# Wheel Size Help.



## Hugh Manatee (16 Feb 2015)

I have had a mountain bike or two (or three or four) since the early days. My first one was a Dawes Wildcat back in 86 or 87 I think.

Without exception they have all had 26" wheels. I even thought that was the definition of a mountain bike. Now all seems to have changed. I have been left behind by the technology. I mean all my current bikes boast suspension. One has a Flexstem, one has a Softride stem and the other a mighty 65mm in the forks. Discs have passed me by too. I'm still getting used to the power of V brakes.

Now though, I need to get my kids new bikes. I don't want to spend a fortune but I want them to last a while without being too big this year. Do I have this right?

26" wheels. Really only used by elderly dinosaurs who are so far removed from the modern age people laugh and point. Oh, and very short people.

650B. 27.5" and the new, new standard. Perhaps worth considering for a 12 year old daughter who is already 5'8"?

29" and the old new standard? Only really of use if you're over 6'2" or so? This was going to be the size for everyone until the 650 turned out to be better for more people.

Or, are the new sizes cunning marketing ploys to get people to part with more cash? I'm six feet tall and 26 has worked for me. I want a little knowledge before I hit the shops.

Thanks.


----------



## MikeW-71 (16 Feb 2015)

My current MTB is 26" with discs and realistically it will be with me for quite a few years yet.

It depends where you ride, if it's mainly canal towpaths and non-technical trails, a 29" rolls along quicker (they say). They tend not to be as nimble as 26" though. For this reason, downhillers will still love 26". It's not just to suit a riders height, though very small frames with 29" wheels look very unwieldy to say the least.

27.5" is supposedly the best of both. Nimble as 26", but rolls faster. This is the one that will stick IMO and if I was buying an MTB now, it would be 27.5.


----------



## Pale Rider (16 Feb 2015)

The problem with a 29er for shorter rider could be toe clearance.

I say 'could be' because the geometry of the newer frames has been adjusted to accommodate the bigger wheels.

My new bike - thread to follow shortly - is a medium Cannondale 29er, which has toe clearance and is fine for me at 5'11.

There's plenty of seat post showing, so I reckon it would fit someone a few inches shorter.

The small frame version of my bike - and the small frame versions of many others - only comes with 27.5" because of toe clearance.

As regards which to choose, it does depend on use.

I've only done one 20 mile ride on mine, but there's no doubt the 29er wheels roll a lot better on road and cycle track than the smaller diameters.

Bike Radar tested the three sizes on slightly more demanding trails.

The result was 29er, 26" then 27.5".

In summary, they found the 29er was fastest because of the low rolling resistance and its ability to steam roller over obstacles.

The nimbleness of the 26" got it into second place.

The 27.5" was found to be the worst of all worlds, it didn't roll fast enough to match the 29er, and it was too clumsy to match the 26".

My mate Chris the Bike Mechanic, a keen mountain biker, agrees.

Which is a long-winded way of saying your remark about 27.5" being mostly marketing puff is correct.


----------



## MikeW-71 (16 Feb 2015)

Hmmm, interesting!


----------



## razer17 (16 Feb 2015)

My current bike is a 26", and I'm 6"1. Recently I've rented a 29er a couple of times. When I get a new bike very soon, I won't be getting a 26". Take from that what you will. 

Looking at the various shops, it really looks like 26" is losing support fast. Perhaps there will be a resurgence, perhaps not. But if there isn't a resurgence then finding replacement wheels and tyres might become an issue. I imagine that's unlikely though


----------



## Citius (16 Feb 2015)

I've recently moved from 26 to 29 - didn't consider 27.5. The difference is noticable. I can potentially see that the 29er might be a bit trickier to handle in the really tight, low-speed technical stuff, but that's not really the type of riding I do anyway. For XC or general off road, I don't think 29 can be beaten, personally.


----------



## Cubist (16 Feb 2015)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfZylC-n4qE


----------



## HarryTheDog (16 Feb 2015)

At 5 ft 8 I would think she would quite easily suit a 29er. If she has any thought of racing then most people advise to go 29er. ( yes young girls can race, my daughter was a regional youth champ when everyone used 26 inch) I was a marshal at inter regional youth champs and I would say most kids over 5 ft 7 were on a 29er. However if you want a bargain and she is not going to race and just muck about and get taller and may outgrow a bike you get this year, save some cash and go secondhand. People are dumping quite high spec 2nd hand 26 inch hardtail bikes on ebay etc as no one wants them. I unfortunately am such a short arse at 5ft 5 I look faintly ridiculous on a 29er so am considering a 27.5 as I really need a 55cm effective top tube , however a friend of mine who races most nationals thinks I am stupid to try 27.5 and should go for a 29er even if it looks silly . He has tried all 3 and thinks 29er is the only way to go, he is 5ft 7.


