[Closed] 26 v 650B v 29 opinions from pink bike (not answers)

Also says the 29er was fastest, but little is made of that. Depends a lot on what you want from your riding. Ie it's personal...

Done last week I think. The 29 faster in the loop the 26 on the decent. Possibly more was made of the fun as that could have been the less scientific but more important answer.

not sure its a valid test. What does 'wheel corrected geometry' mean? All bikes have same head angle? All BB's the same height, or same height relative to axles?
From what I understand 29ers tend to have steeper head angles so if they are all the same then its not really a surprise that 29ers are quicker.
A better test in my opinion would be to put the fastest 26er up against the fastest 29er.

Fastest how?

Does fastest equal funnest?

does fastest equal funnest? maybe, maybe not, but it seems to be the yardstick with which the majority wants to measure, especially as funnest is so subjective.

As for 'fastest how', I think the press and mtb riders in general know which are the quickest in each category, and which are the best allrounders. Just seems to me it would be a better way to compare bikes as they are more than just their wheel size.

my 29er is fun in a different way to my 26" bikes. I like that they're different. ymmv.

The 29er wasn't fastest on the descents. So it depends on your leaning.
It's reinforced that I don't want a 29er.

i thought it was a 'good'article, looked a proper trail that lots of riders could use so aimed at joe public.

I found my 29er scandal fine on twisty trails and i had fun as they say a bit monster truck but giggling at the end

rode my 26er Yeti 7 and it was more flickable and 'lived in'

there in lies the issue still learning how to ride a 29er and use its full potential and I thin it takes more than a couple of days.

overall good article though

Does fastest equal funnest?

ask any DHer and the answer is still no, even on descents 🙂

29ers tend to have steeper head angles so if they are all the same then its not really a surprise that 29ers are quicker.

So speed is directly proportional to head angle?

It seems most obvious that numbers make the best bike just pick them from a spreadsheet and send it via accounts for approval.

So speed is directly proportional to head angle?

depends on the trail\track, but going downhill if everything else was equal the slacker bike would in all probability be quicker, hence why angle sets and offset bushings have become so popular.

[img] http://s3.media.squarespace.com/production/301946/6460085/.a/6a00e54ef51d7688340120a650b360970b-800wi [/img]

speed directly related to rider...................

I'm surprised they are still coming out with 'the fastest' when it's complete bullshit. A 29er wheel is faster over certain terrain but it is not the fastest wheel over all types of terrain.

If they owned a selection of bikes and rode them back to back over a selection of terrain from rock gardens right down to smooth singletrack with steep climbs and steep descents,they would soon find this out.

A 26er wheel is faster over certain terrain but it is not the fastest wheel over all types of terrain.

Exactly.

To get more of an idea of whats right you've got to ride UP the hills also.

This was from some Canadian guy on that forum. I have to agree.

Now 27.5ers....that's a whole differnt kettle of fish 😉 (or so we are lead to believe).

I see what you are getting at there ;O)

So you are saying it's the 29er that is faster over 'all types of terrain'?

Good find - thanks for that

Not sure I'm with the concept of the fastest - I would like to know which is the most versatile up and down hills

lol and for those who havn't got all the way through it they used strava to measure it so as some would point out there could be months between the real times anyway 😉

Interesting to read these comparisons, as much for method and rider's take on it.
A few of us did a similar test with some 26, 27.5 and 29 production bikes, 2 out of the 5 were bikes I had specced and designed frames for. Hardtails, for better focus on wheel effect on the bikes and less taken out by sus. Used a fairly average section of trail, rode it over and over swapping between bikes. My conclusion about wheel sizes wasn't the most important bit, what stood out was I thought tyre volume had more to do with which bike I liked. Thinner/average tyres on a 29er felt lamer, fat 650B felt great. Seemingly skinny-ish 2.2 on a 26 did nothing for me, wasn't impressed yet it was a format I'd been riding a lot until fairly recently, that or later 2.4s. I ride fat 29er rims + tyres out of choice on my own bike now. Links, or just personal preference, I'm not sure yet.
So much easier to talk about / market wheel size rather than volume and pressure combos.

But wheels and tyres don't sell as many units ...

Having seen this I can see why 26 is so yesterday. It's all about rolling and uphill and all that......

That brycelend vid will blow many a STWer mind. 😉

That vid is one of my favourites in a while.

