Retrobike
http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/

So is it 26 or 27.5"
http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=382045

Author:  dyna-ti [ Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:22 am ]
Post subject:  So is it 26 or 27.5"

So whats the final verdict after these some years :?

Is 27.5" the new standard, with eventually even the halfords specials becoming that size, or have the riders decided that theres to much truing to be done and the larger diameter does infact make for a weaker wheel, given the abuse it takes.
Or is that lessened by the easier rolling over obstacles, or hasnt it mattered ?

The larger heavier ? plain guage spokes instead of double or triple butted :? Or hasnt it mattered.

Have you found that the weight of your average mtb with the larger wheel makes them difficult to cycle, in that more energy is needed to force those bigger heavier wheels around :? Or isn't is noticeable.

Author:  ishaw [ Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

I really like my 29er, it's not heavy and I haven't noticed it being any harder to get going, but when I do, it's a nice ride.

I don't personally notice that much difference between it and a 26er, though it is a little more cumbersome on tighter lines.

I'm building a 27.5 at the moment to see what difference that makes, but haven't got around to that yet so can't comment. It doesn't feel that much bigger so far, and the wheels aren't that different either so I don't expect a huge amount of difference to be honest.

Author:  66 triumph daytona [ Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Change your bike as soon as you realise you exceed its capabilities.....

Author:  ishaw [ Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

There's no danger of that happening to me any time soon, or is that why I have so many bikes? I must be super capable ;)

Author:  66 triumph daytona [ Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Me too Ian,its bonkers,the power of marketing.My winter bike is a fully rigid Tomac 15 or so years old with a short stem,wide bars and elderly 3x9 xtr,some of my buddies were on the latest state of the art carbon 29er hardtails and the difference was negligible.

Author:  tintin40 [ Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

having compared 29 and 27.5 Then the 27.5 wins for me. Its the one i'd buy and ride if i couldn't buy 26. 29 are just to big for off road rides.

Author:  mechanicalvandal [ Fri Mar 30, 2018 5:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

dyna-ti wrote:
...eventually even the halfords specials becoming that size,


Have you been to Halfords recently?


dyna-ti wrote:
The larger heavier ? plain guage spokes instead of double or triple butted :? Or hasnt it mattered.


There's nothing stopping you using butted spokes to build a 27.5 or 29 inch wheel.

Author:  ultrazenith [ Fri Mar 30, 2018 5:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

The bike industry says the newest wheel size is the definitely bestest ever.

Author:  FluffyChicken [ Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

It's all about both, that is a mix of wheel sizes.
Having them match is so last year.

Author:  brocklanders023 [ Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Same rules apply for the bigger wheels, spend more to get lighter and stronger. I have not tango’d a 27.5 or 29 wheel but I never did a 26 either.

Noticeably more flexi? No, but every other part of my two modern bikes are far more rigid than my last modern 26” so if they are I can’t tell.

Is 27.5 the new norm? Yes.

I converted to 29ers first and my current ‘best’ bike is a 29” full suss with bang up to the minute geometry. Being tall I found 29ers fit me and every 26” bike I now ride seems tiny and weird. I got a modern 27.5 hard tail to compliment it and it does! To me 29 feels about right, 27.5 feels playful, 26 feels like a child’s bike. I notice the difference between all three and am a fan of current geometry trends so 26 has become restricted to retro japes for me.

Others will no doubt disagree. :|

Author:  tintin40 [ Sat Mar 31, 2018 10:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

FluffyChicken wrote:
It's all about both, that is a mix of wheel sizes.
Having them match is so last year.



:lol: :lol:

Author:  tufty [ Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

FluffyChicken wrote:
It's all about both, that is a mix of wheel sizes.
Having them match is so last year.

I'm all over that. My next build will have 26" rims, 29" spokes and 27.5" tyres.

Author:  The History Man [ Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

brocklanders023 wrote:

I converted to 29ers first and my current ‘best’ bike is a 29” full suss with bang up to the minute geometry. Being tall I found 29ers fit me and every 26” bike I now ride seems tiny and weird. To me 29 feels about right, 27.5 feels playful, 26 feels like a child’s bike. I notice the difference between all three and am a fan of current geometry trends so 26 has become restricted to retro japes for me.



Couldn't have put it better myself so i haven't.

Author:  Duxuk [ Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

I've ridden my modern 27.5" over the same bumpy section of climb as my 2004 26", both FS. The 26" rides it far smoother because it has a better design of front suspension. It's not just about the wheel size.

Author:  brocklanders023 [ Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Agreed but since they have been fazing out 26" for 5 years the decent 26" forks are now starting to lag behind the current stuff. My last modern 26" HT had great condition Fox Float forks on that were top kit back in 2007/8. When I compared them to my 2015 Pike forks they were noodly and nervous + no where near as well damped. If I compared them to my old lower standard Rockshox Sektor they'd still be noodly but probably smoother.

Author:  ultrazenith [ Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

What I still don't quite get is this. If wheel size is so important and 29" is faster for XC / XCM stuff, and 26 is awful (hence its death), how is it possible for 650b to be so competitive with 29" that pro racers haven't come to a consensus about what is better/faster, but at the same time 650b is considered way better/faster than 26". The size difference between 650b and 29 is virtually identical to that between 650b and 26, so I'd be very surprised if the improvement from 26 to 650b was much greater than the improvement from 650b to 29.

Some numbers:
26" x 2.1" : 666 mm (26.2 inch)
650b x 2.1" : 691 mm (27.2 inch)
29" x 2.1" : 723 mm (28.5 inch)

Looking more closely at the numbers, it turns out you can convert a 26 MTB to 650b just by fitting wide tyres:
26" x 2.1" : 666 mm (26.2 inch)
26" x 2.4 : 681 mm (26.8 inch)
26" x 2.5 : 686 mm (27.0 inch)
650b x 2.1" : 691 mm (27.2 inch)
Yes, I know there aren't many 26 MTBs with clearance for a 2.5" tyre, but I have a few Ti Raleighs which can take a 2.4, maybe a 2.5 if it's not muddy.

Author:  mattr [ Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

As Ultrazeniths calcs just showed, 650B/27,5 must be the biggest con of the lot.

Author:  velomaniac [ Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

27.5 is best because the industry says it is. We thought 26 was best because the industry said it was.Its got nothing to do with your vork sprung durk dont you know !

Author:  brocklanders023 [ Fri Apr 27, 2018 8:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

None of them are best, they're all good at different things. I personally prefer the larger wheels but that could be because I'm a big unit.

The problem for 26" is that no one is using it so you can't buy modern versions of it. I wouldn't if I could but some would. :|

Author:  ultrazenith [ Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

I have to say, though, if I had the money and space for an extra bike I would go for a modern FS 29er.

Author:  The History Man [ Sat Apr 28, 2018 8:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

How many you got then chum?

Be honest now......

Author:  ultrazenith [ Sat Apr 28, 2018 8:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

Not very many. Seven fully built bikes, plus about 7 frames hanging around waiting to be built up.

Author:  The History Man [ Sat Apr 28, 2018 8:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

Outside the world of retrobike most would call that excessive but on here..........

Author:  brocklanders023 [ Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

ultrazenith wrote:
I have to say, though, if I had the money and space for an extra bike I would go for a modern FS 29er.


Yup, my best bike is a 29er FS. 8) Had to sacrifice a fair amount of retro to get my original 29er.

Original was the black one, current the orange.

Attachments:
DSC00960.JPG
DSC00960.JPG [ 288.23 KiB | Viewed 498 times ]
20180223_141647.jpg
20180223_141647.jpg [ 229.28 KiB | Viewed 498 times ]
20180223_141636.jpg
20180223_141636.jpg [ 254.88 KiB | Viewed 498 times ]

Author:  ultrazenith [ Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Very nice, and reminiscent of the old Marin FRS bikes from the 90s. How are they for XC riding? oh and which models are they?

Author:  brocklanders023 [ Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Black one was a 2014 5 29 and the orange one a segment. The segment is long, low and slack but gobbles up xc. It's a great bike.

Author:  d8mok [ Sat Apr 28, 2018 3:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

I’ve tried briefly a 29er and the only thing to me it would make sense as is a bike to blast along towpaths/canal. They roll very well but seem slow to turn and not that fun on twisty stuff.

650b is almost best of both worlds. Still turns well but a bit extra rolling ability. Plus the fact that all the newest tech is aimed at it too.

Out of all my bikes I’ve still only got 1 650b which is the bike I call my all mountain bike. It’s mainly used at trail centres and in the peaks. It’s a nice spec Evil Insurgent with enve m60 full XTR 1x11 , Hope etc.