----------



## Hugh Manatee (16 Feb 2015)

Thanks everyone. Some really good and interesting information. I really need to get something soon. My son is becoming somewhat lazy. I made him come for a ride on Sunday and he did look a little odd on his Hotrock and he is a few inches shorter than his sister. That is the problem with twins. You have to double everything you buy.


----------



## Corrblimeyguv (17 Feb 2015)

I'm 5'10" and have recently purchased a Scaracen Kili 29" bike. For me there are plus and minus points.

I do not agree that you have to be over 6' foot to go 29". 

It is much quicker than my old 26" but on my first outing there is a noticeable difference with cornering. 

Perseverance is key! Go 29!


----------



## HarryTheDog (17 Feb 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Bike Radar tested the three sizes on slightly more demanding trails.


Thanks Pale Rider I found the test
http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/gear/a...e-wheel-size-really-affect-performance-43481/
I was surprised to find one of the testers was 5ft 5 and the wheel size made no difference to his results either ie 29er was fastest. There was a caveat in there on the 26 inch that it was harder work on the upper body on rocky descents and the 27.5 was less hard work. ( though 26 inch faster). Hmm may look at 29ers again.


----------



## Jody (17 Feb 2015)

User28511 said:


> Looking at the various shops, it really looks like 26" is losing support fast.



There is a difference between loosing support and being forced out of the market place by manufacturers. If 26" inch wheeled bikes were still readily available people would still be buying them.


----------



## Pale Rider (17 Feb 2015)

HarryTheDog said:


> Thanks Pale Rider I found the test
> http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/gear/a...e-wheel-size-really-affect-performance-43481/
> I was surprised to find one of the testers was 5ft 5 and the wheel size made no difference to his results either ie 29er was fastest. There was a caveat in there on the 26 inch that it was harder work on the upper body on rocky descents and the 27.5 was less hard work. ( though 26 inch faster). Hmm may look at 29ers again.



Thank you for posting the link to the test, hopefully my summary was accurate, but if not members can now see it for themselves.

You have more knowledge of mountain biking than me, so in that respect I can't help any more with the wheel decision.

All I would say is I doubt you look in any way ridiculous on a 29er.

You might look ridiculous on a bike that's too big for you, but as you and I both know, that is not the same thing.

As a general point, my mate Chris tells me it's quite common for customers to ask for a bike that is too big for them.

He reckons some of them think a smaller bike is somehow less manly or not as sturdy or won't go so well.

It puts him in an awkward position, but as he says he can only suggest - a few times - the correct size.

If the customer insists on the bigger bike, that's what they get.


----------



## Pale Rider (17 Feb 2015)

Jody said:


> There is a difference between loosing support and being forced out of the market place by manufacturers. If 26" inch wheeled bikes were still readily available people would still be buying them.



That what my mate Chris - who has been selling bikes for 20 years - reckons.

When I was buying mine, he said 27.5 has been foisted on us by the makers for no good reasons other than marketing.

It also drives him nuts because there's yet more tyres and tubes to keep in stock.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (17 Feb 2015)

Test ride test ride test ride....


----------



## razer17 (17 Feb 2015)

Jody said:


> There is a difference between loosing support and being forced out of the market place by manufacturers. If 26" inch wheeled bikes were still readily available people would still be buying them.


What I meant was the likes of Giant and trek, the companies with the most clout are only offering the two larger sizes. And if they don't make it available to buy most people won't buy them. So 26" is losing support from the people who really influence the majority of the market. Or as you say they're forcing 26" out.


----------



## gelfy666 (27 Feb 2015)

im 6' 2" and have the large Saracen Kili, i do prefer it now compared to my 26" bike, just feels better to me, but its personal prference i suppose.


----------



## Hugh Manatee (27 Feb 2015)

We tried her sitting on a couple of bikes last week. I don't know whether bikes are measured differently these days but, my 12 year old daughter sat on a 29er that apparently had a 19" frame. There was around 12cm seat post showing and she could touch the ground with both feet.

