Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 487
  1. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by crewjones View Post
    OlMarin I like the way you think. I'm debt free and buy almost everything used. I hope to retire one day as well
    The OlMarin came to me used. The frame had been hanging in the sun behind a now defunct bike shop for roughly 18 months. The owner was a good friend and going outa bidness. Plus he had boxes of parts............
    I built up a fugly commuter. 24 years later it finally got a refinish.
    DAMN THE MUD, FULL SPEED AHEAD!!

  2. #102
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,491

    26? What's the point??!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ricksom View Post
    In the beginning, mountain bikes were designed and tinkered by engineers and/or inventors with a knack for tech and a vision. Then came the big recession of 2008, and bike companies needed something new to boost sales, pushing the role of whats now product managers to create new market "categories". Armed with advanced marketing, pseudo science, and alternate facts, they created brand shiny new "holy grails" called 29ers and fat bikes.

    Now both the 29er and fat bikes have their unique and special place in the biking world, but so much functionality has been sacrificed with the dropping of the 26er bike. Agility, acceleration, lightness, climbing ability, versatility, and frame stiffness, once the foundation of mountain bike tech standards, has been lost with these new bikes. 29ers and fat bikes will never achieve this in a simple and cost effective manner, hence why you have to pay so much more now to get a performance bike. You need more tech to achieve performance that was once so natural with the 26er.

    I have no doubt that the 26er will return sometime in the 2020's, but first the industry will wait until most of the existing 26ers will age, disappear, and be almost forgotten to maximize full sales and profitability potential as the new "holy grail".

    Welcome to the modern age of product marketing management. I've heard that the old top loading washer is back as new advanced tech...too funny :O
    FWIW, 29ers were selling quite well before the recession.

    But it is a moot point, because the final demise of 26" has little to do with 29ers or fat bikes. They were never going to replace 26" for a lot of trail riders.

    27.5 is what put the nail in 26's coffin.

    27.5 is the new 26.

    I would not hold my breath for the return of 26" for anything but specialty niches (like dirt jumping and trials).
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  3. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    492
    Kapusta, in the beginning, nuts decided to name a hill Repack. These nuts started with old 26" 'cruisers', a.k.a. junque. This hill became Repack because you'd have to repack the coaster brake hub after every run.
    That said, the 26" wheel size will never go away. You can get tires everywhere, even in Bumflock Egypt.
    If I were to tour the world on a bike, it would have 26" wheels, square taper English BB,
    old school 1" headset, you get the idea.
    DAMN THE MUD, FULL SPEED AHEAD!!

  4. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,380
    I think 26'' might come back for the same reason that vinyl has. Well, apart from the fact that vinyl is actually better!

    There are a lot of young people who actively embrace old technology as a way of sticking the fingers up at the ********s who are trying to tell them what their future should look like.

  5. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    I think 26'' might come back for the same reason that vinyl has. Well, apart from the fact that vinyl is actually better!

    There are a lot of young people who actively embrace old technology as a way of sticking the fingers up at the ********s who are trying to tell them what their future should look like.
    I have to say I like this post.

  6. #106
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,491
    Quote Originally Posted by OlMarin View Post
    Kapusta, in the beginning, nuts decided to name a hill Repack. These nuts started with old 26" 'cruisers', a.k.a. junque. This hill became Repack because you'd have to repack the coaster brake hub after every run.
    That said, the 26" wheel size will never go away. You can get tires everywhere, even in Bumflock Egypt.
    If I were to tour the world on a bike, it would have 26" wheels, square taper English BB,
    old school 1" headset, you get the idea.
    Yes, everyone knows the story of Repack. It also illustrates why 26" became the standard: because it is what they had at hand to work with. And it is mostly just inertia that made it remain that way for all these years.

    But now inertia is behind 27.5 for mid-to upper level mtbs, and every year that trickles down to lower price points.

    No, 26" is not going away altogether (it has other uses), but it is only going to continue to decline in the mtb world. I agree with you on the world tour thing.... but what I (and 99% of riders out there) would want to tour remote regions of Africa with is very different from what we want to hit our local (or even destination) trails with. Seriously, how many rigid, rim braked, 26" bikes with 1" threaded forks do you think have been bought in the past 10 years for the primary purpose of mountain biking?
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  7. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,380
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    Seriously, how many rigid, rim braked, 26" bikes with 1" threaded forks do you think have been bought in the past 10 years for the primary purpose of mountain biking?
    Not the point. 1'' steerers and rim-brakes offer no advantage so there is no reason to actively choose them. Rigid bikes do and as a result are still sold today. The same may prove true of 26'' wheels.

  8. #108
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,491
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    Not the point. 1'' steerers and rim-brakes offer no advantage so there is no reason to actively choose them. Rigid bikes do and as a result are still sold today. The same may prove true of 26'' wheels.
    And you missed my point at well. Look at what I was responding to (what would you tour the world on).
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  9. #109
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,766
    He's just saying you can find these parts in more corners of the world than you can 29 or 27.5 tires, wheels, etc.; disc brake parts, etc. You rip a sidewall in some remote part of Africa, good luck finding a 29er tire but a 26er probably will be available.
    There are two types of people in this world:
    1) Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

  10. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,328
    Just thought I'd drop back in here and say how happy I am that this post was appreciated for it's intended purpose and is alive and sparking good opinion and theory mixed with fact and experience.

  11. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by chelboed View Post
    Just thought I'd drop back in here and say how happy I am that this post was appreciated for it's intended purpose and is alive and sparking good opinion and theory mixed with fact and experience.
    By all means. I can see advantages to bigger wheels in general for many reasons. And when you're getting into any particular discipline, get what makes YOU fly. Some of us are poor, but try to keep a decent, general purpose bike under our butts. I can still get in the dirt a bit. I can go on roads. Rain? So?
    BTW this thang's not bad in mud.
    DAMN THE MUD, FULL SPEED AHEAD!!

  12. #112
    Co Springs
    Reputation: bachman1961's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,699
    I've got a very basic rigid bike (Spec HardRock) from '91 that is perfectly functional and was my first mtn bike. Got it when I was 30 y/o or so.
    I have it looking commuter with fenders and skinny tires after I got a Kona hardtail in 2003 and use it for the ease of kid seat set up. I have grandkids these days and the Blackburn rear rack works well with a kid seat that clamps like a vice and can be on/off in less than two minutes. I'm taking the fenders off and bumping up tires to a 2.2 block tread to gain some ride quality. My new plus bike is spoiling me; 27.5 x 3.0.

    In fact, that theme is carrying over to the Kona as well. It works fine and I have no issues with either of my 26" bikes but I'm starting to think I want the ride characteristic's of wider tires so I'm in the process of doing just that.
    As long as I keep the 26'r bikes and maintain them in good ride fashion, I'll be happy to rotate what I ride depending on plans or the areas I get to. Also, these bike are well worth keeping considering they can be back-up or spare bikes for visiting friends or family.
    Here's the commuter look,

    the front wheel cleaned up and a 2.2 put on

    and the Kona with new Schwalbe 2.4 's
    Last edited by bachman1961; 06-17-2017 at 01:10 AM.
    In the Middle Ages, the biggest mistake was not putting on your armor because you were 'just going down to the corner.'

  13. #113
    CS2
    CS2 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CS2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,865
    G
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    But it is a moot point, because the final demise of 26" has little to do with 29ers or fat bikes. They were never going to replace 26" for a lot of trail riders.

    27.5 is what put the nail in 26's coffin.

    27.5 is the new 26.

    I would not hold my breath for the return of 26" for anything but specialty niches (like dirt jumping and trials).
    There really is very little difference in a 26" or 27.5" when you come down to it.
    A garage full of steel frames means happiness.

  14. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by CS2 View Post
    G
    There really is very little difference in a 26" or 27.5" when you come down to it.
    Then why is everybody condemning a wheel size that will continue to exist longer than most here will be alive? If there's not much difference, why get rid of a perfectly good bike for something newer that isn't 'better'?
    Racing is one thing. Having fun is a whole 'nother
    DAMN THE MUD, FULL SPEED AHEAD!!

