# 26" or 29er - help me choose



## chris222 (20 Nov 2012)

getting a bit confused with all this talk about 29er.

perhaps somebody could help me choose, what might be better for me, based on my riding behaviour and the bikes I have at present.

So I have a road bike - an old trek carbon.

And a Boardman Hybrid Pro - with semi-slick tyres - similar to landcruisers - suitable for fast riding on tarmac and also on forest tracks / bridleways.

Then I have a hybrid Marin Fairfax with cyclocross tyres - which I'll use for riding around the forest tracks and muddy bridleways - but clearly its not really up to the job when its gets really muddy - like it is at the moment and going really off-road is not such an option - so thats why I feel I need something that is more up to the job. I'll also use this if needing to commute in London or needing to leave it locked outside - clearly its not a catastrophe if it gets stolen.

I'm not needing another bike for any competitions/racing etc just want to go off-road / deeper into the forest a little more than I am able to at the moment.

thanks


----------



## defy-one (21 Nov 2012)

The choice if tyre will be of more concern than the wheel size imo. A 29er is basically a 700c wheel


----------



## VamP (21 Nov 2012)

There's a lot more variables than just wheel size. What kind of riding will you do? If you don't know, I suggest you get a cheap(ish) hardtail 26'' and get out riding until you figure what will float your boat.


----------



## RaRa (21 Nov 2012)

I recently bought a 29er - I was previously convinced they were a fad however after testing a 26" and 29 the difference was quite a shock. If you ride on trails and more open tracks and bridlepaths then the 29er will make your life considerably easier. If you like technical twisty rides then IMO they aren't as responsive and can take longer to maneuver round obstacles.


----------



## Drago (21 Nov 2012)

My personal view is if you're wanting an HT, and you have at least £800 to spend then 29 is the way to go. In any other price or type scenario the advantages aren't so clear cut.

Or you could go 650B?


----------



## Motozulu (21 Nov 2012)

Am I right in saying though that 29ers are a bit more expensive than an otherwise identical 26? so you maybe could get a slightly better blinged bike if you go for 26? I have'nt ridden one but a mate who bought one ended up going back to the LBS and swapping it a couple of months later - his opinion was it felt a bit cumbersome to him on the switchbacks on the local singletrack.


----------



## lulubel (21 Nov 2012)

That agrees with what RaRa said, I think. I've seen other discussions about this, and most people who've ridden (or own) both say the 29er is faster, but 26 is "more fun". Based on that, unless you're racing or otherwise in a hurry, I'd say go for 26. You'll get a bit more for your money too.


----------



## Kestevan (21 Nov 2012)

Oh, and if you're a short arse, you might find a 29 a bit unwieldy anyway.......


----------



## Dan151 (22 Nov 2012)

I've ridden both and I prefer 26" to 29". I didn't see much of a difference climbing or descending until it got twisty and then the 26" was more responsive and easier to ride than the 29. My mate prefers the 29er. In all honestly unless your pushing really hard or competing i don't think it makes much difference


----------



## ballyharpat (29 Nov 2012)

I agree with some of the other posters, I just sold a 29er and bought a 26", the 29er was a lot faster, but the 26" is more fun, wish I could let my ego go  and just enjoy the ride....


----------



## 3narf (29 Nov 2012)

The industry seems to have decided for us. Look at next years Leisure lakes catalogue; virtually every hardtail is a 29er, and some full suspension bikes too.

It used to be the market that decided such things; now, it's apparently decided by a cartel of bike manufacturers who have invested and want their money back.

650B? There's only one of those in there, so the cartel are giving everyone time to buy a 29er before 650Bs become compulsory next year.

It's all marketing gimmickry.


----------



## Cyclist33 (29 Nov 2012)

just a quick observation, both the boardman hybrid and marin fairfax would be up to the job, as you put it, because some people ride similar bikes hard over all sorts of terrain and conditions. what you should be saying is You are not up to the job on those bikes, for which the solution is really to practice harder and get out there, if necessary with different tyres.

apparently the latest 29ers have had their front end geometry tuned, the first crop were basically 26 ers with a shorter fork spring, but the makers have twigged that the inherent loss of manoeuvrability needs to be compensated.


----------



## lulubel (29 Nov 2012)

Cyclist33 said:


> just a quick observation, both the boardman hybrid and marin fairfax would be up to the job, as you put it, because some people ride similar bikes hard over all sorts of terrain and conditions. what you should be saying is You are not up to the job on those bikes, for which the solution is really to practice harder and get out there, if necessary with different tyres.


 
That really depends on how much mud the OP is talking about, I would think. I've got stuck in thick clay on a 26" MTB with wide, knobbly tyres. When I got off the bike, I sank up to my knees in it. The bike definitely wasn't up to the job of getting through that.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (29 Nov 2012)

Are you tall, such that you find yourself sitting on top of a 26-er rather than in one. A 29-er might fix that.

Are you riding bridleways and fire roads. A 29-er might roll easier on that sort of stuff.

Are you a 12th dan singletrack black belt fu-master. A 26-er might suit you more.

Are you buying new? The market has decided for you, pretty much, for now.

Are you buying secondhand? A world of choice exists.

What's your budget, and is there a decent spec 26-er available for the money?

Based on what you've said in the OP, that you want to go deeper into the woods, a second-hand 26-er, like a Spesh Hardrock or Rockhopper will help you discover if you like what you find there. Then once you know, n+1 starts.


----------



## Motozulu (30 Nov 2012)

I agree with the market deciding for us thing though - whilst recently looking what's out there, it all seems heavily biased to 29 ers and 100mm travel XC stuff. Very little in the way of 120 mm 26 ers at all.


