1. ## Giant's marketing math

Lotta controversy in the forums about this. Seems to have lit a new spark in the "27.5" is all about marketing" line of hate.

Giant has gone all in as far as production, but have they gone over the line as far as marketing?

I'm no physicist, engineer or mathematician, so have no ability to analyze it.

So, whether lover or hater, does anybody have any grounded in fact rebuttal, or for that matter, confirmation?

The Case for 27.5

* All else being equal, a 27.5-inch wheel is 5 percent heavier than a 26-inch wheel, but 7 percent lighter than a 29er. * A 27.5-inch wheel's angle of attack is 4 percent better than a 26-inch wheel. A 29er’s angle of attack is only 2 percent better than a 27.5. * Comparing acceleration rates (or moment of inertia), 27.5 wheels are 1.5 percent slower than 26-inch wheels. Wheels with 29-inch diameters are 2.1 percent slower than 27.5 wheels. * The contact patch on 27.5 wheels is 2cm larger than on 26-inch wheels. The patch is only larger on 29ers than on 27.5 wheels. (Giant is the only company we know of currently saying that bigger wheels have larger contact patches; most companies state larger wheels have longer and narrower contact patches than a smaller wheel, but that the total contact area does not increase with a larger wheel.)

Giant also studied how wheel size affects other parts of the bike, like geometry and frame stiffness. They found that frames built around 27.5 wheels are two percent less stiff than those for 26-inch wheels, but 3.5 percent stiffer than 29er frames. The research also revealed that compared to 29er wheels, the slightly smaller 27.5 wheels can help reduce stem stack heights, create fewer issues with toe overlap and lead to frame geometry that better fits smaller riders.
http://m.bicycling.com/mountainbikec...75-inch-wheels

2. I stopped at "marketing". Marketing in general is...

3. I don't ride marketing.

4. ## Giant's marketing math

Originally Posted by Dirty \$anchez
I don't ride marketing.
How about MTBR buzz? Immune from that too?

We live in a capitalist society that runs on marketing. We're stuck with it, but free to ignore or listen, or maybe not
so free depending on subliminal effects

Giant's marketing almost looks Steve Jobs worthy in audacity and intensity. The question for me is whether it is true or false, or how truthy and how falsy.

Example: I now own iPhone and iPad. Didn't use to own Apple products, but marketing made or influenced by Jobs musta got me. Glad it did, cuz now I love Apple products; really superior in many ways. The marketing was truer than false, IMO.

I'd like to know from an independent and reliable source about 27.5". If such a source exists. Doubtful on MTBR where everybody drinks some kind of kool aid, even those who think and say they don't. That's its own flavor.

5. I have not done the math, but I would be surprised if they were fudging the numbers. Too easy to refute them since they are very easy measurements.

6. Asking a bunch of MTBers on the 650b/27.5 will only get you the answer you want to hear. If you want serious data then you should ask this question on Quora and maybe you'll get a real physicist/engineer to answer these questions.

For me, it's pretty obvious. It's really up to the rider to decide what is most important to them because after all everything is just a compromise.

7. I will just chime in briefly - "angle of attack" WRT wheels just means you need to know how high the axle is, and how high the obstacle is (assuming a round wheel). So it's not a fixed number for ANY wheel size. If you're rolling into a brick wall, the angle of attack is 90 degrees (or zero if you want to think of it that way) on any wheel, and if you're rolling over a grain of dust it's basically zero (or 90).

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't understand how Giant is using that term, since angle of attack depends not just on the wheel but on the trail obstacle (or lack thereof).

The contact patch thing is bogus. It's well understood that the patch changes *shape* but not size as you increase diameter (ie bigger wheels make a longer and narrower contact patch). Whether the 27.5 contact patch shape is superior is open to debate of course.

Weight is noncontroversial and Giant is completely correct.

Stiffness numbers are probably basically true comparing apples to apples for both wheels and frames (ie bigger wheels and frames are less stiff). But modern frames are crazy stiff so 2% one way or the other probably isn't something that anyone can perceive, nor will it make a difference on the trail. I could go on a long rant about the limits of stiffness, or the absurdity of selectively using absolute and relative figures, or any number of other things here but I'll spare everyone the angst.

Moment of inertia WRT wheels is again well understood. Bigger wheels accelerate slower - but they are only a small fraction of the mass you need to move to make the bike+you go, so that's also going to end up well below the threshold of detectability outside of a lab.

I don't know what "research" was necessary to figure out that smaller wheels = lower stack heights, less toe overlap, better fit for smaller riders. It's sort of embarrassing to even use the word "research" in that context if your business is building bikes, IMO.

I think the bottom line is that it's great marketing but mediocre to laughable "research".

Also 650b rocks and I just finished building one so I've got no particular axe to grind on this.

-Walt

8. Originally Posted by dwt
How about MTBR buzz? Immune from that too?

Yep. I may be the odd man out but I let the demo's decide. You know what I'm talkin about, you ride a bunch of them until you find the one that feels just right. You get to ride bikes too.

9. It's just personal preference...for me, 26" wheels (10 years) never felt right maybe b/c I'm tall or because I ride on the road and fire roads quite a bit...29ers (4 years) felt like I was riding a couch...so for me the inbetween size feels great. (Also I like the versatility as I have one bike but have a 2nd 29er wheelset that I use to ride on the road, gravel grinders, and cyclocross that fits in my 650b frame just great).

But if you have a bike you already like, why switch? Just ride the bike you have and forget it. My friend has a 26" moots ybb which he loves and he's thinking of selling it. I've been trying to talk him out of it.

10. The problem is that all that math is nice, but math does not make a ride. It is tough to compare gains in angle off attack and counter the weight impact.

Look 29ers have certain advantages to 26 on paper and well as the opposite. 27.5 is somewhere in between both and all of Giant's math just confirms that. What their math cannot do is determine if the 27.5 side overall better than both 26 and 29 over all conditions combined.

Clearly they have made the choice to push 27.5 wheels. Some of this certainly due to marketing what they perceive as bringing the company money. However there also must be some level truth in their belief as if the bikes don't ride well wit 27.5 size they will not get the sales either. So far most what I have seen is that 27.5 are considered at least as good as 26" wheels and some consider them better than 29ers. The biggest argument against the 27.5 wheel seems to be that it rides like a 26er which is not that bad consider many people have ridden 26ers with good success. There are however people that have real complaints about 29ers so while some love them others hate them. It remains to be seen what happens with this wheel size. Last summer 27.5 was still limited to a few select frames and early adopters. Now with Giant going this way 27.5 is being pushed mainstream. The question is however will it stay there?

11. Originally Posted by mforness3000
...so for me the inbetween size feels great.
Hey! Marketing! It is working if you think it's truly in between!

12. I have not really analyzed it or measured it but their marketing math is probably correct. The length of contact patch and angle of attack are not linear relationships with wheel diameter. As a wheel diameter increases the percentage change in those two variables decreases.

13. I just Ridezum.

14. 650b is the marketing size. I just see it as 26" plus from manufacturers who missed the 29" train. Nothing wrong with it but there was nothing wrong with 26".

15. ## Giant's marketing math

Originally Posted by GSJ1973
Hey! Marketing! It is working if you think it's truly in between!
Obviously and factually it's in between. That is simple reality and has nothing to do with marketing. The marketing is that it is exactly half way in between. So what's your point?

16. ## Giant's marketing math

Originally Posted by Ridezum
I just Ridezum.
So should anyone who wants to have an informed and relevant opinion about it.

17. ## Giant's marketing math

Originally Posted by JCL
Nothing wrong with it but there was nothing wrong with 26".
27.5" and 29" wheels are to mtb what oversize rackets are to tennis and oversize clubs are to golf.

18. Originally Posted by dwt
Obviously and factually it's in between. That is simple reality and has nothing to do with marketing. The marketing is that it is exactly half way in between. So what's your point?

My point is it isn't exactly half way in between!!!

26" - 2114 mm
650 - 2193 mm = 3.5% bigger than 26"
29" - 2312 mm = 9% bigger than 26"

19. ## Giant's marketing math

Originally Posted by GSJ1973
My point is it isn't exactly half way in between!!!

