26? What's the point??!! - Page 2- Mtbr.com

# Thread: 26? What's the point??!!

1. Originally Posted by richj8990
Maybe the front chainrings are irrelevant because most of them are 22, 32, 42t; it's the cogs on the back that make the difference for climbing, correct? Do I really have the same range on a 7-speed 14-28t that someone has on an 11-speed 10-46t? Again, you can argue math all day, but I notice a huge difference even between 14-28t and 11-30t. 14-28t is so bad that I like to double-upshift just to get anything meaningful out of the gears, so I often use 1, 3, 5, 7 in the middle gear and forget 2, 4, 6. Top speed on a 14t back, and high front ring is a pathetic 15 mph, it's more like 25 mph on an 11t. Is any of this news to you guys?
None of this is news to us, but it will be to you when you finally figure this out. This is the problem with the pages and pages of strongly held opinions you offer as advice in the Beginner forum. Your argumentative and even arrogant approach to discussing things you clearly don't understand is borderline impressive.

I think you need to stop for a second and think about what gearing is. There is no need to "argue the math" as it's very simple, even without doing basic division. How can you possibly think the chainring (in front) is irrelevant when considering how difficult it is to climb with a given drivetrain. The gearing ratio is the critical factor for how hard it is to climb in a gear combination, or how fast you can go at a version cadence. Cassettes used to be a lot smaller because they were paired with multiple chainrings. With a single ring, the cassette needs to have a much larger range in order for the drivetrain to have a useful range, because you aren't changing chainring sizes.

2. Hahahaha... Yup, been around the block.

I was also a moderator on Bikeforums for a few years.

My history: I rode 20's from age 7 to early teens. Skateboarded street until 1996. Started riding 26" in 1996. Raced a bit on 2005-2007 (or 2008, can't remember). Been riding for fun again since I quit racing.

Been building bikes from scratch since 2005. Modding bikes since 1980's. Owned / built single pivot, faux bar, 4-bar and a bunch of rigid and hardtails.

I've also been a huge proponent of the 1x drivetrain since 2005.

Hardtails are my favorite.

3. Been riding and building since 91-ish.
One thing I've learned very well in that time is that the bike and it's particulars are far, far less important than the rider. I've been left in the dust on so many different bikes by guys on so many other different bikes that it's ridiculous.

4. What happened while I was away at work? There's no way I'm reading all that, at least it's on the other page now so I don't have to look at all those words.

BTW, can anyone tell me the outer diameter of a 27.5" tire mounted and aired up, preferably a Chunky Monkey or an Ardent?

5. Originally Posted by richj8990
Maybe the front chainrings are irrelevant because most of them are 22, 32, 42t; it's the cogs on the back that make the difference for climbing, correct? Do I really have the same range on a 7-speed 14-28t that someone has on an 11-speed 10-46t? Again, you can argue math all day, but I notice a huge difference even between 14-28t and 11-30t. 14-28t is so bad that I like to double-upshift just to get anything meaningful out of the gears, so I often use 1, 3, 5, 7 in the middle gear and forget 2, 4, 6. Top speed on a 14t back, and high front ring is a pathetic 15 mph, it's more like 25 mph on an 11t. Is any of this news to you guys?
OK forget all that, don't worry about what gears you have when trying to think about stuff, what you need to worry about when trying to figure out whats going on is a thing called Gear Inches,its a combo of the front chainring, the rear cog and the wheel size and tellsyou how many inches the wheel will travel depending on what gear you are in. You can find a few onine calculaters that will give you a chart and from that you can see the inches that each gear in a 1x will give you, but also a 2x and 3x.

but anyway as a general guidling (not a rule) for your 3x7 setup, you use the 3 easist (biggest size) gears at the back in combo with the smallest chainring, the 3 middle cogs at the back with the middle chainring and the3 hardest (smallest size) with the big chainring.. that is how the setup is supposed to work, with a little more overlap when you really need to.

But to add, yes 14-28 rear is pretty sucky, (but then I have a 12-28 9 speed on 1 bike and have no issues) but then thats what you get when you have a cheap bike, i have a 7 speed bike out n the back room with a 12-30 7 speed, but it has a 24-34-52 front on it from when I raced it DH back in 92, so plenty of top end.

6. Easy way to compare two set-ups:

Bicycle Gear Calculator

7. Ha ha...DAMN I'M OLD!!!!! I started riding when I was six, bmx freestyle until I was 14, then moved to Mountian bikes. Raced competitively in 1995-1996, won a couple of races, placed 2nd or 3rd in many. All on my specialized I am riding now. Been around the block a time or ten for sure. also skateboarded street while riding freestyle as well. I should never have sold my Haro freestyle, or GT pro performer I had! they would be worth a lot now!!!!

8. Super busy at work so need to make this reply quick. About the pedals, you guys are RIGHT and I'm WRONG. Got the 26" bike back from the shop (installed different shifters, could not do it myself for some reason), the bottom pedal at the lowest point is 4.0 inches from the ground. The 27.5" pedal is 3.75 inches from the ground. WTF!?! Why does a higher pedal scrape more? My new theory: I roll over the rocks on the 27.5" quickly enough that the pedals pass over the rocks before they hit them. With the 26", I consciously avoid rocks so I'm in-between the rocks, therefore the rocks on the side of the tires end up scraping the pedals. Maybe that's too much of a stretch, I don't know.

9. I think it's placebo effect....that's all!

10. LOL, my pedals scrape more on the 26" period. They didn't scrape today. Took the 26" on the nearest 'real' downhill trail for the first time since I installed hydraulic brakes on both ends. Sooooo much nicer down the hill than mechanicals. However, the 27.5" does the trail end to end in 4 minutes flat, the 26" in 4 minutes 50 seconds. If and when I get a wider tire on the front that time may improve 10-15 seconds but it will not catch up to the 27.5"s time.

11. Originally Posted by richj8990
LOL, my pedals scrape more on the 26" period. They didn't scrape today. Took the 26" on the nearest 'real' downhill trail for the first time since I installed hydraulic brakes on both ends. Sooooo much nicer down the hill than mechanicals. However, the 27.5" does the trail end to end in 4 minutes flat, the 26" in 4 minutes 50 seconds. If and when I get a wider tire on the front that time may improve 10-15 seconds but it will not catch up to the 27.5"s time.
I'd say there's something wrong if you have nearly a minute of difference on a 4 minute trail. I've ridden the same bike in 26" and 650B configurations and there was no measurable difference for me. And that was on a 5-6 minute downhill.

12. I give up.

13. Originally Posted by Notched
I'd say there's something wrong if you have nearly a minute of difference on a 4 minute trail. I've ridden the same bike in 26" and 650B configurations and there was no measurable difference for me. And that was on a 5-6 minute downhill.
I say I agree. Either the brain chickens out because he's riding a 26r or his brakes are on all the time..ha ha.

14. Originally Posted by Steve Adams
Ha ha...DAMN I'M OLD!!!!! I started riding when I was six, bmx freestyle until I was 14, then moved to Mountian bikes. Raced competitively in 1995-1996, won a couple of races, placed 2nd or 3rd in many. All on my specialized I am riding now. Been around the block a time or ten for sure. also skateboarded street while riding freestyle as well. I should never have sold my Haro freestyle, or GT pro performer I had! they would be worth a lot now!!!!
GT was and always will be the SHIZZLE in my book! Martin Aparijo BEEYOTCHES, YEAH!! I had a GT Vertigo street. Started riding freestyle during the Rad period in the 80's. Good memories!

Originally Posted by richj8990
LOL, my pedals scrape more on the 26" period. They didn't scrape today. Took the 26" on the nearest 'real' downhill trail for the first time since I installed hydraulic brakes on both ends. Sooooo much nicer down the hill than mechanicals. However, the 27.5" does the trail end to end in 4 minutes flat, the 26" in 4 minutes 50 seconds. If and when I get a wider tire on the front that time may improve 10-15 seconds but it will not catch up to the 27.5"s time.
They scrape more "period" because the geometry of the bikes. Not the wheel size. As far as times...I would probably lay down similar faster times on my local technical trails with a 29+ versus my 26 just because I have to actually pedal through tons of flat sections littered with softball-basketball sized rocks and rock formations / roots, etc...

The rollover efficiency is undeniable. When the trail points down though...if there's a place here and there to catch some flow and be able to bump over / launch / jump rock sections...the difference is very small.

I did a test on a really hairy loop on my rigid aluminum 26 versus my hardtail. Tons of chunk, very pedaly. I was able to complete the loop 8-minutes faster with a 140mm-forked hardtail. I never timed it on my Heckler, but I think another few minutes faster adding the 150mm rear suspension as well.

Technology is there for a reason, but the difference in a 26x2.4 versus 27.5x2.4 with all else the same wouldn't really be all that noticeable to me. Bump to a 29er, 27.5+, or 29+ and the difference would be noticeable when momentum is used appropriately.

Like I already stated some weeks earlier...you need to put yourself into other peoples shoes to really be able to make a blanket statement regarding whether or not this stuff is really worth the money.

My previous trail network was fastest on a 26" rigid 22# rocket. My current trail network is much faster (as stated above) on my hardtail...and would be ideal for a Stumpy FSR 29 or Stache type setup. Throw in more rock shelf type structures, downhill, and ways to bounce through instead of pedal through chunky flat sections...and the 26" comes back to life for me.
I give up.
Never give up, it's too much fun.

15. Originally Posted by Notched
I'd say there's something wrong
I am inclined to agree with you.

16. Originally Posted by chelboed
Never give up, it's too much fun.

17. Nothing is impossible?

18. ... but sometimes you just gotta know when to stay down.

19. Originally Posted by chelboed
GT was and always will be the SHIZZLE in my book! Martin Aparijo BEEYOTCHES, YEAH!! I had a GT Vertigo street. Started riding freestyle during the Rad period in the 80's. Good memories!

They scrape more "period" because the geometry of the bikes. Not the wheel size. As far as times...I would probably lay down similar faster times on my local technical trails with a 29+ versus my 26 just because I have to actually pedal through tons of flat sections littered with softball-basketball sized rocks and rock formations / roots, etc...

The rollover efficiency is undeniable. When the trail points down though...if there's a place here and there to catch some flow and be able to bump over / launch / jump rock sections...the difference is very small.

I did a test on a really hairy loop on my rigid aluminum 26 versus my hardtail. Tons of chunk, very pedaly. I was able to complete the loop 8-minutes faster with a 140mm-forked hardtail. I never timed it on my Heckler, but I think another few minutes faster adding the 150mm rear suspension as well.

Technology is there for a reason, but the difference in a 26x2.4 versus 27.5x2.4 with all else the same wouldn't really be all that noticeable to me. Bump to a 29er, 27.5+, or 29+ and the difference would be noticeable when momentum is used appropriately.

Like I already stated some weeks earlier...you need to put yourself into other peoples shoes to really be able to make a blanket statement regarding whether or not this stuff is really worth the money.

My previous trail network was fastest on a 26" rigid 22# rocket. My current trail network is much faster (as stated above) on my hardtail...and would be ideal for a Stumpy FSR 29 or Stache type setup. Throw in more rock shelf type structures, downhill, and ways to bounce through instead of pedal through chunky flat sections...and the 26" comes back to life for me.

Never give up, it's too much fun.
YESSIR....the reason I bought my Pro performer was Martin!!!!! and I wore out 3 RAD VHS tapes!!! "SEND ME AN ANGEL!"

20. Maybe this belongs in the drivetrain section but if a 7-speed freewheel can only go up to 11-30t for climbing (the 14-34t freewheel supposedly sucks because it doesn't thread on right), then can you buy a triple crankset for the front that's less teeth? The smallest I've seen is 22-32-42 and I already have that. The smaller ones than that are for 9-10 speeds. Is there any 7-8 speed triple crankset that's smaller than 22-32-42? That way it could climb hills better without having to do a big wheel/shifter/cassette conversion.

BTW the 2nd time with the 27.5" downhill on the aforementioned trail was 4 minutes 20 seconds, 30 seconds faster than the 26". The 27.5" has a front tire that is right now 0.55 inches wider, and the Tektro brakes seem noticeably stronger than the Hayes/Deore mix on the 26". That may account for most of the remaining time difference. The Deore also tends to lock up the rear tire a lot more than the Tektro does. I wish someone made a rear wheel-specific tire that had more lateral tread instead of front-back radial tread. The Continental Trail King and Mountain King visually are the closest to what I'm wanting but I actually had the Trail King on a previous bike and it was pretty disappointing on the back. Oh well.

21. I might be a bit late to jump in on this, but with having ridden bikes "properly" since the early 90's I've noticed a few things over recent years. Most of the hate towards the 26 wheel seems to be from those who have either not long started the sport and think because the 26 was before their time then it's just crap, or from the usual type of people that must have every bit of new "tech" to keep up with current trends...if it's not a must have tomorrow then it's a don't have...

I still ride my 26 daily even though I have a 27.5 trail bike. On quite a few occasions I've had people struggle to keep up with me on the downs and guaranteed I'm probably having more fun than them too.

For me personally I don't care what size wheels people ride and I won't judge them depending on their choices, but some people really do need to get a grip when they go on about older MTB standards. They will moan about an inch or so difference in wheel size, but will quite happily get moist when they see a retro car from their childhood roll past....oh the irony

22. you used to be able to get 20T(you don't necessarily need a crankset that goes that low, you need a chainring, on the assumption that it fits).

SO your bike has a 7 speed freewheel? Yeah you don't want that (the freewheel) sell bike, buy something else.

