order to provide the laterals stiffness (spoke angle) of rim-brake 26" wheels.


i don't know, so I cannot correct or verify your statement.

What I do know is boost made my climbing much more efficient.


----------



## Nick_M (Jan 16, 2015)

Yes, kids bikes and other size specific things;

In few years major brands will offer size specific sizing based on wheel / suspension / components 
With similar performance ratio

Right now we see boom in kids bikes, basically cause of age of sport itself


----------



## DtEW (Jun 14, 2004)

Eric F said:


> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand Boost spacing to be a reaction to the use of larger diameter wheels in order to provide the laterals stiffness (spoke angle) of rim-brake 26" wheels.


Yes and no. Boost spacing mostly corrects a fundamental weakness that existed in MTB wheels in even 26"er times. Pre-Boost, the rear MTB wheel has always been much weaker then the front due to the significant flange offset differential that required a large difference in spoke tensions between sides. Sure, building them into bigger wheels made the weakness more apparent, but 135mm-spacing was never actually good for even 26" wheels.

Boost spacing on a modern bike basically gives you almost the same spoke tension differential between sides (reversed, of course) for front and rear wheels.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

DtEW said:


> Yes and no. Boost spacing mostly corrects a fundamental weakness that existed in MTB wheels in even 26"er times. Pre-Boost, the rear MTB wheel has always been much weaker then the front due to the significant flange offset differential that required a large difference in spoke tensions between sides. Sure, building them into bigger wheels made the weakness more apparent, but 135mm-spacing was never actually good for even 26" wheels.
> 
> Boost spacing on a modern bike basically gives you almost the same spoke tension differential between sides (reversed, of course) for front and rear wheels.


Asymetrical rims were a bandaid fix for this and worked. I have a wheelset from 1996 on my single speed that's never needed truing or retensioning. I've also converted both my 26" bikes to bolt on rear hubs to add stiffness.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

Cannondale effectively did the same thing by dishing the rear wheel a few mm's to the right.

Also at the time Boost was introduced...front derailleurs were still being used. 148 was the widest they can go with a front derailleur.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

RS VR6 said:


> Cannondale effectively did the same thing by dishing the rear wheel a few mm's to the right.
> 
> Also at the time Boost was introduced...front derailleurs were still being used. 148 was the widest they can go with a front derailleur.


GG was dishing rear wheels 3mm even with Boost.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

kapusta said:


> I am well aware that geo has improved over the past 10 years. However, over the past ten years since I got my 5-spot, and all my friends have moved on to newer bikes (bigger wheels, newer geo), the difference I am seeing in what everyone can ride has essentially not changed. They are faster on DHs, but it is not by much. I used to be mid-pack in our group on the way down, and I still am. The one guy who I used to be a little faster than is now a little faster than me. That's about it. I used to be on the upper half of the group in clearing technical steep climbs.... and I still am. We have all been riding since the 90s.
> 
> Does that justify tossing my bike and dropping $4K-$6K on a new bike? No, not to me. I know some people will just keep paying whatever they need to in order to be on the very best bike they can, and keep dishing out a very 2-3 years to keep up with the latest and greatest. I used to be one of those people. I stopped playing that game 10 years and $10-12K ago.
> 
> I am going to be getting a new bike in the next year or so (it is getting impractical to maintain what I have), and I look forward to the new geo and larger wheels, but the idea of tossing a perfectly functioning, perfectly tuned, high end bike for just to move up one spot in the pecking order is silly.


I will just say this about my last 3 FS bikes:

2009 Turner 5 Spot with Marzocchi 55CR 26”- great bike, rode well, fun, fast, stable. 
2014 Turner Burner 3.1 with DVO front and rear 27.5- a bit better rollover, bit more stable, an evolutionary improvement.
2020 Banshee Prime 29” Manitou both ends- Mother F***er. Revolutionary. I am so much faster down and more comfortable on this bike it is insane. Literally 15-20% faster on the same runs. I don’t know if it is geometry (not a lot different, similar chainstay, 1 degree slacker, steeper seat angle so longer reach), suspension kinematics (pretty similar), suspension, or wheel size, but where has this bike been my entire life. 

I don’t chase the latest and greatest and take my stuff from one build to the next where possible. I end up “upgrading” about every 5-6 years, normally buying a 1-2 year old frame. I make an exception for my hardtail, bought new, custom steel.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Cary said:


> I will just say this about my last 3 FS bikes:
> 
> 2009 Turner 5 Spot with Marzocchi 55CR 26”- great bike, rode well, fun, fast, stable.
> 2014 Turner Burner 3.1 with DVO front and rear 27.5- a bit better rollover, bit more stable, an evolutionary improvement.
> ...


I don't really feel a difference in my 06 Ventana and 18 GG. Geo is nearly the same. Travel is the same and both coil at each end. The GG rolls over stuff better but bogs down and is slower in fast twisties.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

Cary said:


> I will just say this about my last 3 FS bikes:
> 
> 2009 Turner 5 Spot with Marzocchi 55CR 26”- great bike, rode well, fun, fast, stable.
> 2014 Turner Burner 3.1 with DVO front and rear 27.5- a bit better rollover, bit more stable, an evolutionary improvement.
> ...


I have a similar experience. I have a 2011 5-Spot that I can run with either 26 or 27.5 wheels and with some other tricks, keeps the geometry pretty much the same. Very little difference between the two. Also have a Ripley that is so much faster and more comfortable than the other bikes. I still ride the 5-Spot - often with 26" tires and I love it. But much of that is nostalgia.


----------



## OldMike (Apr 30, 2020)

Rode 26'ers until this past June.
After 4months on the 29'er I can honestly say my 26'er will only rise if/when the 29'er is out of commission.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

I'll ride a 26 with modern geo. I went from a 2010 Pivot Mach 5 to a 2016 Banshee Spitfire. Both 140mm travel trailbikes...but holysheet...what a difference the Banshee is. The Mach 5 was short and tall...with a steep head angle and a super long seat tube. I wasn't able to get a 125mm dropper in there. The Spitfire is low and slack...and it felt like I was in the bike. The bike just rails. On a bike that's 140mm and up...I prefer the smaller wheel size.


----------