  15. #115
    Co Springs
    Reputation: bachman1961's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,699
    If the hoops are obsolete, I guess you ride what you have or can get because they'd not reasonably or cost effectively replaceable or serviceable (the 26 wheels).
    Yet who says the fun and joy or adventure and challenges of riding a bike are lost? They just changed spec slightly and just like any change or one who has went on to other (newer or different) bikes whence they began, minor adjustments or a tiny learning curve aligned you with the small variations.

    My new bike has done a few things. It fits me better, it feels more forgiving in ride, handling and technical prowess and it serves up more confidence. Better or correct fit shouldn't imply my old bikes are less in any way or 'at fault'. The way the new bike rides and handle is related to some changes and some of that can be brought to the older bikes. Simpler drive train, wider tires, stem changes and wider bars etc...

    Changes I incorporate won't be an attempt to modernize or change character of the earlier trends but more to benefit me in some things I've learned along the way. Improved fit = improved control and handling, some of that with the bigger rubber (adjacent to + size tires) provides hardtail comfort I need 20 or 30 years later.... and any technical prowess the bike has or even just that confidence inspiring attitude makes me feel like a better rider and allows me to stretch my comfort zone some.

    This is why I'll keep my older 2 bikes and use them as creative variations of something different than my newer bike.

    As for the naysayers of 26, they don't really have dog in the fight or could not care less but some of us that keep 26 rolling and well maintained may someday find our wheels and tire collection well worth more than the bikes themselves.
    In the Middle Ages, the biggest mistake was not putting on your armor because you were 'just going down to the corner.'

  16. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BykerMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    131
    I keep thinking about rebuilding my 26" hardtail. It needs pretty much a new everything lol but it is still mostly functional. I took it for a ride the other day and one thing I noticed that I don't hear mentioned often is that roots don't seem to knock it around as much as my 650b and not nearly as much as my friends 29er. The bike seemed more prone to hop over just about anything rather then trying to roll over. Even when I purposely hit a root sideways the wheels didn't want to kick out as bad.

    Even if I don't rebuild mine, I still think a freshly built 26er will be in my near future... Thinking about an old discounted Lynsky or something...

  17. #117
    That Sleestak
    Reputation: Cornfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by OlMarin View Post
    Then why is everybody condemning a wheel size that will continue to exist longer than most here will be alive? If there's not much difference, why get rid of a perfectly good bike for something newer that isn't 'better'?
    I didn't get rid of mine, I just put some 27" shoes on it!

    26? What's the point??!!-pdrm1491.jpg
    Quote Originally Posted by sito40 View Post
    You guys should chill out. Take some weeds!

  18. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bigjunk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    260
    My 10 year old daughter rides my old BMX bike and she rides it OK but has outgrown it somewhat. I am in no hurry but plan to get her a new bike soon. I will most likely get her a 29er or 27.5'' that she can grow into but I am not against a 26'' because of her being a girl and small. Used 26'' bikes sell fairly cheap for high end bikes a few years old.
    I have not come across a 26'' I like yet mostly because they have been a bit older than I want but I have no problem with one for my daughter.

  19. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by Cornfield View Post
    I didn't get rid of mine, I just put some 27" shoes on it!

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PDRM1491.jpg 
Views:	66 
Size:	197.4 KB 
ID:	1143418
    One advantage to disc brakes.
    DAMN THE MUD, FULL SPEED AHEAD!!

  20. #120
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,491
    Quote Originally Posted by CS2 View Post
    G
    There really is very little difference in a 26" or 27.5" when you come down to it.
    Not sure I follow your point.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  21. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by bachman1961 View Post
    If the hoops are obsolete, I guess you ride what you have or can get because they'd not reasonably or cost effectively replaceable or serviceable (the 26 wheels).
    As for the naysayers of 26, they don't really have dog in the fight or could not care less but some of us that keep 26 rolling and well maintained may someday find our wheels and tire collection well worth more than the bikes themselves.
    Maybe that's what some people fear? Look, the old 27" road bike size is still out there. Still find wheels, too. But rim and tire selection has gone way down. I'm not even sure if you can get a 27X1 that's reasonably light anymore. I don't think we'll see that any time soon with 26. Just too many out there.
    DAMN THE MUD, FULL SPEED AHEAD!!

  22. #122
    That Sleestak
    Reputation: Cornfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by OlMarin View Post
    One advantage to disc brakes.
    Those are 26" rims, so they'd work with rim brakes if they had a flat machined sides. 26x2.8" tires have a larger outer diameter which is just a bit bigger than 27".
    Quote Originally Posted by sito40 View Post
    You guys should chill out. Take some weeds!

  23. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by RIDEALL View Post
    Because they are the 125cc 2-Strokes of the MTB world
    Costs keep going up up up for the newest must haves.
    All things being equal, yes some of the virtues of the 27.5 & 29 platforms may help or perform bettering some situations, but at end of day when I'm out on my 26 with a group of people skill and endurance are factors WAY before the bike itself.
    I do get a little nervous at times about availability of the newest designs and quality in tires more then anything.
    And there is that special feeling if you do kill a section, or destroy someone on the newest high dollar machines!
    125cc of the mtb world is a spot on comparison. Quick to accelerate and nimble. Huge fun factor.

  24. #124
    CS2
    CS2 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CS2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,865
    I ride 26 because there aren't any vintage 650B or 700C MTBs.
    A garage full of steel frames means happiness.

  25. #125
    Sneaker man
    Reputation: mik_git's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,541
    Quote Originally Posted by CS2 View Post
    I ride 26 because there aren't any vintage 650B or 700C MTBs.
    Thats because you're not looking hard enough...

    GT Tachyon, Diamondback Overdrive...
    All the gear and no idea.

  26. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    843
    There may not be many new frames coming into the market yet (though there are more that are 26+), but there are certainly new components being produced. My wheels are flow mk3's, that weren't available before this past summer. My tires are DHF 26x2.8's, which were just released a few weeks ago.

    I still love the size because of the feel of it and the geo I can create on a bike with it. It's just enough different to make it worthwhile to ride it over a 650b bike. I have built a new bike since 2015 (which was late enough to make it obvious the industry was going 650b). a buddy of mine and I were trading bikes back and forth last week (he rides a nice, modern, vpp 150mm 650b trail bike), and he really enjoyed the pure fun of my 26" hardtail with big, meaty tires. He didn't end up giving it back until we were at the trailhead. I don't anticipate changing wheelsize anytime soon, especially since the rim and tire support is very much still alive.

  27. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,328
    What's the point, I say?

    This is the point:

  28. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,328
    Quote Originally Posted by BykerMike View Post
    I keep thinking about rebuilding my 26" hardtail. It needs pretty much a new everything lol but it is still mostly functional. I took it for a ride the other day and one thing I noticed that I don't hear mentioned often is that roots don't seem to knock it around as much as my 650b and not nearly as much as my friends 29er. The bike seemed more prone to hop over just about anything rather then trying to roll over. Even when I purposely hit a root sideways the wheels didn't want to kick out as bad.

    Even if I don't rebuild mine, I still think a freshly built 26er will be in my near future... Thinking about an old discounted Lynsky or something...
    If you find that magic frame, rebuild it fo sho, yo!

    I've built mine 7 different ways since 2008...and each rendition has been fun!!

    Versatile hardtail equally adept at XC, Freeride, all mountain, rigid, 160mm squish, and everything in between.

    Worth the build!