23. Originally Posted by Trail_Fairy
I might be a bit late to jump in on this, but with having ridden bikes "properly" since the early 90's I've noticed a few things over recent years. Most of the hate towards the 26 wheel seems to be from those who have either not long started the sport and think because the 26 was before their time then it's just crap, or from the usual type of people that must have every bit of new "tech" to keep up with current trends...if it's not a must have tomorrow then it's a don't have...

I still ride my 26 daily even though I have a 27.5 trail bike. On quite a few occasions I've had people struggle to keep up with me on the downs and guaranteed I'm probably having more fun than them too.

For me personally I don't care what size wheels people ride and I won't judge them depending on their choices, but some people really do need to get a grip when they go on about older MTB standards. They will moan about an inch or so difference in wheel size, but will quite happily get moist when they see a retro car from their childhood roll past....oh the irony
I agree 90%. Most of this 1x11 drivetrain and super-duper \$1000 forks and carbon fiber, etc. for \$1200 plus is NOT needed to have fun. All I'm saying is that I'm a beginner and I noticed early on that a 27.5" rolls over obstacles better than a 26". I was so naive when I first started the real trails that I didn't even know I bought a 27.5" until I took it into a bike shop to get a flat tire fixed, and again I still noticed a difference in rock clearance before I knew I was even riding a bike with a larger tire. So no placebo effect for that example. Not to beat a dead horse but when the 27.5's derailleur broke and cracked the frame, I went back to a 26" and then really noticed a problem in clearance compared with the former larger-tired bike. And again, not to reiterate ad nauseum, but how can someone like me clearly notice the difference and you guys cannot? When I put on a 26" x 2.4 hopefully that will clear some things up, because right now the 26 x 1.95 tire is struggling on downhill stuff. I don't want to go faster than 5-8 mph because I know eventually the 26" will crash on those rocky trails and those chipped rocks are not fun to land on. Much more confidence with the 27.5 x 2.5 tire.

24. I've never once said to myself upon not clearing a tricky section, "Must be my wheelsize".
I've said to myself plenty of times "Jeez I sucked on that section today, I've gotta work on that" . the wise old adage of It's not the size that matters but how you use it rings true with bikes too

25. Originally Posted by richj8990
And again, not to reiterate ad nauseum, but how can someone like me clearly notice the difference and you guys cannot?
It's magic. I touched on that last page.

26. I heat up, I can't cool down
You got me spinning
'Round and 'round
'Round and 'round and 'round it goes
Where it stops nobody knows...

27. Originally Posted by richj8990
I agree 90%. Most of this 1x11 drivetrain and super-duper \$1000 forks and carbon fiber, etc. for \$1200 plus is NOT needed to have fun. All I'm saying is that I'm a beginner and I noticed early on that a 27.5" rolls over obstacles better than a 26". I was so naive when I first started the real trails that I didn't even know I bought a 27.5" until I took it into a bike shop to get a flat tire fixed, and again I still noticed a difference in rock clearance before I knew I was even riding a bike with a larger tire. So no placebo effect for that example. Not to beat a dead horse but when the 27.5's derailleur broke and cracked the frame, I went back to a 26" and then really noticed a problem in clearance compared with the former larger-tired bike. And again, not to reiterate ad nauseum, but how can someone like me clearly notice the difference and you guys cannot? When I put on a 26" x 2.4 hopefully that will clear some things up, because right now the 26 x 1.95 tire is struggling on downhill stuff. I don't want to go faster than 5-8 mph because I know eventually the 26" will crash on those rocky trails and those chipped rocks are not fun to land on. Much more confidence with the 27.5 x 2.5 tire.
Maybe different geometry? 2.5 tires vs 1.95?

So what became of the 27.5 after the frame cracked? I'm guessing you bought it used so no warranty? What was it?

28. ^yeah, what bikes are we talking about, cause geometry is more likely the issue than wheel size.

29. Originally Posted by Cornfield

I heat up, I can't cool down
You got me spinning
'Round and 'round
'Round and 'round and 'round it goes
Where it stops nobody knows...
'You must spread some Rep around.."

"There are some men you just can't reach".

30. Huge difference between 1.95" and 2.5" tires. I'd start there. Unless the 2.5s are old Maxxis, in which case they might actually be 1.95.

31. All of a sudden, things are making sense to me.

http://forums.mtbr.com/off-camber-of...w-1050426.html

32. ...

33. Originally Posted by mountainbiker24
Huge difference between 1.95" and 2.5" tires. I'd start there. Unless the 2.5s are old Maxxis, in which case they might actually be 1.95.
Watch, once I change from 26x1.95 to 26x2.4 all of a sudden most of the problems will go away, wouldn't that be funny. BTW serious question: does anyone run back tires that are specifically different than front and if so what you can recommend. I'm looking for something that grips uphill and doesn't slip much during braking downhill, 1.95 to 2.10 on the back is fine; I don't know if 2.35 or more will fit between the triangle on top.

34. Originally Posted by richj8990
Watch, once I change from 26x1.95 to 26x2.4 all of a sudden most of the problems will go away, wouldn't that be funny. BTW serious question: does anyone run back tires that are specifically different than front and if so what you can recommend. I'm looking for something that grips uphill and doesn't slip much during braking downhill, 1.95 to 2.10 on the back is fine; I don't know if 2.35 or more will fit between the triangle on top.
Get these in Enduro and you won't be disappoint.

Front: On-One Chunky Monkey 26"x2.4" Tyre | On - One
Rear: On-One Smorgasbord 26"x2.25" Tyre | On - One

35. Originally Posted by chazpat
Maybe different geometry? 2.5 tires vs 1.95?

So what became of the 27.5 after the frame cracked? I'm guessing you bought it used so no warranty? What was it?
LOL are you sure you want to know what the first 27.5" bike I had was? You'll put me on the ignore list for sure if I tell you. Before I tell you I swear this bike actually did real trails, not that it did them well, but I really did the hard trails out there for the first time ever with this bike. So I'll always have good memories about this bike even if it's a POS: Walmart \$150 Kent RCT 27.5 inch. 42 lb aluminum hardtail frame, no quick-release front skewer, 60mm fork that was quite tooth-chattering, dual disk brakes that worked, barely, and as expected with this price range, a 3x7 drivetrain (the actual gearing was not horrible, it felt like 12-28t). For the money it was a great disposable bike. I have a \$517 SE Bikes 27.5 hardtail now and it's light-years better for \$367 more, standard hydraulic brakes, 100mm fork, etc. I'm absolutely addicted to hydraulic brakes now.

36. Originally Posted by 53119
i absolutely and unequivocally give minusfks

37. Originally Posted by richj8990
LOL are you sure you want to know what the first 27.5" bike I had was? You'll put me on the ignore list for sure if I tell you. Before I tell you I swear this bike actually did real trails, not that it did them well, but I really did the hard trails out there for the first time ever with this bike. So I'll always have good memories about this bike even if it's a POS: Walmart \$150 Kent RCT 27.5 inch. 42 lb aluminum hardtail frame, no quick-release front skewer, 60mm fork that was quite tooth-chattering, dual disk brakes that worked, barely, and as expected with this price range, a 3x7 drivetrain (the actual gearing was not horrible, it felt like 12-28t). For the money it was a great disposable bike. I have a \$517 SE Bikes 27.5 hardtail now and it's light-years better for \$367 more, standard hydraulic brakes, 100mm fork, etc. I'm absolutely addicted to hydraulic brakes now.

jk

We all gotta start somewhere.

38. I will stick with 26"wheels, when I biffed it I didn't blame the bike or the wheel size, I
blamed myself.......................

39. Originally Posted by richj8990
Watch, once I change from 26x1.95 to 26x2.4 all of a sudden most of the problems will go away, wouldn't that be funny. BTW serious question: does anyone run back tires that are specifically different than front and if so what you can recommend. I'm looking for something that grips uphill and doesn't slip much during braking downhill, 1.95 to 2.10 on the back is fine; I don't know if 2.35 or more will fit between the triangle on top.

40. Originally Posted by richj8990
For every time my 27.5 pedal on one side scrapes or brushes against something on the ground, it happens 20 times as much, sometimes violently, on the 26" bike. ?
Like someone else said on this thread, you have to take geometry into account also, not just wheel size. I had a coworker who was a cat 1 racer on 26r and one day had to borrow a bike, which turned out to be 29r. He told me he'd never had so many pedal strikes on a bike, ever. Not all bikes are created equal and that includes geometry.

41. You're possibly more likely to get pedal-strike on a bike you're not familiar with, what the geometry. Maybe it takes time to learn to subconsciously know where your pedals are going to be.

Still clatter mine all the time though ;0)

42. Originally Posted by mik_git
you used to be able to get 20T(you don't necessarily need a crankset that goes that low, you need a chainring, on the assumption that it fits).

SO your bike has a 7 speed freewheel? Yeah you don't want that (the freewheel) sell bike, buy something else.
I've got a 20t in my parts bin. That thing is fun!

Originally Posted by crewjones
I've never once said to myself upon not clearing a tricky section, "Must be my wheelsize".
I've said to myself plenty of times "Jeez I sucked on that section today, I've gotta work on that" . the wise old adage of It's not the size that matters but how you use it rings true with bikes too
True, true. But on the flip side, I know I can expend less energy on some of my chunky trails rolling wagon wheels and look smooth doing it compared to my 26" hardtail.

Originally Posted by kapusta
This thread is like a Thanksgiving dinner. I just keep coming back for more. Taking advice from a total noob is icing on the cake.

43. Originally Posted by Loudviking
I will stick with 26"wheels, when I biffed it I didn't blame the bike or the wheel size, I
blamed myself.......................
"A thoughtful and lucid answer. YOU WILL BE DESTROYED!!!"

--Morbo

44. Man, discussions like these harden my heart for the sport. Just like quite a few others on here, I started Mtnbkg in the early 90s and have loved it ever since. I've made a lot of friends that way and have had some really awesome experiences. At that time, you would come across another Mtnbkr and you could guarantee they were pretty cool. One of the best group of guys you could know. It's how I encouraged my friends to get a bike and join me and they immediately noticed the same. No one cared what bike you had, what gear or even what you wore. Hell, if you were in cut off jeans and a skateboard helmet, the more experienced and hardcore you looked and it typically fit. They were the badasses on the trail.

Then, all of a sudden it seemed there was a riff. Something changed overnight. Pretty boys were too worried about how they looked and what they rode instead of how they rode. They'd scuff at guys like me with my properly used bike and gear but then we'd proceed to whip their tail on the trail. New riders weren't and aren't as friendly anymore. So many of them turn out to be A-holes who fly on by a downed rider or will stick their nose up at you.

We shouldn't have to ever make these stupid points on these types of threads anymore. Only thing to say is to get the gear that works for *you*. 26 works for me because I'm 5'8'. A 29 fits my brother because he's 6'4". Simple. Neither is better than the other, just the best for each others size. I'd be a fool to be on a 29r. He looked like a giant on a 26r.

I've had an Elsworth Truth since '01 and will always continue to ride it. Wouldn't trade that 26 for anything. It fits me, is one bada\$\$ bike and I haven't been on another like it that has catered to my style so well.

Now I'm getting my son involved in mountain biking. We take his BMX 20in out because it fits him and he's doing great things with it. Even though he's enjoying it immensely, I get pissed at the looks and side marks he receives especially from those that have no clue what they're doing. When he's older and bigger and has mastered maneuvering a bike around, he'll get a bigger bike and then learn the next step of gearing. Again, simple but it's those other pathetic riders that are starting to turn us away from it and it shouldn't be that way.

Wish everyone would take a chill pill, step away from this marketing BS that has destroyed the camaraderie of this sport, and go back to enjoying it as it was. Get on a bike, any bike, head to the trail and enjoy.

45. Why 26....

1. It works and is fun
2. I am not racing.
3. I don't have the time anymore to play the upgrade game.
4. I like working on my bikes and am happy with tech from 1 gen. ago.
5. I don't need thru axles, carbon rims, 1.11 drive trains, dropper seat posts, and 12 inches of dual suspension to enjoy midwest singletrack.
6. Some days I would rather go a tad (and it is a "tad") slower and enjoy working through tech sections instead of bombing through them.
7. I'm short and my size S. 29er gets ton of toe overlapp, pedal strike, and bottom bracket strikes when rolling drops.
8. My weight is more of a performance detractor than my bike...

'You must spread some Rep around.."

"There are some men you just can't reach".
I didn't reply to this because it would just keep this going thread going 'round, but since it won't stop:

I was expecting neg rep for posting a Steve Miller Band video, lol!

Vid is kinda cool if you ask me.

47. Originally Posted by Cornfield
I didn't reply to this because it would just keep this going thread going 'round, but since it won't stop:

I was expecting neg rep for posting a Steve Miller Band video, lol!

Vid is kinda cool if you ask me.
I saw Steve Miller last year with Tower of Power and Journey. They all rocked...

I saw Steve Miller last year with Tower of Power and Journey. They all rocked...
They're coming thru town here soon, maybe I should check them out?

Not sure I could handle Journey tho.

49. Originally Posted by Cornfield
They're coming thru town here soon, maybe I should check them out?

Not sure I could handle Journey tho.
lol, I'm with you on that.

50. Originally Posted by Neuner
Man, discussions like these harden my heart for the sport. Just like quite a few others on here, I started Mtnbkg in the early 90s and have loved it ever since. I've made a lot of friends that way and have had some really awesome experiences. At that time, you would come across another Mtnbkr and you could guarantee they were pretty cool. One of the best group of guys you could know. It's how I encouraged my friends to get a bike and join me and they immediately noticed the same. No one cared what bike you had, what gear or even what you wore. Hell, if you were in cut off jeans and a skateboard helmet, the more experienced and hardcore you looked and it typically fit. They were the badasses on the trail.

