Results 1 to 64 of 64
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    494

    Is 27.5 going the way of the 26

    Is 27.5 (non plus) going the way of the 26. It seems that mast brands are moving away from 27.5 and moving towards only 27.5+ or 29.

    I just killed the fork on my 26" bike and am looking at new bikes. was originally thinking 27.5, but I am starting to think that it is an endangered species for midtravel (about 5") bike now. I like the agility of smaller wheels in general, and enjoy the technical aspects of trail features, and am not sure if I should cross 27.5 of the list or not.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    585
    I'm not all that tall and I like my bike playful so a 29er isn't really an option for me. Sure, I could get one but it's not something I can throw around very easiliy (compared to something that is a smaller wheel). I do have a 27.5 now, it's fun but I can't throw it around like I did my 26. I'm faster on the 27.5 for sure though because of the bigger wheel.

  3. #3
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    3,712
    no

    never

    26 is dead, 27.5 is here to stay
    "Put your seatbelt back on or get out and sit in the middle of that circle of death." - Johnny Scoot

  4. #4
    nvphatty
    Guest
    not for the foreseeable future.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,140
    I've been wondering the same thing ever since the Evil Following started getting those rave reviews. My 27.5 is only 3yrs old and I don't want anymore of the trail to disappear beneath even bigger wheels, but if 9rs can learn to turn and hop then why do we want the complexity of two wheel sizes?
    Rolling faster is nice and all, but I like riding all the terrain.
    oops I wasn't clipped in

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cookieMonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    545
    Yes, it's on the way out. To be replaced with the new 28.125" standard. "For improved rollover while retaining playfulness."(TM).

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ray Lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,288
    I do not see 27.5 going anywhere but even if it did go like the 26 inch wheel size, a bike you buy today would be worn out long before tires and 27.5 specific parts became hard to get.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by jim c View Post
    if 9rs can learn to turn and hop then why do we want the complexity of two wheel sizes?
    Because the industry killed 26 even though there was nothing wrong with it and consumers are not willing to all go to 29ers, leaving 27.5 as really the only answer, because otherwise they have to all admit that they made a mistake trying to push everyone to 29ers.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,591
    Quote Originally Posted by 127.0.0.1 View Post
    no

    never

    26 is dead, 27.5 is here to stay

    We're talking about the bike industry, nothing is here to stay.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    256
    26 is still here but quickly being phased out by the bike mfg industry. 29 will be next to go, not 27.5. fat (and mid-fat) bikes are currently at the top at the moment. Planned obsolescence is the only way the industry can keep making $$$
    2015 Santa Cruz 5010 C

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,591
    The bike industry is different these days. Most companies are under the umbrella of larger companies, many of which had no previous ties to MTB. Profits have always been the focus, but never so much as today.

    As long as sales are there 27 it is. 26 never would have been replaced if sales hadn't fallen off a cliff compared to 29. If 29'er sales cause 27 sales to drop to a similar degree nothing is guaranteed. My personal opinion is that 29'ers will dominate the market soon with 27 dropping in sales similar to that of where we were when it was just 29 and 26. Whether the industry will try to reproduce the sales bump 27 ushered in once sales flatten out to where we were in 2012 is the wild card?

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    491
    Obviously 29 didn't kill off 26 or so-called 27.5 (which is actually 650b) wouldn't be a mountain bike thing at all. 27.5 was their answer once they realized 1) they'd demonized 26 and 2) everyone wasn't going to buy a 29er, especially those of us who are smaller for which the tradeoffs are greater.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Timothy G. Parrish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,005
    I hope so. I got a sh!t ton of 26er stuff on clearance a few years ago. Now I can stock up on 27.5er parts too, and continue to ride my 26er and 27.5er until I die.

    And wheel sizes are apparently like opinions: everybody has one, and all others are wrong.

    Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

  14. #14
    Enthusiast
    Reputation: JonathanGennick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,327
    Quote Originally Posted by micky View Post
    Is 27.5 (non plus) going the way of the 26. It seems that mast brands are moving away from 27.5 and moving towards only 27.5+ or 29.
    My take is that 27.5+ is having a moment in the sun, but I expect 27.5 non-plus to be around for the long haul. Possibly the market will settle on some intermediate width like 2.4 or 2.6.