Everything else excluding road bike is 26inch. At some point I’ll update my XC bike but the cost is too much to justify for marginal gain. My current Xc is a Cannondale flash 1 purchase in 2012 and it’s still a quick bike.

All other stuff is retro and used loads but not so seriously

Author:  tufty [ Sat Apr 28, 2018 4:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

I was watching a GMBN video the other day (yeah, I was bored) that pitted a "retro" bike up against a modern one - might have been the 2007 Anthem vs 2018 Anthem one. [edit] yeah, it's that :



Quote:
It's got 26" wheels, which I think, now, look really old-fashioned


"Look"...

Author:  ultrazenith [ Sat Apr 28, 2018 4:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

brocklanders023 wrote:
Black one was a 2014 5 29 and the orange one a segment. The segment is long, low and slack but gobbles up xc. It's a great bike.


I had a quick look on the Orange website and the retail prices are ... quite something. I'm sure they're fantastic bikes, but for the time being a modern FS 29er is out of reach for me.

Author:  d8mok [ Sat Apr 28, 2018 4:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

I had a Orange 5 about 3-4 years ago and I’d im honest I don’t know how they get away with charging what they do for a alloy frame with a 20 year old design

Author:  The History Man [ Sat Apr 28, 2018 4:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

I took this around mayhem after a retro and to my shame got overconfident and binned it. Even with the off it was way quicker than a fs 26” much more stable and turned just fine.

Way way more capable than I am. But less of a grin factor pootling. I really need to be riding downhill with my hair on fire to get a decent grin going. Very sanitised.

Image

Author:  mattr [ Sat Apr 28, 2018 7:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

d8mok wrote:
They roll very well but seem slow to turn and not that fun on twisty stuff.
29er geometry is being played around with a lot, it's coming on in leaps and bounds. Even 3 or 4 years ago to today will feel very different.

d8mok wrote:
650b is almost best of both worlds. Still turns well but a bit extra rolling ability. Plus the fact that all the newest tech is aimed at it too.
A *bit*. Hmmmmm, a big 26er tyre is bigger than a racey 27.5 tyre. And the tech is being aimed at 29er too.
It's only 26 that has died on it's arse.

Author:  d8mok [ Sat Apr 28, 2018 10:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

I rode a Cannondale F29 last year so quite a new model. Didn’t feel fun but rolled well. Wasn’t a big enough improvement over my current 26 inch wheeled Cannondale to warrant the money to swap.

The only 29er I’m half interested in is the new Evil wreckoning as it’s like a monster truck apparently. However it’s too similar to my newly purchased insurgent which cost about £8k to build so it’s well out of question currently.

Author:  brocklanders023 [ Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

d8mok wrote:
I had a Orange 5 about 3-4 years ago and I’d im honest I don’t know how they get away with charging what they do for a alloy frame with a 20 year old design


Well, it’s made in the uk for a start which people will pay extra for. As for the design, it’s no more out of date than any Horst link, 4 bar or any other design that’s been refined over the years. How many of the current designs are truly new as opposed to a new version of an old design?

Author:  brocklanders023 [ Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

ultrazenith wrote:
brocklanders023 wrote:
Black one was a 2014 5 29 and the orange one a segment. The segment is long, low and slack but gobbles up xc. It's a great bike.


I had a quick look on the Orange website and the retail prices are ... quite something. I'm sure they're fantastic bikes, but for the time being a modern FS 29er is out of reach for me.


The key is to catch the sales at the right time. The Segment’s rrp was up near 3k but I got that one, as the current model for 2k. It also came with various upgrades that would normally cost more so I was quite happy with that.

Problem is these days that the desirable top end kit is hugely expensive. Forks for 1k+, groupset for 1k+, rear shock £800+, carbon wheels 2k+, etc. Add that to a frame that costs a bit and the cost becomes eye watering for top of the range bikes.

Saying that, if you stick to SLX standard with mid range forks etc the cost becomes a bit more sensible and you don’t lose much in performance.

Author:  d8mok [ Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

brocklanders023 wrote:
d8mok wrote:
I had a Orange 5 about 3-4 years ago and I’d im honest I don’t know how they get away with charging what they do for a alloy frame with a 20 year old design


Well, it’s made in the uk for a start which people will pay extra for. As for the design, it’s no more out of date than any Horst link, 4 bar or any other design that’s been refined over the years. How many of the current designs are truly new as opposed to a new version of an old design?


The made in the uk part Orange have been saying for years as the reason they are so expensive for what you get. Hope is made in the uk and great quality but the difference is that it’s fabulous stuff at a great price and they are constantly improving.

And like you said many bike designs are old systems but over the years are being more and more refined. Orange haven’t refined anything. Jump on a 20 year old Five and a newer one and it’s the same single pivot that has a terrible pedal platform and soggy small bump compliance. I like orange as a company I really do and I bought a £5k build one but it left me numb. Sold it and went Santa Cruz Bronson and the difference was night and day.

Author:  dyna-ti [ Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

Reckon I'l stick with 26" :?

Which of course has nothing to do with the 6 pairs of 26" wheels, 4 bikes and 20 or so 26" rims sitting in the spare room :lol:

Author:  ultrazenith [ Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

The History Man wrote:
I took this around mayhem after a retro and to my shame got overconfident and binned it. Even with the off it was way quicker than a fs 26” much more stable and turned just fine.

Way way more capable than I am. But less of a grin factor pootling. I really need to be riding downhill with my hair on fire to get a decent grin going. Very sanitised.

Image


How much faster would you say you were compared to the retro (or 26 FS)?

Hope you weren't hurt in the crash.

Author:  tintin40 [ Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

A bicycle will only go as fast as the riders fitness will allow. I raced a mate. Him on a 27.5 Cube and me on my 26er. He is a soldier so has excellent fitness. But despite him on a modern 'better' mtb with all the toys and me on a rigid. I was faster by a long way. Its not what you ride its who is the rider. But the ad men say you have to have bigger wheels now. And people didn't even know they wanted them. They could sell ice cubes to eskimo's.

Author:  brocklanders023 [ Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

d8mok wrote:
brocklanders023 wrote:
d8mok wrote:
I had a Orange 5 about 3-4 years ago and I’d im honest I don’t know how they get away with charging what they do for a alloy frame with a 20 year old design


Well, it’s made in the uk for a start which people will pay extra for. As for the design, it’s no more out of date than any Horst link, 4 bar or any other design that’s been refined over the years. How many of the current designs are truly new as opposed to a new version of an old design?


The made in the uk part Orange have been saying for years as the reason they are so expensive for what you get. Hope is made in the uk and great quality but the difference is that it’s fabulous stuff at a great price and they are constantly improving.

And like you said many bike designs are old systems but over the years are being more and more refined. Orange haven’t refined anything. Jump on a 20 year old Five and a newer one and it’s the same single pivot that has a terrible pedal platform and soggy small bump compliance. I like orange as a company I really do and I bought a £5k build one but it left me numb. Sold it and went Santa Cruz Bronson and the difference was night and day.


Utter nonsense.

Author:  brocklanders023 [ Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

tintin40 wrote:
A bicycle will only go as fast as the riders fitness will allow. I raced a mate. Him on a 27.5 Cube and me on my 26er. He is a soldier so has excellent fitness. But despite him on a modern 'better' mtb with all the toys and me on a rigid. I was faster by a long way. Its not what you ride its who is the rider. But the ad men say you have to have bigger wheels now. And people didn't even know they wanted them. They could sell ice cubes to eskimo's.


As above, there’s no right answer, just shades of grey.

Author:  d8mok [ Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

brocklanders023 wrote:
d8mok wrote:
brocklanders023 wrote:

Utter nonsense.


It’s my opinion. Like you have your opinion I’m entitled to mine. You asked me a question and I answered.

It’s only push bikes not serious stuff and everyone prefers different things. But at least tell me why it’s nonsense ?

Out of interest which other bikes have you owned in this category? As like I said I’ve owned a Five for a year so feel I’m in a position to comment.

Author:  The History Man [ Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Will reply but would be riding over old chestnuts. 6 29ers from rigid to fs. Umpteen 26ers likewise.

For me in summary. 26 are fast skittish short fun bikes. 29 are faster stable forgiving less concentration fun bikes. I pick depending on mood.

Author:  Timoth27 [ Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

d8mok wrote:
It’s my opinion. Like you have your opinion I’m entitled to mine. You asked me a question and I answered.

It’s only push bikes not serious stuff and everyone prefers different things. But at least tell me why it’s nonsense ?

Out of interest which other bikes have you owned in this category? As like I said I’ve owned a Five for a year so feel I’m in a position to comment.



Quotes like “utter nonsense” are just inflammatory and un helpful, like d8mok said his response was informative and based on his actual experience.

