Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 584
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    101

    What made you want the 27.5 over the 29?

    Did the 27.5 just feel better right away compared to the 29 or did it take some time to figure out? Maybe it's because it's not much bigger than the 26 and the 29 just felt like it wasn't comfortable?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    252
    I only believed half the 29er hype so I only went half way there...

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: IPunchCholla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    521
    Well I am currently on a cross country oriented HT 29er. Picked it up to try out mountain biking, fell in love, and quickly moved on to more trail riding. So I decided to go FS. Knew the geometry I wanted, so I started testing all the bikes I could. For me (5' 10" long torso short inseam) the 27.5 bikes felt better for the most part. There were a couple 29ers along the way (Process 111 and Specialized Enduro 29er) that felt pretty good, but I ended up going 27.5 because that was the bike that just clicked. I would have checked out 26ers but hardly any in the LBSs around here.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: C'daleProphet2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    6
    I've been riding for years a hard tail 26er. A couple years a go I thought I give a 29er a shot because of the big hype, and because I wanted to try something different. So I bought a used 29'er Motobecane Phantom hard tail. DIDN'T LIKE IT. So I gave it to my son and went back to my 26er. Still I felt like I needed something a little bigger, but because of my hight 5'4' I am limited. So now I purchased a Cannondale Prohet only because with the full suspension I can convert it to a 27.5 (with some alterations) using my existing components. So. I'm exited and soon I will post my final conclusion in the experience. I believe it will be a positive one.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    19
    Being 5-5" It will provide the advantages of a taller tire with out feeling too far off the ground which would make me ride more conservatively.

  6. #6
    Vincit qui patitur
    Reputation: owtdorz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    702
    I have 29er and 27.5.
    29er for XC and 27.5 for AM
    Vincit qui patitur
    2012 Salsa Spearfish 2
    2014 KONA Process 153
    2016 KONA Operator
    2013 Giant Defy

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,106
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Anderson View Post
    Being 5-5" It will provide the advantages of a taller tire with out feeling too far off the ground which would make me ride more conservatively.
    Wow. Uh...this is a joke, right?

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 802spokestoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    254
    Because 27.5 is the future, like it or not. And it's that good too. I know people get castrated on here for calling 29ers hype. But for me, when I saw a 5 ft tall shop guy (because he liked them???) trying to sell a fleet of 29ers to every woman, child, and man, I decided, for myself, that it was just a bunch of hype, a gimmick to sell something new. Although they have a niche xc market and, in their deffense, they are getting better geometry/travels so the sky is the limit for future designs. That's my opinion, to each their own. I thought the 27.5 looked to big in front of the bars at first, but now when I take my 26 inch cross country for a gravel grind it really scares me to think I use to ride that bike the way I did. The 27.5 is stabel and confidence inspiring, yet quick and nimble, really. It really is an excellent tire size for many, if not all applications and I think the bike designers have gotten this one right.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slogophobia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    37
    With the Fuel EX8 26, i felt like i was getting hung up on random rocks here and there (also the steeper head angle and worn out suspension doesnt help the case) and just needed a little more of everything. So, slacker head angle, more travel and larger tire would be the ticket. Then the Troy came out with the 27.5... Done. That bike has been rocking my world. The sections of trail i used to get jammed up on, are now ridable. I carry more speed where my 26 used to slow down, rail turns faster and feel much more comfortable going faster. It is a combo of everything thats making my riding better though. Being a better, more experienced rider in general, fresh suspension with more travel, slacker head angle, taller tire, wider tire, better gearing in 1x, wider bars, etc...

    I just love 27.5 and my bike in general. Everything more i wanted, i found in the 27.5 Troy. Mainly, I wanted something nimble and fun and in my eyes, 29er needs more effort to throw around. 27.5 made more sense.

  10. #10
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,733
    From 26 the 29 just felt floppy while steering and massive when spinning up. So I never bit. When 27.5 came out and it was time for a new bike I tested 3 29ers; a Carbon Tallboy, Spot HT, Spec Stumpy FSR Carbon. Nice bikes. Then I tested the 27.5 Solo and the Anthem Advance 1. While I did not care for the geometry of the Solo, both bikes were quicker as soon as you hit the pedal. The bikes were easier to whip around and still had an improved roll over 26.

    for me, with my preferences, it was a no-brainer.
    I don't rattle.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    756

    Re: What made you want the 27.5 over the 29?

    Quote Originally Posted by owtdorz View Post
    I have 29er and 27.5.
    29er for XC and 27.5 for AM
    Yep same as this guy

  12. #12
    Mr.650b - Mr.27-5
    Reputation: Kirk Pacenti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,629
    ...
    Last edited by Kirk Pacenti; 08-11-2014 at 12:03 PM.
    If you like my products and services tell everyone. If you don't, tell me - kirk(at)pacenticycledesign.com

  13. #13
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,505
    I bought into it years ago and converted a C'Dale Prophet. Didn't much care for it then. Fell for it again last year when the wheel size was blowing up.

    For me -- considering my size and terrain -- 650b just isn't all that much different from a 26er. So I'm back on 29ers.

    Which is not to say I don't like 650b. Wasn't the best choice for ME, but I'm glad the size is available for those that are stoked by it.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,551
    I am in the market for a new bike to replace my 9 year old Enduro. The 27.5 Heckler, the new one with a Pike is my number one choice. I would have preferred 26" but they aren't available anymore. I thought about the Tallboy LT and other 29ers FS that are longer travel, but cost is an issue and some are just overkill for me, e.g., Enduro 29 is just too much for what I ride. E29 and Camber were strong n the list but for travel reasons and that I don't want to spend another 9 years on FSR, I am going with santa Cruz.

    Between the Tallboy LT and the Heckler, issue is cost, Pike, and wanting something more compact than 29 on FS, would have way preferred 26". If it was between a 26" heckler with a Pike and TallboyLT, I wouldn't consider the Tallboy at all.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    101
    Thanks for the insight people. I'm haven't test ridden any 27.5's yet so I'm in the process of getting a feel for everything out there. I have my ss 26 that I'm holding onto, but thinking about maybe going 27.5 or 29 but not sure yet. I'm not off road as much as
    everyone here but thinking maybe a 29 frame with slicks for road use, and if I decide to use off road can switch the treads. There's also the 27.5 in the mix so I'm finding it quite confusing about which frame to go with. Hold onto the 26 for off road, and just go ss road frame, or 27.5/29 with slicks, and switch tires as I use for off road?