    I just killed the fork on my 26" bike and am looking at new bikes.
    I'm having good luck running a 27.5 fork on my 26er. It's a Marzocchi, so I've got an obsolete brand on an obsolete wheel size . I totally get that you might prefer a new bike though.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cookieMonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    545
    I'll be a little more serious now. As long as they keep making people shorter than 5' 8", long travel 29ers are going to be a hard sell. There's just only so small you can make a 29er.

    I have a good friend who's probably around 5' 5" - 135 pounds. He is the fastest rider I've ever seen besides Steve Peat. They don't make an aggressive 29er that would work for him as a competitive enduro race bike -- they're all too big.

    They have to keep making 27.5ers for a significant portion of the population. Women? Hello!!! My wife can't ride a 29er either.

    Finally, there are limitations and disadvantages to 29ers as well. I enjoy my 29" hardtail for xc. But it and all of the other 29ers I've ridden just had this "freight train " feel to them. Yes, they'll roll over shit -- but maybe I'd rather get surgical with my line choices. I enjoy my 26" freeride bike better than any 9er I've ridden when things get truly technical.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    494
    Thanks. Don't get me wrong, I am not against 29rs. but the ones I have ridden, although generally faster, kind of take away from some of the fun for me. I like to jump, I like challenging myself with tech features, I like tight trails, and it just seems like the trails I like are generally slower.

    I still enjoy my 26r, but a new fork with 140 or so of travel is pricey. and with the bike being 8 or 9 years old, not sure if buying obsolete new stuff is the wisest thing.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    288
    Have a few friends that just switched from 29ers to 27.5. They wanted a more playful bike. They commented the wagon wheels felt sluggish and hard to turn on fast switchbacks. Not all of us can ride like the pros, who obviously can ride anything fast. Furthermore, 2.6 tires on 27.5 wheels seems to be the goldilocks for a lot of riders. 27.5 should be around for awhile. 26 is still around also, they market that for kids or petite riders. Why all the wheel sizes you ask? Because we're all different and prefer different things. Choices are good people; we're not robots...

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Timothy G. Parrish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,005
    Quote Originally Posted by cookieMonster View Post
    I'll be a little more serious now. As long as they keep making people shorter than 5' 8", long travel 29ers are going to be a hard sell. There's just only so small you can make a 29er.

    I have a good friend who's probably around 5' 5" - 135 pounds. He is the fastest rider I've ever seen besides Steve Peat. They don't make an aggressive 29er that would work for him as a competitive enduro race bike -- they're all too big.

    They have to keep making 27.5ers for a significant portion of the population. Women? Hello!!! My wife can't ride a 29er either.

    Finally, there are limitations and disadvantages to 29ers as well. I enjoy my 29" hardtail for xc. But it and all of the other 29ers I've ridden just had this "freight train " feel to them. Yes, they'll roll over shit -- but maybe I'd rather get surgical with my line choices. I enjoy my 26" freeride bike better than any 9er I've ridden when things get truly technical.
    This is exactly why I chose a 27.5 when I purchased new in 2014. Every 29er I stood over felt like hopping onto a truck. 27.5 just fit better.

    Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    295
    I'm 5'-6" and I am riding a Foes Enduro Mixer that is 29"x 2.5" wide front and 27.5" x 2.5" wide rear. I can do all the same technical downhill sections as my Intense M1 26" DH bike but the Foes Mixer 29/27.5 climbs way better. Cornering and going over obstacles seems better on the mixed wheel set up, the outside diameter of the 29/27.5 is the same as a motocross/enduro motorcycle where this tire outside diameter ratio has been around in the motorcycle industry for many years. I have ridden 29" bikes and it seams like the rear is too high for me, the rear wheel seems to large for technical sections. I think both 29" and 27.5 will stay for quite awhile since there are taller people that like 29" and shorter people and people that like a more maneuverable bike that like 27.5"