Then, all of a sudden it seemed there was a riff. Something changed overnight. Pretty boys were too worried about how they looked and what they rode instead of how they rode. They'd scuff at guys like me with my properly used bike and gear but then we'd proceed to whip their tail on the trail. New riders weren't and aren't as friendly anymore. So many of them turn out to be A-holes who fly on by a downed rider or will stick their nose up at you.

We shouldn't have to ever make these stupid points on these types of threads anymore. Only thing to say is to get the gear that works for *you*. 26 works for me because I'm 5'8'. A 29 fits my brother because he's 6'4". Simple. Neither is better than the other, just the best for each others size. I'd be a fool to be on a 29r. He looked like a giant on a 26r.

I've had an Elsworth Truth since '01 and will always continue to ride it. Wouldn't trade that 26 for anything. It fits me, is one bada\$\$ bike and I haven't been on another like it that has catered to my style so well.

Now I'm getting my son involved in mountain biking. We take his BMX 20in out because it fits him and he's doing great things with it. Even though he's enjoying it immensely, I get pissed at the looks and side marks he receives especially from those that have no clue what they're doing. When he's older and bigger and has mastered maneuvering a bike around, he'll get a bigger bike and then learn the next step of gearing. Again, simple but it's those other pathetic riders that are starting to turn us away from it and it shouldn't be that way.

Wish everyone would take a chill pill, step away from this marketing BS that has destroyed the camaraderie of this sport, and go back to enjoying it as it was. Get on a bike, any bike, head to the trail and enjoy.
I agree 100%. Last Sunday I took the "piece of crap" \$270 26" on a 13.5 mile road/trail system and HAD A BLAST. I cannot believe how well it performed on...not really a switchback trail but more of a serpentine back and forth across the hill trail. Cheap hydraulic brake upgrades worked great. For my experience level and bike level I killed it, cannot believe how well the bike did. And then of course the next day (yesterday) the front tire goes flat (good excuse to upgrade from 1.95 to 2.4). My only beef about the 26" is when it's on a rocky trail it doesn't do as well as a larger tire bike. If there is a certain flow to the trail and not too many rocks, a 26" does just fine.

BTW there is a major controversy in Beginner's corner about exactly what you are saying, that you "have to" get 1x11 drivetrain, a 200+mm fork, a 29" carbon-fiber bike, etc., to be a "real" mountain biker. BS, I say. Out of the 30+ trails I've been on there have been exactly four that my XC bikes can't handle, the other 26+ trails (or 90% of them) a sub \$1000 bike can do just fine.

Last but not least, about the biker friendliness issue. Just an FYI, if someone doesn't go out of their way to be friendly on the trail, that does not mean they are a dick, or stuck up, etc. They could be all of those things, or they could simply be a lone wolf or an introvert. I know the dick type you are talking about. They all bike together in a van or truck with like 10 bikes stuck in the back bed. Several months ago I was in the parking lot by them and a couple of them were blocking the exit. They could have moved their bikes over a couple of feet to let me by but they completely ignored me, so I had to go into the dirt and bushes to get out of the lot. I could have said "Hey could you let me through, WTF" but I knew better than to start a fight with 10 people. Don't worry about those guys. It's the riders one on one for communication that I'm really commenting about.

A couple of months ago I was on a remote trail (now it's summer it does have other riders on it), and someone came up the other way just as I started up a hill on a side trail. They said hello, I said hello. I then turned and started up the hill. They immediately asked if everything is OK. I said yes, it's fine, thanks. I didn't understand, maybe I'm a social retard or something. Everything is OK because I'm biking! Hello and goodbye! lol. Now if they wanted to ask a question about the trail, what's at the end, how long to the asphalt road, etc., I would answer all of that. But I'm not out there to small talk unless it's really relevant stuff. I'm not out there to say "Yeah bro, killer trail, shredded that last section, should have seen me, blah blah blah". So if someone says hello and moves on, it is what it is. It's the guys that don't even say hello back that you need to wonder about.

51. Originally Posted by Neuner
Man, discussions like these harden my heart for the sport. Just like quite a few others on here, I started Mtnbkg in the early 90s and have loved it ever since. I've made a lot of friends that way and have had some really awesome experiences. At that time, you would come across another Mtnbkr and you could guarantee they were pretty cool. One of the best group of guys you could know. It's how I encouraged my friends to get a bike and join me and they immediately noticed the same. No one cared what bike you had, what gear or even what you wore. Hell, if you were in cut off jeans and a skateboard helmet, the more experienced and hardcore you looked and it typically fit. They were the badasses on the trail.

Then, all of a sudden it seemed there was a riff. Something changed overnight. Pretty boys were too worried about how they looked and what they rode instead of how they rode. They'd scuff at guys like me with my properly used bike and gear but then we'd proceed to whip their tail on the trail. New riders weren't and aren't as friendly anymore. So many of them turn out to be A-holes who fly on by a downed rider or will stick their nose up at you.

We shouldn't have to ever make these stupid points on these types of threads anymore. Only thing to say is to get the gear that works for *you*. 26 works for me because I'm 5'8'. A 29 fits my brother because he's 6'4". Simple. Neither is better than the other, just the best for each others size. I'd be a fool to be on a 29r. He looked like a giant on a 26r.

I've had an Elsworth Truth since '01 and will always continue to ride it. Wouldn't trade that 26 for anything. It fits me, is one bada\$\$ bike and I haven't been on another like it that has catered to my style so well.

Now I'm getting my son involved in mountain biking. We take his BMX 20in out because it fits him and he's doing great things with it. Even though he's enjoying it immensely, I get pissed at the looks and side marks he receives especially from those that have no clue what they're doing. When he's older and bigger and has mastered maneuvering a bike around, he'll get a bigger bike and then learn the next step of gearing. Again, simple but it's those other pathetic riders that are starting to turn us away from it and it shouldn't be that way.

Wish everyone would take a chill pill, step away from this marketing BS that has destroyed the camaraderie of this sport, and go back to enjoying it as it was. Get on a bike, any bike, head to the trail and enjoy.
I've been riding since the late 90's, and until this day the only place I every really see anyone giving a crap about what you are riding, or being anything but gracious and cool to fellow riders in on the internet.

...and California.

52. Originally Posted by richj8990
I agree 100%. Last Sunday I took the "piece of crap" \$270 26" on a 13.5 mile road/trail system and HAD A BLAST.

Originally Posted by richj8990
BTW there is a major controversy in Beginner's corner about exactly what you are saying, that you "have to" get 1x11 drivetrain, a 200+mm fork, a 29" carbon-fiber bike, etc., to be a "real" mountain biker.
But at the same time, if you ride a 1x1 rigid steel bike, you've broken all of those rules and are a badass mountain biker!

53. Originally Posted by Neuner
Man, discussions like these harden my heart for the sport. Just like quite a few others on here, I started Mtnbkg in the early 90s and have loved it ever since. I've made a lot of friends that way and have had some really awesome experiences. At that time, you would come across another Mtnbkr and you could guarantee they were pretty cool. One of the best group of guys you could know. It's how I encouraged my friends to get a bike and join me and they immediately noticed the same. No one cared what bike you had, what gear or even what you wore. Hell, if you were in cut off jeans and a skateboard helmet, the more experienced and hardcore you looked and it typically fit. They were the badasses on the trail.

Then, all of a sudden it seemed there was a riff. Something changed overnight. Pretty boys were too worried about how they looked and what they rode instead of how they rode. They'd scuff at guys like me with my properly used bike and gear but then we'd proceed to whip their tail on the trail. New riders weren't and aren't as friendly anymore. So many of them turn out to be A-holes who fly on by a downed rider or will stick their nose up at you.

We shouldn't have to ever make these stupid points on these types of threads anymore. Only thing to say is to get the gear that works for *you*. 26 works for me because I'm 5'8'. A 29 fits my brother because he's 6'4". Simple. Neither is better than the other, just the best for each others size. I'd be a fool to be on a 29r. He looked like a giant on a 26r.

I've had an Elsworth Truth since '01 and will always continue to ride it. Wouldn't trade that 26 for anything. It fits me, is one bada\$\$ bike and I haven't been on another like it that has catered to my style so well.

Now I'm getting my son involved in mountain biking. We take his BMX 20in out because it fits him and he's doing great things with it. Even though he's enjoying it immensely, I get pissed at the looks and side marks he receives especially from those that have no clue what they're doing. When he's older and bigger and has mastered maneuvering a bike around, he'll get a bigger bike and then learn the next step of gearing. Again, simple but it's those other pathetic riders that are starting to turn us away from it and it shouldn't be that way.

Wish everyone would take a chill pill, step away from this marketing BS that has destroyed the camaraderie of this sport, and go back to enjoying it as it was. Get on a bike, any bike, head to the trail and enjoy.
I don't think the discussion (intended thread topic) is at all a bad thing. It has gotten derailed a time or two, but it's nice to see it steered back on topic occasionally. I think there are valid points to wheel size in comparison to rider size, preference and terrain.

The occasional noob will hop on and claim something silly like wheel size being a culprit to pedal strikes instead of geometry, but I think most of us who understand bottom bracket height, bottom bracket drop, and frame geo as a whole play with the kid for a while and move on.

54. Originally Posted by skankingbiker
Why 26....

1. It works and is fun
2. I am not racing.
3. I don't have the time anymore to play the upgrade game.
4. I like working on my bikes and am happy with tech from 1 gen. ago.
5. I don't need thru axles, carbon rims, 1.11 drive trains, dropper seat posts, and 12 inches of dual suspension to enjoy midwest singletrack.
6. Some days I would rather go a tad (and it is a "tad") slower and enjoy working through tech sections instead of bombing through them.
7. I'm short and my size S. 29er gets ton of toe overlapp, pedal strike, and bottom bracket strikes when rolling drops.
8. My weight is more of a performance detractor than my bike...
Sounds a lot like me. I also learned from my mother to consider your purchases and buy something that will serve you a long time. Not always the cheapest, not always the most expensive, just getting good bang for your buck. My '90 Marin is still serving me well. I'm not going to play the upgrade game already mentioned, just because. I'm a cheap [email protected][email protected]*d!!

55. Originally Posted by chazpat

But at the same time, if you ride a 1x1 rigid steel bike, you've broken all of those rules and are a badass mountain biker!
You will totally crack up when I tell you about the 80mm lockout fork on my 26". There have been times, as in several days, several hours of riding, when I'm like 'hey these bumps are more annoying than usual' and then I look down and the fork is locked rigid. I didn't even notice it was rigid for days. That's how bad 80mm forks are for trail riding (at least the cheap one I have). In other words the 80mm fork at it's softest setting is still not much different than rigid, otherwise I would have noticed within a few minutes after getting on a rocky trail.

I entertained the crackpot thought of putting a 27.5" fork and wheel on the front and keep the back 26" stock but I think in the future when this 80mm fork goes bad (and I'm sure it will where I ride), I'll keep everything 26" and buy the RST 120mm air fork for \$150. I didn't see that Suntour sells the XCR 120mm air fork on a 26", just on a 27.5". So from my research I think that for a 26" the RST looks to be the best bang for the buck, and I can always lock it rigid just to see the difference on the trail. There are some times when I LIKE it rigid on the trail but it really depends. What I noticed is that with a coil fork, the bump gets transmitted through the whole frame on a hardtail, similar to FS but obviously not in the same way. With a rigid fork, all of the impact feels absorbed up front, so you 'get the bump over with' up front and faster. No impact reverberation through the back of the frame. For my newbie level of XC riding it's just a matter of taste for rigid vs. coil or air; I'm not taking jumps or boulders.

56. You might think that more is always better, but not necessarily, maybe just buy a decent 80mm fork

57. Originally Posted by richj8990
I didn't even notice it was rigid for days.
You need to talk to your doctor!

And maybe you should start a new thread to discuss your bike issues, you'll get more replies, maybe...

58. ## 26? What's the point??!!

Scott spark 2011 26er. Nimble, cheap, light, long travel (150mm front), race ready and strong contender with 29ers, 2.8 tire front to bomb it down....20.98lbs as pictured. I don't need or want something else.

Been riding and building since 91-ish.
One thing I've learned very well in that time is that the bike and it's particulars are far, far less important than the rider. I've been left in the dust on so many different bikes by guys on so many other different bikes that it's ridiculous.
Yup. By the same token, my OlMarin is in semi street mode right now. Sometimes it's fun to see road bikies in my mirror and play with them. Slow down, wait till they're close, drop a coupla gears and GO. I'm pushing 60. Running 1.7's. Ain't been caught yet.
See, there's more to fast than just fast.
To finish first, first you have to finish

60. ^ I have to confess I enjoy running down roadies and tri bikes on my fixie.

61. Originally Posted by chazpat
Easy way to compare two set-ups:

Bicycle Gear Calculator
I was talking with someone on a 29er who made the claim that the bigger wheels make the bike faster. When I said, 'It's all about gearing', the rant started about how the wheel size is all that matters, and on and on. Sometimes arguing is pointless. That's when you let your riding to the talking.

62. Originally Posted by OlMarin
Yup. By the same token, my OlMarin is in semi street mode right now. Sometimes it's fun to see road bikies in my mirror and play with them. Slow down, wait till they're close, drop a coupla gears and GO. I'm pushing 60. Running 1.7's. Ain't been caught yet.

A lot of those riders never caught you because they don't care or aren't trying. You never see most of the really fast riders because they're ahead of you.

I'll never understand the getting kicks out of beating a roadie thing, there are fast and slow riders on all types of bikes.

