OK, I know it’s been done to death, but I’m a firm believer that you can never have too much data and I find myself with a 29er HT (Kinesis FF29) and a 26″ Full Suss (Giant Trance), so I thought I’d try my own test.

First, here are the runners:

The loop was a 35 minute effort, taking in a nice sharp climb, some roots, a twisty bit in the woods and a descent with lots of loose rocks. Nothing too technical, but a fun little loop.

Overall it took 34:23 on the FF29 and 35:35 on the Trance. So a “whopping” 3.5% advantage for the 29er HT. Except it probably wasn’t really that big. I rode the FF29 first and despite taking a ten minute break between the two loops I was probably a bit more tired second time round. Then we have the question of tyres. I actually did the loop a fair bit faster on the FF29 a month ago. Since then I’ve swapped the front tyre from a Racing Ralph to a Nobby Nic. So it looks as though the NIc is noticeably slower than the Ralph. The FF29 still has a Ralph on the rear but the Trance has a Nic.

So, in terms of time, I’d say that the 29er HT may be as much as 3.5% faster than the 26″ Full Suss overall, but the difference is probably less than that and may be marginal.

But what about fun? That’s a tricky one. I finished the loop on the FF29 with a big grin. I was actually tempted not to bother with the second run. But I did and that was fun too. I couldn’t really say that one was any more fun than the other, just fun in different places. The Trance is more twitchy and more fun to throw about in the tight stuff. The FF29 is more stable, can carve wider turns faster and there are grins to be has there too.

You appear to have bar ends on riser bars, ergo, your conclusions are null and void.

Sorry, but that’s the rules.

In my defence it now has stubby little bar ends in place of those big old things and there is only a slight rise on those bars. But it’s a fair cop.

lolz@njee20

Do we have MTB rules now?

I knew about the roadie rules, but the MTB ones are a new one to me.

To be fair there’s only really that one rule for MTBs. That and no lycra for DH.

Isn’t the no-lycra for DH thing some favour regulation the UCI came up with after rachel atherton whined about being beaten by tracey moseley pointed out that the youth marked preferred baggy clothes?

Not to pass judgement over either format, but does anyone remember when the design, geometry and frame material seemed to be more important to the ride experience than the size of your wheels?

Those where such innocent days…

Not to pass judgement over either format, but does anyone remember when the design, geometry and frame material seemed to be more important to the ride experience than the size of your wheels?

frame material is perhaps the most immaterial of frame properties, far more so than wheel size, no?

Really? 😐

Really?

I’d say so. Wheel size, geometry, suspension configuration (if any), tyre choice and tyre pressure will have more effect on the ride than frame material in my opinion.

Has anyone had a stab at this stuff using power meters, GPS, and the like? Something close to a proper comparison of 26, 650 and 29, with the wheel sixe (and associated frame/fork size) being the only variable?

I’d say so. Wheel size, geometry, suspension configuration etc

hmmm…I see 😐

Has anyone had a stab at this stuff using power meters, GPS, and the like?

Yes, Matt Page did exactly that – here.

But never published the power data if I remember correctly.

Isn’t the no-lycra for DH thing some favour regulation the UCI came up with after rachel atherton whined about being beaten by tracey moseley pointed out that the youth marked preferred baggy clothes?

I’d like to see Rachel Atherton in one of them old skinsuits. I’m happy I’ll never see Rob Warner in one again, Swings n roundabouts.