I actually think that shock design has improved so much over that last few years that it has allowed single pivot designs to stay alive I have 2 late 90’s Santa Cruz hecklers and they are great (I’ve owned 1 from new) and because of their simplicity just keep going. Just my opinion of course.

Tim

Author:  Timoth27 [ Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

The History Man wrote:
Will reply but would be riding over old chestnuts. 6 29ers from rigid to fs. Umpteen 26ers likewise.

For me in summary. 26 are fast skittish short fun bikes. 29 are faster stable forgiving less concentration fun bikes. I pick depending on mood.


Great summary I thinks it’s about choice, if you are lucky enough to be in a position to have multiple bikes and like multiple disciplines then why not.

I have recently built up a hard tail 29er and use it for training and pulling the kids in a buggy on fire trails and actually it’s great. But still love my 98 heckler. And if I was to buy a new bike it would probably be a hope so 27.5.

If there was a bike that suited ever person and every discipline it would be really boring.

Author:  mattr [ Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

brocklanders023 wrote:
d8mok wrote:
And like you said many bike designs are old systems but over the years are being more and more refined. Orange haven’t refined anything. Jump on a 20 year old Five and a newer one and it’s the same single pivot that has a terrible pedal platform and soggy small bump compliance. I like orange as a company I really do and I bought a £5k build one but it left me numb. Sold it and went Santa Cruz Bronson and the difference was night and day.


Utter nonsense.
not really.
All orange have done with the 5 platform is gently polish and update it.
Better shock, more travel, tweak to the pivot position and so on.

Same as a lot of other manufacturers have. Still making the same suspension setups they did 15 years ago. Just with better shocks and tweaked geometry.

It's not a bad thing to do, it suits what Orange (insert other brand of choice) customers like in a suspension bike of that type.
For my sort of riding, it's shit, I've ridden several 5s. And competitors to it.

At a guess i say that without the platform shock technology coming on so far and fast, the appeal of the 5 would be far more limited. And orange might have pulled the plug on it. As it is, it suits enough peoples ideas of what a good suspension bike is, and fits into enough niches to be profitable.

Author:  mattr [ Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

Though if you want a bit of a laugh the Wikipedia page says.
"The Patriot is one of Orange's best selling models and was the best selling performance mountain bike in Britain for several years."
I'd love to know how that was calculated........

Author:  brocklanders023 [ Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

The utter nonsense was to suggest that there's little difference in ride between the original Orange single pivot bikes and the current ones. Having owned a 2006 and 2010 5 along with riding various other versions I feel qualified to say the ride has evolved significantly over the years. Shock, geometry and wheel size all play a part but I challenge any of you to ride the original Sub 5 back to back with a current 5 and come away thinking they offer the same thing.

As for other bikes for me personally, I have not owned other brands since a 1999 GT XCR but have demo'd plenty as I'm not such a fan boy to think nothing compares to an Orange. Also got plenty of mates who have had other brands so know what they offer. The most disappointing of all was the Santa Cruz 29er thing where as I like my pals Specialized Camber. My next fancy pants bike is likely to be a Hope rather than Orange.

Author:  Timoth27 [ Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

brocklanders023 wrote:
The utter nonsense was to suggest that there's little difference in ride between the original Orange single pivot bikes and the current ones. Having owned a 2006 and 2010 5 along with riding various other versions I feel qualified to say the ride has evolved significantly over the years. Shock, geometry and wheel size all play a part but I challenge any of you to ride the original Sub 5 back to back with a current 5 and come away thinking they offer the same thing.

As for other bikes for me personally, I have not owned other brands since a 1999 GT XCR but have demo'd plenty as I'm not such a fan boy to think nothing compares to an Orange. Also got plenty of mates who have had other brands so know what they offer. The most disappointing of all was the Santa Cruz 29er thing where as I like my pals Specialized Camber. My next fancy pants bike is likely to be a Hope rather than Orange.


Thanks brock that’s maybe what you could of said earlier instead of just “utter nonsense”. I think we agree though that the single pivot design is only being sustained by clever shock trickery.

As for the hb160 I think getting hold of one is going to be the hardest bit.

Author:  d8mok [ Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

That’s the good thing about bikes as they make so many they’re is a bike for everyone’s taste and riding preference. Don’t take offence when someone’s opinion doesn’t match yours.

What other bikes did you demo?

If you’ve owned a 2006, 2010 and the two pictured you too then I assume you tried the competition each time and didn’t just go with the brand loyalty?

I’m not a fanboy of any brand so I simply buy the bike I like most. And it’s usually the one I least expect.

Author:  brocklanders023 [ Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

To be fair I was pretty hammered when I offered the short response although I stand by it. I'm certainly not offended and agree choice and opinion are a good thing but if the opinion offered is clearly wrong to be surprised if it gets questioned :wink:

From memory I demo'd a Trek Fuel, Santa Cruz Superlight, Giant Reign, Marin Wolf Ridge and some Scott or other when I got the 2010, a Santa Cruz Tall Boy LT, 650b Orange 5RS, a full suss Niner, Specialized Camber and another Trek when I got the 5 29. Didn't bother with the Segment as it was spur of the moment for a good deal. I've obviously tried mates bikes over the years too so think I've tried a fair few different systems. To be honest some of the quirks that people don't like about single pivot are the reason I stick with them. I prefer the bike to be talking to you rather that just flattening everything out.

Author:  ultrazenith [ Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

I have to say those single pivot Oranges look good to me, and it's nice to see Orange ar still going strong when so many other brands from back in the day have gone bust (e.g. Raleigh).

If I remember back in the 90s, I sort of lusted after Orange bikes but they always seemed slightly over priced to me, compared to bikes at the same level from other brands. Yes, they were well specced and looked very clean, but the frame and components were all far-east mass produced stuff just like the other big brands, so I never felt it would be worth paying a premium for an Orange. Orange were always a bit slow to modernise their bikes, although perhaps this is just in a superficial sense, because I remember they were the last serious brand to abandon 1" head tubes and threaded steerers.

Nonetheless, I'd gladly have a top of the range Orange XC FS bike, not least because round my way it'd be very exotic.

Getting back to 26 vs 650b, I would like to know whether having a larger diameter is more important for the front or rear wheel. It's a lot easier to get a wider tyre on the front, so in theory you could have something like a bomber Z2 with 70 mm travel up front, with a 26x2.5" tyre squeezed in there (virtually the same as 650bx2.0" diameter). Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the front wheel should then roll as well as a 650b, or maybe slightly better given the width.

I have a hunch that it's the front wheel that's more important to be fast-rolling, for the same reason that adding front suspension gives a much bigger speed boost than adding rear suspension - if the front wheel can get through the rough stuff, the rear wheel follows.

Anyway, I'm planning to test this by building up a spare frame with 26x2.35 and comparing strava times against the same bike with 26x1.8. The outer diameter difference should be about as large as the difference between 26 and 650b, so if makes a big difference, my strava times will show it.

Author:  ultrazenith [ Tue May 01, 2018 10:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

On the topic of wheel size speed comparisons, this guy (Clint Gibbs) has done an interesting 26 vs 29 test, and concludes his 29er FS is around 1-4% faster than his 26 FS Anthem. That's just the raw numbers, without correcting for heart rate etc. It's just one guy, testing two bikes, but I find it more trustworthy than GMBN's covert marketing videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1WA-4ASr0g
(This tallies with the only attempt to do a scientific test, that I know of, which found a similarly small difference in XC speed between 26 and 29, around 5% if I recall correctlly).

Looking at values for tyre rolling resistance (RR), it looks like tyre choice (and going tubeless) probably has a bigger impact on speed than wheel size.
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/mtb-reviews
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.co ... utyl-tubes

In my case, I output something like 150 W on a typical climb. Differences in RR between tyres can be 5 W or even more, and going tubeless can reduce RR by about 5 W (depending on pressure etc.). Putting this in context of speed, if I got faster rolling tyres I might reduce the RR by 5 W per wheel (10 W for 2 wheels, corresponding to a 7% speed increase), and by going tubeless I might reduce the RR by a further 5 W per wheel (another 10 W), in total I might trim 20 W off RR like this, giving me a 13% increase in speed on pedalling sections (climbs and flats, where most of the time is spent anyway).

To be honest, I now suspect the reason we retrobikers report huge speed increases (I've read of XC speed increases of up to 30% from some people, which I don't doubt) is because when we move on from our retrobikes and buy a decent 29er (or 650b), the larger wheel helps slightly, but it's the other technological improvements that give the real speed boost: better, faster rolling tyres, tubeless, excellent suspension design - things like that.