26" - 2114 mm
650 - 2193 mm = 3.5% bigger than 26"
29" - 2312 mm = 9% bigger than 26"
SFW? Who in this thread says it was? Who are you arguing with? Has Giant made the claim? What difference does it make anyway? WFC?

20. Going to be interesting to see what Specialized, Trek and Cannondale does next year...

21. Originally Posted by dwt
27.5" and 29" wheels are to mtb what oversize rackets are to tennis and oversize clubs are to golf.
And I for one dont think oversized rackets make tennis any less difficult or fun, nor do oversized heads make golf any less boring.

22. Okay, just a minute let me check my mumbers against Giants, yep they are correct. If only Specialized had the balls to publish stuff like this, I thinks it's pretty awesome for them to share the 'why' they are moving in this direction. I want Specialized to publish the numbers for 'why' they are not onboard.

Isn't it all marketing, I get this ad on the top of my page for Orbea bikes, it's for an Occam or something, the marketing line is "ride fast on 'any' terrain". I don't know, the bike looks like a 29 xc bike, what does any terrain mean?, any terrain means any terrain doesn't it. I'm not doing a downhill run on it.

23. Originally Posted by dwt
27.5" and 29" wheels are to mtb what oversize rackets are to tennis and oversize clubs are to golf.
That's not really correct. The tennis companies never said we aren't making mid-size or mid plus anymore.
However they did try to make 27.5" tennis rackets , claiming the leverage gained would increase your ball speed.
I think Michael Chang was the only pro that used it.

24. The problem I have with the Giants marketing is that it doesn't make sense:
They claim that bigger wheel size equals better traction?
That's a function of tires , not wheels.
They claim that better roll over gives you better cornering?
I am not sure how that works, since most corners are not full of rocks and roots.

25. Originally Posted by saidrick
I am not sure how that works, since most corners are not full of rocks and roots.
Ever been to Blue Mound State Park, WI?

26. Originally Posted by dwt
SFW? Who in this thread says it was? Who are you arguing with? Has Giant made the claim? What difference does it make anyway? WFC?

I've quoted above who said it was in between. I have no idea what WFC or SFW is, sorry.

Giant has made the claim, their math and marketing materials are very misleading.

They claim "total bike weight up to two pounds less than a comparable 29er" and "will be the end-all wheels size" and "rolls over similar to a 29er" and "stiffer frame resulting in better handling than 29er frameset" etc. etc.

I think this might be true comparing one of their own stock 27.5 bikes against their own stock 29er. When you start going across different brands though, then this is false. For instance, maybe a Specialized 29er at the same price point comes in lighter than a Giant 27.5 of the same price point.

I currently ride a Nomad and my friend just got a Bronson which I have spent several rides on now comparing the two. In no way is it "in between" a 26 and 29. What Giant is publishing makes it seem like it's in between two wheel sizes and rolls over stuff more like a 29er than a 26er. Which is absolutely 100% not true (in my opinion) after several hours of good long rides on a Bronson.

You started the thread and are poking at the bees nest! Be ready for the opinions!

27. ## Giant's marketing math

Originally Posted by GSJ1973
I've quoted above who said it was in between. I have no idea what WFC or SFW is, sorry.

Giant has made the claim, their math and marketing materials are very misleading.

They claim "total bike weight up to two pounds less than a comparable 29er" and "will be the end-all wheels size" and "rolls over similar to a 29er" and "stiffer frame resulting in better handling than 29er frameset" etc. etc.

I think this might be true comparing one of their own stock 27.5 bikes against their own stock 29er. When you start going across different brands though, then this is false. For instance, maybe a Specialized 29er at the same price point comes in lighter than a Giant 27.5 of the same price point.

I currently ride a Nomad and my friend just got a Bronson which I have spent several rides on now comparing the two. In no way is it "in between" a 26 and 29. What Giant is publishing makes it seem like it's in between two wheel sizes and rolls over stuff more like a 29er than a 26er. Which is absolutely 100% not true (in my opinion) after several hours of good long rides on a Bronson.

You started the thread and are poking at the bees nest! Be ready for the opinions!

3 is between 1 and 10, so is 5. 5 is half way between. The other poster never said half way. I don't know that Giant does either. If they do, please link.

I think it has been resolved that a 650b wheel is not half way between 26 and 29 whether you use rim measurements or measurements with tires mounted. Using the latter this is because 26" wheels generally always measure larger than 26", whatever tire or rim is used.

28. Originally Posted by Walt
I will just chime in briefly - "angle of attack" WRT wheels just means you need to know how high the axle is, and how high the obstacle is (assuming a round wheel). So it's not a fixed number for ANY wheel size. If you're rolling into a brick wall, the angle of attack is 90 degrees (or zero if you want to think of it that way) on any wheel, and if you're rolling over a grain of dust it's basically zero (or 90).

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't understand how Giant is using that term, since angle of attack depends not just on the wheel but on the trail obstacle (or lack thereof).

The contact patch thing is bogus. It's well understood that the patch changes *shape* but not size as you increase diameter (ie bigger wheels make a longer and narrower contact patch). Whether the 27.5 contact patch shape is superior is open to debate of course.

Weight is noncontroversial and Giant is completely correct.

Stiffness numbers are probably basically true comparing apples to apples for both wheels and frames (ie bigger wheels and frames are less stiff). But modern frames are crazy stiff so 2% one way or the other probably isn't something that anyone can perceive, nor will it make a difference on the trail. I could go on a long rant about the limits of stiffness, or the absurdity of selectively using absolute and relative figures, or any number of other things here but I'll spare everyone the angst.

Moment of inertia WRT wheels is again well understood. Bigger wheels accelerate slower - but they are only a small fraction of the mass you need to move to make the bike+you go, so that's also going to end up well below the threshold of detectability outside of a lab.

I don't know what "research" was necessary to figure out that smaller wheels = lower stack heights, less toe overlap, better fit for smaller riders. It's sort of embarrassing to even use the word "research" in that context if your business is building bikes, IMO.

I think the bottom line is that it's great marketing but mediocre to laughable "research".

Also 650b rocks and I just finished building one so I've got no particular axe to grind on this.

-Walt
Correct on all accounts, Walt. I'm very surprised (dismayed) that they got the contact patch info incorrect.

29. [QUOTE=GSJ1973;10593637]My point is it isn't exactly half way in between!!!

no sh!t

30. Originally Posted by PHeller
And I for one dont think oversized rackets make tennis any less difficult or fun, nor do oversized heads make golf any less boring.
Oversize rackets are great for tennis, however they really apply to this argument because most pro's don't use them. Agassi and his Head Radical are the exception.
Sampras used a tiny racquet( 85vs 95/98 vs 110 sq. inches) that he wrapped with lead tape.

But tennis is different, if a pro doesn't want to use his sponsors equipment, he just paints his old racquets to look like it.

31. What I don't get is why some are so butt-hurt over the "marketing" aspect of what Giant is doing. Why does it bother you so much? If you know (think) it is "marketing hype", then move along, nothing to see here, buy the brand that you think isn't marketing you in one way or another. People have the option to buy what they want to and ride what they want to, and companies can produce what they want to as well. Get over it.

Personally for me, I am certainly looking into a 27.5 because some of the benefits make sense to me and the trails I ride. I also understand as I read the ad from Giant that it is marketing (is an f-ing ad, after all), and that the numbers certainly are presented in a way that sells bikes. I get it, read trhrough the so-called hype, and made me decision to look further into it.

At least they put some numbers to it, which is plenty more than some companies have done, whether pushing 27.5 or deciding to stay out of it (Specialized). Jeez, you guys make it sound like the old Rogaine commercial that I used to laugh about where a guy asked his buddy how it worked......

"Rogaine goes right to the root of the hair, and for some people, gets it to grow." *Now that is science and research right there!

Oh, and for reference, here is the ad that some are so butt-hurt over:

32. Originally Posted by saidrick
They claim that bigger wheel size equals better traction?
That's a function of tires , not wheels.
They claim that better roll over gives you better cornering?
I am not sure how that works, since most corners are not full of rocks and roots.
In this comparison, tires have nothing to do with the traction difference between the sizes. The tire design should be held as a constant. What is different is the shape of the contact patch of the tire as a result of the size of the wheel (rim and tire). As pointed out earlier in this thread, contact patch area should not vary much if any, but the shape does and this is what changes the characterisitcs of the wheel size. The larger wheel will have a longer contact patch. This tends to give better traction and more stability in cornering.

