# What's up with these silly 29" and 27.5" wheels.....???



## Highway Star (Apr 22, 2014)

I stopped into a bike shop this afternoon, and it looks like pretty much all the really expensive nice bikes (like over $500) now take 27.5" and 29" wheels?  That's CRAZY!!!!  They told me 29" wheels came from road/hybird bikes and 27.5" came from wheelchairs..........I've never heard of something so absurd! 

Unless it's got a 26" wheel, it's not a mountain bike!!!!  

Real mountain bike:



Abomination:


----------



## marcski (Apr 22, 2014)

It's called technological innovation.  You can't buy skinny skis at ski shops anymore either.


----------



## WoodCore (Apr 22, 2014)

Wanna do a bike off??? My long travel 29er vs your jankie whip w/26" hoops??


----------



## Highway Star (Apr 22, 2014)

WoodCore said:


> Wanna do a bike off??? My long travel 29er vs your jankie whip w/26" hoops??



You can't be serious, there's no way your hybrid bike is any good off road compared to a real mountain bike!


----------



## bvibert (Apr 22, 2014)

Real men ride 24" wheeled mountain bikes.


----------



## Highway Star (Apr 22, 2014)

bvibert said:


> Real men ride 24" wheeled mountain bikes.



24" wheels are for kids bikes, even I know that.


----------



## bvibert (Apr 23, 2014)

Keep telling yourself that. 

It's okay if you can't handle the 24er, a lot of guys can't.


----------



## Highway Star (Apr 23, 2014)

Here's the google image search for 24" mountain bike:

https://www.google.com/search?q=24"...fTsAS_moGACA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg&biw=1344&bih=758

Looks like kids bikes to me....


----------



## bvibert (Apr 23, 2014)

You're doing it wrong.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2014)

I'm interested in trying one. I'm so far overdue for a new bike and I've heard about the ups and downs of larger wheel size. 

I haven't ridden both though so I can't really comment on what the differences mean to me and the type of riding I Do (mostly, cross country, but I do like blasting downhill)


----------



## Highway Star (Apr 23, 2014)

marcski said:


> It's called technological innovation.  You can't buy skinny skis at ski shops anymore either.



Sorry, needed to come back to this. This is quite possibly the dumbest thing anyone has ever said about ski equipment, ever.  "Skinny skis" are still the only choice for racing.


----------



## Savemeasammy (Apr 23, 2014)

^mine are 65 under foot.  I just bought them last year 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Puck it (Apr 23, 2014)

Savemeasammy said:


> ^mine are 65 under foot. I just bought them last year
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




And that is why you would suck in a ski off!!!


----------



## Savemeasammy (Apr 23, 2014)

Fightin' words?! 

It depends on the format I guess...  Your downhill style ski-off, yes, I would be toast.  But that's not what they are for...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Wyatte74 (Apr 23, 2014)

31.5" are the wave of the future!
Rolls over anything and everything you put in there way including rocks/logs/bricks/dirt/branches/tree stumps/road kill/scat/other riders/26" wheels...Do it!


----------



## marcski (Apr 24, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Sorry, needed to come back to this. This is quite possibly the dumbest thing anyone has ever said about ski equipment, ever.  "Skinny skis" are still the only choice for racing.



I'll keep that in mind next time I am on an FIS course since you know I spend hours bashing gates.  The only reason skinny skis are "the only choice for racing" is due to the FIS rule changes because they wanted racers to go SLOWER and reduce the rate of injury because the "shaped" skis were allowing them to ski faster with less effort.  You obviously don't recall the backlash from almost every racer when the FIS went back to older ski lengths and shape:  

http://skiracing.com/stories/head-boss-slams-fis-ski-change/

http://www.skinet.com/ski/article/us-ski-team-responds-fis-changes

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/s...ject-to-equipment-mandate.html?pagewanted=all


----------



## Highway Star (Apr 24, 2014)

marcski said:


> I'll keep that in mind next time I am on an FIS course since you know I spend hours bashing gates.  The only reason skinny skis are "the only choice for racing" is due to the FIS rule changes because they wanted racers to go SLOWER and reduce the rate of injury because the "shaped" skis were allowing them to ski faster with less effort.  You obviously don't recall the backlash from almost every racer when the FIS went back to older ski lengths and shape:
> 
> http://skiracing.com/stories/head-boss-slams-fis-ski-change/
> 
> ...



