26" or 29er - help me choose

[Cubist]

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]

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]

...erm, or slower...

 

[Drago]

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

 

[Cubist]

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

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

[

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

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.

Did the same rider ride all 3 bikes?

 

[lulubel]

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]

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

 

[Cubist]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.