33. Originally Posted by Walt
I will just chime in briefly - "angle of attack" WRT wheels just means you need to know how high the axle is, and how high the obstacle is (assuming a round wheel). So it's not a fixed number for ANY wheel size. If you're rolling into a brick wall, the angle of attack is 90 degrees (or zero if you want to think of it that way) on any wheel, and if you're rolling over a grain of dust it's basically zero (or 90).

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't understand how Giant is using that term, since angle of attack depends not just on the wheel but on the trail obstacle (or lack thereof)-Walt
I think where you're running astray is that the trail obstacle is a constant. Given a constant obstacle, a larger diameter wheel will roll over the obstacle with less effort. Using your analogy above, if a wheel has a radius of 20 inches and you approach a brick wall that is 20 inches, your "angle of attack" is 90 degrees. If your wheel has a 40 inch radius, the angle of attack on the same wall would be 45 degrees. It's the relative size of the obstacle to the wheel that matters.

34. Originally Posted by GSJ1973
I've quoted above who said it was in between. I have no idea what WFC or SFW is, sorry.
So f'ing what and who f'ing cares...does that help?

Originally Posted by GSJ1973
Giant has made the claim, their math and marketing materials are very misleading.

They claim "total bike weight up to two pounds less than a comparable 29er" and "will be the end-all wheels size" and "rolls over similar to a 29er" and "stiffer frame resulting in better handling than 29er frameset" etc. etc.

I think this might be true comparing one of their own stock 27.5 bikes against their own stock 29er. When you start going across different brands though, then this is false. For instance, maybe a Specialized 29er at the same price point comes in lighter than a Giant 27.5 of the same price point.
Why would you even think of comparing two different bikes when trying to compare a difference in wheel size? That makes no sense at all. Giants claim on this one is spot on. Given the same frame type and build, there is a difference in weight and stiffness. This is perfectly valid...your comparison is not.

And as pointed out, saying the wheel size is not in between is incorrect. Nobody is saying it is half way between.

35. Originally Posted by saidrick
The problem I have with the Giants marketing is that it doesn't make sense:
They claim that bigger wheel size equals better traction?
That's a function of tires , not wheels.
They claim that better roll over gives you better cornering?
I am not sure how that works, since most corners are not full of rocks and roots.
This post couldn't be more wrong.

36. Originally Posted by Walt
The contact patch thing is bogus. It's well understood that the patch changes *shape* but not size as you increase diameter (ie bigger wheels make a longer and narrower contact patch). Whether the 27.5 contact patch shape is superior is open to debate of course.

Contact patch does increase in size as wheel diameter increases. It doesn't get wider, but it gets longer. It doesn't get narrower. I can't even figure out why you would say that. The surface area in contact with the ground increases. That's not debatable.

Moment of inertia WRT wheels is again well understood. Bigger wheels accelerate slower - but they are only a small fraction of the mass you need to move to make the bike+you go, so that's also going to end up well below the threshold of detectability outside of a lab.

It's rotating mass. It's definitely noticeable. At least compared to a hundred grams on a seatpost, for example.

I don't know what "research" was necessary to figure out that smaller wheels = lower stack heights, less toe overlap, better fit for smaller riders. It's sort of embarrassing to even use the word "research" in that context if your business is building bikes, IMO.

Well, a lot of companies have been putting a lot of research into making small frames with 29" wheels. If it was so obvious that it wouldn't work well, why did those companies do the research?

-Walt
Just a few thoughts.

37. I think the initial 27.5 to Apple comparison is excellent--Apple has always made rather overpriced mediocre hardware coupled with inaccurate or downright false marketing engineered and targeted to the privileged and trendy. But who cares about all that, they're cool!

IMHO, to call what Giant is pushing 'R&D', 'math', or 'fact' is rather generous.

38. Originally Posted by michael9218
In this comparison, tires have nothing to do with the traction difference between the sizes. The tire design should be held as a constant. What is different is the shape of the contact patch of the tire as a result of the size of the wheel (rim and tire). As pointed out earlier in this thread, contact patch area should not vary much if any, but the shape does and this is what changes the characterisitcs of the wheel size. The larger wheel will have a longer contact patch. This tends to give better traction and more stability in cornering.
You would think that tires have nothing to do with it, but why are some tires better in some sizes , instead of all sizes?

Further more I have experienced too much traction with my 26" bike . And too little , both issues fixed by changing tires.
My old Ventana was too slow with super glue kenda nevegals
and my mojo was too slippery with the junk specialized XC tires it came with .

39. These threads are hilarious. Shouldn't everyone be happy that we now have more sizes to choose from? Look at the winter sports industry; there's a different sized ski from 60mm all the way up to 140+mm... and instead of complaining that one size is best, skiers just pick what's right for them and go with it. Pick the wheel size that's right for your type of riding and don't worry what other people think. Additionally, if you feel the need you can also adjust between 26", 650B, and 29" sizes by getting a bigger (or smaller) tire to ride.

And in the effort of full disclosure, I have a 650b bike (converted 26" Blur LT frame) and a 29er (SC Superlight 29).

40. -Contact patch does not change much in area. You can easily prove this to yourself with some experimentation (identical tires/pressure on different size rims, some water or ink, piece of paper) but it's not controversial.

-If you can come up with a way to detect a 100g change in ANY component when riding a vehicle that weighs ~90,000g (one tenth of one percent!) more power to you! Once again, the moment of inertia higher for bigger wheels but the wheels are a tiny part of the big picture.

-I think you misunderstand. "Research" implies testing hypotheses and doing science. There is no "research" needed to state that a 300 pound person won't fit well into a size 3 dress because it's obvious, so saying that smaller wheels make can stack heights lower is silly. Of course they do, and that's a great thing if you need a lower stack height than you can get on a bigger wheel bike. Giant is totally correct, but they described their conclusions in a silly way.

-Walt

41. Originally Posted by dwt

3 is between 1 and 10, so is 5. 5 is half way between. The other poster never said half way. I don't know that Giant does either. If they do, please link.
hmmm. post #15 by you was a little confusing:

"The marketing is that it is exactly half way in between. So what's your point?"

I think it has been resolved that a 650b wheel is not half way between 26 and 29 whether you use rim measurements or measurements with tires mounted. Using the latter this is because 26" wheels generally always measure larger than 26", whatever tire or rim is used.

i still dont understand giants angle of attack claims. A wheel that is closer to 26 somehow rolls closer to 29. Just doesnt make sense to me.

42. Aren't those pictures almost exactly the same as what Norco used in their big marketing presentations when they first introduced their 27.5 line a year or two ago? I think it was them that had almost the same diagrams with all three wheels pointing out the same things. Did everyone get all butt-hurt like this then too?

43. ## Giant's marketing math

Okay, just a minute let me check my mumbers against Giants, yep they are correct. If only Specialized had the balls to publish stuff like this, I thinks it's pretty awesome for them to share the 'why' they are moving in this direction. I want Specialized to publish the numbers for 'why' they are not onboard.

Isn't it all marketing, I get this ad on the top of my page for Orbea bikes, it's for an Occam or something, the marketing line is "ride fast on 'any' terrain". I don't know, the bike looks like a 29 xc bike, what does any terrain mean?, any terrain means any terrain doesn't it. I'm not doing a downhill run on it.
Publishing the 'why nots' would be a bad business move on their part. That would effectively shut the door to the market for them and they don't want that. "But you guys said 650b sucked and now you're selling 650b? Wtf?"

44. ## Giant's marketing math

Originally Posted by 911Holy\$
hmmm. post #15 by you was a little confusing:

"The marketing is that it is exactly half way in between. So what's your point?"
I was responding to post #11 where somebody accused somebody else of falling for marketing for saying 650b is the "in between" wheel size. Of course 650b obviously is in FACT "in between". That is NOT marketing, it is mathematically undeniable truth. The question is where on the scale between 26 and 29 it actually lies. To say it is exactly half way in between is not precisely true (though not wildly inaccurate). So if claiming exactly half way in between is used to sell bikes, it is marketing.