----------



## Cubist (30 Nov 2012)

There was an article in MBUK last week that showed, definitively, that 29ers were fastest over the same course. They rode a 26, a 29 and a 650B over the same course and stated, categorically, that 26s were the slowest on all three comparisons. By a few seconds over several miles!

XC racers mostly ride 29ers. Hardtail, except for the Olympic Gold Medallist, who was on a short travel susser. 

29s look like they could roll well across the majority of bridleways, so if you want to do that and are of proportionate build then I'd say 29. If you want to ride tight, twisty and technical singletrack, then I'm in the 26 camp. 

Given the geometry issues of a taller front end, the majority of mass market bikes will have short travel, so that manufacturers who are jumping on the bandwagon moving into the 29er market can continue to use up all those OEM riser bars and mid-length stems that they've stocked up on, and don't have to sell them all off to buy flat bars and flipped stems for the 29ers. 

Also, one of the biggest selling points of 29 is that the bigger wheels mean that the bike rolls better over steps, rocks, trail hazards etc, so you don't need as much travel to keep the front wheel tracking.


----------



## Motozulu (30 Nov 2012)

> Also, one of the biggest selling points of 29 is that the bigger wheels mean that the bike rolls better over steps, rocks, trail hazards etc,


 
It's official then - us 26er HT riders are the most skillful, by definition - Nice one Cubist.


----------



## VamP (30 Nov 2012)

...erm, or slower...


----------



## Drago (30 Nov 2012)

Christ. We're listening to advice from MBUK now?


----------



## Cubist (1 Dec 2012)

Drago said:


> Christ. We're listening to advice from MBUK now?


 
No, Drago, it's ironing luv....




[


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (1 Dec 2012)

Cubist said:


> There was an article in MBUK last week that showed, definitively, that 29ers were fastest over the same course. They rode a 26, a 29 and a 650B over the same course and stated, categorically, that 26s were the slowest on all three comparisons. By a few seconds over several miles!
> 
> XC racers mostly ride 29ers. Hardtail, except for the Olympic Gold Medallist, who was on a short travel susser.
> 
> ...


Did the same rider ride all 3 bikes?


----------



## lulubel (1 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Did the same rider ride all 3 bikes?


 
Yes. I think they standardised some other things as well (as far as they could). I read a summary of it, but can't find it now.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Dec 2012)

remind me, what were the specific scientific testing protocols used to determine that mtb's work best with 26 inch wheels?


----------



## Cubist (1 Dec 2012)

Greg, how can you be so cynical. They rode the bikes three times over the same course. 26 was slowest by ay least fifteen seconds. To make it fair they made Doddy wear his check shorts on at least two of the runs.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Dec 2012)

Cubist said:


> Greg, how can you be so cynical. They rode the bikes three times over the same course. 26 was slowest by ay least fifteen seconds. To make it fair they made Doddy wear his check shorts on at least two of the runs.


If 26" is good enough for Joe Murray it's good enough for me, eh?


----------



## VamP (2 Dec 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Did the same rider ride all 3 bikes?


 
Yes and they used a power meter to verify that he was riding at same power output throughout. They also selected three bikes that were closely matched in geometry and weight. Four runs of the test loop for each bike, then averaged out. FWIW I thought that the test made for quite interesting reading and found the difference in lap times reasonably compelling. Not significant for recreational use, but for racing application the advantage of the bigger wheels is clear. 24 seconds per 7km lap, that's around two free minutes in a standard XC race.


----------



## Drago (2 Dec 2012)

So that tells use what we already knew - 29ers are faster when they're HTs intended for quick, relatively benign terrain.

Now repeat it in heavier terrain with full squidge. Even if the goings good those heavier wheels compromise suspension performance, and the extra radius compromises the basic geometry and design.

Or muddy terrain where those huge hoops will gather more mud and weigh a ton, a where those tighter clearances become a liability.

Try riding the above 2 scenarios and the drawbacks are every bit as apparent as their advantages in other scenarios.

29ers do have their place for sure, but for the serious rider in the British climate their best characteristics make them rather limited. If you can afford it the serious off road rider will have a 29et HT in addition to a sorted 26" full sums rig. Only a fool would have one instead of.


----------



## lulubel (2 Dec 2012)

Drago said:


> Now repeat it in heavier terrain with full squidge. Even if the goings good those heavier wheels compromise suspension performance, and the extra radius compromises the basic geometry and design.
> 
> Or muddy terrain where those huge hoops will gather more mud and weigh a ton, a where those tighter clearances become a liability.


 
It sounds like a 29er would have been a pretty good choice for the type of riding I do - dry, rocky hardpack, mostly fast flowing. The issue for short-arses like me, of course, is managing to fit wheels that size into a small enough frame.


----------



## pshore (2 Dec 2012)

I've bought and ridden scores of bikes in my half life and I can tell you without a doubt that you cannot choose a bike by looking at a spec sheet, it's all about the feel and the ride style. No amount of words can describe the feeling that you get when a bike connects with you, it feels like you can ride so much more terrain than you could with any other bike. The choice is about the complete bike package, not just the wheel size.

Get yourself on a bike demo day, or grab a go on your mates bikes so you can have a proper ride and learn the difference and what works for you.


----------



## Drago (4 Dec 2012)

Pshore is spot on. So often the spec sheet looks awesome, but a bike with cheaper componentry simply rides better. The bling Canyon Nerve vs the (now deleted) Giant Trance X4 with its budget kit is a classic example.

Arse in saddle is the way to choose.


----------