63. ## 26? What's the point??!!

The biggest selling point of a 29er wheel is the role over factor. I've compared side by side a 29x2.25 and a 26x2.25, indeed the 29er is better. Then I compared a 29x2.25 with a 26x2.8....from my impressions the small 2.8 wheel takes the win...it 'role's over' stuff the same or better....ok 26x2.8 is no longer a 26...more like a 27.

64. Originally Posted by J.B. Weld
A lot of those riders never caught you because they don't care or aren't trying. You never see most of the really fast riders because they're ahead of you.

I'll never understand the getting kicks out of beating a roadie thing, there are fast and slow riders on all types of bikes.
Hey wait, I'm only half slow. Better than being half fast.

65. Originally Posted by J.B. Weld
A lot of those riders never caught you because they don't care or aren't trying. You never see most of the really fast riders because they're ahead of you.

I'll never understand the getting kicks out of beating a roadie thing, there are fast and slow riders on all types of bikes.
Oh yeah, definitely. And you never know what someone is doing, they may be riding at a 100 mile pace while you're at a 20 mile pace. And I certainly have times on a ride when I'm hammering and other times when I'm resting. But catching someone or keeping from being caught can be a good motivation when you are wanting to get a hammer session in. Hopefully it doesn't come off as being an a\$\$.

66. Why 26? I think for smaller riders, like my wife at 5' tall, 26 just makes the rest of the bike's geometry work well. No stack or toe overlap issues, for example. Same with 650c wheels in road bikes. It's too bad those have gone the way of the dinosaur, too. I suppose it's a reflection of demand, but small riders have pretty limited choices if they're looking for bikes with wheels proportional to the rest of the frame. I cringe each time I see an "extra small" sized 29er.

67. Originally Posted by Cornfield
You need to talk to your doctor!

And maybe you should start a new thread to discuss your bike issues, you'll get more replies, maybe...
I can't discuss \$270 bike issues because I'm not a comedian. As in you guys feel free to joke about a \$270 bike's parts and performance and I'll sit back with some popcorn.

68. Originally Posted by mik_git
You might think that more is always better, but not necessarily, maybe just buy a decent 80mm fork
RST Aerial 26 Mountain Bike Disc Remote Lock Fork 1-1/8" 26"x120mm
\$149.00. It seems too good to be true, an air fork for \$150?

69. Originally Posted by richj8990
RST Aerial 26 Mountain Bike Disc Remote Lock Fork 1-1/8" 26"x120mm
\$149.00. It seems too good to be true, an air fork for \$150?
what i'm saying is your bike came with an 80mm fork, is designed fr an 80mm fork. putting a 120mm fork on it, of any quality, may not give you the end result you want. You might love it, it there's a fair chance it'll handle like crap. Been there done that.

plus... while this idea gets poopoo'd a fair bit and on a decent bike fair enough...but were talking low end bike, so 120mm fork, there is the possibilty of overloading your head tube and ripping the front off the frame

plus... a \$150 120mm air fork, may indeed be a big bile of crap.

Of course it could all work out great, not saying don't do it, just don't think "oooh 120mm fork, it'll be awesome, sold!" without thinking about how it might not be awesome.

70. Originally Posted by mik_git
what i'm saying is your bike came with an 80mm fork, is designed fr an 80mm fork. putting a 120mm fork on it, of any quality, may not give you the end result you want. You might love it, it there's a fair chance it'll handle like crap. Been there done that.

plus... while this idea gets poopoo'd a fair bit and on a decent bike fair enough...but were talking low end bike, so 120mm fork, there is the possibilty of overloading your head tube and ripping the front off the frame

plus... a \$150 120mm air fork, may indeed be a big bile of crap.

Of course it could all work out great, not saying don't do it, just don't think "oooh 120mm fork, it'll be awesome, sold!" without thinking about how it might not be awesome.

I agree, for this kind of stuff I would call an LBS and show them the bike (again) before I bought the upgrade fork. This particular bike (26") I have was replaced and the new one (almost identical w/old one) had a horribly bent fork so I switched forks (both identical 80mm) with the new and old bike, and had the LBS do it for \$45. They then recommended a \$65 head tube set for the replacement bike, which at the time I declined. If I get the new fork then I'm sure they will recommend something similar for the head upgrade, I trust them. They do not sell any manufactured bikes, all custom-made right in the shop so they know what they are doing. BTW they didn't laugh at my bike like I thought they would. They actually liked the magnesium wheels on the older model (IMO those just add weight, they look cool but don't do much for performance).

71. head tube and head set are two different things (whatever a "head tube set" is? Im assuming headset, and a \$65 one won't help if the head tube is no longer attached to the frame). Also does your lbs, with custom-made bikes, do they make frames, or do they build up frames, again these are two completely different things.

72. Here's the real deal...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

73. Originally Posted by mik_git
head tube and head set are two different things (whatever a "head tube set" is? Im assuming headset, and a \$65 one won't help if the head tube is no longer attached to the frame). Also does your lbs, with custom-made bikes, do they make frames, or do they build up frames, again these are two completely different things.
If this is getting too far away from the original thread's purpose let me know, but I think upgrades to a 26" ARE part of "What's the point".

I would assume that LBS builds off of frames, since I tried to give them a frame for free and they will not take anything used at all, only new stuff. Yes, the 'set' of rings and the head tube are different. In addition, not to change the subject's tangent, there are two really cheap 120mm air forks out there, RST and GUB, and some of the reviews say they are really bad, the oil leaks out and then the innards bang against the housing on every bump after the oil is gone. It looks like Suntour is the only reliable cheap fork manufacturer out there.

So, change of plans (for now of course): keep 27.5" bike with the stock 100mm coil fork, and upgrade the 26" with a 27.5" 120mm Suntour air fork for \$200, and of course have a good LBS get the appropriate head set and head tube for this setup. If it can't happen, then upgrade just to a \$70 26" Suntour 100mm XCT COIL fork with appropriate head set and head tube. Again, I need to emphasize that this is because there are no good and reasonably priced air forks for a 26" bike (if you know of one, let me know). That's why I need to put a 27.5" fork on a 26" bike. In addition that would allow me to later try a 27.5" tire on just the front if I wanted to.

Or...switch the 27.5" 100mm coil fork from that bike to the 26" (and again most likely have to upgrade the head set and head tube as well), then put on the new Suntour 27.5" 120mm air fork for \$200 on the 27.5" bike, that way both bikes get a fork upgrade for the price of one. Harebrained? Crackpot? Fire away!

74. When I see al the references to a hundred here, a couple hundred there, seventy over there... For the money you've spent on all the parts replacements on these two bikes, you could have had a fairly nice new bike out the door.

75. Originally Posted by richj8990
If this is getting too far away from the original thread's purpose let me know, but I think upgrades to a 26" ARE part of "What's the point".

I would assume that LBS builds off of frames, since I tried to give them a frame for free and they will not take anything used at all, only new stuff. Yes, the 'set' of rings and the head tube are different. In addition, not to change the subject's tangent, there are two really cheap 120mm air forks out there, RST and GUB, and some of the reviews say they are really bad, the oil leaks out and then the innards bang against the housing on every bump after the oil is gone. It looks like Suntour is the only reliable cheap fork manufacturer out there.

So, change of plans (for now of course): keep 27.5" bike with the stock 100mm coil fork, and upgrade the 26" with a 27.5" 120mm Suntour air fork for \$200, and of course have a good LBS get the appropriate head set and head tube for this setup. If it can't happen, then upgrade just to a \$70 26" Suntour 100mm XCT COIL fork with appropriate head set and head tube. Again, I need to emphasize that this is because there are no good and reasonably priced air forks for a 26" bike (if you know of one, let me know). That's why I need to put a 27.5" fork on a 26" bike. In addition that would allow me to later try a 27.5" tire on just the front if I wanted to.

Or...switch the 27.5" 100mm coil fork from that bike to the 26" (and again most likely have to upgrade the head set and head tube as well), then put on the new Suntour 27.5" 120mm air fork for \$200 on the 27.5" bike, that way both bikes get a fork upgrade for the price of one. Harebrained? Crackpot? Fire away!

Yeah, I' lump Suntour into the craptastic basket (its not 1989 anymore when suntour was actually a good brand) as well along with RST and GUB, but thats just me.

option 2 is the best bet, 100 for to 26, then 120 fork on the first bike, less change in geo going from 80mm to 120mm is just bad.

76. It's probably already been said. But I love my too big for me 26" 2000 Jekyll that my wife surprised me with as a gift. Just starting getting serious about the sport/experience of mountain biking. I practically changed every part on the old bike to updated specs. But the frame is a 19" and I am only 5'6". So I bought a used SB66 frame with a dropper and new rear shock. Going to transfer all the parts over to my new frame and enjoy it for years to come. I have ridden my wife's 29er. Feels like a monster truck compared to my bike. It does roll out nicely though. And my daughters Chameleon has 27.5" wheels and I don't really see too much of a difference with 26". I also found that building your own bike is much cheaper than buying a new bike with low/mid grade stuff. I would love a nice new bike, but something similar to my specd SB66 would be \$5k-\$6k!! I have spent much less than half and it's top spec for me. I do support my LBS for some parts and maintenance, gear and such. Nothing like a good LBS. Just not for bike purchasing. My dream when I retire from the Corps is to work in a shop repairing bikes and riding. Obviously not for the money, but for the love of outdoors, and biking. Probably still be bombing a 26er then too!

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

77. Originally Posted by evasive
When I see al the references to a hundred here, a couple hundred there, seventy over there... For the money you've spent on all the parts replacements on these two bikes, you could have had a fairly nice new bike out the door.
That's a good point but what is the price of a fairly nice new bike out the door? If it's \$1500+ then \$100-300 in upgrades for a \$300-600 bike make a lot more sense. My budget is not the point. I have \$50,000 in credit, I could go out and buy a \$5000 bike tomorrow. That's not the principle of it. This is an experiment, to buy a cheap 26" and see how much better I can make it with basic brake and fork upgrades. It's an idea many would vomit thinking about, and that's OK, I will point them to the bathroom. I really want to feel and experience the difference on trails between a \$270 26" first without and then with brake and fork upgrades, just to prove a point to myself more than anyone else. Some people on here get what I'm trying to do, others look down on the older technology as not even worth discussing, like a 100mm fork is the equivalent of a carburetor on a car, outdated and worthless. How about I tell you that I do XC, no jumps, no boulders, just basic trails (some very rocky), and you tell me the bike I "need".

78. Originally Posted by andrepsz
Scott spark 2011 26er. long travel (150mm front),
150mm travel bike??? Sorry maybe I'm wrong but Sparks back then were 110mm rear, 120mm front. Did you just take a measuring tape and measure exposed stanchion to assume its a 150mm fork or what?

79. Originally Posted by OlMarin
I was talking with someone on a 29er who made the claim that the bigger wheels make the bike faster. When I said, 'It's all about gearing', the rant started about how the wheel size is all that matters, and on and on. Sometimes arguing is pointless. That's when you let your riding to the talking.
Oh, I def think that 29ers roll over things better and maintain momentum.....they are also more effort/take longer to spin up. I almost never "stall out" on climbs on the 26.

80. ## 26? What's the point??!!

Originally Posted by syphen
150mm travel bike??? Sorry maybe I'm wrong but Sparks back then were 110mm rear, 120mm front. Did you just take a measuring tape and measure exposed stanchion to assume its a 150mm fork or what?
That's a DT swiss EXC 150mm fork. Frame is 120mm rear. Frame geometry was made for a 100-120mm fork and I can achieve that thanks to the Launch Control locking system on the EXC fork, it drops 30% less of the travel but its partially open so still gives some plush (it's dropped on the picture). I mostly keep it locked down for pavement, gravel, fire roads, climbs...and when the rough stuff shows up I open to 150mm....add the 26x2.8 WTB Ranger tire in the equation... it's heaven on earth!

81. For me, my 29er HT was stolen shortly before my wedding. I didn't have much money to spend on a replacement and I found this for sale for a few hundred bucks and felt like it would be silly not to take that deal. Sure it's not exactly what I was looking for, but it's more than I thought I'd be able to find on a small budget.
I literally picked it up today on my lunch break and haven't even tried it out yet, so we'll see how she does!

82. Originally Posted by richj8990
That's a good point but what is the price of a fairly nice new bike out the door? If it's \$1500+ then \$100-300 in upgrades for a \$300-600 bike make a lot more sense. My budget is not the point. I have \$50,000 in credit, I could go out and buy a \$5000 bike tomorrow. That's not the principle of it. This is an experiment, to buy a cheap 26" and see how much better I can make it with basic brake and fork upgrades. It's an idea many would vomit thinking about, and that's OK, I will point them to the bathroom. I really want to feel and experience the difference on trails between a \$270 26" first without and then with brake and fork upgrades, just to prove a point to myself more than anyone else. Some people on here get what I'm trying to do, others look down on the older technology as not even worth discussing, like a 100mm fork is the equivalent of a carburetor on a car, outdated and worthless. How about I tell you that I do XC, no jumps, no boulders, just basic trails (some very rocky), and you tell me the bike I "need".
Yeah well that's fair enough, but taking a cheap bike and throwing cheap parts at it won't necessarily make it any better (it might, might not), but will suck up some cash.
But you also maybe need to study up on some stuff or just learn a bit first, a 100mm fork isn't old technology, there's plenty of guys racing world cup XC on 100mm forks, it's crap internals that are old technology. See you seem to think that "new gearing" will make you faster, as opposed to "being fit and fast", or that going from 80mm to 120mm will be better, when going to a really good 80mm fork may well be better for the application than 40mm extra travel on a cheap crap fork. Eg I have an 80mm fork, 100mm fork and 120mm fork, the 100mm fork is the best of the bunch, but the 80mm fork isn't exactly lacking in performance and is also the best application for the job/frame and I prefer it's feel over the 120mm fork.
But having said that, it's your experiment, go for your life on it and see how it works out, you could muck up the handling badly, or find it works perfectly for you, you won't know for sure till you try it.