Clear?

45. Originally Posted by dwt
Lotta controversy in the forums about this. Seems to have lit a new spark in the "27.5" is all about marketing" line of hate.

Giant has gone all in as far as production, but have they gone over the line as far as marketing?

I'm no physicist, engineer or mathematician, so have no ability to analyze it.

So, whether lover or hater, does anybody have any grounded in fact rebuttal, or for that matter, confirmation?

Giant Unveils 2014 Mountain Bikes with 27.5 Wheels | Bicycling Magazine
Giant need to push it hard because I think they are stuffed with any other wheel size. Maestro was designed with 26" wheel in mind. 26" is dead. They had to do all sorts of frame contortions just to squeeze in 120mm travel in a 29er. 29ers are still progressing to shorter chain stays and longer travel. So they are stuffed for future generations in 29ers. Hence the big push in to 27.5. They're not the only ones. But there's nothing wrong with that. Good to have a choice in wheel size.

I haven't bothered to check their maths but the contact patch size doesn't seem right. On the trail there's still a big difference in cornering traction between a 27.5 and a 29er. Once again mid way feels closer. Definitely not closer to 26" like the size haters would make us believe.

46. Some strange arguments here. First I will say I am a Giant dealer so I have an obvious bias. Second Giant does not claim that 27.5 is halfway between 26 and 29, in fact they claim the exact opposite, that when it comes to performance it is never halfway between the two.

The math, and therefore the physics is what it is and arguing against it is silly. The thing is wheels have this circle thing going, and there is this fundamental pi*r2 thing going on. Which means things increase and decrease at an exponential rate. As wheels get bigger they get exponentially worse as far as weight, acceleration and stiffness are concerned. As wheels get smaller they get exponentially worse at angle of attack and contact patch. (And don't try and tell me that a 10"x2" wheel has the same contact patch as a 40"x2" wheel, there is a difference in contact patch whether you like it or not.)

So then the question is, where is the sweet spot where you get the best combination of characteristics. Giant makes a good argument for 27.5 being a better combo than 26 or 29 and backs it with solid math.

I like the argument that in the end it comes down to how does it feel when you ride it. Unfortunately I didn't get this question answered for me at Giant's dealer show. The first two bikes I rode were completely different bikes than what I normally ride and so didn't make a good comparison. The last one I rode was a good comparison, but unfortunately my wife crashed and so I had to end the ride too soon to really get a feel for the bike.

The demo Anthem Adv 27.5s I have on order are very close in spec to the Anthem X Adv 29 that I am currently riding. When the demo bikes get here I will get a good chance to take them both out on the same trails and be able to answer for myself if the 27.5 is really the answer Giant says it is.

When I first started riding the 29er I missed the quick snappy feeling of my 26, but with lighter wheels and time I have learned to love my 29er. Giant claims that with the 27.5 the snap is back. I would be glad to have that back and still have the faster rolling and more traction. In a few weeks I'll be able to see for myself if Giant is right. Also I can demo out my bikes to customers and see if they agree with Giant.

47. ## Giant's marketing math

Originally Posted by mtbeagle
Giant claims that with the 27.5 the snap is back. I would be glad to have that back and still have the faster rolling and more traction.
It's BACK.

The Snap is Back.

48. Originally Posted by saidrick
The problem I have with the Giants marketing is that it doesn't make sense:
They claim that bigger wheel size equals better traction?
That's a function of tires , not wheels.
They claim that better roll over gives you better cornering?
I am not sure how that works, since most corners are not full of rocks and roots.
I have to respectfully disagree with that statement. I was running Rocket Ron Pace stars on my 26", then I test rode a 29er with Racing Ralphs Performance compound which by all rights should not stick better, but the did. A lot better. And when I test rode the Talon 27.5 with the budget Giant tires I had all the grip I wanted. To me it definitely feels like the bigger wheels offer more grip. But those are my personal observations.

49. WRT contact patch size, remember most people running 29ers use less pressure in the tires than most people running 26ers. So even if we assume that a wider patch would be in contact with the 26" wheel, and a longer patch with the 29" wheel, generating a supposedly equal sized contact patch, remember that with less PSI in the larger wheel/tire, there MUST be MORE tire on the ground to support the equal pressure pushing down on the two tires. This really is simple physics. The bonus here, for the lower PSI tire, is that any surface anomalies (rocks, roots) poking up also displace the tire less because the lower PSI allows the tire to flex more. This is part of what the Tubeless Hype is all about. On the whole, all other things being equal, a larger tire at a lower PSI is ALWAYS going to have a larger contact patch.

50. Originally Posted by mtbeagle
Some strange arguments here. First I will say I am a Giant dealer so I have an obvious bias. Second Giant does not claim that 27.5 is halfway between 26 and 29, in fact they claim the exact opposite, that when it comes to performance it is never halfway between the two.

The math, and therefore the physics is what it is and arguing against it is silly. The thing is wheels have this circle thing going, and there is this fundamental pi*r2 thing going on. Which means things increase and decrease at an exponential rate. As wheels get bigger they get exponentially worse as far as weight, acceleration and stiffness are concerned. As wheels get smaller they get exponentially worse at angle of attack and contact patch. (And don't try and tell me that a 10"x2" wheel has the same contact patch as a 40"x2" wheel, there is a difference in contact patch whether you like it or not.)
Actually things don't all increase at an exponential rate. Only area does for a circle. A 29" circle is just 29/26 larger in diameter than a 26" circle. I fail to see where the area of a spoked wheel is relevant here.

If you use the same tire and the same rim, a 29" wheel will be about 12% heavier. If you used a tire and rim combo that was 12% lighter on the 29" wheel it would weigh the same and accelerate the same as a 26" wheel. The diameter doesn't matter because the bigger wheel turns proportionally slower, which cancels things out.

What the diameter DOES do is put the gyroscopic effect and the polar moment of inertia further out. It's like wiggling a short stick and a long stick. In order to turn the wheel X degrees you have to swing the same weight through a longer arc.

The acceleration effect you only feel when you are accelerating, but the polar inertia effect is there whenever you're turning the wheel side to side or leaning the bike over. That's what I notice far more than any acceleration differences, and given that I can generally use lighter tires on 29 than I did on 26 makes that a wash for me.

51. Originally Posted by Cotharyus
WRT contact patch size, remember most people running 29ers use less pressure in the tires than most people running 26ers. So even if we assume that a wider patch would be in contact with the 26" wheel, and a longer patch with the 29" wheel, generating a supposedly equal sized contact patch, remember that with less PSI in the larger wheel/tire, there MUST be MORE tire on the ground to support the equal pressure pushing down on the two tires. This really is simple physics. The bonus here, for the lower PSI tire, is that any surface anomalies (rocks, roots) poking up also displace the tire less because the lower PSI allows the tire to flex more. This is part of what the Tubeless Hype is all about. On the whole, all other things being equal, a larger tire at a lower PSI is ALWAYS going to have a larger contact patch.
Getting completely off topic.
Why run less psi in a 29er? I'd tend to run more if anything. I have experimented a lot with pressures/ tire set ups. I'm lucky i have terrain where I can run tire pressures just above squirm pressure. Even with different contact patch shapes it works out at about the same pressure. I run different pressures for different brand/ style tires but not sizes . I tend to use the same tires across the three sizes, all at the same pressure. The same tires all squirm at similar pressures across the sizes .
If anything I prefer to race at higher pressure withe the 29er tire. The longer contact patch at low pressures tend to slow the tire down. With it's longer contact patch and increased volume you can afford to up the pressure and not loose cornering traction or comfort.

Many also claim they need to go tubeless to run low pressure.To stop them squirming, I run the same tires tubeless 1 psi higher than i do with tubes. As a result, they feel identical to ride no matter what size and whether I'm riding tubeless or tubed.

Maybe I ride on Mars?

52. I think ts so funny the wheel size war..interesting reading. Why do people want mathematical certainty to this question? If you ride it and like it...buy it. If you don't....don't. Many of the variables are completely subjective except for weght. I like my 29er better than my old 26 so I bought it and enjoy it. If I test ride a new 27.5 and like it better than my 29er I will get one. If you are blaming your poor riding on your wheel size choice you have issues.