    Erik
    Balle Racing
    www.balleracing.com

  20. #20
    I live to bike
    Reputation: Jwiffle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,274
    Quote Originally Posted by BalleRacing View Post
    I'm 5'-6" and I am riding a Foes Enduro Mixer that is 29"x 2.5" wide front and 27.5" x 2.5" wide rear. I can do all the same technical downhill sections as my Intense M1 26" DH bike but the Foes Mixer 29/27.5 climbs way better. Cornering and going over obstacles seems better on the mixed wheel set up, the outside diameter of the 29/27.5 is the same as a motocross/enduro motorcycle where this tire outside diameter ratio has been around in the motorcycle industry for many years. I have ridden 29" bikes and it seams like the rear is too high for me, the rear wheel seems to large for technical sections. I think both 29" and 27.5 will stay for quite awhile since there are taller people that like 29" and shorter people and people that like a more maneuverable bike that like 27.5"

    Erik
    Balle Racing
    www.balleracing.com
    I have a 27.5+ bike that I'm running with a 29+ on the front. Love it.
    Stop in at Element Sports. www.elementsport.com
    Get Out! Have Fun!

  21. #21
    ZEN RIDER!
    Reputation: Mt.Biker E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    914
    Life in every breath

  22. #22
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    8,902
    Quote Originally Posted by cookieMonster View Post
    I'll be a little more serious now. As long as they keep making people shorter than 5' 8", long travel 29ers are going to be a hard sell. There's just only so small you can make a 29er.

    I have a good friend who's probably around 5' 5" - 135 pounds. He is the fastest rider I've ever seen besides Steve Peat. They don't make an aggressive 29er that would work for him as a competitive enduro race bike -- they're all too big.

    They have to keep making 27.5ers for a significant portion of the population. Women? Hello!!! My wife can't ride a 29er either.
    ^^^ Here is the real answer. ^^^
    The bike industry wants to sell a new bike to everybody but there's a physical threshold that comes into play. It's hard if not impossible to build 29er frames for people under a certain height. Wheel size is the limiting factor. This is why 27.5" wheels exist -- so bike companies have stuff to sell. Short folks rejoice!
    =sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  23. #23
    JCL
    JCL is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,475
    I'd be okay with running a 650b rear wheel if I was struggling with ass clearance but there's no way I'd run anything but a 29" on the front. I think it's probably as much benefit as a 2 degree slacker head angle.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,591
    Quote Originally Posted by micky View Post
    Thanks. Don't get me wrong, I am not against 29rs. but the ones I have ridden, although generally faster, kind of take away from some of the fun for me. I like to jump, I like challenging myself with tech features, I like tight trails, and it just seems like the trails I like are generally slower.

    I still enjoy my 26r, but a new fork with 140 or so of travel is pricey. and with the bike being 8 or 9 years old, not sure if buying obsolete new stuff is the wisest thing.
    I would recommend holding off on buying something new because of standards. 157 super boost is a wild card right now. It could replace 148, or not, it's too early to tell. Maybe 157 will bring back 142 for smaller wheels when 148 dies? There's also boost front spacing. it's looking like 100x15 and 110x15 are dying. They are bringing back 110x20 but of course it won't be the same 110x20 spacing we've always had.

    I would go ahead and replace your fork and see how the market shakes out next year. You can find smoking deals on used forks, and 650b forks work perfectly well with 26" wheels.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: k2rider1964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,081
    I don't foresee 27.5 going anywhere for the time being. No telling what the future holds. I have both wheel sizes and they both have their advantages but I generally prefer to ride 27.5 as it's more fun to throw around, bop off features, etc...if the terrain I liked to ride was onto wide open side, I might prefer my 29er but I like tight, twisty and chunk.
    2019 Yeti SB5C
    2018 Intense Tracer
    2017 Intense Primer

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,219
    As others have pointed out, unless you are strictly racing XC the 27.5 wheels make for a better long travel bike for anyone under about 5'10" imo.

    Seems there are a lot of freaky tall dudes riding bikes, wouldn't be surprised to see a larger tire get released for that group.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by cookieMonster View Post
    I'll be a little more serious now. As long as they keep making people shorter than 5' 8", long travel 29ers are going to be a hard sell. There's just only so small you can make a 29er.
    QFT. I do think narrower 27.5 tires will disappear, though.

    I run a 29/3 and 29/2.5 F/R split on my "XC" bike. 29/2.3 is slow and uncomfortable to me on our rocky, rooty SE trails. 27.5/2.3 feels like a kid's bike, I don't get on with any version of that wheel size. Too much inseam.