83. Originally Posted by mik_git
Yeah well that's fair enough, but taking a cheap bike and throwing cheap parts at it won't necessarily make it any better (it might, might not), but will suck up some cash.
But you also maybe need to study up on some stuff or just learn a bit first, a 100mm fork isn't old technology, there's plenty of guys racing world cup XC on 100mm forks, it's crap internals that are old technology. See you seem to think that "new gearing" will make you faster, as opposed to "being fit and fast", or that going from 80mm to 120mm will be better, when going to a really good 80mm fork may well be better for the application than 40mm extra travel on a cheap crap fork. Eg I have an 80mm fork, 100mm fork and 120mm fork, the 100mm fork is the best of the bunch, but the 80mm fork isn't exactly lacking in performance and is also the best application for the job/frame and I prefer it's feel over the 120mm fork.
But having said that, it's your experiment, go for your life on it and see how it works out, you could muck up the handling badly, or find it works perfectly for you, you won't know for sure till you try it.
Well I need to do something trust me. I just put on a 2.4 inch tire on the front and now the ride is super harsh. It's not tubeless so I pumped it up to 40 psi and OMG is the ride bumpy. So are you saying a \$150 Rockshox 100mm coil fork is better than a \$200 Suntour 120mm air fork? It's hard to tell just by reading on here but 80% of the people say air forks are way better than coil, period. However, on the low end of the mm totem pole maybe that is not true.

I just got done doing a nearby downhill trail and happy to say that the 26" with the hydraulic brake and tire upgrade now does the exact same time down the hill as the 27.5". It was 18% slower with mechanical disks and a 1.95 inch tire, then 8% slower with hydraulic brakes but still the 1.95 inch tire, and now the same time with the wider tire. A grand total of \$140 to improve the performance 18% (if you count it that way). I do count it that way. The experiment is working. But holy crap is the ride bumpy. The 100mm fork on the 27.5" feels like a Tempurpedic mattress compared with the 80mm on the 26". I'll ask the LBS what they recommend. They will probably recommend some fancy \$1000 fork...

84. Originally Posted by richj8990
Well I need to do something trust me. I just put on a 2.4 inch tire on the front and now the ride is super harsh. It's not tubeless so I pumped it up to 40 psi and OMG is the ride bumpy. So are you saying a \$150 Rockshox 100mm coil fork is better than a \$200 Suntour 120mm air fork? It's hard to tell just by reading on here but 80% of the people say air forks are way better than coil, period. However, on the low end of the mm totem pole maybe that is not true.
No, no NO! thats not what i'm saying. I'm saying that a 100mm good fork (or 80mm) with be better than a 120mm crap fork. It's not more travel is better, it's having the right amount of travel and the best internals you can afford/justify. Cheap coil forks are cheap, but they are simple, and heavy and generally the people that have them don't ask for much more than they go up and down, a bit. Air forks are much more complicated,so the more you pay the better they are, so cheap +loads of travel doesn't mean good, it means cheap. But a good coil fork will be better than a cheap air fork.

Also, why are you running 40psi in a 2.4 tyre. A 1.9 tyre maybe, but not a 2.4. try taking out at least 10psi. I'm part of the high pressure brigade and even I don't run more than 30psi in a 2.4 (with tubes)

85. Originally Posted by mik_git

Also, why are you running 40psi in a 2.4 tyre. A 1.9 tyre maybe, but not a 2.4. try taking out at least 10psi. I'm part of the high pressure brigade and even I don't run more than 30psi in a 2.4 (with tubes)
I'm also in the tubed high pressure brigade and run 28-30psi in 2.3 26ers and the same in 2.1 29ers. I think 40 would bounce me off the trail. And I only weight 140.

86. :/ I run 21-23psi in my 2.35 26er tires (Hans Dampf and Nobby Nic)
40 is way too high, tubed or not.

87. Originally Posted by syphen
:/ I run 21-23psi in my 2.35 26er tires (Hans Dampf and Nobby Nic)
40 is way too high, tubed or not.
I'm going to ask in the tires/wheels section but what is the lowest psi for a tubed tire before you start risking a pinch flat.

88. OK I'll try 30 psi. 40 psi in the 27.5" was not bad at all (ride quality maybe went down 25%), but for the 26" it was horrible. It's just that I read on other posts if people went down to 25 psi on a tubed tire they started getting pinch flats when they were rough terrain. BTW can you believe the 26" is (now) as fast as the 27.5" on a downhill rocky trail??? I'm going to time them on longer trails to see if there is a difference. And I do understand that changing the fork is more of a risk than say adding hydraulic brakes; it's a much more integral part of the bike. And yes I will research more before I do it. I've just never had an air fork and I thought putting it on the 26" may help things.

89. Originally Posted by richj8990
I'm going to ask in the tires/wheels section but what is the lowest psi for a tubed tire before you start risking a pinch flat.
There's no one answer because it depends on a combination of many things including the tire (width, weight, etc) rim, terrain, riding style, etc.

It takes a bit of experimentation but for example I had no problems with 2.3 tires @ 25psi over rocky terrain, even a little lower for the front. You'll know if it's too low when you start getting a lot of pinch flats.

90. Granted it was on a 29er HT, and I don't know if that makes a difference, but I got pinch flats anytime I ran below 35 psi. It is pretty rocky in my area, but I haven't ridden a ton of different areas so it's hard for me to judge if it woukd be considered super rocky or just average for that kind of terrain. Either way, < 35 psi = pinch flats almost all the time for me.

91. Originally Posted by Douwe
Granted it was on a 29er HT, and I don't know if that makes a difference, but I got pinch flats anytime I ran below 35 psi. It is pretty rocky in my area, but I haven't ridden a ton of different areas so it's hard for me to judge if it woukd be considered super rocky or just average for that kind of terrain. Either way, < 35 psi = pinch flats almost all the time for me.
Heavily dependent on terrain, tires, rider weight, aggressiveness etc.

92. Originally Posted by syphen
:/ I run 21-23psi in my 2.35 26er tires (Hans Dampf and Nobby Nic)
40 is way too high, tubed or not.
For you?

Originally Posted by syphen
Heavily dependent on terrain, tires, rider weight, aggressiveness etc.
Hey, I actually agree with that.

So maybe 40 PSI isn't way too high, depending on circumstances?

93. Originally Posted by Zowie
So maybe 40 PSI isn't way too high, depending on circumstances?
Since this is the 26" forum I think that's applicable, way back when I had to run my flimsy 1.9 tires that high to avoid multiple pinches during a ride. 25 on sturdy 2.3's is so much nicer though, can't imagine riding on those hard, skinny tires now.

94. Originally Posted by Zowie
For you?

Hey, I actually agree with that.

So maybe 40 PSI isn't way too high, depending on circumstances?
Sure, I did run ~40psi on a 4 day 350km gravel ride of ATV trails, double track and fireroads. It was an attempt to improve peddling efficiency but I'd always prefer lower pressures. It made the bike feel way twitchy and without grip when stuff got rough.
I live in an area that is on the edge of the Canadian shield. Most of my riding is wooded, rooty with rocky granite whalebacks and such. I've pinch flated tubes around 25-26psi before. But the last couple seasons I've been tubeless and have no issues running lower pressures at all on the same trails. For single track - I'll always take as low PSI as I can, for the grip and handling.

95. Originally Posted by J.B. Weld
Since this is the 26" forum I think that's applicable, way back when I had to run my flimsy 1.9 tires that high to avoid multiple pinches during a ride. 25 on sturdy 2.3's is so much nicer though, can't imagine riding on those hard, skinny tires now.
Well, maybe for you. 2.3 @25 PSI in the back will last me exactly one mistake.
And I like making mistakes.

96. Originally Posted by Zowie
Well, maybe for you. 2.3 @25 PSI in the back will last me exactly one mistake.
And I like making mistakes.
I'm full of mistakes, seems like I often find a way to bash through the crappiest lines possible and never a problem ,but I'm pretty light I guess (#160ish). Like you said it depends on the circumstances.

Anyway I don't have to walk such a fine line with the psi anymore since I dumped the tubes.

97. Originally Posted by mik_git
Yeah, I' lump Suntour into the craptastic basket (its not 1989 anymore when suntour was actually a good brand) as well along with RST and GUB, but thats just me.

option 2 is the best bet, 100 for to 26, then 120 fork on the first bike, less change in geo going from 80mm to 120mm is just bad.

Two LBS stores right next to each other. Good one closed now, generic one said pretty much the same thing as you. Don't upgrade more than 20mm or the frame can crack. That Suntour forks are not great for lasting a long time. Recommended Rockshox 100mm coil for \$229 plus \$30 installation.

98. 26" ftw!!!!

99. The only issues with coil compared to air is weight and less adjustability. You may need to purchase different springs to match your weight, and even then you might not get it as dialed as an air spring. Coil forks have less seals, so they are usually a bit more plush and require less maintenance. If an air fork and coil fork have the same damping and rebound cartridges (or whatever system), there isn't a universal "better". I'd much prefer a coil with a better compression circuit than an air with a more basic circuit. I usually don't mind an extra couple hundred grams if it works better or costs significantly less.

100. Like many have posted before, it's paid for and familiar. It does look a little odd when viewed from the side on my xl frame compared to newer bikes with bigger wheels and slacker head angles. I love that look though.

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

101. Originally Posted by mountainbiker24
The only issues with coil compared to air is weight and less adjustability. You may need to purchase different springs to match your weight, and even then you might not get it as dialed as an air spring. Coil forks have less seals, so they are usually a bit more plush and require less maintenance. If an air fork and coil fork have the same damping and rebound cartridges (or whatever system), there isn't a universal "better". I'd much prefer a coil with a better compression circuit than an air with a more basic circuit. I usually don't mind an extra couple hundred grams if it works better or costs significantly less.
I think I need to reiterate what I'm trying to do. I have two bikes, one has a 100mm coil that I'm actually happy with. Again no jumps no boulders, just basic XC stuff. The other has an 80mm coil that, as I've upgraded other stuff on the bike, mechanical disks to hydraulics, thin front tire to thicker front tire, the fork seems increasingly the black sheep in the family of components on the bike. It went from 'one of the problems of a cheap bike' to the main problem. Not that the freewheel-based drivetrain and derailleurs are not annoying to constantly tune, but that's a different issue than simply replacing a fork.

I've learned a lot on this site in the last 4 months, and I appreciate all of the good feedback, but my #1 pet peeve is that there is not a dedicated stand-alone XC webpage on here. Not an XC racing/enduro webpage, but a page where all bikers with 60-100mm (maybe 120mm) forks can talk about stuff like this, and other issues with XC bikes like gearing, what trails their bikes can and cannot handle, etc. And real, technical XC discussion in the beginners corner is very chaotic and contentious, everyone claiming to know more than the other poster. It can be a minefield in there.

The 100mm Suntour coil fork has a bad reputation on here, but is that because it's a horrible fork, period, or it it because it would not do well on all-mountain or downhill stuff? If the person doing the critical review of the 100mm Suntour coil rides 130mm+ forks, then yes, Suntour I guess is inferior for what THEY are doing with their bike. But look at the reviews on Amazon for this fork:

https://www.amazon.com/SR-SUNTOUR-Mo...ork&th=1&psc=1

22 reviews, 4.5 out of 5 stars, lowest rating was 3/5 stars from only 2 of the 22 reviewers. Obviously those 22 reviews didn't come from people on MTBR!!!

However, with some fortuitous digging I found two 100mm AIR (keyword: air) forks for a 26":
SR Suntour Epixon XC MTB Fork 26", Travel 100mm, with Remote Lockout (not include the cable housings), Air Spring, QR 9mm, White OEM Package \$178

Manitou M-THIRTY M30 Mountain Bike Bicycle Cycling Fork 26" Lockout 100mm 9mmQR \$199

(I don't trust RST and GUB products so they don't count for the 100mm 26" air fork search).

Now, back to what I'm trying to do: ride rocky trails on a hardtail, not fast, not too steep, and have a relatively smooth ride doing it. Again, no jumps, no boulders, nothing even more than an 8-inch drop. So, in your opinion(s) do I even need an air fork or can I live with a coil forever? For replacing the 80 mm fork, I would almost for sure go with 100mm just because, but the question is coil or air. I've heard the ride is smoother, I've also heard the ride is firmer! I've never had an air fork on a bike so it's natural to wonder about how it would be different.

Maybe I'm on too many tangents with the reply so to be 100% to the point: will a 100mm (or even 120mm) air fork significantly help smooth out rocky trails or not? If so, then I do both air fork upgrades on both bikes. If not, then I keep the 27.5" 100mm coil stock, and upgrade the 26" to a 100mm coil for only \$70 (same Suntour XCT coil as the 27.5" just a 26" fork). Thanks for your help.

102. the thing is your questions are not comign from the right direction...eg:

"will a 100mm (or even 120mm) air fork significantly help smooth out rocky trails or not?"