Compared to buying an entire new bike just for the bigger wheels, fitting a set of fast rolling tubeless tyres is pretty cheap (about 100 gbp?) and should give a proportionally bigger increase in XC speed. Other improvements, like bigger wheels, top flight FS, carbon everything etc., will probably get you another 5-10% if you do them all and are willing to spend a few grand.

But I might be completely wrong...

Author:  cce [ Tue May 01, 2018 10:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

ultrazenith wrote:

Looking at values for trye rolling resistance (RR), it looks like tyre choice (and going tubeless) probably has a bigger impact on speed than wheel size.
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/mtb-reviews
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.co ... utyl-tubes



a lot of people are missing this part.

There's a world of difference between my same-size Schwalbe Racing ralph (noodly XC tyre) and Hans Dampf (all mountain tyre). Bigger tyres are generally more heavily treaded, with stickier compounds

Author:  tintin40 [ Tue May 01, 2018 11:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

I know this i wished i'd recommended a 26er from crc.co.uk and not a 27.5 :facepalm: As they have a good choice of 26er for his needs. But no i said go for a 27.5 :oops: Lucky his wife took no notice and bought a 26er :D I have removed the sales man's mind control hat. 26er's rule.

Author:  cce [ Tue May 01, 2018 11:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

buying a brand new 26er is batshit mental, and i say that as someone who is cheerfully cpaitalising on 26er worthlessness

Author:  ultrazenith [ Tue May 01, 2018 11:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

cce wrote:
buying a brand new 26er is batshit mental, and i say that as someone who is cheerfully cpaitalising on 26er worthlessness


I hope to find myself a 26er Giant Anthem in my size one of these days.

Author:  brocklanders023 [ Tue May 01, 2018 12:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

I couldn't really tell you which is fastest between my 650b ht and 29" fs. Strava suggests they're similar but I've never really done back to back testing and have no plans to start!

They certainly feel different though and lead me to ride in different ways and pick different lines. As I've mentioned before, the 29er feels like a puppy straining at the leash, always trying to pull you along where as the 650b likes you to make the choices for yourself but rewards when you do. It's easier to chuck about for sure.

As for 26", my last modern one was far slower than my current bikes. It's hard to compare though as it had noodly suspension, narrow-ish tyres and geometry that I'm not used to. I'd imagine a modern 26" wouldn't be too far off the pace.

Author:  tintin40 [ Tue May 01, 2018 3:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

cce wrote:
buying a brand new 26er is batshit mental, and i say that as someone who is cheerfully cpaitalising on 26er worthlessness



true the 26er's on offer are not to a high standard. But if you don't need a top level machine. Then not a problem But if like me a bike snob then this would be a top quality buy

https://www.dulight.fr/en/47-26er

Author:  cce [ Tue May 01, 2018 5:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

tintin40 wrote:
cce wrote:
buying a brand new 26er is batshit mental, and i say that as someone who is cheerfully cpaitalising on 26er worthlessness



true the 26er's on offer are not to a high standard. But if you don't need a top level machine. Then not a problem But if like me a bike snob then this would be a top quality buy

https://www.dulight.fr/en/47-26er


decent forks are getting harder to find, and the best new tyres aren't coming out in 26 though. You'd be mad to buy it over the 650B version

Author:  tufty [ Tue May 01, 2018 6:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

Quote:
the best new tyres aren't coming out in 26 though

That's what the industry wants you to think. However, the major manufacturers are still listing 26" tyres for pretty much all their ranges, but you might not be able to get them over the counter in halfrauds. Bike shops don't want to sell you 26" tyres, they want to sell you a 27.5" bike.

Author:  The History Man [ Tue May 01, 2018 6:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

They’re all in my loft.

Author:  tintin40 [ Tue May 01, 2018 8:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

tufty wrote:
Quote:
the best new tyres aren't coming out in 26 though

That's what the industry wants you to think. However, the major manufacturers are still listing 26" tyres for pretty much all their ranges, but you might not be able to get them over the counter in halfrauds. Bike shops don't want to sell you 26" tyres, they want to sell you a 27.5" bike.



Agree. Conti make excellent tyres for 26. via crc Race King and Mud King. 'Extralite' sell ultra light 26'' wheel sets for £1000 for V's or disc. eBay is the best for forks. Carbon and light for about £100

Author:  shedobits [ Tue May 01, 2018 8:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

In the fleet there is a 1992 26"solid, a 26" long forked hardtail, a 29er long forked hardtail, and a 29er XC carbon whipitt but my go to bike is a 26" F S from 2006. They all get ridden but the full sus is my go to bike these days as it's the most fun and would probably be my answer to "if you could only have one bike". Oh did I mention that it was an Orange? :|

Getting decent 26 inch tyres and straight steerer forks may be a problem in the future though.

I tried a mates 650 Cotic Rocket last week (my first 27.5 ride). It climbed and dropped like it's namesake. Surprisingly it's + size tyres had almost the same diameter as my 29 XC tyres.

Author:  tufty [ Tue May 01, 2018 8:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

Industry hype aside, though, I'm almost certain I'm not a good enough rider to be able to take advantage of the differences in wheel sizes.

I did a back to back of my Sunn against a mate's Merida 29er (both semi-rigid, his has a 100mm Suntour XCM up front compared to my 80mm Skarebs) and couldn't really tell the difference beyond weight (his bike was heavy) and component difference - his brakes were better, forks were worse. *Maybe* the 29er went through the big chunky stuff a bit faster, but was that wheel size, tyre volume, slack(er) geometry, fork travel or all of the above? And anyway, when confronted with small, fast bumps his fork shat itself and nearly threw me over the bars more than once. Preferred my Sunn, but it's what I know. He preferred his bike, thought mine felt too small.

Author:  ultrazenith [ Fri May 11, 2018 5:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

To add fuel to the fire, I'll report the preliminary results from my little 'experiment'. This week I rode an identical 22K off road course, with 540 m total ascent, on the same bike under identical trail conditions and very similar (dry, warm) conditions. I even ate the same breakfast and lunch, ate the same food during the ride, and carried the same volume of water in my Camelbak. The bike is a rigid Dynatech MT4 with 3x8 gearing and v-brakes, and a Girvin flex stem up front.

The only things I knowingly changed were the tyres: 26x2.35 Maxxis Ignitor + Larsen TT (33 PSI) on ride 1, and 1.8 Panaracer XC (37 PSI) Fire on ride 2. The resulting difference in wheel diameter is close to 1.1 inches (26.7" vs 25.6"), which is very close to the difference between 26 and 650b for the same tyre width (e.g., 27.2 for 650bx2.1 and 26.2 for 26x2.1).

Of course, there will always be variables that are beyond my control. On the second day I was less well rested, as I'd had only 48s of recovery from the first ride, and I felt I hadn't got fully rehydrated. The tyres have different volumes, pressure, tread patterns, and rolling resistance coefficients.

The route has a mix of hardpack, gravel, bedrock and stones, and the climbs have average gradients of about 7%, with shorter steep sections that are still rideable.

My expectation was that 26x2.35s would be more comfortable, and would climb faster due to their extra grip and their ability to roll over bumps more easily, maintaining forward momentum. I also expected the 2.35s to be faster on the descents. However, the initial results do not confirm all of these prejudices.

Although I climbed faster on the 2.35s (23.27 min vs 23.43 min), I was only 9.6 seconds quicker (0.7%). On flat, pedally sections there was zero difference, and on the downhill sections I was about 4% faster.

This was quite a surprise, because if the marketing hype is to be believed, 26 is pants and 650b is amazing and faster and well worth upgrading to. Perhaps 26.7 really is faster than 25.6, and a number of factors such as tyre traction and rolling resistance have almost exactly canceled out the intrinsic speed differences... but that seems a bit unlikely.

So it's a bit premature to make a definite conclusion, but I haven't seen any really significant speed benefit from having 1 inch bigger wheels.

Author:  brocklanders023 [ Fri May 11, 2018 8:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

As I mentioned before, no one size is best and all offer different characteristics. It’s up to you which suits you best. Bigger suits me but i’d struggle to pick one between 650b and 29”.

Author:  ultrazenith [ Sat May 12, 2018 8:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

My LBS just lent me a half-decent Carbon 29er while they sort an issue on mt Dynatech's drivetrain, so I'll be able to do a couple of speed tests on 29" wheels next week. How exciting for me.

Author:  The History Man [ Sat May 12, 2018 8:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

Are you moist?

Author:  ultrazenith [ Sat May 12, 2018 9:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

I'm more concerned that a 29er will make me want to give up on retrobikes.