  29. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2

    My 2013 Cove G Spot

    Ride it on the shore,take it to the bike park...26? What's the point??!!-20170611_171935_crop.jpg

  30. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by OlMarin View Post
    Then why is everybody condemning a wheel size that will continue to exist longer than most here will be alive? If there's not much difference, why get rid of a perfectly good bike for something newer that isn't 'better'?
    Racing is one thing. Having fun is a whole 'nother
    Actually there is a significant difference between 26" and 27.5", if you rode both you would quickly know this on rocky trails. I'm sure you know a lot more than I do about everything else in the mountain biking world but you can't argue that 26" tires get stopped 20x as much on rocks and roots, and the 26" bike pedals get scraped up 20x more than on a 27.5". To put it another way: for every time I get hung up on a rock with my 27.5" it would have happened 20 times on my 26" bike. For every time my 27.5 pedal on one side scrapes or brushes against something on the ground, it happens 20 times as much, sometimes violently, on the 26" bike. There is a BIG difference between tire sizes. That extra 0.75 inches of ground clearance has an amazing effect, way more than I could have predicted before actually seeing the difference on the trails between the two bike sizes. Having said that, I still like 26" bikes, I just don't like them as much on rocky trails, that's all. I really like the "grab and go" utility of a 26" bike, I like their nimbleness, quick acceleration, easy to get on/off, etc.

    Now my question is: some people have put on a 27.5 fork on their 26 bike frame to run fatter tires, like 26 x 2.6, etc. But how many people have simply put on a real 27.5 inch tire with a 27.5 fork on a 26 bike and left the rest stock (as in let the rear tire stay as 26 inch)? Is it doable? Is it too much of an upright seating position now? Harder to pedal up hills? But better down hills with the bigger tire?

  31. #131
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,491
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    Actually there is a significant difference between 26" and 27.5", if you rode both you would quickly know this on rocky trails. I'm sure you know a lot more than I do about everything else in the mountain biking world but you can't argue that 26" tires get stopped 20x as much on rocks and roots, and the 26" bike pedals get scraped up 20x more than on a 27.5". To put it another way: for every time I get hung up on a rock with my 27.5" it would have happened 20 times on my 26" bike. For every time my 27.5 pedal on one side scrapes or brushes against something on the ground, it happens 20 times as much, sometimes violently, on the 26" bike. There is a BIG difference between tire sizes. That extra 0.75 inches of ground clearance has an amazing effect, way more than I could have predicted before actually seeing the difference on the trails between the two bike sizes. Having said that, I still like 26" bikes, I just don't like them as much on rocky trails, that's all. I really like the "grab and go" utility of a 26" bike, I like their nimbleness, quick acceleration, easy to get on/off, etc.
    I assumed at first that this post was sarcasm, but now I am not so sure.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  32. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    I assumed at first that this post was sarcasm, but now I am not so sure.
    LOL it's not sarcasm. First of all, could I ask that everyone be OBJECTIVE about the strengths and weaknesses of a 26" tire, and not have a tribal "Us vs. Them" attitude. Is it really so hard to admit that a 26" tire underperforms on rocky trails compared with larger tire sizes? Am I a counselor in some 12-step program gently trying to tell people to accept the truth? Now this sounds like sarcasm, but I'm just trying to get my point across. Having said that, I could have bought a 2nd cheap 27.5" bike as a backup to my main 27.5", but I instead chose to purchase (again) essentially the identical 26" bike I had before as a backup bike to the 27.5". If I didn't like 26" bikes I would not have bought one again. That is not sarcasm. That means I like a lot of things about the 26" bike. 90% of the time they perform just fine. It's that 10% on the tough parts of the trails that they underperform. Does that mean they should be banished forever from the mountain bike world? No. 26" tires will always have a place in the mountain bike world. But you can't turn water into wine. You can't increase the angle of rock/obstacle clearance enough with a 26" tire relative to the larger tires. It's sad but it's a simple fact.

  33. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    492
    Rich, I have no doubt you're correct. However many are perfectly happy with 26". I'm one. If/when new bike time comes 27.5 will not be ruled out, specially with the veritable plethora of tires available for this size. It may even become a priority when I shop.
    DAMN THE MUD, FULL SPEED AHEAD!!

  34. #134
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,491

    26? What's the point??!!

    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    LOL it's not sarcasm. First of all, could I ask that everyone be OBJECTIVE about the strengths and weaknesses of a 26" tire, and not have a tribal "Us vs. Them" attitude. Is it really so hard to admit that a 26" tire underperforms on rocky trails compared with larger tire sizes? Am I a counselor in some 12-step program gently trying to tell people to accept the truth? Now this sounds like sarcasm, but I'm just trying to get my point across. Having said that, I could have bought a 2nd cheap 27.5" bike as a backup to my main 27.5", but I instead chose to purchase (again) essentially the identical 26" bike I had before as a backup bike to the 27.5". If I didn't like 26" bikes I would not have bought one again. That is not sarcasm. That means I like a lot of things about the 26" bike. 90% of the time they perform just fine. It's that 10% on the tough parts of the trails that they underperform. Does that mean they should be banished forever from the mountain bike world? No. 26" tires will always have a place in the mountain bike world. But you can't turn water into wine. You can't increase the angle of rock/obstacle clearance enough with a 26" tire relative to the larger tires. It's sad but it's a simple fact.
    If you read my previous posts on this thread you would know that I do in fact think that 27.5 is an overall improvement over 26.

    My issue is that for someone as preachy as you are being, you should get your info straight.

    For example, pedal strikes have nothing to do with the wheel size (unless you are talking about sticking a 27.5" wheel on a 26" frame and fork). Bottom bracket heights are just whatever the frame designer wants them to be, and there is no trend towards designing BBs higher for 27.5 than for 26.

    Second, you are so ridiculously over the top with your claim of 26" tires getting stopped 20X as much as 27.5" ones, so as to make it seem to me that you were being sarcastic. I ride very rocky trails on a 26er and 29er, and even the 29er is not 20X better in this regard. It is clearly better, but not 20X better. The difference with 27.5 is there, but it is subtle. Definitely an improvement (which is why I will eventually go 27.5), but your wildly exaggerated claim, combined with your totally bogus one regarding pedal strikes, makes it hard to take what you are saying seriously.
    Last edited by kapusta; 07-10-2017 at 08:35 AM.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  35. #135
    That Sleestak
    Reputation: Cornfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,740
    Geometry and frame design have way more influence on how a bike handles/rolls over things than wheel size.
    Quote Originally Posted by sito40 View Post
    You guys should chill out. Take some weeds!

  36. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jack Burns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,610
    16.068883707497264
    25.999999999999996<<<
    42.068883707497264

    These numbers, above correspond. 16" is my frame size. 26" are the wheels. 42" is the wheelbase.

    These numbers are close to exact in the Fibonacci sequence.

    It just happens I feel good on these hard tail frames with these numbers.

    42 and 26 are very close to the Golden Mean, in ratio.

    I just looked into this because I have been hanging pictures on the wall, and decided to try using a little sacred geometry on the projects.

    It occurred to me to see what is going on with the hard tail rigid single speed mountain bikes I love to ride in terms of Phi.

    I'm blown away by the coincidence.

    Sure, it can be debunked.

    But now I am going to think a bit more about stems, handle bar length and sweep in these terms, and see what comes of this.

    I used to have a 29er, but I can't measure it anymore. I have a full suspension bike I can measure too. I would probably have to take the sagged geometry measurements to get a good number.

    26 x 1.61 = 41.86

    Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

  37. #137
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,766
    btw, despite the math, the difference in the radius of a 27.5 and a 26 wheel is actually only 1/2", not 3/4". Check the actual metric dims of the wheel itself, subtract the difference and divide by two. It's mostly marketing.
    There are two types of people in this world:
    1) Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

  38. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,080
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    a 26" tire underperforms on rocky trails compared with larger tire sizes
    Depends on how many tight switchbacks there are (really a function of wheelbase, but bigger wheels increase the wheelbase)

  39. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,380
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    Second, you are so ridiculously over the top with your claim of 26" tires getting stopped 20X as much as 27.5" ones, so as to make it seem to me that you were being sarcastic.
    Have to say, that is a crazy number. No way such a small difference in diameter could make such a huge difference.

    What we need is dropper-wheels. 26'' most of the time for fun then pop up to 29er at the press of a button for bumping over those pesky rocks.