No...yes...maybe. it all depends...
If you said, will spending around \$1000 on ANY fork be better... hells yes
Ifyou said, if I spend 50cents on THE EXACT SAME fork, willit be better...yes, for about 5 minutes, then will be the same
If you said, my fork is toast, I NEED TO REPLACE IT with something that will work, then sure buying a sunour or rst or whatever, will be perfectly fine

But... you want to IMPROVE, that the key thing, you arnt wanting similar performance, you are wanting better, measurable better performance. And at the stuff you're looking at, that's not really going to happen. Air or coil isn't really the issue, they both work (how well depends on how much you're willing to spend).
It's more about what the fork IS, than how much travel or whether its air or coil.
As with everything mtb there is the law of diminishing returns, there gets to a point where spending more doesn't get you mcuh better, but sending less dosn't get you as good, and spending way less just gets you junk...you're in the spending way less area

eg this will be so, so, sooooooooooooo much better than a 120mm suntour
https://www.ebay.com/p/RockShox-Reba...r=540493375879

you better off finding new old stock, good forks, than new low end forks.

103. most of my riding right now is commuting as I dont have a working car at the moment and no \$\$ to fix it.....right now I have both of my bikes set up as commuter bikes

my winter commuter is the 97 rockhopper posted earlier in this thead.....
SS,beach cruiser tires( for now, I have a set of knobbies as backup) and its put together with mostly used parts, the manitou pro x cartridge fork seized up... I took it apart and it was done, all rusted inside from the time it spent outside before I got it in very rough condition... recently put a rigid fork on it, gave it a rustolem key lime paint job.... just need to put fenders on it

my main bike is a 2013 GT aggressor I got for free from an older relative after he got knocked of the bike by a car, it did need new handlebars a front derailleur cable.... tires are 26x2.3 Kenda K-RAD front and rear.... they are rated up to 80 psi, but I run about 60 psi... nice rolling tires for urban use... were put on right before the crash... dont really care for the fork....its the bottom of the line SR Suntour fork.... what some would call a pogo stick..lol....

104. My question is, would they be going back to 26'' if it was still offered?

105. Originally Posted by Mr Pig
My question is, would they be going back to 26'' if it was still offered?

Not that I know what a pro is thinking, but I liken this to (modified) auto racing or stock auto track racing. Those racing groups have to stay in certain groups with certain parameters. Technology has of course advanced a lot in sports/race cars as well, and many pro drivers complain that the sports/race car is sterile now, no manual transmission anymore at that level, a bunch of electronic nannies, traction control, stability control, etc. The pros love to turn those off so they have more control over the car instead of the computer system. Maybe it's the same with 29" vs. 27.5". 29" is technically superior, but the soul and fun of biking may be lost a bit. Just like a smaller sports car may be just as fun or more than a V-12 GT that's larger and weighs 500 lbs more. And the smaller car may be just as fast and more nimble (Lamborghini Huracan V-10 vs. Aventador V-12). But for 26", maybe that's pushing it. A Mazda Miata may be fun to drive but it's not going to win races against a Porsche Cayman or BMW M2, those (relatively) larger sports cars would be the equivalent of a 27.5" bike: large enough to have 18-20 inch wheels and thus handle almost anything, but small enough to still be nimble. Dark horse: Audi TTRS. Those are the three sports cars I'd like no matter how much money I ever make or 'get' in the future. I don't need a Ferrari (or a 29" bike). Just a fun bike and a fun sports car.

106. Can the old saying in the automotive world, "It's more fun to drive a slow car fast, than a fast car slow." be applied here?

If, and it's a big if, one means that a 26" mountain bike wheel is slower, the yeah, maybe.

I'm saying, it depends.

"“Driving a slow car fast is more fun than driving a fast car slow,”; it’s a tired old saw, but not without merit. I’d change it to, “driving a fun car fast is more fun than driving a fast car fast.” Whether or not a car is enjoyable to drive is almost entirely divorced from its performance prowess."

The point being made is subjective. Fine. The realm of personal preference is not imaginary. It is not exactly scientifically quantifiable, yet it can be analyzed methodically if we liked. We could map it out using a topological analog to parsing a linguistic form.

Instead we usually resort to poetry and swear words.

26" is a form with limitations, similar to something like engine displacement. 26" is now almost like a vintage class, or classical form.

It's also like a musical form in terms of composition and performance.

What kind of music do you want to make?

As for myself, sometimes I want to just sit down at the piano and play; other times I want to get all electronic.

Most times, the 26" SS bikes are the ones I choose to ride on the local trails.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

107. Originally Posted by richj8990
large enough to have 18-20 inch wheels and thus handle almost anything, but small enough to still be nimble.
What does that even mean?

108. Originally Posted by mik_git
What does that even mean?
This is REALLY getting off topic, maybe it needs to go over to off-camber.

As in the mountain bike world, there is also some controversy in the automobile world about tire sizes. There are some interesting parallels. Small auto tire size (actually wheel size), say 15 inches = quick acceleration, slightly better gas mileage. Larger, wider tires with low-profile rims = better handling, higher top speed. However, there is a limit to this. Car and Driver did a study with a Volkswagen Golf, putting 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 inch tires on the car. They then hooked up computer equipment and analyzed handling. The stock wheel size I think was 17 inches. The optimal handling was at 18 inches, not 19 or 20 inches. Now, to compare this to mountain bikes, we are talking about a car that weighs over 3000 lbs, so I'm not sure you can extrapolate over and say that the sweet spot in handling is a 27.5" tire. The analogy I'm trying to make is that a Mazda Miata would be the equivalent of a 26" bike, Porsche, BMW, Audi and other average-sized sports cars the equivalent of a 27.5" bike, and Ferrari, Lamborghini, Bugatti, etc. the equivalent of a 29" bike. Those larger sports cars put up huge numbers but are probably not as fun to drive as the smaller sports cars. Similarly, see Pig's link about XC racers feeling that a 27.5" tire is more fun than a 29" tire. But not a 26" (at least in that story). Moral of the story: more is not always better. There is a sweet spot for "frame" size and tire size in the auto world just as in the mountain bike world.

109. Originally Posted by richj8990
This is REALLY getting off topic, maybe it needs to go over to off-camber.

As in the mountain bike world, there is also some controversy in the automobile world about tire sizes. There are some interesting parallels. Small auto tire size (actually wheel size), say 15 inches = quick acceleration, slightly better gas mileage. Larger, wider tires with low-profile rims = better handling, higher top speed. However, there is a limit to this. Car and Driver did a study with a Volkswagen Golf, putting 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 inch tires on the car. They then hooked up computer equipment and analyzed handling. The stock wheel size I think was 17 inches. The optimal handling was at 18 inches, not 19 or 20 inches. Now, to compare this to mountain bikes, we are talking about a car that weighs over 3000 lbs, so I'm not sure you can extrapolate over and say that the sweet spot in handling is a 27.5" tire. The analogy I'm trying to make is that a Mazda Miata would be the equivalent of a 26" bike, Porsche, BMW, Audi and other average-sized sports cars the equivalent of a 27.5" bike, and Ferrari, Lamborghini, Bugatti, etc. the equivalent of a 29" bike. Those larger sports cars put up huge numbers but are probably not as fun to drive as the smaller sports cars. Similarly, see Pig's link about XC racers feeling that a 27.5" tire is more fun than a 29" tire. But not a 26" (at least in that story). Moral of the story: more is not always better. There is a sweet spot for "frame" size and tire size in the auto world just as in the mountain bike world.
The car analogy fails to transfer over to mountain bikes well at all.
The issue being that probably 90% of how fast a bike will go and what terrain it can handle, etc etc is determined by the riders skills and fitness. With a car, 90% of performance is determined by who's better at shopping. A lot of people try to use this method to get better/faster at mountain biking ("what can I buy that will make me a better rider"). It doesn't work.

110. I like round wheels

111. Originally Posted by shwinn8
I like round wheels
Because they're faster.

112. yeah, faster then square.. octagon is slightly less rough. oval is like riding a raging bull

113. I have reached the point of no return.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

The car analogy fails to transfer over to mountain bikes well at all.
The issue being that probably 90% of how fast a bike will go and what terrain it can handle, etc etc is determined by the riders skills and fitness. With a car, 90% of performance is determined by who's better at shopping. A lot of people try to use this method to get better/faster at mountain biking ("what can I buy that will make me a better rider"). It doesn't work.
It does and it doesn't. Much of the faster acceleration is taken care of by low gearing on the bikes we're likely to ride.
On a car, well, I knew a guy in HS with GTO. He'd put these small diameter slicks on when he went to the strip. The same law/s of physics apply to gearing no matter what you drive or pedal.
You're 100% correct in that many of us try to get something to ride better and we usually fail.

115. Originally Posted by shwinn8
I like round wheels
Aw, come on. Get them new corkscrew wheels. At least you'll be able to blame them when you crash on that twisty downhill.

The car analogy fails to transfer over to mountain bikes well at all.
The issue being that probably 90% of how fast a bike will go and what terrain it can handle, etc etc is determined by the riders skills and fitness. With a car, 90% of performance is determined by who's better at shopping. A lot of people try to use this method to get better/faster at mountain biking ("what can I buy that will make me a better rider"). It doesn't work.
The original question posted by Pig is if the 26" is going to make a comeback in XC racing. I actually read parts of the article. The gist of the story is that the racers that originally chose a 29" are often going smaller to a 27.5". No mention was made about going back to a 26". They talked as much about the smaller tire being more fun as they did about performance. They preferred a 27.5" tire for subjective reasons, not because it made them faster.

As far as skills and fitness is concerned, I also snicker at the guys who "have to" spend \$2000-5000 on a bike just because everyone else is doing it. However, are you saying that a bike with a 3x7 drivetrain with a 14-28t freewheel, not to mention an 80mm fork and 1.95 inch back tire, (and assume stock cheap mechanical disks) can handle an all-mountain trail just because of a rider's skills and fitness? I'd really like to see that, and see how they end up avoiding running out of low gears and having the rear tire slip and stop on a steep dirt incline. Seriously, if you have any videos of someone successfully riding a cheaper bike on all-mountain trails I'd really like to study how they do it. Because I can't do it on a cheaper bike. XC trails no problem. All-mountain trails = need to get off the cheaper XC bike multiple times. And going off 3 foot boulders or jumps with an 80mm fork, is that skill or is it just dumb?

117. sorry I should have bolded the "and thus handle almost anything" as well that makes no sense.The car analagy is kinda almost, but not really.

here was an article in Autosport many years ago with the head guy at Wiliams Renaut touring car team he was saying the only, only reason they used 18in wheels was so they could run the brakes they run. Havingthe big wheels and low profile tyres gave them headaches in setting up the suspension.
Evo (or it was Performance car back then, same thing though) did a test, took a stock Audi A4 turbo and put bigger wheels on it and comparison tested it and it was junk, because of the extra rotating weight and the suspension wasn't designed for the stiffer sidwalls, it was measurable slower n test course.
Of couse these days most cars are designed around bigger wheels, but it's mostly for looks over function, unless your wheesl wont clearthe brake calipers you don'need huge wheels...a Mclaren F1 will pretty much hose any car you mentioned, yet only runs 17inch wheels. it's not the size of the wheels, its the package it comes in. ANd again the drive does a whole lot in that package.

But its the same with bikes, the wheel size and the drivetrain play a small part in the package.
You'l find that tere are peopel out there that could jump on your bike and ride it down a trail that you couldn't ride aan AM bike down, sure it'll be hard and they won't like, but they can do it,give them a \$5000 bike and then they can do it easily.
Rider skill is one thing, having the best tool for the job is another.

Now heres a vid, from like 1998 I think, and yes quite a few FS bikes, but also quite a ot of HTs and were talking 80mm travel with rim brakes, so not even the luxury of discs for these guys... (especially at the ~20min mark)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqpz9APFhsY

118. also queue the vids of the guy riding a bike park on a wallmart bike or the guy riding whistler on a cross bike...

119. Originally Posted by richj8990
.

, are you saying that a bike with a 3x7 drivetrain with a 14-28t freewheel, not to mention an 80mm fork and 1.95 inch back tire, (and assume stock cheap mechanical disks) can handle an all-mountain trail just because of a rider's skills and fitness?
Yes. Absolutely, undeniably and inarguably yes.
Anyone that has actually spent any time at all riding with talented riders will agree 100%.

As far as easily verified evidence, I would start by presenting all mountain biking that took place prior to the year 2000.

It was the pre digital-era, so I don't have many pics or video, but I've seen incredible riding done on bikes that the internet gear-weenies of today would undoubtedly blame for all their shortcomings.

Someday I'll get around to scanning my old pics.

Yes. Absolutely, undeniably and inarguably yes.
Anyone that has actually spent any time at all riding with talented riders will agree 100%.

As far as easily verified evidence, I would start by presenting all mountain biking that took place prior to the year 2000.

It was the pre digital-era, so I don't have many pics or video, but I've seen incredible riding done on bikes that the internet gear-weenies of today would undoubtedly blame for all their shortcomings.

Someday I'll get around to scanning my old pics.
I would like to back up this statement.

Skill > Technology.

121. Originally Posted by Klurejr
I would like to back up this statement.

Skill > Technology.
Yessir.
Skill and/or the right attitude will get you through almost anything on the trail, shopping skills notwithstanding.

Chances are about 100% that there're a a whole bunch of random kids on brakeless BMX shitboxes, with duct tape for grips, all over the world doing things daily that almost no one on a \$5000 MTB is pulling off. Cuz they're out riding while MTBers are crying about gear ratios, grams and mm's.

I'll just leave this here to answer any possible concerns about needing a certain amount of gears or wheel size or amount of suspension, or even disc brakes, to ride up or down challenging terrain.

Skillz...

Skillz...
But those people are in Europe.
They use the metric system, totally different thing.

Yessir.
Skill and/or the right attitude will get you through almost anything on the trail, shopping skills notwithstanding.