Author:  The History Man [ Sun May 13, 2018 8:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

ultrazenith wrote:
I'm more concerned that a 29er will make me want to give up on retrobikes.

I found that it was like putting on a really comfortable pair of shoes.

I then made all my 26” bike more interesting and different to each other, changing each in some way.

Author:  jimo746 [ Sun May 13, 2018 11:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

ultrazenith wrote:
I'm more concerned that a 29er will make me want to give up on retrobikes.


This is a real danger. It could well happen.

If last week's evening ride at some local woods is anything to go by then 27.5 is the "new standard". The car park was rammed with mtbers, mostly on full-suspension and 27.5" wheels.
The 5 guys I rode with were all on full-sus and 27.5" wheels. Made my 29er hardtail seem like a niche bike!
Guess it depends on the type of riding, but for general trail use it seems 27.5 is ubiquitous.
Tbh I couldn't tell a difference between 26 and 27.5.
26 and 29 was noticeable though, mostly in a good way.

Author:  mattr [ Sun May 13, 2018 8:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

And round here, 29er is the "new standard".
27.5 seems to be for those with delusions of adequacy in the realms of downhill or enduro racing. Very rarely see one built up for anything that'd pass as an XC ride. Even though what most of the people riding them for is essentially XC. Just slower.

Just got out for the first time "in anger" on my 29er, can certainly tell the difference over my 26. Other than the 2.5 kilos weight difference and 100mm of added travel on the rear wheel.......

Author:  tintin40 [ Mon May 14, 2018 10:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

I've never seen the need to change the wheel size. Always been very happy with 26er. And when i got back into mtbing i went for a 26er.

Author:  brocklanders023 [ Mon May 14, 2018 1:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

ultrazenith wrote:
I'm more concerned that a 29er will make me want to give up on retrobikes.


Certainly stopped me having any real enthusiasm for riding them. :facepalm: :(

Author:  ultrazenith [ Thu May 17, 2018 10:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

I'm sure this won't surprise anyone, but the 29er I tested (KTM Aera Pro) was faster overall than my rigid Dynatech, but (a surprise to me) only by about 10% overall.

On the climbs with big rocky sections in them, the 29er was about 17% faster. I noticed on the 29er I felt like I maintained my speed and floated over the rockiest section, so clearly some time got saved in those places. These were the same climbs where I was faster on my 26x2.35 set up vs 26x1.8.

However, on smoother climbs and flat pedally sections, the 29er was faster, but only by about 3%. This difference is so small it might even just be down to the faster rolling tyres (Rocket Rons) and/or the better suspension on the 29er. Again, on these sections I found no difference between 26x2.35 and 26x1.8 either.

My conclusion is that a 29er is almost certainly faster on average than a 26er, but it is possible for this speed advantage to be vanishingly small on some types of trail. Obviously, this applies to the very specific circumstances I've tested, and to me personally. But I'm glad I know what kind of boost I can expect from spending over a grand on a new 29er...

I understand now why the bike industry doesn't bother to quantify the differences between the different wheel sizes on offer, because it depends so much on the specifics of the trail and terrain.

Author:  brocklanders023 [ Thu May 17, 2018 11:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Must admit that i couldn't really care less which is faster, it's how they feel and what you prefer.

Author:  fotorat1 [ Mon May 21, 2018 4:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

My LBS have a pair of 650b crossmax SLR's discounted to £200 and they cant sell them!

I am tempted to buy them and build a bike up from that :facepalm:

but the voice on my other shoulder keeps stopping me....

if any one wants them give me a shout I will give you the details

26 forever in my house

Author:  brocklanders023 [ Mon May 21, 2018 10:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

fotorat1 wrote:
My LBS have a pair of 650b crossmax SLR's discounted to £200 and they cant sell them!

I am tempted to buy them and build a bike up from that :facepalm:

but the voice on my other shoulder keeps stopping me....

if any one wants them give me a shout I will give you the details

26 forever in my house


Narrow rims or wrong axel width?

Author:  fotorat1 [ Tue May 22, 2018 8:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

sorry they are 27.5, not sure of the rim width or axles - didnt look silly to me - but then again I dont have any 4" tires!

Author:  fotorat1 [ Tue May 22, 2018 9:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

I think its about frame and fork design- regardless of wheel size. I have 26" bikes some short travel which feel like I am "on top of the bike" and others that feel like I am inside the bike.

Also the main issue I need to deal with in my old age is rotational resistance, that means the lightest rims/tires/spokes - then everything else that I am using power to rotate, this is what is stopping me from getting the heavier rims and tires of 29". I even saw a new speccy in my LBS with 3.4" tires on 29" rims, with battery assist maybe - but can you imagine doing a 40 killer loop on that tank?

Any one fancy a uphill 26 vs 29 race?

Author:  FluffyChicken [ Tue May 22, 2018 6:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

You'll only be able to compare if it's the same bike and switch the wheels.

Then you'll see if it's wheel size.
at least for that frame and track.

Author:  brocklanders023 [ Tue May 22, 2018 7:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

fotorat1 wrote:
I think its about frame and fork design- regardless of wheel size. I have 26" bikes some short travel which feel like I am "on top of the bike" and others that feel like I am inside the bike.

Also the main issue I need to deal with in my old age is rotational resistance, that means the lightest rims/tires/spokes - then everything else that I am using power to rotate, this is what is stopping me from getting the heavier rims and tires of 29". I even saw a new speccy in my LBS with 3.4" tires on 29" rims, with battery assist maybe - but can you imagine doing a 40 killer loop on that tank?

Any one fancy a uphill 26 vs 29 race?


From my experience 29 is miles easier up hill, off road, regardless of weight as they roll over obstacles so much better. I used to get bogged down with roots, eroded trails and the like but no more. Try it.

Author:  ultrazenith [ Wed May 23, 2018 2:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

Yeah, it's a bit counter intuitive to think a heavier bike, with bigger heavier wheels will climb much faster. After all, the conventional wisdom for years was to upgrade to lighter wheels and tyres... now it seems weight doesn't matter very much as long as you have the right size.

Author:  brocklanders023 [ Wed May 23, 2018 11:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Yeah, it’s weird but so many aspects we never used to consider make a huge difference. Ultimately the lighter the better when comparing like for like but not when comparing different sizes.

Author:  mattr [ Thu May 24, 2018 8:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

fotorat1 wrote:
Also the main issue I need to deal with in my old age is rotational resistance, that means the lightest rims/tires/spokes - then everything else that I am using power to rotate, this is what is stopping me from getting the heavier rims and tires of 29". I even saw a new speccy in my LBS with 3.4" tires on 29" rims, with battery assist maybe - but can you imagine doing a 40 killer loop on that tank?
The specifics of wheel weight are pretty much a non-event compared to the all up weight of the bike, as generally you aren't accelerating the wheels enough to make a difference. Unless you repeatedly go from stationary to significant speed. (0 to 20+ KPH maybe.). THen you have the fact that it's easier to keep a 29er moving due to the better roll over. Anecdotally, a climb near me which has always been a hoppy, bumpy grind, for the first time was relatively easy to clear on the new 29er. Rather than stopping and hefting my very light 26 HT (under 19lbs) up each step and bump i just rode up (25lb 29 FS).

fotorat1 wrote:
Any one fancy a uphill 26 vs 29 race?
Unless its very smooth or *very* technical. i.e. all but undrideable/trials, the 29er will be faster, even with a weight penalty.

Author:  ultrazenith [ Thu May 24, 2018 9:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

Has anyone here ever tested a 29+ uphill? 29+ is pretty much a 31er and it would be interesting to know whether the extra rolling resistance of the fat tyres or the better roll-over of the large wheels wins out. I guess if 29+ was faster than regular 29, we'd see some pro racers going with 29+ ...

Author:  M-Power [ Thu May 24, 2018 10:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Always find these threads fascinating considerng the power source, us, only generates around 1/4hp. Loosing weight and getting properly fit generates a much greater potential gain than increasing wheel radius. People are already raving about 36ers.

Author:  ultrazenith [ Thu May 24, 2018 10:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

M-Power wrote:
Always find these threads fascinating considerng the power source, us, only generates around 1/4hp. Loosing weight and getting properly fit generates a much greater potential gain than increasing wheel radius. People are already raving about 36ers.


Funnily enough, I have a 36er frame now. Well, on its way from Waltworks in USA. Looking forward to getting it built and tested!

Author:  tintin40 [ Thu May 24, 2018 10:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

M-Power wrote:
Always find these threads fascinating considerng the power source, us, only generates around 1/4hp. Loosing weight and getting properly fit generates a much greater potential gain than increasing wheel radius.