53. ## Giant's marketing math

Originally Posted by gvs_nz

Many also claim they need to go tubeless to run low pressure.To stop them squirming, I run the same tires tubeless 1 psi higher than i do with tubes. As a result, they feel identical to ride no matter what size and whether I'm riding tubeless or tubed.

Maybe I ride on Mars?
Sounds like you don't need or want the hassle of tubeless. Either that or come back to earth.

54. ## Giant's marketing math

Originally Posted by TiGeo
I think ts so funny the wheel size war..interesting reading. Why do people want mathematical certainty to this question? If you ride it and like it...buy it. If you don't....don't. Many of the variables are completely subjective except for weght. I like my 29er better than my old 26 so I bought it and enjoy it. If I test ride a new 27.5 and like it better than my 29er I will get one. If you are blaming your poor riding on your wheel size choice you have issues.
Greater flex of larger wheels and frames is also objective. So is greater angle of attack relative to your usual riding terrain.

I would guess that you like your 29'er more than 26'er due to the angle of attack- that's the usual reason. Otherwise the extra weight & flex and reduced maneuverability would have disappointed you.

So, sounds like you had issues riding 26". Join the club.

55. Again....no need to try to quantify it. I didn't have issues with 26...rode it for years and was perfectly happy with it...but again...rode a 29er and was hooked. May ride a 27.5 and have the same experience. I don't need this forum or a bike company to give me reinforcement that my decision was correct.

56. Originally Posted by PHeller
And I for one dont think oversized rackets make tennis any less difficult or fun, nor do oversized heads make golf any less boring.
My wife says OVERSIZE is more fun.......

57. Originally Posted by Cotharyus
On the whole, all other things being equal, a larger tire at a lower PSI is ALWAYS going to have a larger contact patch.

Yeah but that's all about the lower pressure, and nothing to do with the tire size. Funny.

58. Originally Posted by gvs_nz
Getting completely off topic.
Why run less psi in a 29er? I'd tend to run more if anything. I have experimented a lot with pressures/ tire set ups. I'm lucky i have terrain where I can run tire pressures just above squirm pressure. Even with different contact patch shapes it works out at about the same pressure. I run different pressures for different brand/ style tires but not sizes . I tend to use the same tires across the three sizes, all at the same pressure. The same tires all squirm at similar pressures across the sizes .
If anything I prefer to race at higher pressure withe the 29er tire. The longer contact patch at low pressures tend to slow the tire down. With it's longer contact patch and increased volume you can afford to up the pressure and not loose cornering traction or comfort.

Many also claim they need to go tubeless to run low pressure.To stop them squirming, I run the same tires tubeless 1 psi higher than i do with tubes. As a result, they feel identical to ride no matter what size and whether I'm riding tubeless or tubed.

Maybe I ride on Mars?
In general, when you have a higher volume of air, you can support the same load with a lower PSI (less PSI distributed further supports more weight) which is why so much heavy equipment runs on tracks rather than wheels of some sort. It's about distributing the weight over more area. Why you choose to do the opposite of what most people apparently do is likely beyond the scope of this conversation, and certainly beyond the scope of my knowledge, because I don't know you.

As has been implied here so many times, it's really about what feels right to you. You can through around all the figures and numbers you want to, but at the end of the day, you can't quantify fun in there anywhere with those numbers. This is why my response was only addressing contact patch with larger wheel size, it's not crap, and yes, it is a lower pressures, but that's everything to do with wheel size because again, less PSI over more area is about the volume of the tire, which is larger on a 29" tire than on a 26" unless you run 23c's or something on the 29er.

There are so many people who talk about how much flex is in a 29" wheel and how 29ers handle slow, and take the fun out of a trail, and you can't flick them around, etc. There will be those same things said about the 27.5. The funny thing is, I'm a pretty big guy, 6'4", and I throw a 29er around pretty well. The only place I've ever noticed frame/wheel flex is sprinting. Honestly, I don't do that much on a mountain bike. To me, I feel at home on a 29er, and it's nothing to do with rolling over things, or smoothing things out, or more stable, it's simply about a proportional wheel size for me. I'm sure many people who feel 29ers are too cumbersome will find a home on 27.5, and still others will never feel comfortable or fast on anything but a 26" wheel. I suspect the likely reason for this is something called personal preference.

I've never understood personal preference. It causes so many arguments about things that don't really matter. In the end, I'd prefer people just choose to get along....

59. im pretty certain im a 29er guy.Unlikely to go back to small wheels and dont believe a lot of giants marketing dribble and claims. i think there is a lot wrong with the glossy brochure they produced. But going to be interesting to try out the trance 650b. looking forward to it actually. read one glowing review. Wheel-size nonsense aside, it sounds like a rather dialled and ripping bike (and their prices are always pretty awesome here in the southern hemisphere):

Flow?s First Bite: Giant Trance Advanced 27.5 0 | Flow Mountain Bike

i was kind of hoping for a carbon trance 29 this year. Or perhaps a re-designed anthem 29 with shorter stays to pull it into line with competitors. doesnt look like its going to happen anytime soon, if ever. At the moment i think i will end up pinging for one of these monsters in the end:

Bike Test: Specialized Stumpjumper Expert Carbon Review - Flow Mountain Bike - YouTube

happy trails

60. Originally Posted by JCL
650b is the marketing size. I just see it as 26" plus from manufacturers who missed the 29" train. Nothing wrong with it but there was nothing wrong with 26".
Agreed +1

61. ## Giant's marketing math

Originally Posted by TiGeo
Again....no need to try to quantify it. I didn't have issues with 26...rode it for years and was perfectly happy with it...but again...rode a 29er and was hooked. May ride a 27.5 and have the same experience. I don't need this forum or a bike company to give me reinforcement that my decision was correct.
What about 29" hooked you if you were "perfectly happy and had no issues with" 26"? That's an internal contradiction. Theoretically, you should have been turned off by the disadvantages of 29" if you were bonded with 26".

For me, riding a 29'er once proved to me that even though I had learned on and ridden 26" for over 20 years, there was terrain I could clean on 29" I could not on 26" and therefore, even though I didn't even know it beforehand, I had issues with 26".

If you are now bonded to 29", you will likely find 27.5" too small. Or, it is possible the tweener could rekindle the old 26" spark, as you find it easier to throw the smaller lighter bike around. That was my experience. You won't know until you try one out. All three have their own pluses and minuses

62. ## Giant's marketing math

Originally Posted by Fred Smedley
My wife says OVERSIZE is more fun.......
So she dumped you for a Chippendale?

63. Originally Posted by dwt
What about 29" hooked you if you were "perfectly happy and had no issues with" 26"? That's an internal contradiction. Theoretically, you should have been turned off by the disadvantages of 29" if you were bonded with 26".

For me, riding a 29'er once proved to me that even though I had learned on and ridden 26" for over 20 years, there was terrain I could clean on 29" I could not on 26" and therefore, even though I didn't even know it beforehand, I had issues with 26".

If you are now bonded to 29", you will likely find 27.5" too small. Or, it is possible the tweener could rekindle the old 26" spark, as you find it easier to throw the smaller lighter bike around. That was my experience. You won't know until you try one out. All three have their own pluses and minuses
I bought a 29er because that was what was availble and I like to try new things. I had no issues with 26 because that was all that we knew...but yes after riding a 29er for some time I really like the steam roller thing. To me there are no disadvantages..you just adapt to the characterisitcs of the bike you ride.

64. ## Giant's marketing math

I would just figure if they did the math, and knew how accurate the math was, that their World Cup xc teams would be on them.. But they weren't. At this weekends world cup xc they were all on 29's, even their woman riders that are shorter...

I would like to try one, but I race a lot of xc and hundies, and don't want rear squish... So not sure it would be worth it.. Even at 5'6".

65. Originally Posted by Sherwin
I would just figure if they did the math, and knew how accurate the math was, that their World Cup xc teams would be on them.. But they weren't. At this weekends world cup xc they were all on 29's

That may have something to do with the fact that they still have a boatload of 29'ers to unload.

66. Originally Posted by Sherwin
I would just figure if they did the math, and knew how accurate the math was, that their World Cup xc teams would be on them.. But they weren't. At this weekends world cup xc they were all on 29's, even their woman riders that are shorter...