  28. #28
    BOOM goes the dynamite!
    Reputation: noapathy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,713
    Quote Originally Posted by cookieMonster View Post
    Yes, it's on the way out. To be replaced with the new 28.125" standard. "For improved rollover while retaining playfulness."(TM).
    What are you talking about? Just got word the new 26.75 wheeled models coming in 2020. Better acceleration and nimble as a cat.

  29. #29
    i like rocks
    Reputation: euroford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,594
    Personally, i'm all about the 29" wheel. But that's because it compliments my ridding style and I like the way it feels. My bikes a long wheelbase 29" sled that just wants to plow through whatever is ahead of it. As much as I totally dig the high speed stability and rock garden munching plowishness, I can recognize that it has shortcomings. Its not a poppy or playful bike, though I can and do jump it, that's clearly not its forte.

    Though this isn't just about wheel size, I think its the biggest piece of the puzzle. If you want max speed over rough terrain, a 29er is obviously advantageous. If you want to design a fun, puppy, playfull jumpy bike, in general you'll be best to move a smaller wheel and I think the 27.5 is the best compromise in that respect. I'll say compromise... because even though I'll never have another 26" bike, I still feel that my 26" Transition Bottlerocket was the most fun and playful bike I've ever ridden and was ideal for bike park jump trails (i bet mine did 200 plus laps down Rainmaker during its long career), but when the going go rough, the smaller diameter wheels are by comparison an obvious hindrance in the rollover department.

    So no, 27.5 won't be going anywhere. Its the perfect compromise in being large enough to perform well on rough ground, yet small enough to compliment a bike that's intended to fun and playful.

    and hey, some people are short.
    Tim M Hovey

    Nukeproof Mega 290
    1950 CJ3a
    1999 BMW 540i
    1999 F350 PSD

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    148
    For me no. I am 6’ and only looking at 27.5” bikes. They are just more fun. I don’t race cross country and never will. Endurance sports are not fun the me. 27.5” is just more fun to throw around both on the ground and in the air.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LargeMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    478
    It will come down to if the mfgs can make money. In our shop 29ers still have the most sales with 27.5+ second and 27.5 almost non existent except in the $500 range.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by LargeMan View Post
    It will come down to if the mfgs can make money. In our shop 29ers still have the most sales with 27.5+ second and 27.5 almost non existent except in the $500 range.
    What type of riding does you shop cater too? Is it “natural” single track or flow trail/bike park?

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    648
    Yeah that's gonna vary based on your local terrain and what brands your shop stocks.

    I have a local store that primarily focus on XC. The guys who ride there ride just XC and 29ers are what they push. Then another store next door just sell Giant, so they sell whatever Giant are making. And not too far away another store will sell a big variety however will sell a lot of longer travel trail bikes, and seem to sell a fairly even split between 29er, 27.5 and 27.5+, with a few DH bikes thrown in there (27.5).

    Out on the trails I'd say that I come across 75% 27.5 wheels.

    I won't lie, I'd love to get my old 26er HT running again with some fresh rims, tyres and running gear for some alternative fun and pump track time.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    885
    27.5 is not going away anytime soon.

    Personally, at 6'5" I'm not sure if I'd buy another 27.5 bike though. The difference in agility is negligible between 29 and 27.5 to me. I come from bmx so neither feel "flickable".

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post
    As others have pointed out, unless you are strictly racing XC the 27.5 wheels make for a better long travel bike for anyone under about 5'10" imo.

    Seems there are a lot of freaky tall dudes riding bikes, wouldn't be surprised to see a larger tire get released for that group.
    Baring very short people, the whole body size wheel size thing only makes sense to me when butt buzz is a factor. Being tall isn't going to change how 29" turns, handles in the air, pumps.....