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    12
    I got back into riding about 8 years or so ago. At the time, 26er was basically all there was as far as options. I rode my 26er for about 4 years, and got some good use out of it, however, money became available and I decided it was time for a new rig. About that time, 29ers were becoming pretty popular and the LBS really tried to push them. I test ride the Specialized Rockhopper (i believe it was the RH) and felt pretty uncomfortable on it. The bike just didnt seem stable underneath me. I continued to search and try other bikes and test rode the Superfly 29er. It was night and day different then the RH. I was set to buy it, and the salesman offered me his basically new Specialized Stumpjumper Expert Carbon 29er with about 25 miles on it at a very realistic price (about 1/3 of new). I was skeptical due to my RH experience, but asked for a test ride anyways. I took it around the parking lot a few times and immediately it was better than the RH. Just to make sure i wasnt just "settling", I went to the Specialized Demo day and rode the same bike around for about 2 hours on my local trails. The bike was amazing. Though it did not have the "flickability" of my 26er, there was not a huge difference in the two in that regards, but it rolled over everything and was fast. Fast forward 3 years and I again became ready to purchase something new. I was super interested in both the Santa Cruz 5010 and the Yeti SB-75. I was looking to go to a FS that would have provided me a happy medium between the 26/29. Though I had not seen much "flickability" difference, I was ready to find that all around bike. Something that would roll over everything, but was nimble on the trail. I decided to go with the Yeti and could not be happier. It is everything that my 26/29 were AND everything that they were not. It is the perfect mix of the two. I think companies have hit this nail on the head going with a 650b.

    Good luck with your purchase. Im sure you will select the right bike for you.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,073
    I never believed 29ers were better than 26ers, I even posted a post on mtbr back in, I believe 2002, about maybe a middle size like 27.5" would have been better idea than going up to something that was so much bigger as the 29er. Of course in some situations 29ers are faster, never did real really like mine, a ht and a fs. Then in 2009 I got the chance to ride a 27.5er and immediately knew this wheel size was better that the 29ers I've owned and ridden, but also way better than all the 26ers I've owned and ridden. Im sold on this size, from everything from xc to dh.
    Last edited by Hurricane Jeff; 06-28-2014 at 08:14 PM.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    475
    To me 29rs look odd.....and if I am going to drop $3,000, looks are part of the equation

  19. #19
    thecentralscrutinizer
    Reputation: mopartodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,765
    For me, it was how the 29er handles and accelerates. Though not terrible, it is a huge jump coming from my 26er and i have never been able to get the 29er to handle like I want in part due to the height of the set-up required because of the tall wheels. Anyway, I finally decided to build a FS bike and knew that I would definitely not like a 29 FS with an even longer wheelbase, so I rented an Anthem 27.5 and knew that would be the right bike for what I needed.

    I do think 29ers are best suited for people taller than me...lol
    Last edited by mopartodd; 06-29-2014 at 07:50 AM. Reason: to be less specific
    2015 Kona JTS
    2014 Scott Scale 710
    2014 Giant Anthem 27.5

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by mopartodd View Post

    I do think 29ers are best suited for people 6 ft. and taller...
    How bout 5'11?

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky Mtn View Post
    To me 29rs look odd.....and if I am going to drop $3,000, looks are part of the equation
    Are 29er's that much?

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,520
    I liked 9ers, I like 26ers and can only afford one bike to do it all.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,551
    To clarify, i love my 29er ht, Yelli, but given a number of considerations, prefer a smaller wheel size for FS.

    If money were not an issue, i'd have a FS 29er, no problem, e.g., E29, Lenz lunchbox, TallbotLt, Process111, i'd probably like them all, but I can only afford one fs bike right now, and that's driving the boat.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    270
    Some of the new style flow trails have much more jump lines and bermed corners which make the 29 feel a little flexy. Wheels are super important on a 29er. With that being said I wanted a stiff, slack, and short rear cs which you now have plenty to chose from.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: upstateSC-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,213
    Been riding 26'ers forever but tried a few 29'ers. I liked the 29'ers stability at speed and being able to roll over stuff but the lack of razor-sharp handling killed it for me.
    And better bunny-hopping with a 650b to boot.
    Last edited by upstateSC-rider; 06-29-2014 at 09:38 AM.
    Niner Jet 9 RDO, Scalpel 29, XTC 650b, 04 Stumpjumper FSR Pro, Trek Rigid SS - No suspension, no gears....no problem

  26. #26
    CEB
    CEB is offline
    The beauty surrounds
    Reputation: CEB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie88 View Post
    How bout 5'11?
    According to my ruler, that is an inch short. Go to the back of the line.

    NEXT.....

  27. #27
    thecentralscrutinizer
    Reputation: mopartodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,765
    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie88 View Post
    How bout 5'11?
    lol. Maybe.
    2015 Kona JTS
    2014 Scott Scale 710
    2014 Giant Anthem 27.5

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OldHouseMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,684
    I wonder if it's the progressive geometry of the 27.5 bikes that people prefer over the wheel size.
    I only ride bikes to fill the time when I'm not skiing.

  29. #29
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,532

    What made you want the 27.5 over the 29?

    East coast trails that I prefer - my Trance. Midwest trails - my 429.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  30. #30
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by OldHouseMan View Post
    I wonder if it's the progressive geometry of the 27.5 bikes that people prefer over the wheel size.
    ...

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie88 View Post
    Did the 27.5 just feel better right away compared to the 29 or did it take some time to figure out? Maybe it's because it's not much bigger than the 26 and the 29 just felt like it wasn't comfortable?
    No No No. I bought a Tallboy LTc.
    29ers have been gaining popularity for a decade. The benefits are real and I didn't want half the benefits.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    81
    I mainly chose 27.5 because bike manufacturers are making really good 27.5 bikes. If they had kept with 26 wheels, I would have been perfectly happy with them. Not to say that there are not benefits going from 26 to 27.5, just that they are not overwhelming. If bike manufacterers were making awesome 26ers, I would be riding one of those. I chose 27.5 because I wanted a cutting edge bike (modern geometry, suspension design, ect...), but I wanted the bike to be playful, and ride similarly to a 26. Bottom line: I would probably be happy with a 26er, however, if most bike manufacturers are abandoning this wheelsize, I don't have a lot of choice if I want an up-to-date bike.