I would like to try one, but I race a lot of xc and hundies, and don't want rear squish... So not sure it would be worth it.. Even at 5'6".

horses for courses?

IMO the 29er is always going to be faster on most xc courses, but more fun in getting from A to B is debatable.

67. ## Giant's marketing math

Originally Posted by TiGeo
I bought a 29er because that was what was availble and I like to try new things. I had no issues with 26 because that was all that we knew...but yes after riding a 29er for some time I really like the steam roller thing. To me there are no disadvantages..you just adapt to the characterisitcs of the bike you ride.
Whatever floats your boat of course. I blew the seals on my 650b fork, so while that bike is in dry dock, I took the 29'er to a very 29 friendly place today. Nothing compares with the luxury of being able to ride the right bike on the right terrain. Have ridden this particular place on many different bikes (including rigid 26" SS) but the 29'er, now that I'm starting to get used to it, just plain rocks there. Haven't ridden the SS there in years, and had one of those "back in the day" flashes today, climbing what can only be described as a rock filled drainage ditch: "Wow, I USED to be able to clean this on a rigid 26" SS!" Not anymore. The 29'er a better tool, and I'm nowhere near as strong as I used to be.

Which is why if you can afford a quiver & live somewhere with enough trail systems around that you can use the full quiver, you are very fortunate. I'm one of those and quite content.

68. Originally Posted by dwt
So she dumped you for a Chippendale?
That was not the implication , but I probably deserved that response....lol

69. Originally Posted by dwt
How about MTBR buzz? Immune from that too?

We live in a capitalist society that runs on marketing. We're stuck with it, but free to ignore or listen, or maybe not
so free depending on subliminal effects

Giant's marketing almost looks Steve Jobs worthy in audacity and intensity. The question for me is whether it is true or false, or how truthy and how falsy.

Example: I now own iPhone and iPad. Didn't use to own Apple products, but marketing made or influenced by Jobs musta got me. Glad it did, cuz now I love Apple products; really superior in many ways. The marketing was truer than false, IMO.

I'd like to know from an independent and reliable source about 27.5". If such a source exists. Doubtful on MTBR where everybody drinks some kind of kool aid, even those who think and say they don't. That's its own flavor.
Well, all I can say is that a few years back I had a taste of that 29'er kool aid and really didn't care for it as a whole. But I did see the obvious advantages, and once I heard about the 650b bikes that Jamis and KHS put out I became damn curious. So much so that I bought a Jamis 650B2 and shelved my sweet Trek Top Fuel. I'm on a Scott Genius since January and have been all in since day one. Stoked to see lighter/shorter travel rides like the Solo and Spark, more flavors for the masses. 27.5 is for real, I would market the piss out of it!

70. ## Giant's marketing math

Originally Posted by PHeller
And I for one dont think oversized rackets make tennis any less difficult or fun, nor do oversized heads make golf any less boring.
My wife plays tennis, I play golf and ride mtb. IME the modern rackets and clubs, like larger mtn bike wheels, enable more "average" athletes to enjoy sports which otherwise might not be enjoyable or even doable using the prior equipment, which requires superior skill and athleticism to use effectively.

71. I was implying that they don't really change my opinion on the respective sports.

Just like wheel size ultimately doesn't really matter all that much. The purists always get riled up when something becomes more accessible.

72. Um, I think Giant is winning this one. Obviously relevant- or everyone would not be posting. Obviously on target or everyone would not care. Now, I just recommend you go ride one. It will be obvious. They f'n ride awesome.

PS. Just because the new 27.5 Giant's ride awesome it does not mean your 26 or 29 does not ride awesome. It is possible for 2 bikes with different wheel sizes and from different brands to both ride awesome at the same time.

73. ## Giant's marketing math

Originally Posted by Kaj
Um, I think Giant is winning this one.
...but then who's loooooosing this one? I don't need Special Education to answer that...

Originally Posted by Kaj
It is possible for 2 bikes with different wheel sizes and from different brands to both ride awesome at the same time.
I hate reason. By your flawed logic, when my sodomizing gay friends get married, it's possible that it has no adverse effect on my awesome riding straight marriage. :P

But I suspect you're right...

74. Not talking for anyone else, but I posted because their 'research' is laughable. Of course, they have stiff competition in that area...

75. ## Giant's marketing math

Originally Posted by PHeller
I was implying that they don't really change my opinion on the respective sports.

Just like wheel size ultimately doesn't really matter all that much. The purists always get riled up when something becomes more accessible.
Totally disagree. If you have ridden 26" all your life then jump on a 29'er, you WILL then get how much size DOES matter. If it does not, how do you explain 29'er sales over the last 5-10 years? If you say "ALL marketing" then Bzzzt you lose, wrong answer.

But 27.5" is a different animal as we can easily see reading through these threads.

76. This must drive dealers crazy...now are they expected to stock tires and tubes in three different sizes? That could get really expensive.

77. Originally Posted by XterraMike
This must drive dealers crazy...now are they expected to stock tires and tubes in three different sizes? That could get really expensive.
I know! Can you imagine the headaches of stocking a whole new tire size on top of dealing with your existing inventory of 700c (23/25/28/hybrid/townie), 650c, tubular, bmx, kids, cruiser, 26er AND 29er tires!??! I mean c'mon! How are they supposed to keep that all organized using only a comprehensive database of inventory and orders? For pete's sake, its not like those bar codes stick themselves on the boxes

78. Originally Posted by AgentPhatrick
Well, all I can say is that a few years back I had a taste of that 29'er kool aid and really didn't care for it as a whole. But I did see the obvious advantages, and once I heard about the 650b bikes that Jamis and KHS put out I became damn curious. So much so that I bought a Jamis 650B2 and shelved my sweet Trek Top Fuel. I'm on a Scott Genius since January and have been all in since day one. Stoked to see lighter/shorter travel rides like the Solo and Spark, more flavors for the masses. 27.5 is for real, I would market the piss out of it!
It's not that bad. No one has worn out their tires yet. We were using 26" tubes as recommended on this forum, but the Giant's support is really good and we have tubes in stock. It is simply one more size tube among the almost 30 sizes (including different stem lengths for roadies) of tubes we already have. A lot of out tire sales are for old schwinns and 70's road bikes, and other various ol' clunkers. So stocking a tire or two is no biggie. It is more helpful if we have a distributor that has plenty in stock that we can get in a timely manner.

79. To be fair most normal shops don't really stock much in the way of aftermarket tires. They just order them in from QBP when a customer wants some. I don't see this as a big problem - your average shop has very few tires of *any* size on the shop floor excluding generic stuff in a few sizes for repairs.

-Walt

80. Originally Posted by 911Holy\$
im pretty certain im a 29er guy.Unlikely to go back to small wheels and dont believe a lot of giants marketing dribble and claims. i think there is a lot wrong with the glossy brochure they produced. But going to be interesting to try out the trance 650b. looking forward to it actually. read one glowing review. Wheel-size nonsense aside, it sounds like a rather dialled and ripping bike (and their prices are always pretty awesome here in the southern hemisphere):

Flow?s First Bite: Giant Trance Advanced 27.5 0 | Flow Mountain Bike

i was kind of hoping for a carbon trance 29 this year. Or perhaps a re-designed anthem 29 with shorter stays to pull it into line with competitors. doesnt look like its going to happen anytime soon, if ever. At the moment i think i will end up pinging for one of these monsters in the end:

Bike Test: Specialized Stumpjumper Expert Carbon Review - Flow Mountain Bike - YouTube

happy trails
That flow review was interesting, but one thing struck me. The comparison to the 2013 Reign wasn't very clear.

Was that with the old fox internals that are inferior? Or had they upgraded the internals to the 2014 spec? That alone would make a world of difference and/or explain their comment about:
" Our hands, and whole body, seemed to take a bigger beating on the older Reign, where the Trance just sung."
Given the 'fix' for the 2013 forks is to just add more air to prevent mid stroke brake dive. That would reduce your small bump compliance and contribute to the "beating".

Food for thought. I'm currently leaning towards the 2014 Trance X1 with a pike down stroked to 150mm.