  40. #140
    Sneaker man
    Reputation: mik_git's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,541
    hmmm, I own both 27.5 and 26 and don't find it 20x better at anything, in fact I'd say Zero X better, only thing it is better at is that i could actually buy it as I didn't want to go 29er.
    All the gear and no idea.

  41. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    164
    Because...F you! that's why! ha ha. I have 26'rs because I rode them when I was "younger". When I got into mountain bikes, they were all that were available. My my "heros" were on 26's. Now, I am older, and I am starting to collect old school SPECIALIZED bikes, I have my 96 hopper, and I am starting to gather older stuff...2000 and before. Kleins, Old yeti arc, giant carbons etc are on my hunting list as well. Whatever cool old stuff and parts I can find from the golden years of MTB bikes!

  42. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,380
    I don't think 29er bikes will ever be cool. No matter what. Ever.

  43. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by chelboed View Post
    If you find that magic frame, rebuild it fo sho, yo!

    I've built mine 7 different ways since 2008...and each rendition has been fun!!

    Versatile hardtail equally adept at XC, Freeride, all mountain, rigid, 160mm squish, and everything in between.

    Worth the build!
    I don't feel like the Lone Ranger now. Mentioned earlier I've had OlMarin now for 25 years. It just fits. And I haven't been able to make the B/B shell oblong yet. Frame's still good in spite of the bazillion miles on it.
    DAMN THE MUD, FULL SPEED AHEAD!!

  44. #144
    That Sleestak
    Reputation: Cornfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    I don't think 29er bikes will ever be cool. No matter what. Ever.
    You just haven't ridden a good one yet. On mine I forget about the wagon wheels once I'm in the saddle, yee-haw!
    Quote Originally Posted by sito40 View Post
    You guys should chill out. Take some weeds!

  45. #145
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,491
    Quote Originally Posted by Cornfield View Post
    You just haven't ridden a good one yet. On mine I forget about the wagon wheels once I'm in the saddle, yee-haw!
    Still not cool.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  46. #146
    That Sleestak
    Reputation: Cornfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    Still not cool.
    Not even a little bit?
    Quote Originally Posted by sito40 View Post
    You guys should chill out. Take some weeds!

  47. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    164
    All bikes are cool.....that's the cool thing about them!

  48. #148
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,491
    Quote Originally Posted by Cornfield View Post
    Not even a little bit?
    No.

    They are the elastic waist pants of wheel sizes.

    Comfortable, practical, arguably superior, no logical reason to avoid them, and some day you WILL break down and get them.... but totally uncool.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  49. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,926
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    Not sure I follow your point.
    Measure the outside diameter of a 27.5 with a 2.1 race slick on it versus 26 x2.5 tire? Going to be close.

  50. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,926
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    I don't think 29er bikes will ever be cool. No matter what. Ever.
    Until you stop doing endos through rock gardens cuz 29ers roll great in the chunk. Plus @ 6'4" I don't look like I'm a clown on those tiny bikes at the circus. I'll settle for less goofy?

  51. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,477
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    No.

    They are the elastic waist pants of wheel sizes.

    Comfortable, practical, arguably superior, no logical reason to avoid them, and some day you WILL break down and get them.... but totally uncool.
    Perfect match for my Velcro sneakers.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  52. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,926
    Quote Originally Posted by Cornfield View Post
    Geometry and frame design have way more influence on how a bike handles/rolls over things than wheel size.
    Unless the wheels are 3" bigger. Math and such ya know.

  53. #153
    That Sleestak
    Reputation: Cornfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Unless the wheels are 3" bigger. Math and such ya know.
    It's actually closer to 2". I have a 26" wheel that measures 26.75" and a 29" wheel that is a hair over 29", both wheels have 2.4" Chunky Monkeys.

    While the 29" wheel will technically roll over obstacles better than a 26" wheel, geometry plays a more important role in how the bike goes over obstacles. A 26" downhill bike should go over obstacles better than a 700c road bike, no?
    Quote Originally Posted by sito40 View Post
    You guys should chill out. Take some weeds!

  54. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dirtrider76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Cornfield View Post
    It's actually closer to 2". I have a 26" wheel that measures 26.75" and a 29" wheel that is a hair over 29", both wheels have 2.4" Chunky Monkeys.

    While the 29" wheel will technically roll over obstacles better than a 26" wheel, geometry plays a more important role in how the bike goes over obstacles. A 26" downhill bike should go over obstacles better than a 700c road bike, no?

    You realize they are racing 29" DH bikes now right? Like killing it on them, taking podiums.
    I like to fart when I'm in front of you on a climb

  55. #155
    ILIKEBIKES
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    458
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    there is no trend towards designing BBs higher for 27.5 than for 26
    And isn't it very common to see the 27.5" frame with a lower BB height than a 26"? Usually stated as being done for more stability due to a lower BB height? For example, the 2015 Chromag Stylus 26er has a BB height of 12.9" / 328mm while the 2017 Chromag Stylus 27.5 has a BB height of 12.6" / 319mm. 9mm lower on the 27.5 frame.

  56. #156
    That Sleestak
    Reputation: Cornfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by dirtrider76 View Post
    You realize they are racing 29" DH bikes now right? Like killing it on them, taking podiums.
    Yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by sito40 View Post
    You guys should chill out. Take some weeds!

  57. #157
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,491

    26? What's the point??!!

    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Measure the outside diameter of a 27.5 with a 2.1 race slick on it versus 26 x2.5 tire? Going to be close.
    So?

    That's like saying a short guy on stilts is the same height as a tall guy with flat shoes.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  58. #158
    That Sleestak
    Reputation: Cornfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    So?

    That's like saying a short guy on stilts is the same height as a tall guy with flat shoes.
    Now I'm picturing these guys in elastic waist pants and Velcro shoes.
    Quote Originally Posted by sito40 View Post
    You guys should chill out. Take some weeds!

  59. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    24
    I have just ridden 18 miles at Freedom Park in Williamsburg VA. I am still using my massively upgraded 1999 GT I-Drive. Not only was it a ton of fun but the 2 friends I was with who have a 29er and 27.5er were thoroughly impressed with my old 26er's capabilities.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

  60. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Measure the outside diameter of a 27.5 with a 2.1 race slick on it versus 26 x2.5 tire? Going to be close.
    I'm going to try a 26 x 2.4 inch tire later on the front, I'm only doing a Kenda 1.95 inch in the front right now and it can struggle on rocky stuff downhill. As for 29" bikes being cool, the coolest bikes are the most underrated bikes, so by that rationale 26" bikes are now cooler and will continue to get cooler. Again, not to change the subject twice but has anyone tried to put on a 27.5" fork and a 27.5" tire on a 26" bike and leave the back 26" tire stock? I assume if no response, the answer is no, it's impossible or it just doesn't work off road.

  61. #161
    That Sleestak
    Reputation: Cornfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,740
    It will would work, if all the parts involved jibe together.
    Quote Originally Posted by sito40 View Post
    You guys should chill out. Take some weeds!

  62. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    Have to say, that is a crazy number. No way such a small difference in diameter could make such a huge difference.

    What we need is dropper-wheels. 26'' most of the time for fun then pop up to 29er at the press of a button for bumping over those pesky rocks.
    I'll take a picture of my 27.5" pedals (the most worn one on the right side) and then show you the 26" pedal as comparison. Keep in mind the 26" ones are more metallic and the 27.5" ones are resin, and were ridden almost daily for 3 months vs. the 26" pedal that was used the equivalent of 4 months if that makes a difference in your judgment. I obviously don't count how many times my 26" pedals scrape but it's at least 10x as much. The pictures should tell 1000 words on how much more the 26" pedals scrape compared to the 27.5". And no, this is not a marketing ploy, I don't work for a 27.5" manufacturer...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 26? What's the point??!!-0710172017-2-.jpg  

    26? What's the point??!!-0422172252.jpg  


  63. #163
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,766
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    I'll take a picture of my 27.5" pedals (the most worn one on the right side) and then show you the 26" pedal as comparison. Keep in mind the 26" ones are more metallic and the 27.5" ones are resin, and were ridden almost daily for 3 months vs. the 26" pedal that was used the equivalent of 4 months if that makes a difference in your judgment. I obviously don't count how many times my 26" pedals scrape but it's at least 10x as much. The pictures should tell 1000 words on how much more the 26" pedals scrape compared to the 27.5". And no, this is not a marketing ploy, I don't work for a 27.5" manufacturer...
    They are different bikes, different geometry. BB clearance isn't specific to wheel size. Could also be different crank lengths.