Couldn't agree more. The rider is more important than the bike. Hence i'm keeping my 26er.

Author:  cce [ Thu May 24, 2018 10:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

M-Power wrote:
Loosing weight and getting properly fit generates a much greater potential gain than increasing wheel radius.



but what if you do both? what if you're as fit as you can reasonably be while having a full time job/family/life?

Author:  mattr [ Thu May 24, 2018 11:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

tintin40 wrote:
M-Power wrote:
Always find these threads fascinating considerng the power source, us, only generates around 1/4hp. Loosing weight and getting properly fit generates a much greater potential gain than increasing wheel radius.
Couldn't agree more. The rider is more important than the bike. Hence i'm keeping my 26er.
Which is something of an arse about face way of looking at it. If you've got such a small amount of power available, you need to take every advantage you can to make best use of it.

Author:  M-Power [ Thu May 24, 2018 11:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

mattr wrote:
tintin40 wrote:
M-Power wrote:
Always find these threads fascinating considerng the power source, us, only generates around 1/4hp. Loosing weight and getting properly fit generates a much greater potential gain than increasing wheel radius.
Couldn't agree more. The rider is more important than the bike. Hence i'm keeping my 26er.
Which is something of an arse about face way of looking at it. If you've got such a small amount of power available, you need to take every advantage you can to make best use of it.



You remind me of one of my best customers bitd, a 26st London chef who spent every spare penny buying the lightest special order bling. A total weight weenie with a Filofax and calculator, who knew every part to 10 decimal places. He was convinced hed climb so much better with a Ti Flite saddle, alloy bolt kit yada yada. :roll:

Author:  Timoth27 [ Thu May 24, 2018 12:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

But regardless of his size & ability in basic terms was he wrong???

Author:  mattr [ Thu May 24, 2018 12:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

Only because M-Power couldn't afford the lightest special order bling. ;)

But at any point did i suggest spending a fortune on special order lightweight bling?
No.

I just said that 29er can be an advantage in many places.
How he got to bling, i have no idea.

Author:  M-Power [ Thu May 24, 2018 1:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

mattr wrote:
Only because M-Power couldn't afford the lightest special order bling. ;) :lol: :lol:

But at any point did i suggest spending a fortune on special order lightweight bling?
No.

I just said that 29er can be an advantage in many places.
How he got to bling, i have no idea.


You are a marketing mans wet dream Mattr ;) The bike trade is some of the most over hyped in the world. They keep reinventing a ‘better’ wheel... In comparative tests the difference between HT, ST & FS bikes on a 2/3mile cx course ( all other things being as equal as possible) is ~ 1.4secs or less per lap. Important if you are a serious racer. Its your money Mattr. For most people they would be better off loosing a few lbs and working on their cardio and riding skills. Fact !

Author:  brocklanders023 [ Thu May 24, 2018 2:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

The argument for bigger and bigger wheels falls due to the trails available and the disadvantages going bigger brings in to play.

From my experience of trails ridden on 26/650b/29 there's plenty that will cause a biffer like me to stall on the climbs when on 26" where as there's very little that causes a problem on 29" Not much point going bigger if you already clear what's out there and as much as geometry evolves bigger wheels always lead to a bike that is not as quick witted as a smaller wheel bike.

As much as it's agreed that 26" is more flickable and lively there's no call to go smaller to increase this advantage, just as I believe there's no need to go bigger than 29". 650b was unnecessary although it works for a taller lad like myself.

Author:  mattr [ Thu May 24, 2018 6:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

M-Power wrote:
.You are a marketing mans wet dream Mattr
hardly. 3 new bikes in 17 years. 2 of them in last years colours, bought on clearance.

Quote:
in comparative tests the difference between HT, ST & FS bikes on a 2/3mile cx course ( all other things being as equal as possible) is ~ 1.4secs or less per lap.
tests? Or you riding round a field with a watch? ;)

Author:  M-Power [ Thu May 24, 2018 6:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

mattr wrote:
M-Power wrote:
.You are a marketing mans wet dream Mattr
hardly. 3 new bikes in 17 years. 2 of them in last years colours, bought on clearance.

Quote:
in comparative tests the difference between HT, ST & FS bikes on a 2/3mile cx course ( all other things being as equal as possible) is ~ 1.4secs or less per lap.
tests? Or you riding round a field with a watch? ;)


Expected a bit more appreciation of empirical evidence from a Mech Eng... ;)

Author:  M-Power [ Thu May 24, 2018 6:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Timoth27 wrote:
But regardless of his size & ability in basic terms was he wrong???


You must be a fan of David Brailsford and his ‘marginal gains’ theory. ;)

Author:  Timoth27 [ Thu May 24, 2018 6:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

I’m not questioning your evidence but it’s much easier to decide when you can see the evidence

Author:  M-Power [ Thu May 24, 2018 6:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

:roll: Dude you stumped me with that last post !

Author:  M-Power [ Thu May 24, 2018 6:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

A 29er wheel has roughly 10% more rolling circumference than an equivalent 26er. Each to their own. Not trying to knock the latest specs, just saying the actual benefits/differences are much much smaller than people realise. Its sometimes easier to justify buying a new whizzo bike than to loose some lbs and get fitter. :D

Author:  Timoth27 [ Thu May 24, 2018 6:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

In comparative tests the difference between HT, ST & FS bikes on a 2/3mile cx course ( all other things being as equal as possible) is ~ 1.4secs or less per lap. Important if you are a serious racer.

I was referring to this

I really must remember to use quotes.

Trying to edit and use quotes from my phones is terrible sorry.

Author:  M-Power [ Thu May 24, 2018 7:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

Timoth27 wrote:
In comparative tests the difference between HT, ST & FS bikes on a 2/3mile cx course ( all other things being as equal as possible) is ~ 1.4secs or less per lap. Important if you are a serious racer.

I was referring to this

I really must remember to use quotes.

Trying to edit and use quotes from my phones is terrible sorry.


No worries. These magazine tests were carried out by a young fit skilled rider. The average slightly portly 40 something Rber would see much smaller differences in such a ‘test’.

Author:  Timoth27 [ Thu May 24, 2018 7:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

M-Power wrote:
Timoth27 wrote:
In comparative tests the difference between HT, ST & FS bikes on a 2/3mile cx course ( all other things being as equal as possible) is ~ 1.4secs or less per lap. Important if you are a serious racer.

I was referring to this

I really must remember to use quotes.

Trying to edit and use quotes from my phones is terrible sorry.


No worriesThese magazine tests were carried out by a young fit skilled rider. The average slightly portly 40 something Rber would see much smaller differences in such a ‘test’.


No probs I guess what I was trying to say (badly) was if someone quotes a test it would be useful to the other people reading the post to include where the test came from or even better a link to the test.

Author:  M-Power [ Thu May 24, 2018 7:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

I wish I could find the one i saw on FB around a year ago but the search function isnt great. The timed differences on a cx circuit were tiny. They used a premium bike brand iirc.

Author:  mattr [ Thu May 24, 2018 8:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

CX course.
FFS. The one place where the differences trend to zero.
Probably cycling weakly.

Did they mention that all the bikes were thoroughly trounced by a 50 year old bloke riding a canti braked steel frame from the 80s?

And the word is anecdotal, not empirical.
There has actually been some proper testing done with a power meter and corrections made to ratios, weight and geometry. The difference is small, but not insignificant.

Author:  cce [ Thu May 24, 2018 8:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

M-Power wrote:
Timoth27 wrote:
In comparative tests the difference between HT, ST & FS bikes on a 2/3mile cx course ( all other things being as equal as possible) is ~ 1.4secs or less per lap. Important if you are a serious racer.

I was referring to this

I really must remember to use quotes.

Trying to edit and use quotes from my phones is terrible sorry.


No worries. These magazine tests were carried out by a young fit skilled rider. The average slightly portly 40 something Rber would see much smaller differences in such a ‘test’.


conversely, the slower you are, the more you benefit from faster equipment because you're on the course for longer

Author:  kaiser [ Thu May 24, 2018 9:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

My tuppence. I own 26 ,27.5, 29, 29+ and 26 fat. 26 is purely retro and the modern bikes that I had that were 26 were on the whole pretty good at the time and I had no complaints. Until I started riding 29. The 29 does roll better, you will carry more speed and it will get you out of trouble too. In my opinion us that are a bit longer in the tooth and are no longer as fast or accurate would be well served by the benefits of the big wheel. I have followed the emergence of 29 and the negative opinions are nothing new, if you could read back on other forums 5/10 years ago you'd be reading the same thing. Only now most people are more accepting of them and indeed believe the benefits to actually be true. If it is indeed marketing then it is probably the most successful brainwashing in history :wink:

As for 27.5 well I have less evidence, the bike I have the wheel size is not the biggest factor, suspension and geometry play a bigger part here.