  33. #33
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by ~MAX-Moab~ View Post
    I mainly chose 27.5 because bike manufacturers are making really good 27.5 bikes. If they had kept with 26 wheels, I would have been perfectly happy with them. Not to say that there are not benefits going from 26 to 27.5, just that they are not overwhelming. If bike manufacterers were making awesome 26ers, I would be riding one of those. I chose 27.5 because I wanted a cutting edge bike (modern geometry, suspension design, ect...), but I wanted the bike to be playful, and ride similarly to a 26. Bottom line: I would probably be happy with a 26er, however, if most bike manufacturers are abandoning this wheelsize, I don't have a lot of choice if I want an up-to-date bike.
    You have a eye for an "I."

  34. #34
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,733
    Quote Originally Posted by OldHouseMan View Post
    I wonder if it's the progressive geometry of the 27.5 bikes that people prefer over the wheel size.
    What does that mean?
    I don't rattle.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    383

    What made you want the 27.5 over the 29?

    Much depends on rider height and terrain. Being 6'3" and riding xc, 29er works fine. There is a learning curve for sure; you ride them differently.

    If I had to take a stab at general categories:

    XC riding for most heights: Hardtail or short travel 29er
    All mountain for tall: FS 29er or 650b. Short/ medium FS 650b
    Downhill no clue, but it seems like 650 is the sweet spot there too.

    Modern geo, brakes, and suspension go a long way in any wheel size.

    And of course, whatever the bike, you need to get probably 50 hours of seat time to really know what it can do......



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    What does that mean?
    It means the marketing has been effective.
    whatever...

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: C'daleProphet2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    6

    I'm a midget... so they say :)

    Quote Originally Posted by mopartodd View Post
    For me, it was how the 29er handles and accelerates. Though not terrible, it is a huge jump coming from my 26er and i have never been able to get the 29er to handle like I want in part due to the height of the set-up required because of the tall wheels. Anyway, I finally decided to build a FS bike and knew that I would definitely not like a 29 FS with an even longer wheelbase, so I rented an Anthem 27.5 and knew that would be the right bike for what I needed.

    I do think 29ers are best suited for people taller than me...lol
    hahaha taller then me (you) you say. No need to be politically correct with me. I know I'm a midget compared to, well... many of you probably.
    I'm 5'4" My son is 5'11.5" and the Moto'Fantom is a small frame 29er. It fit me great and it definitely gave me a work out. I tried it for a month and just didn't like the feel and the way it handled tight turns. It made me ache after technical runs. My Cannondale F5 (small frame) has a ginormous head tube (for a lefty if I wanted) while the Moto'Fantom has a petite head tube, and I think my body has just gotten used to of the F5's larger design that I fell in love with the feel through time. At any rate it's all good. My son benefited by getting a real nice 2 wheel stallion rig while I continued for something better and different to satisfy my itch. The Moto'Fantom fits him great and is tearing it up with me and loving it. In comes the Prophet 2 frame that has the exact same head tube design with the option for medium (650b) wheel size. I'm half way there in building it. Just can't wait to tear up some dirt and eat some boulders. YEP

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gmats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie88 View Post
    Did the 27.5 just feel better right away compared to the 29 or did it take some time to figure out? Maybe it's because it's not much bigger than the 26 and the 29 just felt like it wasn't comfortable?
    Me personally. I ride a lot of tight, twisty, jungle trails here in Hawaii. Lots of rocks, roots, stair step climbs and drops. Fun, technical riding where in most cases it's not the speed but the technical challenge going up and down.

    I have riding buddies who swear by their 29's. I've played with their bikes and up to the moment, have not ridden one I like. They're great going up hill and over stuff. I just can't get them to lean and snap turns. It's more of a carving kind of feeling as opposed to point and shoot. I've ridden Specialized Camber (full carbon), Giant Anthem X, Santa Cruz Tallboy (first version), Niners, Ibis Ripley and others.

    I've been riding a 2007 5 Spot. I experimented with 27.5 in the front of this bike. I liked the results. It gave me the same snapping turning in between the trees with a bit better roll over. I unfortunately could not fit a 27.5 in the rear of this bike. I was starting to shop for a Santa Cruz TRc to convert and ended up going to southern California back in Oct 2013. I made a pilgrimage down to Turner (and some bike shops) to demo some bikes. I ended up getting a Flux as I was able to prove to myself that I am able to ride all the same things on the Flux as I did the Spot with no less speed or ability. So I have a very capable trail bike that is 1.5 lbs lighter than my Spot.

    The change from 26 to 27.5 isn't as dramatic as a change from 26 to 29. The 27.5 makes the experience just that much better than a 26. For me it's the best traits of a 26" without the compromises of the 29. It's not that the 29 is bad, it's more the compromises outweigh the advantages (remember, for me personally).

    I know it's a hard choice. So many choices. And they aren't necessarily cheap. However, the way I see it, there aren't any bad choices or bikes now days. The bikes are super good compared to what we used to have to choose from back in the 80's and 90's.

  39. #39
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,733
    Quote Originally Posted by steadite View Post
    It means the marketing has been effective.
    I wanted to stay with XC geometry, which has not changed much since I've been riding. The bikes I rode, 29 and 27.5, had 69-70º head tubes. Over the years Fisher's geometry had a special name, Women's Specific was marketed, stems have gone from long to short and bars from narrow to wide. So is progressive geometry a marketing approach?Perhaps, but it doesn't apply to my desired geometry.

    So many are trying to dismiss 27.5 as hype. As a mountain biker of 30 years experience this is hardly my first real mountain bike. I know how I ride and where. I see it as a very smart personal choice and, for me, clearly superior to 29.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails What made you want the 27.5 over the 29?-mtbrhardrock1235.jpg  

    I don't rattle.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 802spokestoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    254
    Nice rock hopper comp-- I have that identical bike in my garage. It just needs some new rubber.
    Marketing and design progression are two different things: they should market the **** out of the 650 because it's going to make a lot of happy customers. On the other hand, they marketed the **** out of the 29 leaving a lot of people scratching their heads. If you bought into 29s, good for you, I hope you love it and it might be exactly what you want. But I find it hard to believe there are a ton of smaller individuals and or women riding variable terrain on 29s that wouldn't be happier on a tweener, especially with the new frames geared toward this wheel.