26" wheels, 5" bike, flat pedals, saddle down, standing up, stomping on the pedals, ragging and fun.

Far removed from 6" bike, blue route, seated, gentle pedalling mincing, that i imagine a majority of STW get up to. Actually it isn't just a STW thing, but a MTB public thing.

*Anticipates excuses like "but he's pro". Skill level doesn't stop anyone attempting with that style and mindset. Surprisingly enough, if you try, it comes.

In awe. Coming out popping wheelies. So nice.

Has anyone spotted the obvious flaw ?

The best bike is the one considered the most fun, but that seems to be the one which makes the same ride the most challenging. You can also make a ride more challenging by ignoring other innovations, such as suspension, dropper seat posts, disk brakes. Or you can embrace the new technology and seek out more challenging terrain ?

Or you can embrace the new technology and seek out more challenging terrain ?

Problem with that is owning a DH bike doesn't make you aaron gwin or able to get down the same things. There comes a point where the rider has to come in, just as the rider will be the limiting factor on a xc bike on fort will. A bigger bike may help, earn a couple of seconds, but won't be the deciding factor.

It just so happens that tech removes the novice rider from what is going on, hindering skill progression. Tech breeds the rider being able to survive more circumstances (i use survive strongly), at detriment to the rider actually understanding what is going on, which in the long run, is going to result in better times, control and fun.

The other major flaw is, in reality, who has whistler or the alps for their back garden, the more riding you dull out that exists around you, the less you have to ride that is fun. Why chip away at what you have to ride. It's not like more bike will open out much more extreme riding opportunities, again with rider skill, skill will open up a lot more. Rider skill can also make the boring trails more interesting, so skill opens up riding at both ends of the spectrum, more bike will only open up a little bit more at the more technical end.

Plus you skipped the point that on that particular test, the 26 was fastest down the descent.

26 and 29 aren't the problem, they offer different enough benefits to make them worthwhile, it's the shoe-horning of 650b into the marketplace that's the issue for me.

29ers also take some getting used to and definitely didn't feel as fun for the first few months for me; just as fun now though and make a nice alternative to my 26er.

Plus you skipped the point that on that particular test, the 26 was fastest down the descent.

I think most riders on this forum like the challenge of the climb and the bits in between as well as the descents.

The Blur Tr video is amazing but I reckon that rider could do that on most mountain bikes regardless of wheel size, frame material etc.

that vid looks good enought to make even me want / think about a new bike

nice to see a company still offering good choice in 26er (because I'm not 6 foot plus and dont need a 29er)

26 and 29 aren't the problem, they offer different enough benefits to make them worthwhile, it's the shoe-horning of 650b into the marketplace that's the issue for me.

Close minded people who have made their choice why can't 650 be better than 29, if we stopped at 2 sizes why not 24 & 26??
If we evolve to 29 then consider 26!!

bloody wheel sizeists

26 and 29 aren't the problem, they offer different enough benefits to make them worthwhile, it's the shoe-horning of 650b into the marketplace that's the issue for me.

Close minded people who have made their choice why can't 650 be better than 29, if we stopped at 2 sizes why not 24 & 26??
If we evolve to 29 then consider 26!!

You miss the point entirely; 650b may offer some benefits over 26" and 29" wheels, but also some drawbacks, i'm fully aware of that and embrace new technology in our sport.

You clearly feel 650b should replace 29er by the tone of your post, the sad thing is the introduction of 650b may mean the end of 26er wheels in all but specialist downhill bikes. I fear this is a bad thing and that is why i'm reluctant to embrace a third wheelsize in between the existing standards.

I don't get why its a problem, 3 wheel sizes.

I also don't get the marketing BS bit. every product has marketing bs behind,

Dropper posts, clutch rear mechs, 1x11 etc.

The Blur Tr video is amazing but I reckon [b]ANY[/b] rider could do that on most mountain bikes regardless of wheel size, frame material etc.

My point exactly and post minorly adjusted accordingly.

A bike that is "better" gives a mental lift, it's that mental lift that is normally the performance enhancement when it comes to skill, i would also argue the same when it comes to fittness and stength.

Why can't more concentration be put on cutting out the change in bike and cutting straight to the mental adjustment?

I don't get why its a problem, 3 wheel sizes.

It's not a problem for us, but it will be for your local bike shop when making decisions on what components and spares to stock.