    And if you put a 27.5 fork/tire on a 26er, you may be putting more stress on the head tube than it was designed for.
    There are two types of people in this world:
    1) Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

  64. #164
    Sneaker man
    Reputation: mik_git's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,541
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    I'll take a picture of my 27.5" pedals (the most worn one on the right side) and then show you the 26" pedal as comparison. Keep in mind the 26" ones are more metallic and the 27.5" ones are resin, and were ridden almost daily for 3 months vs. the 26" pedal that was used the equivalent of 4 months if that makes a difference in your judgment. I obviously don't count how many times my 26" pedals scrape but it's at least 10x as much. The pictures should tell 1000 words on how much more the 26" pedals scrape compared to the 27.5". And no, this is not a marketing ploy, I don't work for a 27.5" manufacturer...
    I find that i get noticeably more peddle strikes with my 27.5 bike over my 26 bike(s), so umm... everybody's experience may vary
    All the gear and no idea.

  65. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,733
    Quote Originally Posted by tjchad View Post
    And isn't it very common to see the 27.5" frame with a lower BB height than a 26"? Usually stated as being done for more stability due to a lower BB height? For example, the 2015 Chromag Stylus 26er has a BB height of 12.9" / 328mm while the 2017 Chromag Stylus 27.5 has a BB height of 12.6" / 319mm. 9mm lower on the 27.5 frame.
    That's because geometry is gravitating towards longer, lower, and slacker. Your 27.5 is newer, hence the "updated" geometry.

  66. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Cornfield View Post
    It's actually closer to 2". I have a 26" wheel that measures 26.75" and a 29" wheel that is a hair over 29", both wheels have 2.4" Chunky Monkeys.

    While the 29" wheel will technically roll over obstacles better than a 26" wheel, geometry plays a more important role in how the bike goes over obstacles. A 26" downhill bike should go over obstacles better than a 700c road bike, no?
    More because of suspension than geometry. If you lock out the suspension on the downhill bike, put on comparable tires on both bikes, and get your weight in the right spot over the bike, the road bike will roll over obstacles better than a 26" downhill bike. You would have to get your weight back a fair bit, and the shorter wheelbase would definitely make things a bit dicey, but for rolloverability, bigger wheels will win.

  67. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by ehosey2 View Post
    I have just ridden 18 miles at Freedom Park in Williamsburg VA. I am still using my massively upgraded 1999 GT I-Drive. Not only was it a ton of fun but the 2 friends I was with who have a 29er and 27.5er were thoroughly impressed with my old 26er's capabilities.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
    Wheel size does not make up for rider ability....That has been proven time and time again!

  68. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Adams View Post
    Wheel size does not make up for rider ability....That has been proven time and time again!
    Wheel size with proper geometry can absolutely make up for limited riding ability in certain circumstances.

  69. #169
    That Sleestak
    Reputation: Cornfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    More because of suspension than geometry. If you lock out the suspension on the downhill bike, put on comparable tires on both bikes, and get your weight in the right spot over the bike, the road bike will roll over obstacles better than a 26" downhill bike. You would have to get your weight back a fair bit, and the shorter wheelbase would definitely make things a bit dicey, but for rolloverability, bigger wheels will win.
    Yes, there's more to a bike than just wheel size, and that was the point I was trying to make. Wheel size, geometry, suspension, and even tire width all make a bike more or less capable.
    Quote Originally Posted by sito40 View Post
    You guys should chill out. Take some weeds!

  70. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Wheel size with proper geometry can absolutely make up for limited riding ability in certain circumstances.
    I'm sorry, but a shitty rider on 29's will still be far behind me on my 26r. Sorry! 29's does not make you jesus on bike. Just masks your inabilities a tiny amount!

  71. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Adams View Post
    I'm sorry, but a shitty rider on 29's will still be far behind me on my 26r. Sorry! 29's does not make you jesus on bike. Just masks your inabilities a tiny amount!
    But a rider with slightly less ability than you will gain time on a rough trail with bigger wheels. For the top riders in the world, wheel size could mean the difference between winning and being off the podium. For the average rider, it could mean the difference between clearing a section and walking it.

  72. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Adams View Post
    I'm sorry, but a shitty rider on 29's will still be far behind me on my 26r. Sorry! 29's does not make you jesus on bike. Just masks your inabilities a tiny amount!
    You're missing the point, I think. Your statement is obvious, but a little short-sighted.

    A crappy rider will ride a technical trail better on a 27.5+ than a 26x2.3 because of the gain in traction and ability to roll over what would cause a 26" rider to use some skill.

    So yes, "Wheel size with proper geometry can absolutely make up for limited riding ability IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES."

    That person wasn't comparing a beginner to an expert. He was saying that an advantage in technology will benefit a rider in general. That's an obvious statement as well though.

  73. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    I don't think 29er bikes will ever be cool. No matter what. Ever.
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Until you stop doing endos through rock gardens cuz 29ers roll great in the chunk. Plus @ 6'4" I don't look like I'm a clown on those tiny bikes at the circus. I'll settle for less goofy?
    In my opinion, the Trek Stache is very cool. The Kona Honzo is cool. The DB Mason is cool. There are several other duallies that are equally gnarbeans 29'ers that are cool, but I don't follow duallies anymore. I'm a hardtail guy.

    Anyhoo...the 6'+ riders benefit from a larger bike in chunky circumstances. I've got local trails here that my 26x2.4 falls right into and a Stache glides right across. I have to use more energy to accomplish the same feat. I mean, we're talking a difference of at least 4" on this, so terrain specific design does make sense.

    26" is fun, snappy, quick, etc...but in a trail network riddled with softball-basketball sized rocks and rock formation after rock formation...large hoops will no-doubt have an advantage unless it's a more gravity oriented trail that you can hop and bounce over everything.

    My local trails are very pedally. No extended climbing, no extended DH...thus I need to pedal over all that chunk. It's a real chore on a 26" hardtail. It's a real dream on a Honzo or Stache.


    I used to think there was no benefit for large hoops that I couldn't overcome with some hard work, but then I moved to another region where the trails were completely different than what I was used to. My eyes were closed because of my ignorance to what else is out there. Now that I'm riding other things...I now know that my own little world has no bearing on the rest of the world and it's useless to argue the point most of the time.


    26'er holdout's can be the most egocentric bikers. Puffing out their chest and saying they can annihilate all of their wagon-wheeled riding buddies. Not that they can't...but they're only using what works for them in their region. Move to another region and ride with another egocentric wagon-wheeler and they'll clean your clock.


    That said...I'm still riding 26x2.4" freeride hardtail and enjoying it because I can't afford to buy a new bike.

  74. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,477
    Quote Originally Posted by chelboed View Post
    A crappy rider will ride a technical trail better on a 27.5+ than a 26x2.3 because of the gain in traction and ability to roll over what would cause a 26" rider to use some skill.."
    Of course, this is less and less noticeable the bigger the obstacles get, and once you're above axle height, it's barely relevant.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  75. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,328
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    Of course, this is less and less noticeable the bigger the obstacles get, and once you're above axle height, it's barely relevant.
    Absolutely! Couldn't agree with you more...but we must open our eyes to the thought that rider-"A" might have to roll over successive 4"-8" rock and structure for the majority of their trail. I've got trails like that all over my region.

    Rider-"B" is rolling trails that are like 3-feet wide and full of gnarly structures to jump and hop...but no real "speed-bumps". Just flow-jump to flow-drop, rock shelf to rock shelf. Bunnyhopping over a log with momentum to clear it versus Rider-A who has to actually pedal across miles of log-high bumps the whole time.