    When it comes to racing, we might see shorter riders opting for 29" in DH. Tracks are becoming wider and more wide open. As long as butt buzz can be managed, short riders can ride 29'ers just as fast as tall riders. 29" could end up being more advantageous for DH than XC? Really depends on the evolution of the tracks. We've already seen a move away from tight and technical tracks negating the advantage of smaller wheels. It's not far fetched to see 29'ers taking over DH just like XC. It actually makes more sense to me considering how fast 29'ers are when they don't need to get back up to speed or deal with natural terrain flat turns. EWS is different. Between tighter unsupported turns, and getting back up to speed, 29'ers lose their speed advantage.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    Baring very short people, the whole body size wheel size thing only makes sense to me when butt buzz is a factor. Being tall isn't going to change how 29" turns, handles in the air, pumps.....
    I agree that the trend to match wheel size to rider height is a bit overrated. Being tall doesn't change how the 29er turns however bike size does. It makes sense to match wheel size to vehicle size (height and wheelbase). That's why go-karts, motocross bikes and trophy trucks all have different ideal wheel sizes. Imagine a DH bike with a 50" wheelbase bike with 16" tires. It would be terrifying, but 20" tires feel fine on a BMX bike. I do think taller riders are also able to cope with the larger wheel more easily than smaller riders. Bigger riders are better suited to handle the higher roll axis and mass. I'm not hung up on 29ers for tall people but it's also not as simple as butt buzz either.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LargeMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    478
    Quote Originally Posted by Random Dude View Post
    What type of riding does you shop cater too? Is it “natural” single track or flow trail/bike park?
    Mostly natural singletrack, no bike parks within a few hours.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,219
    It's not that anyone wants to match wheel-size to rider height.

    It's that bigger wheels have notably better roll over in all cases, right up to the point that the bike is riding the rider and the geometry is less than ideal.

  39. #39
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    8,902
    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    Baring very short people, the whole body size wheel size thing only makes sense to me when butt buzz is a factor. Being tall isn't going to change how 29" turns, handles in the air, pumps.....
    Curious how you know this. We're each the height we are so we only have our own perspective. Therefore it seems impossible for someone who's say, 5'8" to know how someone who's 6'2" feels on a 29er. They only have their own perspective -- that of someone who's 5'8" (and I'm not saying that's your height). The reverse is equally true.

    So I wonder how you know. Perhaps a 29er under someone who's 6'2" feels similar to a 27.5er under someone who's 5'8"... I can't be sure so I wonder how someone else can. I personally only know that being 6'2" and having ridden all three wheel sizes, I don't feel my 29" wheels feel sluggish, hinder me while jumping, pumping, etc. They feel ideal for me. But then, I've never tried 36" wheels...

    TIA,
    =sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    648
    Ignoring the rider height is ignoring the obvious. At what riding height do 29er wheels become unworkable? Are you saying never? Why do we start kids on 12" or 16" wheels and move them up through the wheel sizes, why not just start on 29ers? What about riders who already struggle with stack height and are using stem drop to get the bars back down?

    The other part, the rotational forces involved, are another factor. Changing the direction that a spinning wheel is pointing requires strength, and although short people aren't universally weaker, on average they will be. They also will often have shorter bars and therefore less leverage.

    Overall bike weight, although much less of an issue, is still affected. Smaller diameter wheels and tyres are quite simply always going to be able to be made lighter.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparticus View Post
    Curious how you know this. We're each the height we are so we only have our own perspective. Therefore it seems impossible for someone who's say, 5'8" to know how someone who's 6'2" feels on a 29er. They only have their own perspective -- that of someone who's 5'8" (and I'm not saying that's your height). The reverse is equally true.

    So I wonder how you know. Perhaps a 29er under someone who's 6'2" feels similar to a 27.5er under someone who's 5'8"... I can't be sure so I wonder how someone else can. I personally only know that being 6'2" and having ridden all three wheel sizes, I don't feel my 29" wheels feel sluggish, hinder me while jumping, pumping, etc. They feel ideal for me. But then, I've never tried 36" wheels...

    TIA,
    =sParty
    True, I can't speak from experience, but this is common sense. Being tall isn't going to change a 29'ers turning radius, or a number of other inherent traits. I agree with Jeremey in that taller people would be able to leverage bigger wheels better, but that still doesn't change the natural traits bigger wheels. That's not to say a good rider can't do everything they did with smaller wheels and even do it better with 29". That comes down to comfort, skill, riding style... I'm just talking about things that will always be independent of rider size.

    Just because your 29'er doesn't hider your jumping game doesn't change the fact that bigger wheels are more prone to being pushed in the air. Just because your 29'er doesn't feel sluggish doesn't change the fact that they will always accelerate slower, get back up to speed slower, and draw a larger arc in the corners. All those things are independent of rider size. None of this means a tall rider like yourself won't find a 29'er to do everything better. It's all about fit and being comfortable. I have no boubt that you corner and jump better with 29, but I will argue that you can not make a 29" wheel go around a tight corner the same as 27" just because of your height.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    160
    I hope both 29 and 27.5 stay around.