Deanfbm, I completely agree on the rider skill and mental preparation side of things by the way; proper coaching and practise will make a much greater difference than new kit for most of us.

Why can't more concentration be put on cutting out the change in bike and cutting straight to the mental adjustment?

jedi sponsered by [[i]insert major bike corp here[/i]]?

...The selling point was the compromise - they should roll better than a 26 inch wheel, but keep the bike feeling livelier than a 29er. There was also a hint of hysteria; off the record people were admitting that they'd blown it with 29ers, missed the boat, and they were damned sure they weren't going to miss this one....

That section about summed the whole 27.5"/650b up for me...

The "Testing" they did was more Qualitative which TBH is probably more relevant to the majority of MTBers (who either don't race or spend more of their time 'Just' enjoying riding), how does a bike [I]feel[/I] to ride? rather than what is the most efficient way to roll along on straight sections...

My reading of it was that 26" is still more 'Fun' 29" is not without a fun factor and the fact that 29" can roll through stuff (Plow) that bit easier does add something, but that it's still not quite the daddy on tighter, twisty, technical stuff.

As for 27.5? I read the piece almost as a big shrug in that regard, it's neither one thing or the other... Compromise? Middle for diddle? Meh...

I'm perfectly willing to accept that had the bicycle industry gone anoher way we'd have all been riding on 650b wheels for the last 30 odd years but they didn't and 26" wheels have done us proud ever since and still work well for most people.

I think 29" wheels offer enough positive differences from 26" to add something to the riding experience for many.

But I still can't help seeing 27.5" as a cynical marketing ploy, primarily from those companies that just failed to jump on the 29er bandwaggon in time. But the boat has sailed and the 29er "Trick" isn't so easily repeatable...

Yes Intense are rolling out a 650b DH bike this coming season and no doubt there will be others.
I'll not dispute the marginal technical benefits of a 27.5" wheel over 26" but then there's the consumer to consider, how do they really benefit from a 3rd "Standard" in the Mix?

It's not a problem for us, but it will be for your local bike shop when making decisions on what components and spares to stock.

Do many LBS's stock more than a couple of rims?

Tubes take up no space, and they probably already carry 12/16/18/20/22/24/26/28(and 29)" tubes in varying sizes.

Tyres, as above for rims,

It's not a problem for us, but it will be for your local bike shop when making decisions on what components and spares to stock.

A descent LBS wouldn't have any issues as they would just turn a percentage of their 26" stock into 29er and 650B,

There are hundreds of rim/tyre/tube/frame/fork variations as it is.

It's not a problem for us, but it will be for your local bike shop when making decisions on what components and spares to stock.

Do many LBS's stock more than a couple of rims?

Tubes take up no space, and they probably already carry 12/16/18/20/22/24/26/28(and 29)" tubes in varying sizes.

Tyres, as above for rims.

Three of the most expensive components when building a bike are the frame, the wheels and and the forks. These are all wheel size specific.

Forks alone would be a serious outlay for an independent local bike shop wanting to offer customers a choice of 26, 650B and 29" forks to choose from.

There are hundreds of rim/tyre/tube/frame/fork variations as it is.

EXACTLY... and adding another few hundred will only mean more unsold stock for an LBS already struggling to compete with the big chains and online retailers.

I think 29" wheels offer enough positive differences from 26" to add something to the riding experience for many.

But I still can't help seeing 27.5" as a cynical marketing ploy, primarily from those companies that just failed to jump on the 29er bandwaggon in time. But the boat has sailed and the 29er "Trick" isn't so easily repeatable...

Yes Intense are rolling out a 650b DH bike this coming season and no doubt there will be others.
I'll not dispute the marginal technical benefits of a 27.5" wheel over 26" but then there's the consumer to consider, how do they really benefit from a 3rd "Standard" in the Mix?

Completely agree with this.

There are hundreds of rim/tyre/tube/frame/fork variations as it is.

Exactly why we don't need more.

As to the point regarding rider ability versus bike ability, I intentionally ride rigid bikes on my local trails (and more recently single speed) because they're just a bit easy and boring on a bike with suspension. I'd never have it as my only bike though, because the opportunities to ride somewhere more challenging are so few and far between that when I do get there I want all the help I can to ride them 🙂

an LBS already struggling to compete with the big chains and online retailers.