    Like I said earlier, I cut my teeth on some climby but somewhat-smooth trails that had jumps, drops, and log crossings. Then I moved to where I am now where a Stumpy FSR 29'er is probably the prime bike for the job, except for the fact that I love hardtails...so the Stache or Honzo etc...is perfect.

  76. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by chelboed View Post
    You're missing the point, I think. Your statement is obvious, but a little short-sighted.

    A crappy rider will ride a technical trail better on a 27.5+ than a 26x2.3 because of the gain in traction and ability to roll over what would cause a 26" rider to use some skill.

    So yes, "Wheel size with proper geometry can absolutely make up for limited riding ability IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES."

    That person wasn't comparing a beginner to an expert. He was saying that an advantage in technology will benefit a rider in general. That's an obvious statement as well though.
    As a beginner and so-called "crappy rider" you can use me for (or against) your arguments: how the heck would a beginner like me know quickly that a 27.5" is better over obstacles and 1/2 of you guys don't know this!?! I didn't learn it from some advertisement or other info. online, I learned it by riding both wheel sizes. And I've had two pretty different 27.5"s and they both cleared obstacles better. One was a bare-bones $150 Walmart with a lot of other problems but clearing obstacles was not one of them. After I threw that bike in the trash (broken derailleur, no hanger), I preferred the $350 26" for riding but still wanted to get another 27.5". It was only after I went from a (cheap) 27.5" BACK to a 26" that I really noticed a difference in clearing rocks, etc. You can argue bike improvements, geometry, etc. but all I know is that the two 27.5"s I've had are good for clearance, and the several 26"s I've had were not.

    Here is the 2nd (gearing) issue: in one of my favorite areas in the county to go mountain biking, I have a Facebook blog about all of the different dirt roads and trails in the area. When I have time I'm going to categorize the trails according to beginner, cross-country, and all-mountain. Why? Because it's not just the experience and talent level of the mountain biker, it's what kind of bike they are actually bringing to this specific area that counts a lot for where they should go.

    I've noticed that gearing can be even more important on the all-mountain trails; my 3x8 cassette simply cannot handle the up and down rollercoaster all-mountain trails. I could have a 29" tire and still not be able to do those trails without the right gearing, as in I have 11-30t and I would need at least a 42t for the lowest gear. A talented person on an all-mountain trail with a 29" bike still may be hampered by older gearing. So if a rider sees my Facebook trail list and they have a 3x7 or 3x8 drivetrain, they can do the beginner and XC but they know that the all-mountain trails are going to be more of a chore than they are worth. For the XC (intermediate) trails, I recommend a larger tire but it's still doable with a 26". Rocks on the XC trails can be annoying on a 26" and can slow you down, but it's still doable without getting off the bike a bunch of times. Again, for all-mountain it's gearing first, everything else 2nd, including tire size (at least in this area). You could have the best shocks and the best 29" tires but if you don't have modern gearing you are going to need to get off the bike several times on the trail (like I have to do with the 27.5" and a 3x8 drivetrain). Bottom line: this is just from a beginner, but it appears to me that beginner and XC trails favor the experienced, talented biker no matter what they ride, but the tougher the trail, the more bike you are going to need regardless of your skill level. It's a curve where tougher, all-mountain trails on the far end is proportional to the level (cost and quality) of bike needed.

  77. #177
    Sneaker man
    Reputation: mik_git's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,541
    you're still joking right? "old gearing"doesn't mean you can't ride stuff. There's nothing I can ride on my new bike that I can't ride on my old bike due to gearing, in fact my old bike has a wider range. The only thing stopping me from riding stuff is fitness and skill, it sure as hell isnt gearing...or tyre size (or even suspension)
    All the gear and no idea.

  78. #178
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,491
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    I'll take a picture of my 27.5" pedals (the most worn one on the right side) and then show you the 26" pedal as comparison. Keep in mind the 26" ones are more metallic and the 27.5" ones are resin, and were ridden almost daily for 3 months vs. the 26" pedal that was used the equivalent of 4 months if that makes a difference in your judgment. I obviously don't count how many times my 26" pedals scrape but it's at least 10x as much. The pictures should tell 1000 words on how much more the 26" pedals scrape compared to the 27.5". And no, this is not a marketing ploy, I don't work for a 27.5" manufacturer...
    Have you also concluded from this that 26ers are more red than 27.5?

    I mean, your pictures clearly prove it.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  79. #179
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,491

    26? What's the point??!!

    Quote Originally Posted by mik_git View Post
    I find that i get noticeably more peddle strikes with my 27.5 bike over my 26 bike(s), so umm... everybody's experience may vary
    Experiences vary because the bikes do.

    You have extrapolated a sample of 1 27.5 bike to all 27.5 bikes.

    This is like me claiming that 29ers have narrower handlebars than 26ers, because MY 29er has a narrower bar than my 26er.

    Edit: Sorry, I got confused and thought you were the other poster, and therefore misses your point. Please disregard this.
    Last edited by kapusta; 07-12-2017 at 03:38 AM.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  80. #180
    Sneaker man
    Reputation: mik_git's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,541
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    Experiences vary because the bikes do.

    You have extrapolated a sample of 1 27.5 bike to all 27.5 bikes.

    This is like me claiming that 29ers have narrower handlebars than 26ers, because MY 29er has a narrower bar than my 26er.
    No, your point is exactly the point I was trying to make compared to this other guy who says that 26 pedal strike 20x more than 27.5. Im not extrapolating to anything.
    All the gear and no idea.

  81. #181
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,766
    Well, why not get a 29er then, should get something like 40x less stoppage due to rockage.

    I don't find my 26er less capable than my 29er.
    There are two types of people in this world:
    1) Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

  82. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by chelboed View Post
    You're missing the point, I think. Your statement is obvious, but a little short-sighted.

    A crappy rider will ride a technical trail better on a 27.5+ than a 26x2.3 because of the gain in traction and ability to roll over what would cause a 26" rider to use some skill.

    So yes, "Wheel size with proper geometry can absolutely make up for limited riding ability IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES."

    That person wasn't comparing a beginner to an expert. He was saying that an advantage in technology will benefit a rider in general. That's an obvious statement as well though.
    Agreed.

    I am just on the side of "Just because it's a 26r, it's garbage, slow, and useless" is a total lie camp. My old specialized with 26's on it is like a Ferrari compared to some 29rs I have ridden. There's more to it than wheel size. Again, rider capability comes into it as well. I have been riding 2 wheeled things both motorized and not since I was 6, I am now 40. And Youngin's on their fancy dangled 29rs still choke on my dust. OH, Another thing, I am not against....not by a long shot...27.5/29/fat bikes etc. This year there will be loads of all of them in my garage. plus some 24's for my son.

    I love EVERYTHING on 2 wheels...from 26 to 700c and beyond. Its ALL good.

  83. #183
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,491
    Quote Originally Posted by mik_git View Post
    No, your point is exactly the point I was trying to make compared to this other guy who says that 26 pedal strike 20x more than 27.5. Im not extrapolating to anything.
    Sorry, I got you mixed up with the other guy, and therefore misinterpreted your point.

    My bad.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  84. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,328
    Quote Originally Posted by steve adams View Post
    agreed.

    I am just on the side of "just because it's a 26r, it's garbage, slow, and useless" is a total lie camp.
    +1k

  85. #185
    Hardtail Steel Forever
    Reputation: jestep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,614
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    I've noticed that gearing can be even more important on the all-mountain trails; my 3x8 cassette simply cannot handle the up and down rollercoaster all-mountain trails.
    This doesn't make any sense. 1x 2x 3x it's all irrelevant, the range of gears you have available is simply a matter of mathematics. If you're talking about easier due to sequential shifting that's one thing, but you can have the same range no matter how many cogs you have up front.
    WTB: Med Bontrager Ti Lite, PM Me...

  86. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,328
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    Have you also concluded from this that 26ers are more red than 27.5?