    I am 6'4" and am really happy on my 29er. Just feels correct.

    My signific other is 5'3" and rides smaller wheel bikes as they fit her better.
    Good to have choices.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    4,464
    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    T...accelerate slower, get back up to speed slower, and draw a larger arc in the corners...
    What's the diff between accelerate slower and get up to speed slower?

    How do bigger wheels draw a bigger arc? I would think that's dependent on wheelbase and bike geo, not wheel size.
    Do the math.

  44. #44
    BOOM goes the dynamite!
    Reputation: noapathy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,713
    It's raining. It's pouring. This is very uninteresting.

  45. #45
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    8,902
    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    comes down to comfort, skill, riding style... I'm just talking about things that will always be independent of rider size.
    I'm just not sure that's accurate, as "common sense" as it seems. Not saying you're wrong. I don't know.

    I do know I regularly clean switchbacks that shorter riders on smaller wheels don't. Up or down. They say they can't. These are guys & gals I've ridden with for years -- very experience riders. My center of gravity is higher, wheelbase longer, wheels bigger around... I can't figure this out. Maybe my larger bike (everything is larger -- wheels, crank length, frame size, blah blah) feels smaller to me than theirs does to them. I can't say. How could anyone really know?

    I'm simply frustrated by the blanket statement that 29ers don't handle/turn/hop/etc. as well as a smaller-wheeled bike. I submit that perhaps for some of us the 29er might. Maybe even better, comparatively. Again, who can say? All we've got is our own tiny little perspective.
    =sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    and draw a larger arc in the corners.
    That is incorrect.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,591
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    That is incorrect.
    And no explanation as to why that's wrong? Unless you are comparing different wheel bases, and different geo/offset which I assumed wouldn't need to be said, I don't see any way to make a 29'er carve the same arc as 27. Please explain.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    And no explanation as to why that's wrong? Unless you are comparing different wheel bases, and different geo/offset which I assumed wouldn't need to be said, I don't see any way to make a 29'er carve the same arc as 27. Please explain.
    Because turning radius is only based on wheelbase and steering angle. turning radius

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,140
    I got my comeuppance last week when I told a pal how 9rs wont turn like my 27.5 bike, not even in the air. I'd crashed a Scalpel while trying to get the big-wheeled racer around a cool drop-away corner I love. On my bike I'll hop off the lip and I am setting up (turning) for the next berm while in the air. To me it felt like there was no way that 29" bike would change directions like my Process does. My pal flatly stated he could do it, and I know he's right. We all have perceptions and feel like they are absolute truth. Give me time and I might learn to turn one of those awkward ungainly clown size gaybikes too.
    oops I wasn't clipped in

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by jim c View Post
    I got my comeuppance last week when I told a pal how 9rs wont turn like my 27.5 bike, not even in the air. I'd crashed a Scalpel while trying to get the big-wheeled racer around a cool drop-away corner I love. On my bike I'll hop off the lip and I am setting up (turning) for the next berm while in the air. To me it felt like there was no way that 29" bike would change directions like my Process does. My pal flatly stated he could do it, and I know he's right. We all have perceptions and feel like they are absolute truth. Give me time and I might learn to turn one of those awkward ungainly clown size gaybikes too.
    First time I rode a 29er I almost wrecked it because I felt like it would not turn. I clipped a wooden wall after a short narrow down hill into a turn that I have ridden many times on my 27.5. Notably I have light carbon wheel and the 29er had much lower grade aluminum wheels

  51. #51
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,612
    I've hated riding 9ers until recently.

    Many of the new slack and long 9ers are AMAZING. My new Trek Slash is ridiculously good and it doesn't have that 9er on-top-of-the-bike monster-truck feel. Maybe the light carbon rims help, idk, but it doesn't give away it's wheel size by riding it, meaning you really can't tell it's a 9er, it doesn't share any of the downsides I've noticed riding other 9ers.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by davec113 View Post
    I've hated riding 9ers until recently.