Chances are about 100% that there're a a whole bunch of random kids on brakeless BMX shitboxes, with duct tape for grips, all over the world doing things daily that almost no one on a \$5000 MTB is pulling off. Cuz they're out riding while MTBers are crying about gear ratios, grams and mm's.

I'll just leave this here to answer any possible concerns about needing a certain amount of gears or wheel size or amount of suspension, or even disc brakes, to ride up or down challenging terrain.

Skillz...
I think the above posted Kranked video is a better illustration of what is possible on old tech than the trials video. Not to take anything away from trials, but it is not much like riding a bike forward as their wheels almost never roll. Those guys could possibly even benefit from the square wheels we were just joking about.

But I so love seeing kids rip it on little BMX bikes.

124. Originally Posted by akindofbrian
I think the above posted Kranked video is a better illustration of what is possible on old tech than the trials video. Not to take anything away from trials, but it is not much like riding a bike forward as their wheels almost never roll. Those guys could possibly even benefit from the square wheels we were just joking about..
Definitely not trail riding, but for sure demonstrates the point.
If those guys can do that with no gears or suspension etc then there really isn't any good reason someone should believe it's impossible to ride a run of the mill MTB trail with 20 more gears and a couple inches of suspension. I can also guarantee that any trail that richj is riding has been handles easily countless times by people on rigid SS mtbs.

125. Originally Posted by Zowie
But those people are in Europe.
They use the metric system, totally different thing.
And we are proud of it.
We can ride every day because of it.

126. Originally Posted by Aglo
And we are proud of it.
We can ride every day because of it.
At best, they think someone misspelled 'trails'.

127. Originally Posted by Zowie
At best, they think someone misspelled 'trails'.
This one has both trials and trails! Can we guess the wheel sizes?

Finally a topic shift I can enjoy! I love watching this stuff, never tried it aside from random moves on the mtb. Back in the day on the BMX bike tho...

Definitely not trail riding, but for sure demonstrates the point.
If those guys can do that with no gears or suspension etc then there really isn't any good reason someone should believe it's impossible to ride a run of the mill MTB trail with 20 more gears and a couple inches of suspension. I can also guarantee that any trail that richj is riding has been handles easily countless times by people on rigid SS mtbs.

Oh yeah, I agree with that. And you're totally speaking my language, as I'm on a 12 year old, rigid, 26" singlespeed with canti breaks. Not that I'm claiming I can ride any trail on it. But it is my only bike, so everywhere I ride, it is on that bike

129. Originally Posted by Cornfield
This one has both trials and trails! Can we guess the wheel sizes?

Finally a topic shift I can enjoy! I love watching this stuff, never tried it aside from random moves on the mtb. Back in the day on the BMX bike tho...
Been lucky enough to ride with some good trials riders, both bicycle and moto.
Gives you a whole new perspective on what's possible.

Definitely not trail riding, but for sure demonstrates the point.
If those guys can do that with no gears or suspension etc then there really isn't any good reason someone should believe it's impossible to ride a run of the mill MTB trail with 20 more gears and a couple inches of suspension. I can also guarantee that any trail that richj is riding has been handles easily countless times by people on rigid SS mtbs.

Sweetwater Grand Loop, San Diego County April 26, 2009

Reviewed by: sjordan72 , Cross Country Rider

Summary:

"...unfortunately on my singlespeed". As in he had a lot of problems with these trails on a singlespeed. It was not handled easily. Maybe his case is an outlier. I've never seen any singlespeeds out there on this particular set of trails. Experience and bike-wise I'm just a small fry out there, but this is a big boy trail section and singlespeeds are just not going to cut it. I cannot prove that 100%, I can just show you evidence from other MTBR rider quotes about them regretting bringing their singlespeed to the trails I go on several times a week. I'm not bragging, I struggle on some sections out there too. A singlespeed is simply not going up the inclines there.

131. Is this the place?

132. "...unfortunately on my singlespeed" could mean he had lots of troubles, or could mean that it just made it a hard days work, it's not normally a the most fun to ride a new trail, an unknown trail on a bike that makes the hardest work, doesn't mean he couldn't ride it.

But also, here's a tip, since we don't know your riding etc, if you haven't got it already, and have a smartphone, download strava, and use that on your next few rides, it will tell you exactly where you sit in the pecking order of who can ride what.

133. Picked up my carbon Stumpy FSR Evo in 2013 and see no reason to replace it yet when it works perfectly fine. Forced obsolescence is not a reason for me to upgrade to a new bike. It definitely doesn't make my bike any less fun on the trails.

134. I love my 26ers because it lets me make fun of my friends that have 29ers for no reason without being a hypocrite

Are those 29ers? Pfft.

135. okay

136. Originally Posted by tealy
This. 1000 times.
Yup

137. Originally Posted by Jack Burns
Can the old saying in the automotive world, "It's more fun to drive a slow car fast, than a fast car slow." be applied here?

If, and it's a big if, one means that a 26" mountain bike wheel is slower, the yeah, maybe.

I'm saying, it depends.

"“Driving a slow car fast is more fun than driving a fast car slow,”; it’s a tired old saw, but not without merit. I’d change it to, “driving a fun car fast is more fun than driving a fast car fast.” Whether or not a car is enjoyable to drive is almost entirely divorced from its performance prowess."

The Unimportance of Speed - The Truth About Cars

The point being made is subjective. Fine. The realm of personal preference is not imaginary. It is not exactly scientifically quantifiable, yet it can be analyzed methodically if we liked. We could map it out using a topological analog to parsing a linguistic form.

Instead we usually resort to poetry and swear words.

26" is a form with limitations, similar to something like engine displacement. 26" is now almost like a vintage class, or classical form.

It's also like a musical form in terms of composition and performance.

What kind of music do you want to make?

As for myself, sometimes I want to just sit down at the piano and play; other times I want to get all electronic.

Most times, the 26" SS bikes are the ones I choose to ride on the local trails.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
I like this.

138. Just realized that I posted here but didn't answer the question.
09 giant trance
1 - plush ride
2 - great geometry--not to long, not too short, but just right for me
3 - bought barely used for incredibly cheap price.

139. Originally Posted by tealy
Chances are about 100% that there're a a whole bunch of random kids on brakeless BMX shitboxes, with duct tape for grips, all over the world doing things daily that almost no one on a \$5000 MTB is pulling off. Cuz they're out riding while MTBers are crying about gear ratios, grams and mm's.]This. 1000 times.
If you had a 14-28t freewheel you'd be crying too, don't deny it.

140. Originally Posted by richj8990
If you had a 14-28t freewheel you'd be crying too, don't deny it.
I mainly ran 28t and 30t from my 20's until my early 40's when I started feeling it in my knees. Bikepacked with them even. And I'm by no means any sort of super-strong rider compared to countless others.

Not everybody's a baby.

Yessir.
Skill and/or the right attitude will get you through almost anything on the trail, shopping skills notwithstanding.

Chances are about 100% that there're a a whole bunch of random kids on brakeless BMX shitboxes, with duct tape for grips, all over the world doing things daily that almost no one on a \$5000 MTB is pulling off. Cuz they're out riding while MTBers are crying about gear ratios, grams and mm's.
I love it....and would like to think I am , in a small way, one of those BMXers.

Been reading the whole thread and it just keeps reinforcing my belief that as long as it rolls, and you know how to "Speak" to it, the specs of the bike don't matter.

I have an ancient 26er, and a Surly Krampus, and have just as much fun riding both on the same trails. The only difference for me is the clearance the bigger wheels give me on techy terrain, but I also rode the same terrain on 26" wheels for years, and even on 20" BMX wheels for years before that.

There has NEVER been a time that I was on any bike going "I would be having more fun if I had XXX on this bike"

20, 26....neither ever "died" for me. 29 was just added on.

142. Originally Posted by richj8990
If you had a 14-28t freewheel you'd be crying too, don't deny it.

28t is plenty for those tiny wheels, we all used to run that.

143. Originally Posted by richj8990
If you had a 14-28t freewheel you'd be crying too, don't deny it.
How do you think we all rode around 25-30 years ago? Sure more is better and the stuff we have now works way better than old thumbshifters and stuff, but it didn't stop us from riding up stuff. Heck there's stuff I used to ride up (or down) in monster gears that I can't ride up now with silly tiny gears...its this thing called fitness.

144. Originally Posted by mik_git
How do you think we all rode around 25-30 years ago? Sure more is better and the stuff we have now works way better than old thumbshifters and stuff, but it didn't stop us from riding up stuff. Heck there's stuff I used to ride up (or down) in monster gears that I can't ride up now with silly tiny gears...its this thing called fitness.

when i was young, I never remember worrying about what would happen if I DIDN'T, or COULDN'T get up a hill/clear a jump/round a turn etc...

145. Originally Posted by sXeXBMXer
I love it....and would like to think I am , in a small way, one of those BMXers.

Been reading the whole thread and it just keeps reinforcing my belief that as long as it rolls, and you know how to "Speak" to it, the specs of the bike don't matter.

I have an ancient 26er, and a Surly Krampus, and have just as much fun riding both on the same trails. The only difference for me is the clearance the bigger wheels give me on techy terrain, but I also rode the same terrain on 26" wheels for years, and even on 20" BMX wheels for years before that.

There has NEVER been a time that I was on any bike going "I would be having more fun if I had XXX on this bike"

20, 26....neither ever "died" for me. 29 was just added on.
There has been one thing that actually made riding a bike noticeably less fun for me. I had a 29er with chainstays that were just too long for my taste. Seriously, I would be thinking during rides that I would be having more fun with shorter chainstays. I know that some people will think I'm joking, but that one thing absolutely ruined an otherwise good bike.

146. yep that too... I don't have that any more thats for sure.

147. I remember when cars were actually fun to drive. The suspension was stiff and communicative enough that you could feel exactly how much grip you had and what your tyres were doing. When manufacturers describe today's cars as 'sporty', I swear I do not know what they are taking about.

Most drivers want comfort over handling and manufactures want to sell their cars to the highest number of people. So we have dull cars.

I think bikes might be the same. Many bike innovations, like larger wheels, dull the experience and make life easier. They let the typical bike buyer, the middle-aged magazine addict, ride trails that would be too difficult for him otherwise. He can feel like a hero, riding his sedan around on tame trails, while these dull bikes mean that the only way more competent riders can drag a thrill out of them is by going ever faster and bigger.

So technically, the bikes are better in that they can deal with harsher terrain more easily, but something of the spirit is slipping away. A Ferrari F40 will set you back one-and-a-half million today, and not because it's a comfortable car.

148. Originally Posted by Mr Pig
I remember when cars were actually fun to drive. The suspension was stiff and communicative enough that you could feel exactly how much grip you had and what your tyres were doing. When manufacturers describe today's cars as 'sporty', I swear I do not know what they are taking about.

Most drivers want comfort over handling and manufactures want to sell their cars to the highest number of people. So we have dull cars.

I think bikes might be the same. Many bike innovations, like larger wheels, dull the experience and make life easier. They let the typical bike buyer, the middle-aged magazine addict, ride trails that would be too difficult for him otherwise. He can feel like a hero, riding his sedan around on tame trails, while these dull bikes mean that the only way more competent riders can drag a thrill out of them is by going ever faster and bigger.

So technically, the bikes are better in that they can deal with harsher terrain more easily, but something of the spirit is slipping away. A Ferrari F40 will set you back one-and-a-half million today, and not because it's a comfortable car.

Good thoughts!

My specialized HT rockhopper A1 Comp is the F40 of MTN bikes! ha ha! It's fast, light, handles like a dream and is intoxicating to ride! just like the F40. Compared to the full suspension 29ers of today which are like a new automatic corvette, yep their fast, BUUUUTTTTTT, they are soul'less!

149. Originally Posted by Mr Pig
I remember when cars were actually fun to drive. The suspension was stiff and communicative enough that you could feel exactly how much grip you had and what your tyres were doing. When manufacturers describe today's cars as 'sporty', I swear I do not know what they are taking about.

Most drivers want comfort over handling and manufactures want to sell their cars to the highest number of people. So we have dull cars.

I think bikes might be the same. Many bike innovations, like larger wheels, dull the experience and make life easier. They let the typical bike buyer, the middle-aged magazine addict, ride trails that would be too difficult for him otherwise. He can feel like a hero, riding his sedan around on tame trails, while these dull bikes mean that the only way more competent riders can drag a thrill out of them is by going ever faster and bigger.

So technically, the bikes are better in that they can deal with harsher terrain more easily, but something of the spirit is slipping away. A Ferrari F40 will set you back one-and-a-half million today, and not because it's a comfortable car.
yeah actually thats a pretty good description... my FS bike, 120mm suspension is pretty comfy and cruisy. I'll admit with my current riding ability (fitness and skills, or more confidence in doing sketchy shit)I don't come close to the bikes abilities...but my 100mm aluminium HT, so far there's nothing I can't do on the FS bike I dont do on the HT and a few things I've done that I still struggle with o the FS bike, and I'm still faster pretty much everywhere and it's SO much more fun all the time.

It's like I used to have an old RX7, great car, fun to drive, not the fasted thing around, but every time I got in it, I was excited, even the commute to work. These days I have an SUV, good car, fits bikes better than the RX7, 4litre turbo engine, 4wd, soaks up the miles easily in comfort, even does the twisties faster than the RX7...but its not "fun" to drive, it just goes places.

151. Seen the word Ferrari and had to go find this article link. Couldn't stop laughing at the way this guy talks about some cars and experiences. Highly entertaining to me.

Couldn't stop laughing at the way this guy talks about some cars and experiences. Highly entertaining to me.