Actually, up until recently, there was no max waist width restriction on ski race skis, only minimum width.  They changed it to SL >63mm, GS, SG, DH < 65mm.  So you could totally run 80mm waist carvers for WC SL.


----------



## Wyatte74 (Apr 24, 2014)

get a room you two


----------



## snoseek (Apr 24, 2014)

Trance x 29 coming from a Slayer has made me a better and faster rider, no doubt. I miss 26 inch wheels sometimes on certain stuff, especially slickrock type stuff in the desert but most of the time I want big tires. 27.5 seems like a good compromise.


----------



## MR. evil (Apr 26, 2014)

The different wheel is we bennifit different types of riders. 26" and 27.5" favor rider who ride more aggressive, like drops and getting air hence need a more nimble flick-able bike. 29" wheels favor cross country racers and your average trail rider. Several years ago I demo'd several 29rs and didn't like the bigger wheels for aggressive riding. Drops and log rides scared the crap out of me on the bigger wheel bikes. Now that I am starting to mellow out and enjoy trail riding I will probably be getting a 29er for my next new bike. But that will be some time in the future. 

In a couple of years 26" bike will be dead except for on the cheap walmart / department store bike. Giant has already announced there plan to phase out 26" wheels in favor of 27.5" wheels.


----------



## C-Rex (Apr 28, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> I stopped into a bike shop this afternoon, and it looks like pretty much all the really expensive nice bikes (like over $500) now take 27.5" and 29" wheels? That's CRAZY!!!! They told me 29" wheels came from road/hybird bikes and 27.5" came from wheelchairs..........I've never heard of something so absurd!
> 
> Unless it's got a 26" wheel, it's not a mountain bike!!!!




Yeah, I'd totally rather ride that sweet Sportek than that carbon Scott...

Dude, where have you been?  This argument happened like 5 years ago.  29ers are here to stay and 27.5's will probably end up replacing 26" wheels in a few years.  The advantages are proven and the drawbacks are well worth the efficiency and reduction in rolling resistance.


----------



## bvibert (Apr 28, 2014)

C-Rex said:


> the drawbacks are well worth the efficiency and reduction in rolling resistance.



Not for everyone.

I've demoed a few 29ers and found very little advantage for the way I ride.


----------



## C-Rex (Apr 28, 2014)

bvibert said:


> Not for everyone.
> 
> I've demoed a few 29ers and found very little advantage for the way I ride.



I feel the same way, mostly. I like trials-y type riding, being more nimble, but some of the 650b's I've tried are really coming along in that respect. I don't see 26" going away but I think the standard will shift to 27.5.


----------



## Highway Star (Apr 28, 2014)

So, I did some reading.....you guys are telling me that you can actually tell a difference of 1" diameter between 26" and 27.5" (actually 27")...?  Really?  And that's enough of a reason to spend hundreds of dollar on a new bike.......?


----------



## WoodCore (Apr 28, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> So, I did some reading.....you guys are telling me that you can actually tell a difference of 1" diameter between 26" and 27.5" (actually 27")...?  Really?  And that's enough of a reason to spend hundreds of dollar on a new bike.......?




Yes!


----------



## Wyatte74 (Apr 28, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> So, I did some reading.....you guys are telling me that you can actually tell a difference of 1" diameter between 26" and 27.5" (actually 27")...?  Really?  And that's enough of a reason to spend hundreds of dollar on a new bike.......?



do you actually ride a bike?
I can tell the difference between different saddles or front shocks etc etc that are only slightly heavier or lighter or stiffer or more plush or whatever...any little change can make a huge difference on how your ride rides...although no one said anything about buying a new bike for the  sole reason of having a 650b or 29er so...yeah


----------



## skijay (Apr 29, 2014)

I did one season (last summer) on a 29er.  It replaced a 1995 26" mountain bike.  The handling was great but It felt a little sloppy on the flowy singletrack. It could've been the bike and or me.  I did like it but found myself selling it on craigslist in February and purchasing a 26" MTB again.  

For me I think it's the angle of the head tube that makes the difference.  For me a 29er with a 70 degree angle isn't as much fun as a 26" with a 67 degree angle on the flowy stuff, at least that's my opinion. 

Off Topic:  I sold my one season old 29er on craigslist in one hour and the transaction was completed the following day.  Never expected that to happen that fast especially in February.