    Many of the new slack and long 9ers are AMAZING. My new Trek Slash is ridiculously good and it doesn't have that 9er on-top-of-the-bike monster-truck feel.
    My Hightower LT feels totally different than the first 29er I tried out, a cumbersome hardtail. The Tallboy I tested felt super nimble. Based on the handling I wouldn't have known it had 29" wheels if I didn't know before hand.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    288
    Just finished a demo day with Transition Bike. Cool guys that work for that company. Most people I spoke with did not like the 29ers. The more popular bikes were the 27.5 and everyone was waiting for the Patrol. It's personal preference so ride what you like. Just surprised with the consensus.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,641
    Bike people are such fatalists.

    We had 26 inch rims for 30 years. We had 135 hubs, basically for 25? years. Even now, you just have to put a spacer on the hub. Disc brakes showed and stayed, unchanged. We went to threadless forks and the biggest change was making the bottom a little bigger (but you can still use the old size anyway). We changed to 27.5, which suspiciously still fits in 26er frames and forks. 11 and 12 speed is pretty cool, and it's neat that it 100% bolts right up to my early 2000 frame sitting in my rafters.

    Nothing's going away, it takes 500 years for anything to actually change in the bike industry

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,140
    no doubt
    oops I wasn't clipped in

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,096
    Yes. Be honest with yourselves 27.5 is dead. So dead. It's basically so sad how dead it is. I mean you should be tired of how dead 27.5 is everyday you still have it.

    So here's what I'll do for you send me your bling 27.5 wheels. 142mm or 148mm I don't even care. I'll get rid of them for you in an environmentally friendly manner at no cost to you. That's right I'm not even charging for this amazing high quality service.

    Look to be even more helpful I'll let you send me any bling 27.5 frames you have that retail for at least $2K frame + shock. Hurry they are so obsolete it's kind of embarrassing you even have them.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2

    Totes

    I totally agree. When people say a bike is nimble and flickable, a big factor is the head tube angle and fork rake. The slacker bikes take steering input from weight shifts much more easily due to that small HT angle and big rake. Old 29ers had steep angles because fork manufacturers didn't want to change the rake from what they were doing with 26ers. That's all long in the past now...

    Obviously 27.5 will accelerate a little faster and be a little lighter, but its a slight difference compared to the dramatic change that HT angle makes in a bike.

    Peace!


    Quote Originally Posted by davec113 View Post
    I've hated riding 9ers until recently.

    Many of the new slack and long 9ers are AMAZING. My new Trek Slash is ridiculously good and it doesn't have that 9er on-top-of-the-bike monster-truck feel. Maybe the light carbon rims help, idk, but it doesn't give away it's wheel size by riding it, meaning you really can't tell it's a 9er, it doesn't share any of the downsides I've noticed riding other 9ers.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: targnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,638
    When people stop riding bikes ^^

    Maybe ;-P

    'Born to ride!'
    "Mountain biking: the under-rated and drug-free antidepressant"

  59. #59
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,606
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    That is incorrect.
    I find it to be 100% correct. In slow speed corners, "normal" 29er geometry has negated the goofy effects of stretching the chainstays and stupid reach values, like we had with the older generations of 29ers, but in medium radius turns, I find things are radically different.

    I find that you simply cannot maintain the same speed as a smaller wheel, you have to brake more before the turn, or you will simply skid through the turn and be pulled outwards by the gyroscopic force, which requires you to slow down even more. Then you have to pedal more to get back up to speed.

    On larger radius turns, at high speed, you can preserve a bit more speed and possibly go a little faster due to the stability, but that's the deal, more stability=less maneuverability, classic tradeoff. I did the 29er DH thing for a few seasons and I saw my best results when I went back to 27.5. Some of the other issues are that you have to pedal harder inbetween jumps, to get back up to speed, so it can be harder to make gaps, doubles and table-tops work out. I find they tend to jump "flatter" as well. Mainly though, I was amazed when I went back to 27.5 and everything became easier, easier to hit the jumps, make sections work, turn at speed, etc.

    Not everyone runs DH or hard-riding rubber on their 29er, so not everyone gets to experience this, but the further you push this tire size, the more you see these limitations IME.

    For the record, I think it's the way to go for XC/trail and most XC racing, the traction is great, it makes up for less travel a bit on the climbs with the wheel-size. Wheel-catchers are non-existent, and so on.