    I mean, your pictures clearly prove it.


    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    Experiences vary because the bikes do.

    You have extrapolated a sample of 1 27.5 bike to all 27.5 bikes.

    This is like me claiming that 29ers have narrower handlebars than 26ers, because MY 29er has a narrower bar than my 26er.

    Edit: Sorry, I got confused and thought you were the other poster, and therefore misses your point. Please disregard this.
    Quote Originally Posted by mik_git View Post
    No, your point is exactly the point I was trying to make compared to this other guy who says that 26 pedal strike 20x more than 27.5. Im not extrapolating to anything.
    Pedal strikes will be more affected by the geometry of the frame in conjunction with the fork A2C. (as somewhat stated)

    My 26'er hardtail has a higher static bottom bracket than many 27.5 and 29er bikes these days.

    The "fad" seems to be longer and lower now because "marketing" sees all of the trails that "we all ride" on youtube...you know...the ultra-groomed flow trails that exist in every city on the planet?

    It's not like any of us have to go "monster-trucking" through the chunk or anything.

  87. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,477
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    As a beginner and so-called "crappy rider" you can use me for (or against) your arguments: how the heck would a beginner like me know quickly that a 27.5" is better over obstacles and 1/2 of you guys don't know this!?!
    You don't 'know' what you think you 'know'.
    It's part of being a beginner.

    Bottom bracket height isn't dictated by wheel size.

    Many bikes with 'new gearing' have less range than bikes with 'old' gearing.

    Equipment is nowhere near as important as you think it is wrt to what terrain can be ridden; there are lots of folks riding 26" rigid singlespeeds that will be happy to prove this to you on any trail you choose (if you can manage to keep them in sight for more than a couple minutes).

    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  88. #188
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,491
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    You don't 'know' what you think you 'know'.
    It's part of being a beginner.
    THIS^^^

    Bottom bracket height isn't dictated by wheel size.
    And this^^^^ (for the 10th+ time in this thread)
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  89. #189
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,766
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    They are different bikes, different geometry. BB clearance isn't specific to wheel size. Could also be different crank lengths.

    And if you put a 27.5 fork/tire on a 26er, you may be putting more stress on the head tube than it was designed for.
    I'm going to back track on the 27.5 fork; as mentioned, there is very little difference between a 26 and a 27.5 and most bikes are fine with a fork with a bit more travel so I doubt there would be any issue.
    There are two types of people in this world:
    1) Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

  90. #190
    Thread already spun
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,588
    Quote Originally Posted by chelboed View Post
    Absolutely! Couldn't agree with you more...but we must open our eyes to the thought that rider-"A" might have to roll over successive 4"-8" rock and structure for the majority of their trail. I've got trails like that all over my region.

    Rider-"B" is rolling trails that are like 3-feet wide and full of gnarly structures to jump and hop...but no real "speed-bumps". Just flow-jump to flow-drop, rock shelf to rock shelf. Bunnyhopping over a log with momentum to clear it versus Rider-A who has to actually pedal across miles of log-high bumps the whole time.

    Like I said earlier, I cut my teeth on some climby but somewhat-smooth trails that had jumps, drops, and log crossings. Then I moved to where I am now where a Stumpy FSR 29'er is probably the prime bike for the job, except for the fact that I love hardtails...so the Stache or Honzo etc...is perfect.
    That's some magic there.

    It's intriguing that all you need for continuous successive 8" square edge rocks is a pair of 29" wheels. Never got my 29er pedalling through stuff like that, considering it would basically be scraping my bash guard, and always thought smaller wheels pumping kept more momentum easily, but that's based on actual riding.

    Then again, I ride more than I read, maybe I haven't read the magic words yet...
    Last edited by Zowie; 07-12-2017 at 01:37 PM.

  91. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    You don't 'know' what you think you 'know'.
    It's part of being a beginner.

    Bottom bracket height isn't dictated by wheel size.

    Many bikes with 'new gearing' have less range than bikes with 'old' gearing.

    Equipment is nowhere near as important as you think it is wrt to what terrain can be ridden; there are lots of folks riding 26" rigid singlespeeds that will be happy to prove this to you on any trail you choose (if you can manage to keep them in sight for more than a couple minutes).

    OK, so why is the trend toward 1x11 and 1x12 that have 10-42t or 10-46t cassettes? The older 7-speed freewheels are generally 14-28t, and it's hard to even get up to 34t, there is only one left that I can find (Shimano) and people say it doesn't even thread on correctly, it wobbles. I'm looking at an 11-30t freewheel but again that simply will not climb steep inclines, period. The back tire will start slipping and the bike will stop and fall over. So if you state that a lot of older bikes have more range, then why is modern gearing is spaced wider at 10-42/46t instead of the older 14-28t? I don't understand your math, explain please...

    There is a canyon close to my home that has bike access on both sides. A couple of months ago I was riding on the more flat side (dirt/pressed gravel road) and saw a group of riders coming back on the other side of the canyon, the same direction as me. We meet at the end at the parking lot. They were all riding better bikes. My side of the canyon is easy, I never had to get off the bike, and all other things being equal, should blow them away, because I'm on a relatively flat road and they are on a trail that dips and climbs twice, about 40 feet once and 100 feet the 2nd time. The fastest guys actually beat me back to the parking lot. It was very impressive to see actually. That's when I knew that modern gearing is a quantum leap above 3x7 or 3x8 gearing. They obviously had better gearing to climb the two inclines. The other guys in the group struggled up the two inclines. There was a dramatic separation in the group after the two inclines; the wide-geared bikes just destroyed the lesser bikes (I don't know what the lesser bikes had, I admit, maybe it was 2x10 or 3x9, etc). You could argue the fastest riders just pedaled the hardest, but it looked to me that everyone put in the same amount of energy going up the inclines, in fact the guys at the back looked like they were putting even more energy into pedaling than the front guys. No one that I remember had to get off the bike on either incline (like I have to with 11-30t gearing) but some in the back of the pack were trying desperately to stay on the bike while they were going slow, I guess out of embarrassment. The front guys made it look easy, their bikes made them look like pros in a competition. How could they not have better gearing? Are you saying that the 1x11 and 1x12 gearing doesn't help with inclines???

  92. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,477
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    OK, so why is the trend toward 1x11 and 1x12 that have 10-42t or 10-46t cassettes? The older 7-speed freewheels are generally 14-28t, and it's hard to even get up to 34t, there is only one left that I can find (Shimano) and people say it doesn't even thread on correctly, it wobbles. I'm looking at an 11-30t freewheel but again that simply will not climb steep inclines, period. The back tire will start slipping and the bike will stop and fall over. So if you state that a lot of older bikes have more range, then why is modern gearing is spaced wider at 10-42/46t instead of the older 14-28t? I don't understand your math, explain please...

    There is a canyon close to my home that has bike access on both sides. A couple of months ago I was riding on the more flat side (dirt/pressed gravel road) and saw a group of riders coming back on the other side of the canyon, the same direction as me. We meet at the end at the parking lot. They were all riding better bikes. My side of the canyon is easy, I never had to get off the bike, and all other things being equal, should blow them away, because I'm on a relatively flat road and they are on a trail that dips and climbs twice, about 40 feet once and 100 feet the 2nd time. The fastest guys actually beat me back to the parking lot. It was very impressive to see actually. They obviously had better gearing to climb the two inclines. The other guys in the group struggled up the two inclines. There was a dramatic separation in the group after the two inclines; the wide-geared bikes just destroyed the lesser bikes. You could say the fastest riders just pedaled the hardest, but it looked to me that everyone put in the same amount of energy going up the inclines, in fact the guys at the back looked like they were putting even more energy into pedaling than the front guys. The front guys made it look easy, their bikes made them look like pros in a competition. How could they not have better gearing? Are you saying that the 1x11 and 1x12 gearing doesn't help with inclines???
    My head hurts.