Large retailers like Evans, wiggle etc all started as independents. They where the best, that's how they grew. New products, trends etc come out all the time, only wheel size has ever created this amount of drama.

Shop that can handle stock control, sales and know what their customers want won't have an issue. The rest have more than just wheel sizes to worry about.

Exactly why we don't need more.

Choice is what stops us all riding supermarket BSO's

Life would be boring.

only wheel size has ever created this amount of drama.

The industry may know how to make nice riding big wheeled bikes now, but it really doesn't know how to market them without causing confusion. Name another product, trend or innovation that so fundamentally affected which bike you can buy. I suppose the last such thing was when frames began to be designed with suspension in mind as opposed to rigid forks, but even then there's nothing stopping you putting rigid forks in a frame designed for suspension and vice versa. Once you've bought into 29er or 26er there's no chopping and changing.

I'd said it on other posts, as someone who is in the market for a bike, I was more than happy with the vast choice of 26ers available. I don't have the funds nor opportunity to test ride even more bikes to decide on whether I should go big wheels or not. Choice is great, but too much choice is a bad thing.

I think you need to consider that [U]most[/U] MTBers don't chop and change and buy a new bike every 12 months, much as manufacturers and Mag's would love them to...

The majority probably agonise over a new bike every what, 3-5 years perhaps?
And will want to make a choice that will make their riding enjoyable for another 3-5 years.

The prospect of adopting something 'new' (Specifically designed Frame and Fork to accomodate certain wheel sizes) when it seems to be part of a 3 way tug'O'war with other standards is probably quite off-putting.

^^^^This, put much better than I have ever managed. Thanks cookeaa

Probably not even that.

Most MTB purchasers are probably the ones going down to Halfords/Evans/wherever to buy their first bike in a very long time.

If 26 is going to go extinct, it's not because an XC guy won a WC race on 650b and one DH team is thinking of running the same. It'll be because all the big mfrs Giant/Spesh/Trek, consolidate all MTB Hardtails, Hybrid, Trekking, etc. bikes on to 1 wheel size. Which kind of makes sense.

If half of that lot stays as 700c, then 26er is here to stay. 29er may split to be XC HT as 29, and 120-140mm FS as 650b (more scope for larger wheel in smaller frame sizes)

The Blur Tr video is amazing but I reckon ANY rider could do that on most mountain bikes regardless of wheel size, frame material etc.

Not everyone will pour over this sort of nonsense in the same way as bike geeks like us lot;

The first they will really know about it is suddenly being faced with a plethora of "standards" which weren't about last time they came to buy a new bike, coupled with conflicting advice on what's "Best" for their needs...

As an example I've got a mate who is quite keen to buy a new MTB soon and he's got a pretty fair budget to do it with. I suggested he give serious consideration to a 29er due to the type of riding he does, and he should try to test ride a few 29" and 26" bikes...

Unfortunately rather than looking into demo days, he went away and read a few Mags and now is asking me about 26" Vs 27.5" Vs 29" and if he'll [I]"Have a better handling [U]and[/U] faster bike"[/I] with 27.5" than his current cheapo 26er.
He's unclear as to how much of a foothold the 650b standard has in the MTB market (I share his confusion there), will he be able to get spare wheels/parts easily and affordably in a few years should he need them. So What do I tell him?

My own personal Bias say avoid 27.5" at all costs! That 29" wheels on MTBs are established now and make perfect sense for his use, He's got a 26" HT that could be turned towards Hack duties should he become that way inclined.

650b/27.5 just confuses a pretty simple choice with claims of offering the "Best of Both" which is not quite true IMO it's more "a Bit of Both" like the article said it's a compromise, but it's a compromise that consumers neither asked for or really need...

"Proponents" are trying to frame it as the [I]"One Wheel size to rule them All"[/I] when in reality it's more a case of [I]"Another slightly bigger Wheel because we didn't try it a few years ago and now you're all riding bloddy specialized bikes!"[/I]

Well said Cookeaa

Fair points above.

Name another product, trend or innovation that so fundamentally affected which bike you can buy

There are so many, suspension in the early days before frames where designed round it, currently tapered forks for example. The difference with wheels as to other components is that most people seem totally against it. Personally you should find the style of bike you want before you go down the route of wheel size.

If its not for you then fair enough. Full sus bikes aren't for me but I don't write into mbr telling them how i'm never going to buy their mag because its full of fs bikes like someone did about 29ers in a recent issue.