  41. #41
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by 802spokestoke View Post
    Nice rock hopper comp-- I have that identical bike in my garage. It just needs some new rubber.
    Marketing and design progression are two different things: they should market the **** out of the 650 because it's going to make a lot of happy customers. On the other hand, they marketed the **** out of the 29 leaving a lot of people scratching their heads. If you bought into 29s, good for you, I hope you love it and it might be exactly what you want. But I find it hard to believe there are a ton of smaller individuals and or women riding variable terrain on 29s that wouldn't be happier on a tweener, especially with the new frames geared toward this wheel.
    That's fine, but to dismiss 26" all together, which is what some/many are apparently doing, with the ideology that the market won't support them due to the overwhelming benefits of 27.5" is, well, HYPE.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 802spokestoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    254
    At our local shops I didn't get the feel that anything was dismissed. Our shops are still overrun by 29s. I was trying to find a 26 hard tail three or four years ago and I was having a hard time then, pre 650b. The bottom line now is that there are three choices for consumers. Ultimately the market will drive which size is in higher demand. And if it's a case of 26 loosing out, like I said, that began before the 650 lift off.

  43. #43
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    584
    I really like riding a 29'er hardtail. It provides a little more comfort, for MY intended use (relatively smooth singletrack), than my rigid 26'er. When I saw 27.5" hitting the scene, I thought to my self..."that would make a really good hardtail." LOL....I guess I was wrong.

    I can see how local shops might have a problem maintaining their inventories amid all the "choices."

    PS: I have posted this video elsewhere, but I think it's poignant to the conversation as well.


  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 802spokestoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    254
    I think we will see more 650 hard tails. But who knows.

  45. #45
    thecentralscrutinizer
    Reputation: mopartodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,765
    Quote Originally Posted by berkeley mike View Post
    i wanted to stay with xc geometry, which has not changed much since i've been riding. The bikes i rode, 29 and 27.5, had 69-70º head tubes. Over the years fisher's geometry had a special name, women's specific was marketed, stems have gone from long to short and bars from narrow to wide. So is progressive geometry a marketing approach?perhaps, but it doesn't apply to my desired geometry.

    So many are trying to dismiss 27.5 as hype. As a mountain biker of 30 years experience this is hardly my first real mountain bike. I know how i ride and where. I see it as a very smart personal choice and, for me, clearly superior to 29.
    exactly!
    2015 Kona JTS
    2014 Scott Scale 710
    2014 Giant Anthem 27.5

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SteveF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,978
    Quote Originally Posted by Tres Bottelas View Post
    That's fine, but to dismiss 26" all together, which is what some/many are apparently doing, with the ideology that the market won't support them due to the overwhelming benefits of 27.5" is, well, HYPE.
    I think 27.5" is being hyped by the industry because they don't want to support 3 standards. I dunno why this would bother them when they keep changing "standards," in steerer tubes, bottom bracket shells, dropout spacing, etc, etc.

    29er's are HUGE here in Michigan but I've just never found them to be all that. I don't like the way they look (in sizes that fit me at 5'6") or the geometry compromises often necessary to fit them in a smaller frame. I don't like the way they handle or accelerate. I would've been happy to keep riding 4-5" 26er full suspension rigs for the rest of my trail riding life, as I've done since my 1996 Proflex if 27.5" hadn't come along. But it did, and I dig it. I like the way it handles and rides-a slight but definite improvement over 26ers" without the downsides of 29ers-for my riding style and terrain. And I (used to) enjoy the rarity of it, back when it was rare. Been riding the 650b since Rivendell first built a road bike around it back in, what 2004 or so. Moving to 27.5" for trails was a very natural-feeling choice for me-bought my first, a Rawland singlespeed in 2008 or 9.

    I never expected it to get this big, or to eclipse another standard. I don't mind for myself, but I feel for 26er" diehards. If you keep demanding them, keep buying them, there will always be a supply of parts and frames, even if they no longer dominate the market. Where there is a demand, there will always be someone willing to cash in by providing a supply...

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    101
    my first impression when i test rode the 29 was monster truck, and feel like i can ride over anything. i wouldn't want it though if the trail wasn't wide open.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,183
    I can't see the industry going any bigger than a 29, but what about a 28?

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    206
    Quote Originally Posted by bwheelin View Post
    I can't see the industry going any bigger than a 29, but what about a 28?
    There's no compelling reason for another wheel size. The difference between 27.5 and 28 would be nominal.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    206
    Quote Originally Posted by 802spokestoke View Post
    I think we will see more 650 hard tails. But who knows.
    I see that Trek is making 27.5 out of their more entry level hard tails, like the Marlin. This seems like a very smart move to me.

    Eventually, I think 26 inch wheels will go the way of the dinosaur. Especially, for hard tails.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffharris1us View Post
    There's no compelling reason for another wheel size. The difference between 27.5 and 28 would be nominal.
    Not much difference between the 27.5 and 26 because most of them don't even measure 27.5 unless you run a big tire.

  52. #52
    Binned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    24,880
    Why in the hell do new mid to high end bikes cost so much?

    Are we, the consumer, going to stand for this?

  53. #53
    I fix choppers
    Reputation: HELLBELLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    902
    I have been mountain biking since '87. In the late 90's early 00's when 29'er first began to show up I demoed many of them and I continued to do so over the ensuing years. I could never understand why the were always oriented towards twitchy XC-esque handling...every last one of them. This said nothing to me about the kind of riding I like, pick your trendy name of choice...freeriding, all mountain, enduro. Every 29'er I threw a leg over always gave me the feeling that I was atop a bar stool after being over-served. This included high cost and low cost models and ones that supposedly fit me "perfectly".

    The first 29'er I rode almost 3 years ago that I did not hate was a Kona Honzo. Finally someone figured out that it might be fun to not have the big-wheeled beasts handle like some silly XC rig and let those big wheels actually do what they do best...haul ass and mow over everything in their path in technical terrain.