Her favourite (a lurid green Cube), had hydraulic discs and Big S 3x8 gears that I would upgrade as they failed. My only concern was a Suntour fork. Suntour have fallen a long way since the days of XC Pro and Superbe Pro. Even that didn't make it feel too front heavy and it even had a remote lockout.

I think mountain bikes have got a lot shorter lately but the height?


----------



## Hugh Manatee (27 Feb 2015)

@gelfy666 nice bike! Check out my Saracen Kili. It is safe to say the name has moved on....


----------



## gelfy666 (28 Feb 2015)

Mines a 19" frame


----------



## I like Skol (2 Mar 2015)

I am facing the same dilemma. I am about to splurge £1300 quid on decent MTBs for the wife and oldest son and to say the options are limited is an understatement. They have to be GT and the spec level I want means either 27.5 or 29, no 26 option. I have rebuilt my 26r and would gladly buy more 26" bikes if it was still an option, IMO they are the best of all worlds


----------



## mrbikerboy73 (7 Mar 2015)

I too was faced with this dilemma recently. I've ridden and thoroughly enjoyed mountain bikes with 26" wheels for years because that was the industry standard. But when changing bike last year, I suddenly had two more options. I went 27.5" and they seem pretty good. Is there a massive difference? Not really TBH. 
Unfortunately, it seems bike manufacturers are phasing out 26" wheels now, so what was the standard for years is suddenly seen as old hat. I don't subscribe to this theory, I merely see them being pushed aside for something different or "new". This is also an excellent opportunity to sell us all new bikes with different wheels sizes. 
Marked improvement or marketing ploy, you decide....


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (7 Mar 2015)

I don't do wheelsize arguments but having ridden all 3 wheel sizes, when purchasing new and upgrading my 26, my favourite manufacturer (Vitus/ CRC) had only 27.5 in the £ range so I bought one. 

I guess, having recently bought another 27.5, It's my preferred size..


----------



## Heigue'r (8 Mar 2015)

Im ordering a bike tomorrow morning, I have a choice of 27.5 and 29 in the model i want, however the frame for the 27.5 comes in 18" which is bang on the money for me based on my measurements, the 29 comes in 17" or 19" and seems to be slightly small or slightly large.I have been reading article after article on the pros and cons of both.some sites favour 29 some 27.5.I dont think I will notice the difference on either size as its been 13 odd years since ive had a mtb.I think ive got caught up in reading too much about them.im just going to order and ride
this is a review that favours the 27.5 if you forget about the reality bit at the bottom, good enough for me, im not going to read another thread about the subject
http://mbaction.com/home-page/home-page-slideshow/shootout-wheel-wars-29-vs-27-5-vs-26


----------



## Pale Rider (8 Mar 2015)

Heigue'r said:


> Im ordering a bike tomorrow morning, I have a choice of 27.5 and 29 in the model i want, however the frame for the 27.5 comes in 18" which is bang on the money for me based on my measurements, the 29 comes in 17" or 19" and seems to be slightly small or slightly large.I have been reading article after article on the pros and cons of both.some sites favour 29 some 27.5.I dont think I will notice the difference on either size as its been 13 odd years since ive had a mtb.I think ive got caught up in reading too much about them.im just going to order and ride
> this is a review that favours the 27.5 if you forget about the reality bit at the bottom, good enough for me, im not going to read another thread about the subject
> http://mbaction.com/home-page/home-page-slideshow/shootout-wheel-wars-29-vs-27-5-vs-26



Stuff the wheel size, get the one that fits you the best.


----------



## KneesUp (8 Mar 2015)

I remember when 'Mountain Bikes' were relatively new that there were loads of arguments in favour of 26" wheels being much better than 700c (or 29er as they call them now)

I suppose Physics must have changed?


----------



## JohnClimber (8 Mar 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Stuff the wheel size, get the one that fits you the best.



Great answer Pale Rider

I've been riding 29er's and 29er+ bikes* since 2008 and I love them, I'm 5'8" with a 31" inside leg.

I'm a long distance rider, but like the occasional trail centre and they suit my style of riding perfectly.

If you're into downhill, rocky and technical go for a 650b full suspension bike. Avoid 26er's unless that's all you can afford.

Look at what you can afford and then spend a couple of hundred more (if you can stretch to it) to be as future proof as possible.