29+ , the bike is rigid and the big tyres provide hassle free comfort and again roll very well. I've used this for the Strathpuffer race where again it kept me out of trouble and in relative comfort without any suspension. Great for this type of thing , endurance events.

Fat bike is great again, very forgiving and it is indeed harder to pedal but unless you are racing (though I have also used this for the puffer) it is wonderful. Allows you to keep your head up and appreciate the countryside rather than focusing on the line you have to take. It's been said that fat bike reminds people of a big BMX and they really can be this much fun.

At the end of the day though a bikes a bike fur aw that. Two wheels, pedals and wotnot. Only now you have the choice to buy whatever you want. And remember it is up to you, you don't need to buy into it but I do think that you should at least try some of them. Not everyone is merely trying to justify there purchases or have had the wool pulled over there eyes by the evil bike industry.

Author:  brocklanders023 [ Thu May 24, 2018 10:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

M-Power wrote:
A 29er wheel has roughly 10% more rolling circumference than an equivalent 26er. Each to their own. Not trying to knock the latest specs, just saying the actual benefits/differences are much much smaller than people realise. Its sometimes easier to justify buying a new whizzo bike than to loose some lbs and get fitter. :D


You are welcome to bring a 26er over to mine and you can test them against my 650b and 29er. Pretty sure I could find a few sections that you would notice the difference :wink:

Oh, and what Kaiser said.

Author:  Timoth27 [ Thu May 24, 2018 10:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Yeah what Kaiser said bottom line I think it’s great to have choices. I currently have 5/6 26ers and a 29er but my next new bike will prob be 27.5.

Author:  M-Power [ Thu May 24, 2018 10:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

mattr wrote:
CX course.
FFS. The one place where the differences trend to zero.
Probably cycling weakly.


But but but....thats where most riding takes place. Not down the black runs of BPW ;)

And the word is anecdotal, not empirical. Il stick to empirical evidence thanks ;)


There has actually been some proper testing done with a power meter and corrections made to ratios, weight and geometry. The difference is small, but not insignificant.


Whats signifcant to you 1.4secs over 2/3mile loop ? Thats not significant to me. You make my point imo. Of course the difference will be much greater on a Red bull Rampage run, comparing a classic rigid with cantis to a bespoke £10k full susser with discs but again, thats not where MOST people do their riding :)

Author:  M-Power [ Thu May 24, 2018 11:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

brocklanders023 wrote:
M-Power wrote:
A 29er wheel has roughly 10% more rolling circumference than an equivalent 26er. Each to their own. Not trying to knock the latest specs, just saying the actual benefits/differences are much much smaller than people realise. Its sometimes easier to justify buying a new whizzo bike than to loose some lbs and get fitter. :D


You are welcome to bring a 26er over to mine and you can test them against my 650b and 29er. Pretty sure I could find a few sections that you would notice the difference :wink:

Oh, and what Kaiser said.


OK...its turning into a pi$$ing contest :lol: I can also take you to very twisty technical trails where your 29er will cause you problems ;) I have little experience on the newer bikes. Im thinking of a new Yo with 3” wide tyres but only because i like the look of it. I note that lots of people with both still prefer to ride the old ones. Some have even sold their moderns and gone back to retro.

The choice is massive. Got nothing against the plethora of different types of bikes. Bitd we only rode the one basic type. Im still in that mode. 29ers have been around since 1889. This is close to being a full sus Victor C model. Guess it never caught on so well ;)

Attachments:
08CCDED1-9187-4BC5-8017-BBF109C43D38.jpeg
08CCDED1-9187-4BC5-8017-BBF109C43D38.jpeg [ 59.67 KiB | Viewed 386 times ]

Author:  mattr [ Fri May 25, 2018 7:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

M-Power wrote:
You make my point imo.
No. Really. I don't.

Author:  Matthews [ Fri May 25, 2018 9:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Here's a radical idea , have a go on all the different sizes and buy the one you enjoyed riding the most , simple and satisfying .

Author:  CassidyAce [ Fri May 25, 2018 1:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

For what it's worth, which is probably nowt much, my thoughts are:

26" is good for some purposes: tight, twisty, quick acceleration and quick slowing down. 29" is a worthwhile alternative for some purposes: roughly the opposite of what the 26" is good for. Fat bikes, plus bikes, etc. have their niches.

It's the 650b, the new 'standard' that's puzzling: it adds very little to the 26 but it erodes some of the difference between the 'standard' and the 29". So, yes, there's a choice between the 650b and the 29er but it's a less significant choice than between the 26er and the 29er. In other words, it seems to me that it's the least worthwhile development, the 650b mtb, that's the new 'standard'. I suppose similar thoughts have led many others to the feeling that the bike industry promoted the 650b more for its own sake than for riders.

Author:  M-Power [ Fri May 25, 2018 3:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

CassidyAce wrote:
For what it's worth, which is probably nowt much, my thoughts are:

26" is good for some purposes: tight, twisty, quick acceleration and quick slowing down. 29" is a worthwhile alternative for some purposes: roughly the opposite of what the 26" is good for. Fat bikes, plus bikes, etc. have their niches.

It's the 650b, the new 'standard' that's puzzling: it adds very little to the 26 but it erodes some of the difference between the 'standard' and the 29". So, yes, there's a choice between the 650b and the 29er but it's a less significant choice than between the 26er and the 29er. In other words, it seems to me that it's the least worthwhile development, the 650b mtb, that's the new 'standard'. I suppose similar thoughts have led many others to the feeling that the bike industry promoted the 650b more for its own sake than for riders.


Well said :mrgreen:

So to sum up, according to the anecdotal evidence from a ‘resident expert’, being obese or even grossly obese and buying a 29er will make you climb and ride much faster with no extra effort than on a 26er.

Case closed :facepalm:

Author:  Duxuk [ Fri May 25, 2018 3:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

This week I've ridden a technical, undulating section on both new (Boardman FS Pro, 650b) and old (Whyte JW4, 26"). I cleared it both ways on the Boardman but failed both ways on the Whyte. The Whyte seems to jar on the rough bits where the Boardman skips over. It's down to the individual trail section, though, because I know other places where the opposite is true. I certainly know circuits where my money would be on the Whyte to get round quickest. 7 years ago, when I gave up on my first JW4, I found it's replacement, a Voodoo Canzo 26er, was around 15 seconds slower on a 10 minute red trial which forms a circuit.
It's horses for courses but slightly worrying that 15 years hasn't produced a bike which is faster in all situations. And don't get me onto pedal strikes with modern trail bikes. :evil: The BBs are just too low and shortening the cranks robs you of torque when you need it. :cry: Better post this before my blood starts to boil!

Author:  FluffyChicken [ Fri May 25, 2018 3:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Matthews wrote:
Here's a radical idea , have a go on all the different sizes and buy the one you enjoyed riding the most , simple and satisfying .


Bugger off, this isn't goriding.com, and anyway you should do it lady style, pick the one that looks nice. Then go and try on all the shoes.

Author:  brocklanders023 [ Fri May 25, 2018 10:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

M-Power wrote:
brocklanders023 wrote:
M-Power wrote:
A 29er wheel has roughly 10% more rolling circumference than an equivalent 26er. Each to their own. Not trying to knock the latest specs, just saying the actual benefits/differences are much much smaller than people realise. Its sometimes easier to justify buying a new whizzo bike than to loose some lbs and get fitter. :D


You are welcome to bring a 26er over to mine and you can test them against my 650b and 29er. Pretty sure I could find a few sections that you would notice the difference :wink:

Oh, and what Kaiser said.


OK...its turning into a pi$$ing contest :lol: I can also take you to very twisty technical trails where your 29er will cause you problems ;) I have little experience on the newer bikes. Im thinking of a new Yo with 3” wide tyres but only because i like the look of it. I note that lots of people with both still prefer to ride the old ones. Some have even sold their moderns and gone back to retro.

The choice is massive. Got nothing against the plethora of different types of bikes. Bitd we only rode the one basic type. Im still in that mode. 29ers have been around since 1889. This is close to being a full sus Victor C model. Guess it never caught on so well ;)


No it’s not and you clearly have not read my previous posts. There isn’t a right answer, there never has and never will be but some sizes make some trails easier to negotiate, as you suggest.