    It took years for designers to figure out how to make 29'ers suit this style. 27.5 bikes had a much faster turn around. I demoed a number of 27.5 bikes last fall and they all had enough of difference and improvement over 26" bikes for me to make the leap. Yeah, the cliche is true. You get the nice momentum retention and roll over ability of the bigger wheels without the screwy geometry.
    "Everything popular is wrong." -Oscar Wilde

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffharris1us View Post
    There's no compelling reason for another wheel size. The difference between 27.5 and 28 would be nominal.
    The same could be said about 26 vs 27.5. Although 28 sounds absurd, I have stopped being surprised at how many absurd ways the industry can jerk us around.
    What was the compelling reason to go from 9 speed to 10?

  55. #55
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawg View Post
    Why in the hell do new mid to high end bikes cost so much?

    Are we, the consumer, going to stand for this?
    Recreation is for those who can afford to do nothing.

  56. #56
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    The same could be said about 26 vs 27.5. Although 28 sounds absurd, I have stopped being surprised at how many absurd ways the industry can jerk us around.
    What was the compelling reason to go from 9 speed to 10?
    11 spd?

  57. #57
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    726
    Marketing hype

  58. #58
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    584
    At the end of the day, we will all have to eat the peas. Might as well get used to the taste, or get a good dog.

  59. #59
    derp
    Reputation: danielsilva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie88 View Post
    Not much difference between the 27.5 and 26 because most of them don't even measure 27.5 unless you run a big tire.
    Damn really? Last time I measured my Quasi Moto, which is one of the smaller tires I own, it measured 698mm in diameter. Must have one of the huge ones then :/
    2006 Cannondale Rush 650b
    2010 Cannondale Trail SL 650b
    2013 Norco Range Killer-B

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 802spokestoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawg View Post
    Why in the hell do new mid to high end bikes cost so much?

    Are we, the consumer, going to stand for this?
    Blame the high-tec age we live in and the old is bad concept. I personally think it stinks. Most of all, it's wasteful...where does all our high end tech come from? Yip, the nations with the catastrophic environmental fails that are taking place as I type this on my two month old outdated 5s...sigh.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by danielsilva View Post
    Damn really? Last time I measured my Quasi Moto, which is one of the smaller tires I own, it measured 698mm in diameter. Must have one of the huge ones then :/
    Guess you do because I was in my lbs the other day measuring up a handful of the 27's they had in there and more than half came out not 27.5. Anything to sell a bike though.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    The same could be said about 26 vs 27.5. Although 28 sounds absurd, I have stopped being surprised at how many absurd ways the industry can jerk us around.
    What was the compelling reason to go from 9 speed to 10?
    I am still waiting for the big guys who make not only frames but half the components to go on them to come out with their own proprietary wheel sizes. You own a Trek? Then you need 28" wheels, Spec? 27.125" wheels. Giant? 28.875" wheels. But don't worry those new wheel standards will only last as long as it takes other companies to make tires and wheels in those sizes and then they will be changed again requiring you to only buy house branded parts for your shiny new bike!

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: C'daleProphet2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Tres Bottelas View Post

    PS: I have posted this video elsewhere, but I think it's poignant to the conversation as well.

    I absolutely loved watching this, from start to finish. Can I share this on fb?
    Also, this thread it's starting to read like a huge DRAMA on the wheel sizes. Obviously, bike industries, and designers got board and got the innovation itch, for a good reason I believe. All 2 wheel stallions are made to an individual that fits him/her. It's cool. For those that sound like your crying about why the different sizes, while all it's doing is draining our wallets, a fallible question must be asked. Why do you fall in and buy them (like I) but then tear it down, and make them popular buy getting involved in the so called "SCAM" by purchasing them. I don't believe that's the case. I love my 26'er and I just know that I'm going to love my 650b also. And to the dude that questioned a 28 in the future then stating that 27.5 is not that much further then a 26'er. Well, the difference is 1.5 while 27.5 to a 28 is only .5 away. It's further .5, I say. "huh" you were probably just having a brain fart... right. 29-26=3;3/2=1.5. That would put it right in the middle. PERFECT. I love it. RIDE ON brothers.

  64. #64
    derp
    Reputation: danielsilva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie88 View Post
    Guess you do because I was in my lbs the other day measuring up a handful of the 27's they had in there and more than half came out not 27.5. Anything to sell a bike though.
    Must be the ruler used because the average diameter for this tire is 699mm, care to share what tires did you/him measure? Glady to know which tires are more suitable to tight conversions.
    2006 Cannondale Rush 650b
    2010 Cannondale Trail SL 650b
    2013 Norco Range Killer-B

  65. #65
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by C'daleProphet2 View Post
    I absolutely loved watching this, from start to finish. Can I share this on fb?
    Also, this thread it's starting to read like a huge DRAMA on the wheel sizes. Obviously, bike industries, and designers got board and got the innovation itch, for a good reason I believe. All 2 wheel stallions are made to an individual that fits him/her. It's cool. For those that sound like your crying about why the different sizes, while all it's doing is draining our wallets, a fallible question must be asked. Why do you fall in and buy them (like I) but then tear it down, and make them popular buy getting involved in the so called "SCAM" by purchasing them. I don't believe that's the case. I love my 26'er and I just know that I'm going to love my 650b also. And to the dude that questioned a 28 in the future then stating that 27.5 is not that much further then a 26'er. Well, the difference is 1.5 while 27.5 to a 28 is only .5 away. It's further .5, I say. "huh" you were probably just having a brain fart... right. 29-26=3;3/2=1.5. That would put it right in the middle. PERFECT. I love it. RIDE ON brothers.
    Yeah, that was a fun day for sure. The guy in the video has a DJ background, and I was just showing him around in the woods. He can rip on just about anything at 5'7", and his bike was a fully rigid Redline. He's since moved on to a different model with a front suspension since that bike got stolen.

    Thanks! It cost me nothing to make the video, so I suppose it's only fair that it be free for others to enjoy.

    Also, I'm not so much into the drama in as much I enjoy the "discussion." RIDE ON!

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Chuch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    470
    For me, 26 is gone. That being said I don't rage downhill everyweekend or have need for 8 inches of travel, but I can tell you that after riding a 29 for a while and now a 27.5 that my 96' M2 Stumpy in the shed feels like a clown bike. Modern geo's have changed the game considerably.

    I wish I could afford two nice bikes. I loved my 29 stumpy FSR, but it had its shortcomings and sent me out testing the hype of 27.5. Both have pro's and con's and both give something up to the other. Since I can only have one quiver killer I went to the 27.5. I'll admit that if I ride something a little more low key on a specific weekend I'd rather be on the stumpy than my troy.