    It had nothing to do with gears. It never does.
    If you switched bikes with the fast guys, they would still be faster then you.
    You could have 700 gears on your bike and a strong rider with only 1 gear will crush you. He/she will also ride up and down things in that one gear that you will not. Fast riders are fast. That's how it is, has always been, and will be forever. Amen.

    Also, you do realize what the "3" in "3x7" or "3x8" stands for, yes? Because you seem to be completely ignoring the fact that front derailleurs do in fact exist and can be used to move the chain between chainrings. Once you account for this, hopefully everything will become clear.

    If not, well...you can lead a horse to water...
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  93. #193
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,491
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    OK, so why is the trend toward 1x11 and 1x12 that have 10-42t or 10-46t cassettes? The older 7-speed freewheels are generally 14-28t, and it's hard to even get up to 34t, there is only one left that I can find (Shimano) and people say it doesn't even thread on correctly, it wobbles. I'm looking at an 11-30t freewheel but again that simply will not climb steep inclines, period. The back tire will start slipping and the bike will stop and fall over. So if you state that a lot of older bikes have more range, then why is modern gearing is spaced wider at 10-42/46t instead of the older 14-28t? I don't understand your math, explain please...
    Older drivetrains were usually 2 or three chain-rings rings in the front. That extends the gearing range. The new wide-range cassettes are to (partially) compensate for that.

    Think of an typical older 3x8 drivetrain with 22/32/44 in the front and an 11-30 cassette in the rear (BTW, that is REAL old, 11-34 9-speed cassettes have been common for almost 20 years):
    Lowest ratio is 22/33 = 0.733, and the highest is 44/11 = 4.000

    Now take a 1x11 with a 32t ring and an 10-46 cassette
    Lowest is 32/42 = 0.762, and highest is 32/10 = 3.200

    So, the 3x8 has a slightly lower low, and a much higher high gear. More range. With some tweaking of the front single ring size, the 1x11 can raise the whole range up or down, but it is still going to be less overall range than the 3x8.

    Of course, in reality, I am being generous with the 1x11 drivetrain. Most newer drive-train cassettes are not 10-42 or 10-46, but 11-42 or 11-46, which is less range.

    Why less range? Well, a lot of riders realize that they don't really need it, and the advantages of going with a single ring up front outweighs the wide range of the 3x drivetrains. The release of these super wide 10-42 and 11-50 cassettes is not to extend the range over the old 3x setups, but just to match them.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  94. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    831
    Maybe the front chainrings are irrelevant because most of them are 22, 32, 42t; it's the cogs on the back that make the difference for climbing, correct? Do I really have the same range on a 7-speed 14-28t that someone has on an 11-speed 10-46t? Again, you can argue math all day, but I notice a huge difference even between 14-28t and 11-30t. 14-28t is so bad that I like to double-upshift just to get anything meaningful out of the gears, so I often use 1, 3, 5, 7 in the middle gear and forget 2, 4, 6. Top speed on a 14t back, and high front ring is a pathetic 15 mph, it's more like 25 mph on an 11t. Is any of this news to you guys?

  95. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    831
    OK but can 10-46t climb hills better than 11-30t or 11-34t? If not, is this all a marketing ploy for all-mountain bikes or something? So if I'm looking for a bike that can climb 20% inclines, what gearing is recommended? Are you saying it doesn't matter? BTW thank you for this education, you could be a dick and let a beginner stay confused, or you could do the right thing and be helpful. I appreciate it.

  96. #196
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,491
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    in one of my favorite areas in the county to go mountain biking, I have a Facebook blog about all of the different dirt roads and trails in the area. When I have time I'm going to categorize the trails according to beginner, cross-country, and all-mountain. Why? Because it's not just the experience and talent level of the mountain biker, it's what kind of bike they are actually bringing to this specific area that counts a lot for where they should go.

    Bottom line: this is just from a beginner, but it appears to me that beginner and XC trails favor the experienced, talented biker no matter what they ride, but the tougher the trail, the more bike you are going to need regardless of your skill level. It's a curve where tougher, all-mountain trails on the far end is proportional to the level (cost and quality) of bike needed.
    Yeah, this is misconception among among some people new to the sport. Unless you are talking about a trail with decent sized drops and jumps, people are going to hit that with everything from XC to AM bikes. They just have different approaches and priorities when riding it. Actually, pretty much any race that ends at the same elevation it begins is going to be won mostly by folks on XC bikes, regardless of how technical and rough it is.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  97. #197
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,477
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    Maybe the front chainrings are irrelevant because most of them are 22, 32, 42t; it's the cogs on the back that make the difference for climbing, correct?
    No, it's the COMBINATION of the gear in the front and the gear in the back.

    I'm completely baffled as to how or why you feel compelled to completely ignore the front chainrings on a "3x" system. Have you never tried using your front derailleur?

    If you really can't seem to wrap your head around the math and physics of how gears work and more specifically what the front rings do, grab your bike and shift the rear to a middle-ish gear, like 3 or 4 down. Now go ride the bike up the same hill in the small front ring, then the middle one, then the big one, all the while never shifting the rear. Report back with your findings.

    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  98. #198
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,766
    Rich, you may want to look at the join date of some of the guys you are discussing this with:

    slaphead: 2006
    kapusta: 2004
    chelboad: 2005
    jester: 2004
    me: 2006

    and most of us started riding well before our join date, I started in 1994, though I stopped in 2000 and started back in 2006. We've all probably ridden a good number of different bikes, different gear set-ups, different trails, 1x1s, owned different wheel size bikes, etc.

    We're really just trying to help you understand, we're not just arguing with you. Just realize that we have a lot more experience than you.
    There are two types of people in this world:
    1) Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

  99. #199
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,491
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    OK but can 10-46t climb hills better than 11-30t or 11-34t? .
    You can't answer that question without saying what size ring is up front.

    Think of gearing as a number that you get from dividing the size of the chairing by the size of the cog. The higher the number, the higher (harder) the gearing. It is like a fraction: Ring/Cog. If you want a lower (easier) gear, you can get that with a bigger cog (denominator) OR smaller ring (the numerator). There is actually a little more to it when you take the wheels into account, but for our purposes here, it is definitely close enough.

    So, to ask about a 10-46 vs 11-30 vs 14-28 without specifying what the rings are (how many and what size) it is impossible to directly compare.

    I think what you are missing when you talk about comparing your 14-28t cassette (or the 11-30t you are considering) to the 10-46 cassettes out there, is that you have (I assume) a 3x7 drivetrain. In other words, a triple crankset (three chainrings, which is where the "3x" part comes from in "3x7") with a 22t or 24t small ring that you can use to go into a lower gear. The 10-46t cassettes are meant to go with a single chainring crankset (that is where the "1x" part of a 1x10, 1x11 or 1x12 drive-train comes from), which is typically 32t or 36t. They don't have a smaller ring to drop into.

    You want to compare what the lowest gearing is? Do the math. (smallest Ring size) / (largest Cog size). But you HAVE to know what chainrings you are comparing to do that.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  100. #200
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,491
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    Rich, you may want to look at the join date of some of the guys you are discussing this with:

    slaphead: 2006
    kapusta: 2004
    chelboad: 2005
    jester: 2004
    me: 2006

    and most of us started riding well before our join date, I started in 1994, though I stopped in 2000 and started back in 2006. We've all probably ridden a good number of different bikes, different gear set-ups, different trails, 1x1s, owned different wheel size bikes, etc.
    .
    Wait, you all actually ride?

    Nobody told me I was suppose to be doing that.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Park City Point to Point spot for sale - $200
    By VerkerBee in forum Endurance XC Racing
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-23-2017, 07:13 AM
  2. park city point to point info. needed
    By butryon in forum Utah
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-13-2013, 03:35 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-16-2013, 09:57 AM
  4. Point to Point Mountain Bike Race Logistics
    By playpunk in forum XC Racing and Training
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-01-2011, 06:55 PM
  5. Park City Point to Point entry available for transfer!
    By jabezecny in forum Endurance XC Racing
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-26-2011, 11:13 AM

Members who have read this thread: 344

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.