    Also for the record, there are viable enduro/DH-worthy 29ers, finally. You can ride these aggressively, down the same tracks people are using other bikes. This is not a huge limitation, I just find the overall traits I explained above to be present.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  60. #60
    Co Springs
    Reputation: bachman1961's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,847

    Did 27.5 ever go Big Box, Huffy or Walmart ?

    Just wondering if that market ever got much taste of 27.5 or is more exclusive to 29.

    Then of course, we can let opinions, interpretations or
    "what does that mean ?"

    FLY !!


    In the Middle Ages, the biggest mistake was not putting on your armor because you were 'just going down to the corner.'

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    I find it to be 100% correct. In slow speed corners, "normal" 29er geometry has negated the goofy effects of stretching the chainstays and stupid reach values, like we had with the older generations of 29ers, but in medium radius turns, I find things are radically different.

    I find that you simply cannot maintain the same speed as a smaller wheel, you have to brake more before the turn, or you will simply skid through the turn and be pulled outwards by the gyroscopic force, which requires you to slow down even more. Then you have to pedal more to get back up to speed.

    On larger radius turns, at high speed, you can preserve a bit more speed and possibly go a little faster due to the stability, but that's the deal, more stability=less maneuverability, classic tradeoff. I did the 29er DH thing for a few seasons and I saw my best results when I went back to 27.5. Some of the other issues are that you have to pedal harder inbetween jumps, to get back up to speed, so it can be harder to make gaps, doubles and table-tops work out. I find they tend to jump "flatter" as well. Mainly though, I was amazed when I went back to 27.5 and everything became easier, easier to hit the jumps, make sections work, turn at speed, etc.

    Not everyone runs DH or hard-riding rubber on their 29er, so not everyone gets to experience this, but the further you push this tire size, the more you see these limitations IME.

    For the record, I think it's the way to go for XC/trail and most XC racing, the traction is great, it makes up for less travel a bit on the climbs with the wheel-size. Wheel-catchers are non-existent, and so on.

    Also for the record, there are viable enduro/DH-worthy 29ers, finally. You can ride these aggressively, down the same tracks people are using other bikes. This is not a huge limitation, I just find the overall traits I explained above to be present.
    Cornering speed and arc size are different things.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mudguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    910
    I've been pondering this for the last couple of weeks. If they can make 29" wheels strong enough for DH, then I can't really see the use of 650B for anything else other than comfortable sizing for the rider.
    I've got the last of the 26ers, I've ridden the 2015 650B version of my bike back to back at a bike park and I couldn't detect any difference in timing or feel, so I look at the industry wide change from 26 to 650B with a skepticism.
    Occasionally I think about getting a new bike, perhaps something with a touch less travel, but I can't see any performance benefits from not going to the bigger wheel size (rather than the tiny increase from 26 to 650B).

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,219
    I think 27.5 makes a better overall bicycle for a small person. My wife would struggle on a trail ride on a 29er. Hopefully they will be available for many years to come. And I agree that they are essentially 26ers.

    I also think that XL and up, particularly for XC riding, is going to go bigger than 29er in the next couple of years.

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post
    I think 27.5 makes a better overall bicycle for a small person. My wife would struggle on a trail ride on a 29er. Hopefully they will be available for many years to come. And I agree that they are essentially 26ers.

    I also think that XL and up, particularly for XC riding, is going to go bigger than 29er in the next couple of years.

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
    I agree. I tried a bunch of 29er but I'm 5'7" so they all seem to be too big for me. I've seen a few 27.5+ but most people I know are still buying 27.5 and 29er. I really feel it's coming down to people's height.

Similar Threads

  1. The way things were, and the way they are now
    By Hawgzilla in forum Off Camber (off topic)
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 07-07-2014, 11:00 PM
  2. Traveling St Louis to Iowa City... Trails along the way... Some what along the way
    By impdude in forum Midwest - IL, IN, OH, KY, IA, MO, MI
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-17-2013, 05:16 PM
  3. Cost of building your own wheels is way way up!
    By lucifer in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-20-2011, 07:28 AM
  4. Way to go USAC, Way to go...
    By COLINx86 in forum XC Racing and Training
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 06-22-2011, 10:12 AM
  5. which way do i go? which way do i go?
    By jimbonerz28 in forum 27.5
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 04-28-2011, 09:30 AM

Members who have read this thread: 286

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

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

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