    For me the 27.5 just makes the MOST since for what I ride, and how I ride. There's no reason for folks to debate which one is the hands down best size on earth...the real answer is that it's up to the individual rider. I'm glad we have choices...just wish I had more $$$.
    2017 Stumpy 29 FSR Carbon/2016 YT Capra Al

  67. #67
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    584
    I don't get why people say that they can't afford to have two bikes. If you didn't change bikes like you change underwear, then it would be a non-issue.

    BTW, I have underwear that have skid marks from 2001.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,183
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuch View Post
    but I can tell you that after riding a 29 for a while and now a 27.5 that my 96' M2 Stumpy in the shed feels like a clown bike.
    I've heard the clown joke mentioned about the 29er but not the 26.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    Quote Originally Posted by bwheelin View Post
    I've heard the clown joke mentioned about the 29er but not the 26.
    Clowns ride those little tiny bikes, get it?

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,183
    I'm glad I'm not getting mixed up with all of this 27.5 or 29 stuff. I like off road but because I don't have access to a lot of trails, I can't see buying another mountain bikes I'm sticking with my 26 at least for a few more years.

  71. #71
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    Clowns ride those little tiny bikes, get it?
    They also ride very large bikes.

    I think I have it figured out. This whole 27.5" standard is simply a scheme to rid the world of clowns.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rev Bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,745
    Nothing made me want a 650b.

    I couldn't tell the difference between my 26" and a 650b (which is not 27.5" no matter what you choose to believe). "I" figured it made more sense to stay with what is paid for or buy a 29" where there is enough of a difference to justify the expense. That's my opinion anyway. If you already spent the bucks on a 650b, I'm sure you have a different opinion.

    Honestly, until I actually rode a 650b, I was convinced it was the best option on two wheels. I now think it is just marketing hype. Put the technology of the current 650b's into a 26" and you will have a bike that is just as much fun, only lighter and maybe better handling.

    If I end up with a 650b when I buy my next bike, it is only because high end bikes will no longer be available in 26".

    Whatever. buy what your arsh tells you is the best ride for you.

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    209
    I had a 26 for over 12 years. Demoed 29 and felt they were to big and I had to go down a frame size to get them to fit right. Demoed some 650bs at a FTF and loved how they felt. Going to back sing my 26 to putz around town feels terrible and I wonder how I managed on that thing for so long.

  74. #74
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    584
    I have seen very little in the way of examples of real-world scenarios where the platforms perform best/worst. If I were a first time buyer I'd say screw it, and buy a motorcycle. The "old" 2-strokes can be had for a bargain, and you don't even have to pedal!

  75. #75
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,169

    What made you want the 27.5 over the 29?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rev Bubba View Post
    Nothing made me want a 650b.

    I couldn't tell the difference between my 26" and a 650b (which is not 27.5" no matter what you choose to believe).
    Why wreck a good post with bad facts? Believe has nothing to do with fact. Get out your tape measure or yardstick and measure your wheel diameters. The facts are that 27.5 bikes consistently measure dead on or virtually 27.5" and 29 'ers measure 29" However, so called 26" bikes consistently measure between 26.25" and 26.5" even with 2.1 tires That's the real reason you can't tell the difference. Only about 1" difference in fact. If you called the bikes 26,
    27 and 29 you'd get a more accurate mental picture of the differences between them. 29" way apart from the other 2, on their own planet.

    If you want a bike with superior rollover and momentum your choice is 29". If you want lightweight, stiff. fast acceleration, and quick handling, you want 26".

    If you want a bike SOMEWHERE in between (NOT half way in between) you go 27.5. I call mine a 26'er on steroids. Its as light as my 26'er, handling is similar, but if I pay attention, it does roll better. I can clean terrain on my 27.5 I cannot on my 26. So it's a toss up between calling it a more stable 26'er or one that needs a diet

    Honestly, until I actually rode a 650b, I was convinced it was the best option on two wheels. I now think it is just marketing hype. Put the technology of the current 650b's into a 26" and you will have a bike that is just as much fun, only lighter and maybe better handling.

    Whatever. buy what your arsh tells you is the best ride for you.
    Agreed. One more point: even though I did clean more terrain and climb better on my 29'er, than the other bikes , it was just too unwieldy and too hard to get going on uphill switchbacks. My arsh told me NO! So I sold it and kept a 26'er and two 27.5'ers


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rev Bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,745
    So what you did after proving me wrong was to do what I suggested. "... buy what your arsh tells you is the best ride for you." That was my point all along.

  77. #77
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,169

    What made you want the 27.5 over the 29?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rev Bubba View Post
    So what you did after proving me wrong was to do what I suggested. "... buy what your arsh tells you is the best ride for you." That was my point all along.
    I proved you right, because your point was correct. But I had to call out your error stated so forcefully. The reason you couldn't tell the difference between the two bikes
    was not because 27.5" are shorter than that, but because 26" are taller than that. Your instincts about the two bikes were spot on, your measurements were arsh backwards. Eh ? But absolutely: ride what your arsh tells you is best for you.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rev Bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,745
    I decided to check this out for myself and my 26" MTB, tire/wheel combo, a Specialized Comp 2.3 on a DT Swiss rim, is, indeed 26.5" +/-. Taking this a step further, I measured my road bike tire, a 700 x 23, and it measured an even 26" +/-. The rim itself is more like 25". I didn't measure the rim on the MTB nor did I pull the skewers out of the wheels to get a more accurate measurement. However, point taken.

    I've been looking at the 27.5" or 650b as the successor to the venerable 26" (26.5"). Your description of it being a 26" on steroids is valid. Whether I make the jump to 29" next year remains to be seen. I'm still in the demo phase and demo'ing the 27.5" against the 29" on the particular trail available, the 29" seemed to be what I was looking for. However, my next step is to rent both sizes for a full day on the trails I ride most.

    If I'm going to spend $6k on a bike and keep it for a long time, I better make the correct decision.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PuddleDuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,118
    I wanted to be able to use lighter rims and tyres - less weight to push uphill (not my strength!), and a little more nimble.

  80. #80
    Afric Pepperbird
    Reputation: dirt farmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,744
    Quote Originally Posted by kuteboys View Post
    I would like to say that this article really convinced me, you give me best information!
    And you spam with the worst of them. NOW GET LOST!!!!