My2Penneth

* my Fat Bikes are 26" rims but the 4" to 5" of rubber make them 29ers


----------



## Motozulu (8 Mar 2015)

Must admit after getting my first 27.5 last year I am now a convert. Just a _little _bit quicker, just a _little _bit smoother over the roots and rocks. It all counts, eh? When I ride the 26er S/S now it feels so slow....


----------



## Cyclist33 (9 Mar 2015)

Heigue'r said:


> Im ordering a bike tomorrow morning, I have a choice of 27.5 and 29 in the model i want, however the frame for the 27.5 comes in 18" which is bang on the money for me based on my measurements, the 29 comes in 17" or 19" and seems to be slightly small or slightly large.I have been reading article after article on the pros and cons of both.some sites favour 29 some 27.5.I dont think I will notice the difference on either size as its been 13 odd years since ive had a mtb.I think ive got caught up in reading too much about them.im just going to order and ride
> this is a review that favours the 27.5 if you forget about the reality bit at the bottom, good enough for me, im not going to read another thread about the subject
> http://mbaction.com/home-page/home-page-slideshow/shootout-wheel-wars-29-vs-27-5-vs-26



You mean it tells you what you want to hear..?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (9 Mar 2015)

You will not find a single rational argument for or against any one of the sizes in the usage category you are proposing.
Subjective findings such as "roll fast" and "more upper body work" are just that, subjective and impossible to quantify or even prove in blind tests.

In your case, I would simply buy the bike with the best value proposition at the time when you are ready to buy. Don't agonize over it. Agonize over the colour, if you want to fret. If you want a practical consideration, remember that 29" MTB wheels are very bulky and complicates transporting a disassembled bike in a small hatchback. It is certainly a dog to take on a plane or train.


----------



## Heigue'r (9 Mar 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> You mean it tells you what you want to hear..?


What do you mean? The review or the sizechart? If I wanted a 29er, I could post a review that favoured the 29er , likewise with the 26.As i said above there is no way i could tell the difference anyway


----------



## Yellow Saddle (9 Mar 2015)

Hugh Manatee said:


> . Suntour have fallen a long way since the days of XC Pro and Superbe Pro. Even that didn't make it feel too front heavy and it even had a remote lockout.
> 
> I think mountain bikes have got a lot shorter lately but the height?



That's not the same Suntour. The name was revived but is an altogether different company. The one was Japanese, the new one Taiwanese. Nevertheless, the Suntour fork range fills a certain niche very well. Yes, they are entry level forks but they are good entry level forks. They are serviceable, and tick all the right pricepoint features. Don't be put off by them. A good cross country fork will cost more than the entire bike you're looking at.


----------



## Psycolist (10 Mar 2015)

My own experience has left me with a 26 off roader and a 29 road bike. The theory about the larger wheel rolling better seems to me to be correct, but the type of off roading I do, bridle ways, farm tracks, woodland paths, seem better suited to the smaller, more agile wheel. I can however see the advantage, in some circumstances, of using the bigger wheel off road, for cycle cross perhaps. The 27.5 would be a compromise for somebody wanting to use a bike for both road and off road riding. IMHO none are "the best" and none are "the worst". Its horses for courses. Its a matter of what suits you and your riding needs.


----------



## JohnClimber (11 Mar 2015)

27.5" are only like a 26er with a large volume tyre on a wider rim

Here's a shot on my 26er tandem front wheel next to my 29er+ (29er rime with a 3" Surly Knard tyre) to give you some idea of the scope in tyres currently available on the market today.


----------



## Piemaster (12 Mar 2015)

Bought a Voodoo Hoodoo 26 recently. First mtb since a Giant XTC several years ago that only had for a few months before some scrote stole it.
Pondered a bit over wheel sizes (I'm 6'2") then thought "I'm actually not good enough for it make any real difference. Just get something that fits and ride the bloody thing and enjoy it"


----------



## Crackle (13 Mar 2015)

All things are not equal. You have to ride the bike and assess the wheel size together with what you want to do, what you're likely to do and what kind of rider you are. One 26er or 29er will not ride the same as another, your physical size only matters in relation to bike fit, wheel size irrelevant. I recommend you test ride some if possible, hire others at trail centres, borrow a mates, whatever but inform yourself enough to have a preference because once you do, you'll always enjoy riding the bike you've chosen.


----------