----------



## snoseek (Apr 29, 2014)

I thought about it while riding today and I may sell my 29er later this summer and buy a 650 only because there's just too many times on tight twisty singletrack that the big wheels kinda suck


----------



## bvibert (Apr 29, 2014)

Tight twisty single track is my favorite. There's no way I want to sacrifice in that terrain just to roll over some stuff a little easier...


----------



## WoodCore (Apr 30, 2014)

Never really noticed that much loss of mobility on a 29er vs a 26 inch wheel.


----------



## BackLoafRiver (Apr 30, 2014)

bvibert said:


> Tight twisty single track is my favorite. There's no way I want to sacrifice in that terrain just to roll over some stuff a little easier...



I found this to be the biggest issue while on my 29er a few years ago.  I noticed a huge difference when coming down to 26" wheels.  Of course, I've seen guys maneuver around some nasty tight and twisty stuff on big wheels that absolutely put me to shame.

I wonder what the handling difference (if any) would be on a 27.5? Is the biggest advantage going to be ease in which you roll over?


----------



## C-Rex (Apr 30, 2014)

Moving up to a 29" wheel doesn't mean you can't ride tight, twisty stuff, you just have to adapt your riding style.  My friends on 29ers ride the same trails as I do and once they got used to the bigger wheel and longer wheelbase, they were fine.  In fact, they were noticably faster since the little rock gardens that would slow me down (especially on climbs) would be much easier for them.  In New England, with our rocky, rooty, trails, the big wheels make a huge difference.  Somewhere with smoother, more buffed out terrain, like the Pacific Northwest the difference may not be as noticiable.  You also feel the difference more on longer rides. After 10, 15, 20 miles the change in turning radius takes a far back seat to the low rolling resistance. Being able to pedal over rough stuff easily when you are super tired is well worth the extra effort in tight corners.

I am one of the last in my group to come around to the big wheels.  When they first came around, I thought they were straight-up stupid.  Even when I rode one and realized how smooth they roll, I wasn't convinced it was for me since I'm pretty short and most of those bikes have taller standover heights.  However, as the years tick by, manufacturers are continuously developing the designs of these bikes and they have found ways to absorb a lot of the negatives that were at first big drawbacks.  I'm still not convinced that a 29er is for me, but a 27.5 is a nice compromise that I am banking on really enjoying.  I see a Pivot Mach 6 in my future...


----------



## Wyatte74 (Apr 30, 2014)

God I love Bike porn! ^^
Wish I could afford a new bike...I still can't believe my bike is 8 years old now!
Still rides great but all the new tech and even the aesthetics of some them make me wanna max out my card and just do it! Bah! Sorry a bit off topic so 27.5 seems good


----------



## bvibert (May 1, 2014)

Maybe I'm just a hack, but I noticed very little difference rolling over stuff on the 3 29ers I've demoed.  I rode them on the same bumpy terrain that I ride all the time on my 26er.


----------



## bvibert (May 1, 2014)

WoodCore said:


> Never really noticed that much loss of mobility on a 29er vs a 26 inch wheel.



Maybe not because of the big wheels directly, but I can recall several occasions where I made it through tight sections that had you hitting the extra wide bars you have on there to control that over-sized front wheel. 

Of course most of our trails have been 29er-ified to eliminate such sections, so the point may no longer be valid...


----------



## Highway Star (May 2, 2014)

C-Rex said:


> Moving up to a 29" wheel doesn't mean you can't ride tight, twisty stuff, you just have to adapt your riding style.  My friends on 29ers ride the same trails as I do and once they got used to the bigger wheel and longer wheelbase, they were fine.  In fact, they were noticably faster since the little rock gardens that would slow me down (especially on climbs) would be much easier for them.  In New England, with our rocky, rooty, trails, the big wheels make a huge difference.  Somewhere with smoother, more buffed out terrain, like the Pacific Northwest the difference may not be as noticiable.  You also feel the difference more on longer rides. After 10, 15, 20 miles the change in turning radius takes a far back seat to the low rolling resistance. Being able to pedal over rough stuff easily when you are super tired is well worth the extra effort in tight corners.
> 
> I am one of the last in my group to come around to the big wheels.  When they first came around, I thought they were straight-up stupid.  Even when I rode one and realized how smooth they roll, I wasn't convinced it was for me since I'm pretty short and most of those bikes have taller standover heights.  However, as the years tick by, manufacturers are continuously developing the designs of these bikes and they have found ways to absorb a lot of the negatives that were at first big drawbacks.  I'm still not convinced that a 29er is for me, but a 27.5 is a nice compromise that I am banking on really enjoying.  I see a Pivot Mach 6 in my future...
> 
> View attachment 12488



Is that your bike?  It's a really pretty blue color.