  81. #81
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by dwt View Post
    I proved you right, because your point was correct. But I had to call out your error stated so forcefully. The reason you couldn't tell the difference between the two bikes
    was not because 27.5" are shorter than that, but because 26" are taller than that. Your instincts about the two bikes were spot on, your measurements were arsh backwards. Eh ? But absolutely: ride what your arsh tells you is best for you.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    So, essentially what you are saying is 28" is the future of MTB. That is an "odd" number.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by Tres Bottelas View Post
    So, essentially what you are saying is 28" is the future of MTB. That is an "odd" number.
    I say keep the 27.5 and shrink the 29er down a 1/2 inch to 28.5. That would be perfect.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PuddleDuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,118
    I'd like to see some scientific or fit-based reason for the wheel sizes that we have. 26 is a legacy from the early days of cruiser based MTB's. 29ers are road bike rims (700c). 650b (that, as posted above does NOT = 27.5", is based on another legacy standard again.

    Hey bike companies ... how about some innovation instead of making up marketing spiel to fit the old standards you've adopted once grass roots riders formed a segment that you weren't meeting. Thanks! Actually I like that Trek are now selling their small sizes as 26, mid sizes as 650b, and large sizes as 29 (700c).

    Rant over.


    Quote Originally Posted by roc865 View Post
    I say keep the 27.5 and shrink the 29er down a 1/2 inch to 28.5. That would be perfect.

  84. #84
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    584
    For me, the advantages of higher volume will always outweigh wheel diameter. That is why I choose to stick with 26" for the time being. It's a very easy way to achieve extremely consistent bump compliance. What hinders most suspension platforms is the inconsistency of the drive train within the "system" and an extremely failed attempt at workarounds, which eliminate chain/d'er tension all together. The problem with these is that you sacrifice many of benefits of having a suspension in the first place by engineering platform into the design, which cannot be adequately compensated through damper technology.

    When the industry finally stops dragging a$$ and gets truly interested in giving consumers what they deserve, we will see the end of the common drive train. With CVT type engineering within a gear box, we could all be riding simple single pivots, or close variations such as FSR, Horst, and 4-bar, which we all know are still some of the best designs to have ever graced the presence of MTB; without the hindrance of inconsistencies in chain tension throughout the range.

  85. #85
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by roc865 View Post
    I say keep the 27.5 and shrink the 29er down a 1/2 inch to 28.5. That would be perfect.
    Call it 27.5 PLUS !!!!

  86. #86
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddleDuck View Post
    I'd like to see some scientific or fit-based reason for the wheel sizes that we have. 26 is a legacy from the early days of cruiser based MTB's. 29ers are road bike rims (700c). 650b (that, as posted above does NOT = 27.5", is based on another legacy standard again.

    Hey bike companies ... how about some innovation instead of making up marketing spiel to fit the old standards you've adopted once grass roots riders formed a segment that you weren't meeting. Thanks! Actually I like that Trek are now selling their small sizes as 26, mid sizes as 650b, and large sizes as 29 (700c).

    Rant over.
    This, I believe, is the best use of varying wheel sizes.

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 802spokestoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Tres Bottelas View Post
    This whole 27.5" standard is simply a scheme to rid the world of clowns.
    Precisely. Infact, the world has a shortage of clowns, google it! These bike guys are smarter than I thought.

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PuddleDuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,118
    Yes please, I'm looking forward to the end of the traditional derailleur based drivetrain. Let's look at it's negative features:
    - the chain constantly needs lubrication
    - the chain can break - and it can lead to a nasty accident when it happens
    - chain's can bend - and that is annoying, really annoying
    - the chair wears relatively quickly
    - rear der is easy to bend/break
    - front der can be hard to tune
    - the system is very susceptible to cable stretch and dirty cables
    - outer front chain rings lead to reduced roll-over clearance

    hmm, doesn't sound too good does it!

    Quote Originally Posted by Tres Bottelas View Post
    When the industry finally stops dragging a$$ and gets truly interested in giving consumers what they deserve, we will see the end of the common drive train. With CVT type engineering within a gear box, we could all be riding simple single pivots, or close variations such as FSR, Horst, and 4-bar, which we all know are still some of the best designs to have ever graced the presence of MTB; without the hindrance of inconsistencies in chain tension throughout the range.

  89. #89
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by 802spokestoke View Post
    Precisely. Infact, the world has a shortage of clowns, google it! These bike guys are smarter than I thought.
    Clowns (and trolls) scare me.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,073
    Start measuring 29ers and see how many of them actually are 29".
    Some of the posters here can denounce 27.5" as hype or a marketing ploy, they most likely have never either ridden one set up for them, ridden one alongside a 29er( or 26er) or have even ride one at all. The people who have, like myself, know the truth. My converted SC Blur XCc with Schwalbe Racing Ralph's in the 2.25" size measure exactly 27.5" and I will put this bike against any 29er in any condition...oh wait..I pretty have, and my bike just walks from them, a way better choice in just about any condition I come come across from tight single track to wide open fire roads, from XC to AM.
    Last edited by Hurricane Jeff; 07-02-2014 at 05:57 PM.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane Jeff View Post
    Start measuring 29ers and see how many of them actually are 29".
    Some of the posters here can denounce 27.5" as hype or a marketing ploy, they most likely have never either ridden one set up for them or ridden one alongside a 29er( or 26er). The people who have, like myself, know the truth. My converted SC Blur XCc with Schwalbe Racing Ralph's in the 2.25" size measure exactly 27.5" and I will put this bike against any 29er in any condition...oh wait..I pretty have, and my bike just walks from them, a way better choice in just about any condition I come come across from tight single track to wide open fire roads, from XC to AM.
    I think you are talking about your truth, not the truth, right?

    I think people who are complaining about 27.5, for the most part, only have a problem with it because it is threatening the 26" bike. If it was just another option, I don't think anyone would have a problem. This isn't the first year for 27.5, but it is the year that it appears that it is replacing 26 rather than being another choice.

  92. #92
    Rod
    Rod is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,015
    29 hardtail

    I don't want a 29 fs. They're too long for me so if I purchase another fs it will be 650b since 26 doesn't exist.
    There is not much choice between rotten apples.