81. BIKE magazine has an e-article about Giant's new line-up. Starts with the usual hair-splitting about whether they actually measure 27.5" but later has some real test rides and conclusions...

Giant Debuts Trance 27.5 Models

"...huge improvement in moving to 27.5 wheels..."

82. Originally Posted by SteveF
BIKE magazine has an e-article about Giant's new line-up. Starts with the usual hair-splitting about whether they actually measure 27.5" but later has some real test rides and conclusions...

Giant Debuts Trance 27.5 Models

"...huge improvement in moving to 27.5 wheels..."

Bike mag first lists the Norco Range killer B as a great bike, but they didn't notice the wheel size.( Bible of bike tests , editors choice).

In their current issue they review the reign and claim what a great bike it is.

Now they come out and say that the 27.5 is awesome because it rides better than 29" bike.

Clearly they went from saying they didn't notice the difference, to giving a glowing review of the supposedly inferior wheel size, to claiming there's are all kinds of noticeable differences which make the 27.5 better than a 29er.

A and ~A.

This is exactly why everyone is claiming all marketing: to go from " I can't tell the difference to best size ever in less than a year cannot be scientific.

P.s any review of non DH bikes that includes the quote " God Bless chair lifts" isn't a real test ride.

83. ## Giant's marketing math

Originally Posted by saidrick

Bike mag first lists the Norco Range killer B as a great bike, but they didn't notice the wheel size.( Bible of bike tests , editors choice).

In their current issue they review the reign and claim what a great bike it is.

Now they come out and say that the 27.5 is awesome because it rides better than 29" bike.

Clearly they went from saying they didn't notice the difference, to giving a glowing review of the supposedly inferior wheel size, to claiming there's are all kinds of noticeable differences which make the 27.5 better than a 29er.

A and ~A.

This is exactly why everyone is claiming all marketing: to go from " I can't tell the difference to best size ever in less than a year cannot be scientific.

P.s any review of non DH bikes that includes the quote " God Bless chair lifts" isn't a real test ride.
What are your links? This one is from Sept. 2012, and I'm unable to find any "can't tell the difference" quote. There are quotes from Kona, Specialized and Trek, stating: "meh", but one year later we know Trek has changed its mind. Spesh will cave too, only a matter of time.

It looks like Bike Mag has been consistent in being David Copperfield's main nemesis for a year. Copperfield is making much noise now as the entire bike industry - with only a few exceptions- have proven his 27.5" criticisms wrong and his extreme 29" kool aide ridiculous.

84. That's funny, because I think your 29" criticisms are wrong, and your extreme 27.5 kool aid ridiculous... But I have no agenda, or for that matter, any idea who you're trash talking.

85. Originally Posted by dwt
What are your links? This one is from Sept. 2012, and I'm unable to find any "can't tell the difference" quote. There are quotes from Kona, Specialized and Trek, stating: "meh", but one year later we know Trek has changed its mind. Spesh will cave too, only a matter of time.

Ready or Not, Here Comes Two-Seven-Five

It looks like Bike Mag has been consistent in being David Copperfield's main nemesis for a year. Copperfield is making much noise now as the entire bike industry - with only a few exceptions- have proven his 27.5" criticisms wrong and his extreme 29" kool aide ridiculous.
I have no links, but I do have a subscription to Bike. I am referring to actual magazine reviews that may or may not be available on the interwebs.

But the way they summed up 650B in the bible of bike tests issue is where I hoped / where 650B belongs. It got one of four votes for best bike. Or a 25% share of the market. I am cool with that. It has its place, but its not for everyone. However in the last six months the bike companies decided that they were for everyone. The problem is they never asked anyone first. They ass/u/me'd we would be okay with it.

86. ## Giant's marketing math

Originally Posted by Zowie
That's funny, because I think your 29" criticisms are wrong, and your extreme 27.5 kool aid ridiculous... But I have no agenda, or for that matter, any idea who you're trash talking.

FYI: "David Copperfield" is one of the most obnoxious trolls on MTBR. He HAS an agenda, and has been actively campaigning against 27.5" wheels for about 3 years. Why is a mystery. Maybe he's just nuts. He's also notorious for evangelical 29" kool aid. Lucky you if you've never run into him on the forums. You must be a bit of a newbie.

Anyway, this whole 27.5" mania, marketing and fad that has developed over the past year proves him wrong, which I find hysterical given the effort he has put in to kill it.

I have no agenda either: I own at least one bike in all 3 wheel sizes and ride them all. Do you? With that experience, I have an informed opinion that I like 27.5" best overall. Not always. In some
terrain my 29'er is preferable. The 26" has seen little use of late. But that's totally personal and subjective, and YMMV. I don't give a crap what you or anyone else rides.

The people I think are ridiculous are those that dump hate on a bike without ever riding it themselves. David Copperfield for one. You?

87. Originally Posted by probiscus
That flow review was interesting, but one thing struck me. The comparison to the 2013 Reign wasn't very clear.

Was that with the old fox internals that are inferior? Or had they upgraded the internals to the 2014 spec? That alone would make a world of difference and/or explain their comment about:
" Our hands, and whole body, seemed to take a bigger beating on the older Reign, where the Trance just sung."
Given the 'fix' for the 2013 forks is to just add more air to prevent mid stroke brake dive. That would reduce your small bump compliance and contribute to the "beating".

Food for thought. I'm currently leaning towards the 2014 Trance X1 with a pike down stroked to 150mm.
Yeah, probably not completely clear. I think they are also comparing carbon to alloy (i dont believe the reign was ever carbon?). carbon leaves me less beat up - its beautiful stuff. Reign comparison aside they are obviously very happy with the total package of the new trance... wheels just being one aspect. Either way, if i can get on one before i lay some money down on a new trail bike i certainly will. Wheels are wheels. I like em round & prefer em big. But the total package of a bike is what needs to be considered in the end.

88. Originally Posted by saidrick

Bike mag first lists the Norco Range killer B as a great bike, but they didn't notice the wheel size.( Bible of bike tests , editors choice).

In their current issue they review the reign and claim what a great bike it is.

Now they come out and say that the 27.5 is awesome because it rides better than 29" bike.

Clearly they went from saying they didn't notice the difference, to giving a glowing review of the supposedly inferior wheel size, to claiming there's are all kinds of noticeable differences which make the 27.5 better than a 29er.

A and ~A.

This is exactly why everyone is claiming all marketing: to go from " I can't tell the difference to best size ever in less than a year cannot be scientific.

P.s any review of non DH bikes that includes the quote " God Bless chair lifts" isn't a real test ride.
All I read in to it is they like the new long front centre / long wheel base geometry. Giant has usually been a bit conservative on wheel base and front centre in the past. They are finally breaking out and getting good reviews for it. You can thank the 29er movement for that. 650B and 26" need long low and slack to compete with the 29er stability.

When Seb starts singing the praises of 650B then you really know Bike Journalists have sold old. He has written some scathing articles on 650B wheelsize movement in the past.

89. Originally Posted by dwt
What are your links? This one is from Sept. 2012, and I'm unable to find any "can't tell the difference" quote.
Bike Magazine's 2013 Norco Range Killer B-1 Review - bible of bike tests 2013 round table

Bike Magazine's 2013 Norco Range Killer B-1 Review - YouTube

90. ## Giant's marketing math

Originally Posted by 911Holy\$
Bike Magazine's 2013 Norco Range Killer B-1 Review - bible of bike tests 2013 round table

Bike Magazine's 2013 Norco Range Killer B-1 Review - YouTube
Gotcha. Point taken.

91. Not being able to tell the difference can be good and bad.

If your a 26" diehard and your worried that 27.5 may impact that playfulness of the bike, not feeling different is good. The wheels are improving your ride, you just dont notice it.

If your a 29" diehard, not feeling the difference is bad. Your expecting the 27.5 to roll exactly like the 29" wheels while being more playful. They feel more like a 26" from this perspective.

I don't think "not noticing a difference" is that big of a deal. That's like saying a 100hp engine from 1980 doesn't feel different than a 100hp engine from 2013. They move the car the same way, but the newer engine produces less emission, gets better mpg, is more reliable, etc.