Author:  The History Man [ Sat May 26, 2018 7:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

Is this still going?

https://youtu.be/PGI8YNa5f-M

Author:  Bollox64 [ Mon May 28, 2018 10:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Timoth27 wrote:

As for the hb160 I think getting hold of one is going to be the hardest bit.


Took 12 weeks, but today :lol:

ImageUntitled by Bollox2u, on Flickr

Author:  The History Man [ Mon May 28, 2018 10:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

I’m back on the fence after today.

Attachments:
3D61FF7C-AE8C-493C-9DAD-857A209BF712.jpeg
3D61FF7C-AE8C-493C-9DAD-857A209BF712.jpeg [ 370.57 KiB | Viewed 450 times ]

Author:  mattr [ Tue May 29, 2018 8:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

M-Power wrote:
So to sum up, according to the anecdotal evidence from a ‘resident expert’, being obese or even grossly obese and buying a 29er will make you climb and ride much faster with no extra effort than on a 26er.

Case closed :facepalm:
Really? Where did anyone say that. Other than you?
Do you have a massive chip on your shoulder about not making the best use of whatever facilities you have at your disposal?

Or is it just grumpy old man?

Author:  M-Power [ Tue May 29, 2018 9:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

mattr wrote:
M-Power wrote:
So to sum up, according to the anecdotal evidence from a ‘resident expert’, being obese or even grossly obese and buying a 29er will make you climb and ride much faster with no extra effort than on a 26er.

Case closed :facepalm:
Really? Where did anyone say that. Other than you?
Do you have a massive chip on your shoulder about not making the best use of whatever facilities you have at your disposal?

Or is it just grumpy old man?


Dissing aside, in the spirit of bonhomie, we will have to agree to disagree Mattr :) I make use of all and any facilities at my disposal ;) and i could not be much happier in fact :mrgreen: as I just landed the bike of a lifetime and my kid loves her recently built classic FAT Chance...how about you ?

I totally ‘get’ the easier to roll over obstacles on a 29er bit and all the other intermediate variants pros/cons depending on the trail type its on. I will experiment with sticking 2.4 tyres on my classic Yo ( should make the tyre circumference close to a 27in ;) ) and compare it with a mate’s 29er and report back objectively :)

Author:  mattr [ Tue May 29, 2018 9:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

Classic Yo might not have clearance for 2.4 between the chainstays..........

Author:  M-Power [ Tue May 29, 2018 9:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

mattr wrote:
Classic Yo might not have clearance for 2.4 between the chainstays..........


They were built for 2.5” clearance way back in 1990. Seriously, I am defo up for the comparison with a 29. Some of the modern 26” tyres have some very thick side walls. It may be a great compromise option for classic bikes with enough clearance, which wont be many i guess. I was inspired by this thread.

http://forums.mtbr.com/27-5/why-go-650b ... 13559.html

Author:  brocklanders023 [ Tue May 29, 2018 10:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Bollox64 wrote:
Timoth27 wrote:

As for the hb160 I think getting hold of one is going to be the hardest bit.


Took 12 weeks, but today :lol:

ImageUntitled by Bollox2u, on Flickr


Ooooooo, yum, yum! Please report back on how you find it as I am seriously considering one.

Author:  Timoth27 [ Tue May 29, 2018 10:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

brocklanders023 wrote:
Bollox64 wrote:
Timoth27 wrote:

As for the hb160 I think getting hold of one is going to be the hardest bit.


Took 12 weeks, but today :lol:

ImageUntitled by Bollox2u, on Flickr


Ooooooo, yum, yum! Please report back on how you find it as I am seriously considering one.


What he said /\ /\ /\

Author:  Bollox64 [ Wed May 30, 2018 8:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

Busy tuning it using a Shockwiz the LBS loaned me, but she's a nippy fun little bugger so far :-)

Author:  mattr [ Wed May 30, 2018 8:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

Let us know how you get on with the shockwiz.
I keep looking at rental, but with 7 or 8 air shocks between the bikes, €50 for the weekend isn't going to go far. So i *might* just buy one.

Author:  GSB [ Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

Duxuk wrote:
This week I've ridden a technical, undulating section on both new (Boardman FS Pro, 650b) and old (Whyte JW4, 26"). I cleared it both ways on the Boardman but failed both ways on the Whyte. The Whyte seems to jar on the rough bits where the Boardman skips over. It's down to the individual trail section, though, because I know other places where the opposite is true. I certainly know circuits where my money would be on the Whyte to get round quickest. 7 years ago, when I gave up on my first JW4, I found it's replacement, a Voodoo Canzo 26er, was around 15 seconds slower on a 10 minute red trial which forms a circuit.
It's horses for courses but slightly worrying that 15 years hasn't produced a bike which is faster in all situations. And don't get me onto pedal strikes with modern trail bikes. :evil: The BBs are just too low and shortening the cranks robs you of torque when you need it. :cry: Better post this before my blood starts to boil!


If you really want to confuse things, you can just about squeeze 650b’s onto the whyte...

Attachments:
36607F8F-43CE-4150-A2D0-CE8CE2FEFA0E.jpeg
36607F8F-43CE-4150-A2D0-CE8CE2FEFA0E.jpeg [ 144.63 KiB | Viewed 474 times ]

Author:  ishaw [ Sat Jun 09, 2018 11:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

I've been looking into.a 27.5 frame after buying what was supposed to be one, but turned out to be 26. Since then been trying to find a replacement as I'd bought wheels, forks, tyres etc for the build.

I've dipped in and out of this thread so maybe it's been covered, but some articles and opinions on other forums about 27.5 and 27.5+ seem to suggest that 27.5 isn't much more than marketing bs, and no real improvement at all on 26. 29er seems to get a thumbs up though.

I'm still looking for a 27.5 frame to try, as you can't believe everything you read, so will keep looking for one, and keep an eye on this thread.

Unless of course there is conclusive evidence that 27.5 isn't worth it, and having a 26 and 29er in the stable is all a grown man needs.

Author:  cybernck [ Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

27.5" is actually only an inch bigger than 26" in diameter of a full tyre, therefore only 0.5" in radius! But of course they don't tell you that but instead they say it's a middle ground between 26" and 29". Therefore yeah - purely marketing BS in my opinion.

29" is the one to go for if you want to feel a significant difference.

Image

Author:  ishaw [ Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Sounds like I should cut my losses on the 27.5 and build up the 26 inch Kona Kula scandium I acquired with the crossmax SLR then, rather than keep plugging away at a 27.5. Some higher volume tyres and I could be hitting 27.5 territory.

Author:  dyna-ti [ Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

I've also still havering :? While getting the shopping there was a 29er kona parked up. Big wheels indeed. But for me 29 on an xl frames going to be bloody gigantic :shock:

Author:  ishaw [ Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

dyna-ti wrote:
I've also still havering :? While getting the shopping there was a 29er kona parked up. Big wheels indeed. But for me 29 on an xl frames going to be bloody gigantic :shock:

I think an XL frame with 29er wheels will look normal and less like a gate ;)

Author:  The History Man [ Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

Real world. 21” rourke26 21” charge29

Image

Author:  The History Man [ Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

Couple more in xl. I think smaller 29ers look as out of proportion as larger 26ers. Big bikes for big guys.

Image

Author:  The History Man [ Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

In case you didn’t realise I like them. My other two. Both xl

Image

Author:  Duxuk [ Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So is it 26 or 27.5"

I did a local red route circuit a couple of weeks ago in bone dry conditions.11 mins 31 secs. The fastest I've done in years. This was on my 27.5" Boardman FS Pro. I took my Whyte PRST4 up but felt a bit jaded. I thought I may as well still have a go at a fast lap. 11 mins 12 seconds. That, to me, is a statistically significant result. The 12 year older bike is 19 seconds quicker. The downhills were a bit more daunting and it was skipping about in places where the Boardman would have gripped. But since you spend most of your lap climbing the lower tyre drag and magic, intuitive linkage front suspension don't rob you of nearly as much energy.
Someone needs to bring back linkage front forks. BMW have done it for motorcycles so why not? 150mm of travel would suit me, matched at the rear. Wouldn't mind 27.5" wheels, curiously, or even 29ers. I'd chose a narrow tyre on the rear in dry conditions and use an unfashionably high pressure but reckon I'd get round my test track quicker than on any other bike.

Author:  FluffyChicken [ Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Less than 3% quicker.

Looking through my Strava for similar timed segments shows a much wider spread over just one of my 26" bikes, let alone over all of my bikes.

Are you a racing athlete, if so then yes 3% is significant as you'll know what your best is.
Not one, then it is easily day to day variation, ground conditions, tyre pressures, wind direction, gps differences, when you last ate..

All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/