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 802spokestoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    I think people who are complaining about 27.5, for the most part, only have a problem with it because it is threatening the 26" bike.
    I agree that this is probably the biggest issue with 27.5. I'm curious, though, if the concern is because people just don't want to change? Or is it more of a concern for a lack of upgrades and replacement parts? Or both? Concerning the first question, I just don't see how somebody riding a 26 wouldn't enjoy the 27.5, and if it's because they don't want to conform to change, I get that kind of, but sometimes we have to willingly except change. We can hate bike companies all we want but if you want to buy a new bike at some point, you have to accept what manufacturings are producing. I'm just f'n relieved we didn't get stuck with the 29 as the new norm so I welcome the 27.5. And I understand the concern for a lack of parts, that part sucks.

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    Quote Originally Posted by 802spokestoke View Post
    I agree that this is probably the biggest issue with 27.5. I'm curious, though, if the concern is because people just don't want to change? Or is it more of a concern for a lack of upgrades and replacement parts? Or both? Concerning the first question, I just don't see how somebody riding a 26 wouldn't enjoy the 27.5, and if it's because they don't want to conform to change, I get that kind of, but sometimes we have to willingly except change. We can hate bike companies all we want but if you want to buy a new bike at some point, you have to accept what manufacturings are producing. I'm just f'n relieved we didn't get stuck with the 29 as the new norm so I welcome the 27.5. And I understand the concern for a lack of parts, that part sucks.
    I think it boils down to this, approximately in order of importance:
    1. People don't want their expensive toy to be considered out of date.
    2. People don't like change forced on them (although in the bike biz we should be used to it).
    3. Some people actually prefer 26 over 27.5
    4. Concerns about replacement tires and wheels.

  95. #95
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    584
    I enjoyed riding a 27.5" bike. I merely enjoy riding 26" MOAR!

    It has nothing to do with my willingness to "except" change.

    As has been stated, there are many ways in which MTB's could be improved to suit a greater number of riders. Having a CHOICE of wheel sizes is definitely one of them < none of which being the holy grail for every condition or rider. Getting rid of the traditional drivetrain, and replacing it with a transmission is another < this being more costly of the two. Now, if you were going to make an attempt to profit the most from these two choices, which would you choose? I don't think anyone can deny that the MTB industry is profit driven.

    The Nicolai is quite expensive. However, there is something to be said for quality/durability/reliability.

    NUCLEON AM - Nicolai USA

    Effigear is currently being tested on quite a few bikes to my understanding. A few of which come in at under $5k complete.

    boite de vitesse vélo effigear

    Again, with the adoption of a modern "transmission" one could significantly improve suspension technology, which would make this whole wheel size debate a thing of the past.


  96. #96
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    584
    As an example, I think many of us have seen marked improvements in front fork performance compared to rear shocks. Why is that? The best mass produced shock, by far, is the CCDB coil. Avalanche topping the charts for custom tuned absorbers. The reason being is because they have a wide range of tuning capabilities. That said, they are not popular because folks don't really understand HOW to tune them based on their performance preferences. Combine this with anti-squat mechanisms and chain tension, and I can see how the average rider might be overwhelmed. Instead the industry markets Air shocks as the goto for their light weight and ease of tune. JUST add/remove air? lol

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    984
    Well I was going to spend $120 on a new paint job for my 26, but I think I'll go with doing it myself with the ole' spray paint can. Guess it doesn't pay to put money into a 26 at this point since they are on the way to extinction.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    From what I have heard, gear box drives are heavy and have a lot more frictional losses.

    Also, they, as well as single speed bikes, still have the same challenges with suspension design, which has to move up and down to absorb bumps, but not move up and down when there are weight shifts on the bike. It will always be a compromise. And today's chain drive bikes handle the challenge pretty well, considering all factors; performance, weight, simplicity, reliability, cost.

    Third, what does this have to do with wheel size?

  99. #99
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    584
    I'd like to see data on the frictional loss. It's not my experience with planetary type gears that it is significant. I've been riding one for over 5 years.

    With the Nicolai they are effectively removing chain tension from the system with a jockey wheel. This is a good thing, no? I'm not saying that anti-squat technology isn't useful for some applications, but for general comfort/compliance, less is better. It's a lot easier to accommodate weight shifts, IMO. When you are climbing, you are seated. Almost all single pivots will sit nicely in their travel as long as you have a fairly consistent pedal stroke. Add chain tension to that, like the old c-dales, and it is virtually impossible in the higher gear ratios. Have you ever tried a 1:1 gear ratio? Give it a shot.

    Now, out of the saddle in "attack" mode you are definitely in a situation where you are shifting your weight fore and aft. This does present a problem for suspension designers, but if you remove chain tension/anti-squat from the equation, and add a good shock, you are more likely to find a "sweet spot", or "compromise" if you will.

    The whole discussion revolving around 27.5" wheel size is that it provides more comfort. I might not disagree in SOME situations, hardtails being a prime example, but at the end of the day it's just a bandaid, IMO. I predict the increase in volume of 27.5" (effectively making 27.5" PLUS) will evolve for this very reason, and the consumer will have to invest in bikes that can accommodate the higher volume.

  100. #100
    I fix choppers
    Reputation: HELLBELLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev Bubba View Post
    Put the technology of the current 650b's into a 26" and you will have a bike that is just as much fun, only lighter and maybe better handling.

    What is this technology you speak of? The only "technology" that has changed/evolved that I am aware of over the last several years is the geometry of trail/AM bikes. That is with much steeper seat tube angles and much slacker head tube angles. This was already present on bikes like the Blur TR, but SC dropped it as everyone liked the benefits of the 650b wheels over the 26'ers. If you want that technology in a 26'er then grab an Evil Uprising.
    "Everything popular is wrong." -Oscar Wilde

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. US made vs made elsewhere (with a twist)
    By dv8xin in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-29-2013, 03:02 PM
  2. This just made my day..
    By Arch Itech in forum Passion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-10-2012, 10:21 AM
  3. UPS Guy made my day again :)!
    By pattongb in forum XC Racing and Training
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-27-2012, 12:13 AM
  4. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 11-05-2011, 06:09 AM
  5. Non-custom made steel frames made in the US?
    By bwheelin in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 04-03-2011, 01:11 PM

Members who have read this thread: 4

Posting Permissions

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