----------



## C-Rex (May 2, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Is that your bike?  It's a really pretty blue color.



No. My friend has a shop and is a pivot dealer. He's built several Mach 6's and done a bunch of test rides. Amazing bike.


----------



## Highway Star (Jun 13, 2014)

C-Rex said:


> No. My friend has a shop and is a pivot dealer. He's built several Mach 6's and done a bunch of test rides. Amazing bike.



Well, is your bike a pretty color?


----------



## dlague (Jun 16, 2014)

*Advantages*


    Larger wheels roll over obstacles more easily. The ability of a wheel to roll over obstacles is proportional to its size. A 29" wheel, which is about 10% larger than a 26" wheel, can roll over 10% larger obstacles. This effect size is largely insignificant. Consequently this benefit has not promoted other industries to consider larger wheel sizes. For instance, off road motor cycles still use 19" wheels.
    The larger diameter wheels have more angular momentum so they lose less speed to obstacles and rough sections but the same effect can be achieved with larger tires.
    29" bikes tend to offer taller riders a more "natural" frame geometry



*Drawbacks*


    Increased wheel size, to keep an identical geometry stack size, results in reduced suspension travel. Each millimeter added to the wheel size needs to be deducted from the travel. Many 29er bike producers try to minimize this effect by allowing stack size to grow. The same approach would allow 26ers to have even more travel.
    Increased wheel weight and rotating mass (the spokes, rim, and tire are all larger) makes the wheels harder to accelerate and harder to brake
    More force needed to change steering angle due to greater mass and longer contact patch.


----------



## RENO (Jun 18, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Well, is your bike a pretty color?


29ers even roll over obstacles like your misshapened head easily!  :razz:


----------



## Highway Star (Apr 22, 2015)

bvibert said:


> Real men ride 24" wheeled mountain bikes.



I found this to be really insightful afterall, so I'm thinking about picking up a 24" bike for more agressive riding.  Danny Macaskill rides 24":

http://www.bikemag.com/gear/inspired-launches-danny-macaskill-signature-trials-bike/

Anybody know where I can pick up a sweet 24" bike?


----------



## Puck it (Apr 22, 2015)

Highway Star said:


> I found this to be really insightful afterall, so I'm thinking about picking up a 24" bike for more agressive riding.  Danny Macaskill rides 24":
> 
> http://www.bikemag.com/gear/inspired-launches-danny-macaskill-signature-trials-bike/
> 
> Anybody know where I can pick up a sweet 24" bike?


Walmart of course you moron!!!!


----------



## bvibert (Apr 24, 2015)

Puck it said:


> Walmart of course you moron!!!!



x2

Walmart has the best bike shop around.


----------



## Highway Star (Apr 24, 2015)

Puck it said:


> Walmart of course you moron!!!!



Bet you I could pull some sick stunts on this!

http://www.walmart.com/ip/24-Mongoose-Logan-Boys-Mountain-Bike-Gray/42248084


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 28, 2015)

Some of you take Highway Star way too seriously ....

But it's turned into a pretty decent discussion.

I'm curious about the fat tire bikes. What sort of advantage/disadvantage do those offer. Are they at all useful for cross country riding?


----------



## Highway Star (Apr 29, 2015)

wa-loaf said:


> Some of you take Highway Star way too seriously ....
> 
> But it's turned into a pretty decent discussion.
> 
> I'm curious about the fat tire bikes. What sort of advantage/disadvantage do those offer. Are they at all useful for cross country riding?



From what I read online, the main advantage of a fat bike is that you no longer have to go around telling people you're slow and have no skills, they'll now know that automaticly.  Not sure why that is, just what I read.


----------



## Puck it (Apr 29, 2015)

Highway Star said:


> From what I read online, the main advantage of a fat bike is that you no longer have to go around telling people you're slow and have no skills, they'll now know that automaticly.  Not sure why that is, just what I read.



So you just described yourself.


----------



## Highway Star (Apr 29, 2015)

Puck it said:


> So you just described yourself.



Hey. Just because I don't ride a fancy $500+ bike like some of you guys, doesn't mean I'm slow.


----------