At the end of the day, what works will stay what doesn't won't.

^^ Just saw the last MBR mag. If the bikes they have on test are anything to go by, 29er is going to be the next big thing, and 650b hasn't even been thought of yet.

At times like this, I like to remember the horror that was the Whyte 46. Regaled as some sort of five-star, perfect messiah by the bike mags when it was first launched, a year later it was pretty obvious that novelty and unfamiliarity had sort of dazzled people. At least two top bike journos had the things as long-termers and found they rarely rode them because, well. put bluntly, they weren't much good.

People get taken in by newness and marketing. Not in a corrupt way but because we have a culture founded on perceived innovation and because people generally and testers in particular get bored of what's the norm and want something else. Sometimes 'something else' turns out to be really good, sometimes it doesn't.

Personally, as long as I can still get bits for 26" wheels, I'm happy. Because mountain biking for me isn't about timed speed over measured loops. And even when it is, oddly, it sort of isn't still.

Has 650b filtered down to 50-quid catalogue bikes yet then?

26" is better cos only the sexiest tyres are in this size.

If you wanna go fast everywhere, there's EPO.

That test was the most subjective load of crap I've seen. They guys were semi-goons and they didn't properly time anything.

The Dirt one is the only 29" V's 26" test that got any useful data out of it that I've seen.

It's obvious to me anyway. I just can't believe people come to a different conclusion than that a good 29" is much easier/safer to go fast on so it's ultimately quicker. They feel like bloody downhill bikes.

The Dirt one is the only 29" V's 26" test that got any useful data out of it that I've seen.
It's obvious to me anyway. I just can't believe people come to a different conclusion than that a good 29" is much easier/safer to go fast on so it's ultimately quicker. They feel like bloody downhill bikes.

And pink bike timed the 26 faster on the down.

Conclusive eh?

Strava? 😆

I'm not sure the average rider is the kind to get everything out of a bike. At least the guys in the Dirt test are high level riders.

Why does this always seem to come back down to 26 v 29 when the two standards seem to be co-existing just fine. Certain big manaufacturers forcing 650B into the market seems to be the problem in my opinion.

Erm, the dirt article didn't conclude that 29ers were faster at all. The 29er rider was faster on the 29er. The 26er rider was faster on the 26er. Funny that......
The pinkbike article draws a far more logical conclusion, includes times and a strava link. Not really "subjective crap". Not by a long stretch.
I'd also wager that Matt Wragg is a better rider than the vast majority on here, including JCL.

While timing riders round a course may create the illusion of science none of the tests I've seen come close to being scientifically valid. But even if they were they would still be irrelevant to most riders, who don't really care about small increases in their average speed. If I want to go fast I ride my road bike. All mountain bikes are slow, but that's not the point of them really.

Note, I'm not for or against different wheel sizes. If I found a 29er, for example, that lets me ride down stuff that I'm too scared to attempt on my 26" bike I'd be tempted. But the fact that it might get me round my regular loop a few minutes faster is of no interest whatsoever to me.

Strava is about as scientific as a statistic, sorry I mean "statistic", in a Daily Mail "news" article.

If Emmeline Ragot smokes Rachel Atherton on 650b, then I'll start believing that there's a technical advantage. Actually I could believe it would be better on some WC courses (Pietermaritzburg? Windham?) and worse on others (Leogang, Val di Sole,...)

The pinkbike article draws a far more logical conclusion, includes times and a strava link. Not really "subjective crap". Not by a long stretch.

... although 'fun' is hard to measure is it not?

.. although 'fun' is hard to measure is it not?

But riding is all about getting to the bottom quicker!
Surely Strava is the fun-o-meter, and everyone has this to objectively quantify the fun on each run? 😉

I agree Wrecker, although I suspect its going to be "650B is better full stop and we should all ride them" in WMB, MBR, MBUK etc for the next couple of years. The answer... stop reading them and ride more!

For the record; I love my 29er FS, I believe it has made me faster overall, and it's definitely fun to ride I've no doubt. BUT... I still have to be at the top of my game to keep up with the fastest guys I ride with - a few on 29ers, but a vast majority on 26ers, and some of them even singlespeed. 😉

Rider skill, fitness, and commitment/mental preparation will always outweigh frame choice, wheel size etc in my opinion.

... and I'll always have a 26er in the shed too.