153. Originally Posted by Steve Adams
It was an '82, started with a stock 12A, then got the ever so mildest of ported 12A's, loved that car, sold it to my flatmate. A bunch of my mates are rotor heads. If I had a job, I'd probably have an FD.
Replaced it with a Subaru Liberty RS (OZ special edition of the Legacy RS),my flatmate replaced it with an OZ spec R32 GTR.

154. Originally Posted by bachman1961

Couldn't stop laughing at the way this guy talks about some cars and experiences. Highly entertaining to me.

LOL thats great... but i'd still like one.

155. Originally Posted by mik_git
It was an '82, started with a stock 12A, then got the ever so mildest of ported 12A's, loved that car, sold it to my flatmate. A bunch of my mates are rotor heads. If I had a job, I'd probably have an FD.
Replaced it with a Subaru Liberty RS (OZ special edition of the Legacy RS),my flatmate replaced it with an OZ spec R32 GTR.
Ooooo R32 GTR...now were talking. My RX rusted to death! too bad

156. Nostalgia improves the quality of everything.

157. I bet those new 1.3 million dollar Ferraris are no fun to drive at all.

158. Originally Posted by Steve Adams
Ooooo R32 GTR...now were talking. My RX rusted to death! too bad
Yeah, great car, they made 100 of them for the local market (only place outside of Japan) so they could race them here (where they also got the Godzilla nickname). He kept it in may garage for a year while he was away, so I got to take it for a spin every now an then to "keep it running". but I one upped him by buying an Audi quattro, (the group B one) haha

159. Ha ha...the R34 review Clarkson did was awesome. My friend has a R33. It's crazy. As for the person saying that new Ferraris are no fun to drive. We are not saying that...just as we are not saying 29rs are not fun to ride....as someone who has driven both newer and older Ferrari's......The old ones are much more involving and needing driver skill to keep on the track. Where as the new stuff the electric nannies keep you there. You can be massively ham fisted with them and still come out looking like a rose....Where as with the old ones, try to drive the same way you will be in the weeds.

160. Originally Posted by Steve Adams
As for the person saying that new Ferraris are no fun to drive. We are not saying that...just as we are not saying 29rs are not fun to ride....as someone who has driven both newer and older Ferrari's......The old ones are much more involving and needing driver skill to keep on the track. Where as the new stuff the electric nannies keep you there. You can be massively ham fisted with them and still come out looking like a rose....Where as with the old ones, try to drive the same way you will be in the weeds.

So in other words the new ones are better.

161. Originally Posted by J.B. Weld
So in other words the new ones are better.
This is the point, it depends on how you define better. Faster, safer, more comfortable, easier to drive and more reliable so yes, they are better.

But in terms of the sheer thrill of driving and feeling connected to the car and the road?

162. Originally Posted by Mr Pig
But in terms of the sheer thrill of driving and feeling connected to the car and the road?
Subjective.

163. Originally Posted by J.B. Weld
Subjective.
That's the whole point.

164. No...actually if you can ACTUALLY DRIVE, the F40 will hand ass to anything besides the Enzo. but you have to know how to drive. SOOOOOOOO just like in mountain bikes, the ole light weight 26'rs will keep up and beat 29rs etc if the person knows how to ride....simple. Enzo only wins because of sheer HP.

165. F40 vs. LaFerrari?

166. Originally Posted by J.B. Weld
I bet those new 1.3 million dollar Ferraris are no fun to drive at all.
Just how much more fun is a Ferrari than a Honda Civic on city streets and highways with a speed limit of 65? Actually, I bet it would be even more fun in a car that makes city streets and 65 mph speed limits feel like a race track.

167. Originally Posted by mountainbiker24
Just how much more fun is a Ferrari than a Honda Civic on city streets and highways with a speed limit of 65? Actually, I bet it would be even more fun in a car that makes city streets and 65 mph speed limits feel like a race track.
It's not....They are terrible for daily drivers.

168. After considering all of this I think I'm going to try 13" wheels on my mtb because that's what the vintage Civic's had and I've heard from prominent sources that they're more fun to drive on city streets than a Ferrari F40.

169. Originally Posted by J.B. Weld
After considering all of this I think I'm going to try 13" wheels on my mtb because that's what the vintage Civic's had and I've heard from prominent sources that they're more fun to drive on city streets than a Ferrari F40.

170. Last time I checked, it was about having fun.

171. What in the holy crap happened to my beautiful thread!?

172. Originally Posted by Steve Adams
No...actually if you can ACTUALLY DRIVE, the F40 will hand ass to anything besides the Enzo. but you have to know how to drive. SOOOOOOOO just like in mountain bikes, the ole light weight 26'rs will keep up and beat 29rs etc if the person knows how to ride....simple. Enzo only wins because of sheer HP.
I think a boost controller would help the F40's lag, and if you found a driver that really knows how to feather the throttle out of the apex, then yes the F40 may keep up with the Enzo. Most of the people here would crash both cars, and several celebrities have crashed Enzo's, but the F40 sounds even more wicked to drive, kind of like the older 70's and 80's 911 Turbos. BTW I'm experimenting on how to make my 26" bike faster downhill than a 27.5", the problem is that I may end up spending more money on the 26" just to do that, so where does one draw the line in performance vs. money spent?

173. you left it for too long...

174. Originally Posted by richj8990
I think a boost controller would help the F40's lag, and if you found a driver that really knows how to feather the throttle out of the apex, then yes the F40 may keep up with the Enzo. Most of the people here would crash both cars, and several celebrities have crashed Enzo's, but the F40 sounds even more wicked to drive, kind of like the older 70's and 80's 911 Turbos. BTW I'm experimenting on how to make my 26" bike faster downhill than a 27.5", the problem is that I may end up spending more money on the 26" just to do that, so where does one draw the line in performance vs. money spent?

Oh dear... you really don't know how a turbo engine works do you...

175. Most of the cars I've had (okay , some) were fun in some way or 'nother but mainly my take on them was if some part fell off the car, it probably wasn't needed anyways.

I also know those who remove anything from the car that quits working -rather than fix it. With these concepts, it's not uncommon to see an old Jeep CJ or YJ that weighs in at 2200 lbs or an 89 VW Fox Wagon that's 1935 lbs.

I was either too lazy or too cheap to replace a bad battery in the VW so I parked on slight inclines and roll-started it for a long time.

176. Originally Posted by Smithhammer
Last time I checked, it was about having fun.
Said who? For a lot of guys it's about being faster than your mates. Or faster than some guy you don't even know who also has a sad app on his phone.

177. Originally Posted by Mr Pig
Said who? For a lot of guys it's about being faster than your mates. Or faster than some guy you don't even know who also has a sad app on his phone.
Oh, right. Silly me - carry on.....

178. Originally Posted by richj8990
BTW I'm experimenting on how to make my 26" bike faster downhill than a 27.5", the problem is that I may end up spending more money on the 26" just to do that, so where does one draw the line in performance vs. money spent?
Are you familiar with downhill racing?

179. Originally Posted by evasive
Are you familiar with downhill racing?
The guy with the biggest wheels and the most gears always wins.
Proven fact.

The guy with the biggest wheels and the most gears always wins.
Proven fact.

Except for that one time the guy without a chain won.

181. Originally Posted by Zowie
Except for that one time the guy without a chain won.
Once I tried riding without a chain and I didn't win, therefore unpossible.

And don't give me any of that 'skills' mumbo jumbo either.

The guy with the biggest wheels and the most gears always wins.
Proven fact.

You completely missed my point.

183. Originally Posted by evasive
You completely missed my point.
Nope...got it...forgot to "(s)".

184. My riding buddy lent me his 29er carbon Yeti while my 26er wheel was being repaired and after a little over 100 miles on it I was surprised by some things.

Pros
-Rollover - Obvious.
-Speed - Surprised by how easily I could maintain speed
-Stability - Bike had an excellent suspension though compared to my single pivot

Cons
-A handful in tight corners - I was surprised by how bad this was
-Slow to accelerate - This is especially frustrating during climbing or rhythm sections
-Feels "dead" due to slow reaction to input.

Overall I liked it but my 26er just feels more fun. Overall times are similar, I am faster or slower in certain sections of trail depending on the bike. When I finally got my 26er back, that first ride reminded me of why I love it.

Once I tried riding without a chain and I didn't win, therefore unpossible.

And don't give me any of that 'skills' mumbo jumbo either.
Don't worry, neither skills nor knowledge are transferable via the interwebs.

186. Originally Posted by Zowie
Don't worry, neither skills nor knowledge are transferable via the interwebs.
Obviously not.

187. Originally Posted by J.B. Weld
After considering all of this I think I'm going to try 13" wheels on my mtb because that's what the vintage Civic's had and I've heard from prominent sources that they're more fun to drive on city streets than a Ferrari F40.
I don't think you'd notice a difference.

188. Originally Posted by evasive
Are you familiar with downhill racing?
I'm not familiar with downhill racing. I got all of the psychotic stuff out of my system when I was younger.

189. Originally Posted by mik_git
Oh dear... you really don't know how a turbo engine works do you...
Mik would you mind telling us all how a boost controller works? And BTW do you own a turbo engine?

190. Originally Posted by richj8990
Mik would you mind telling us all how a boost controller works? And BTW do you own a turbo engine?
yeah I do own a turbo engine...(and have had a few before, with and without boost controllers, used bleed valve ones a few times, ugh but an apexi avc-r being what I used the most.).

A boost controller has nothing to do with lag, lag is a function of the turbo specifications and to some extent the engine flow. All a boost controller does is tell the wastegate when to open and close, you put one in when you want to bypass, or replace the original engine management boost control,to change boost levels and/or have finer control over boost management through the rev range.
Lag is the time it takes to go from negative manfold pressure to full boost pressure, importantly at a point in the rev range where full boost pressure can be achieved. The factors being how much flow out the exhaust and how fast the turbo can spin up, so inertia and efficiency. Looking and boost curve charts for individual turbos can give you that info.
A boost controller just specifies what boost pressure to achieve, it doesn't care about lag and can't do anything about it. It could have some by products that will improve lag by a tiny amount, like better control over the wastegate preventing creep, but thats like saying I bought a dropper post becasue it lets me get the bike in and out of the car easier. Or you cud set the boost so low that it has almost no lag, but well...

But many boost controllers are japanese and work well with japanese/modern cars,F40 is old tech and while advanced at the time,is oddball for nowdays, it has it own 2 stage boost control with low rpm/boost bleed and high rpm/boost venting to bypass the wasetgate till max boost is achived..or something like that, not real sure how it works (probably learned something from the deltaS4 twin charge engine) and your typical afftermarket boost controller would just screw things up completely

191. But i think we might have gotten slightly off topic here...

192. Originally Posted by mik_git
But i think we might have gotten slightly off topic here...
"This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend.
Some people started reading it not knowing what it was and now they are stuck reading it forever just because, this is the thread that never ends, yes it goes.........."

I love this thread, have been reading it daily for weeks... Every time I check in it's completely different!

Don't let it stop now!

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

193. Originally Posted by chelboed
What in the holy crap happened to my beautiful thread!?

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

194. Originally Posted by TheJesusfreak

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
Hah Hah !!

I love anything car talky.

Some will say (like me) they still have some 26r's and others will wonder or ask what the 26 is / was.

195. Originally Posted by mik_git
yeah I do own a turbo engine...(and have had a few before, with and without boost controllers, used bleed valve ones a few times, ugh but an apexi avc-r being what I used the most.).

A boost controller has nothing to do with lag, lag is a function of the turbo specifications and to some extent the engine flow. All a boost controller does is tell the wastegate when to open and close, you put one in when you want to bypass, or replace the original engine management boost control,to change boost levels and/or have finer control over boost management through the rev range.
Lag is the time it takes to go from negative manfold pressure to full boost pressure, importantly at a point in the rev range where full boost pressure can be achieved. The factors being how much flow out the exhaust and how fast the turbo can spin up, so inertia and efficiency. Looking and boost curve charts for individual turbos can give you that info.
A boost controller just specifies what boost pressure to achieve, it doesn't care about lag and can't do anything about it. It could have some by products that will improve lag by a tiny amount, like better control over the wastegate preventing creep, but thats like saying I bought a dropper post becasue it lets me get the bike in and out of the car easier. Or you cud set the boost so low that it has almost no lag, but well...

But many boost controllers are japanese and work well with japanese/modern cars,F40 is old tech and while advanced at the time,is oddball for nowdays, it has it own 2 stage boost control with low rpm/boost bleed and high rpm/boost venting to bypass the wasetgate till max boost is achived..or something like that, not real sure how it works (probably learned something from the deltaS4 twin charge engine) and your typical afftermarket boost controller would just screw things up completely
Dude, you're talking to a guy that can't get his head around bicycle gearing.
I'm not sure you're going to have a lot of success here.

196. Originally Posted by richj8990
I'm not familiar with downhill racing. I got all of the psychotic stuff out of my system when I was younger.
Well, it exists, and factory teams spend significant amounts of time and energy experimenting and testing equipment.

197. Originally Posted by evasive
Well, it exists, and factory teams spend significant amounts of time and energy experimenting and testing equipment.

Well, you know the shows on TV?

I don't watch TV.

Yeah, but, you are aware that there's an invention called television, and on this invention they show shows, right?

Well, you know the shows on TV?

I don't watch TV.

Yeah, but, you are aware that there's an invention called television, and on this invention they show shows, right?

*sigh* You're continuing to miss the point.

199. Originally Posted by evasive
*sigh* You're continuing to miss the point.
No, what's happening is you're missing the joke.

Page 2 of 4 First 1234 Last

#### Posting Permissions

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