92. Originally Posted by 911Holy\$
Bike Magazine's 2013 Norco Range Killer B-1 Review - bible of bike tests 2013 round table

Bike Magazine's 2013 Norco Range Killer B-1 Review - YouTube
Nice review, seems they were out riding during science 101. You can't say the wheels don't make a difference if you don't isolate that variable - did they ride the bike with 26" wheels on it? no. so its possible they make all the difference or none - either way they don't know what changes to the bike did what.
Incremental improvements in products are typically a sum of the parts, so in this case the wheel size is one of those parts. Just changing one aspect of the previous model will only deliver minor improvements, addressing multiple areas can yield big gains.
That would seem to be the theme with 27.5, by itself, not a massive improvement, built from the ground up it yields a better bike for a lot of people depending on ride style, which it would seem is why Giant is going all in. My LBS wasn't overly thrilled with their announcement, he carries Intense, Scott and Ibis and sales have been hot for the past year on 27.5 bikes, he will no longer enjoy a competitive advantage.

93. ## Big wheel Kool-aid...

I never drank the big wheel kool-aid and I still feel that the vast majority handle and ride like \$hit. The geometry on every goddamn 29'er I threw a leg over was trying to make them handle like an XC 26'er save the more recent offerings from Kona, Canfield, Diamondback etc. I never understood the "let's make it ride fast and twitchy even though it has wheels to roll over stuff like a f#*king tractor" approach. Stupid. To paraphrase Joe Graney from SC, you can make great riding bikes regardless of the wheel size.

Nonetheless, The missteps with 29'ers make the 27.5 category far more palatable to someone like me. They still ride like mountain bikes that we have ridden forever, but with some of the added benefits sans the negative traits of the 29'ers. 29'ers won't go away nor for that matter will 26'ers entirely. I do not believe that 27.5 bikes are going to be everything to everyone, but they have a much more broad potential than 29'ers ever will. So hate on.

94. Originally Posted by dwt
FYI: "David Copperfield" is one of the most obnoxious trolls on MTBR. He HAS an agenda, and has been actively campaigning against 27.5" wheels for about 3 years. Why is a mystery. Maybe he's just nuts. He's also notorious for evangelical 29" kool aid. Lucky you if you've never run into him on the forums. You must be a bit of a newbie.

Anyway, this whole 27.5" mania, marketing and fad that has developed over the past year proves him wrong, which I find hysterical given the effort he has put in to kill it.

I have no agenda either: I own at least one bike in all 3 wheel sizes and ride them all. Do you? With that experience, I have an informed opinion that I like 27.5" best overall. Not always. In some
terrain my 29'er is preferable. The 26" has seen little use of late. But that's totally personal and subjective, and YMMV. I don't give a crap what you or anyone else rides.

The people I think are ridiculous are those that dump hate on a bike without ever riding it themselves. David Copperfield for one. You?
Now I have even more questions. So who does he work for? One man stands against the bike industry! Sounds like a rather interesting evil bike plot. Is there a book in the works?

Also, what is "evangelical kool aid"? I've heard of the Jonestown killing ya kind of kool aid, but I get the feeling there's some misunderstanding of the colloquial use of the phrase...

Sorry, all joking aside, perhaps you missed my point--I have no 'hate' for 27.5, I do have a bit for misleading, silly, or downright vapid marketing--mostly because I like many others have fallen for a line one too many times. For that matter, I've been rocking wheels with tires that measure 24, 26+, 27+, 28+, and, horror of horrors, 29+ for years now. I'm quite familiar with at least most of the trade offs. Not worth the money *to me* for new rims, tires, etc. to save a little weight. But anyone can feel free to spend their money as they see fit, as Rockcrusher aptly put it, and I agree 100%. Caveat emptor.

95. ## Giant's marketing math

Originally Posted by Zowie
Now I have even more questions. So who does he work for? One man stands against the bike industry! Sounds like a rather interesting evil bike plot. Is there a book in the works?
You missed the part where I told you he was a notorious MTBR troll, and probably off his rocker?

Also, what is "evangelical kool aid"? I've heard of the Jonestown killing ya kind of kool aid, but I get the feeling there's some misunderstanding of the colloquial use of the phrase.
Like for instance when you accused me of drinking 27.5" cool aid"? If I were evangelical about it, I would preach and insist that all riders in all terrain on all bikes must or should ride one wheel size. But I'm not and don't, because being sane I realize that is absurd.

Sorry, all joking aside, perhaps you missed my point--I have no 'hate' for 27.5, I do have a bit for misleading, silly, or downright vapid marketing--mostly because I like many others have fallen for a line one too many times. For that matter, I've been rocking wheels with tires that measure 24, 26+, 27+, 28+, and, horror of horrors, 29+ for years now. I'm quite familiar with at least most of the trade offs.
Well, excuse the hell out of me, I must have missed as well that you are a mtb deity who has "rocked" every wheel ever made and even some that were never made.

Not worth the money *to me* for new rims, tires, etc. to save a little weight.

But anyone can feel free to spend their money as they see fit, as Rockcrusher aptly put it, and I agree 100%. Caveat emptor.
No shyte Sherlock.

96. hey hey hey

hey

hey hey

Chill.

97. Originally Posted by dwt
You missed the part where I told you he was a notorious MTBR troll, and probably off his rocker?
Didn't miss it, just not very interested in vague fluff. Got facts?

Originally Posted by dwt
Like for instance when you accused me of drinking 27.5" cool aid"? (sic) If I were evangelical about it, I would preach and insist that all riders in all terrain on all bikes must or should ride one wheel size. But I'm not and don't, because being sane I realize that is absurd.
As for your drinking concerns I theorized you had it backwards in your situation with your 'notorious troll'. Not much for 'accusing' people. FWIW, if you're using the pop culture reference, it's drinking the Kool Aid. Even that may be inaccurate, as they did have Flavor Aid in Jonestown as well.

'Drinking the Kool Aid' implies you trust blindly that you are doing something harmless, when in reality you are guaranteed to kill yourself. I think obsessively riding penny farthings could get really close to this, since you may think it's harmless until you take a header, but not sure how any 'safety bicycle' or any MTB could have a tire size that logically fits with the actual historical reference.

Originally Posted by dwt
Well, excuse the hell out of me, I must have missed as well that you are a mtb deity who has "rocked" every wheel ever made and even some that were never made.
All that, and now flattery? Please now.
Are you familiar with the definition of 'measure'? Apparently not.

Originally Posted by dwt
Refer to your avatar pic. Two way street, dude. I think there's more traffic the other way than you are leading yourself to believe--or trying to lead others to believe...

Originally Posted by dwt
No shyte Sherlock.
Best point ever Watson. You win.

98. Originally Posted by XterraMike
This must drive dealers crazy...now are they expected to stock tires and tubes in three different sizes? That could get really expensive.
We like selling tires and tubes. It's actually quite fun to figure out what is best for our terrain and our customers, then figure out different price points for each type of customer. Then buy the tires and see what sells. It's kind of like a grand experiment that we get to participate in. Adding 27.5 to the mix just let's us have even more spirited conversations about what is/what is not available yet.

I guess that's why we like running a bike shop. New sh*t is cool.

99. ## Giant's marketing math

Originally Posted by Zowie

Are you familiar with the definition of 'measure'? Apparently not.

Refer to your avatar pic. Two way street, dude.
My point, dude, was that you "rocked" all those wheels and tires, achieving some unique measurements, and the only difference you found between larger and smaller wheels was "saving a little weight". Maybe you should have ridden them instead of "rocking" them, whatever the f**k that means, and noticed characteristics other than saving weight: like handling for instance. Or does "rocking" mean "reading about"?

100. If you had read and comprehended in the least bit, you'd know I mentioned that I am familiar with *most* of the trade-offs.

I'll spell it out slow for you--and I am quoting myself, since it's unlikely you understood it the first time.
"Not worth the money *to me* for new rims, tires, etc. to save a little weight." --i.e. buying in to 27.5 would be idiotic for me, since there are only tiny weight and traction differences from a larger 26" tire to a smaller 27.5" tire that don't actually benefit how I like to ride, and that isn't worth it to me by a long shot. Get it?

If you don't know what 'rocking' a wheelset is, ask your grandchildren.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

#### Posting Permissions

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