Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 55 total)
  • Are 'trail' bike wheel sizes finally going to converge to somewhere around 29"?
  • dmorts
    Full Member

    Almost every new trail bike comes in either 27.5, 27.5+ or 29. This month’s What Mountain Bike buyer’s guide has plenty of 29″ trail bikes, with a majority in the “high-end” section. Also Dirt magazine seems to have a preference for 29″ trail bikes.

    27.5 tyres continue to get fatter (2.6″ tyres, Spesh Enduro 27.5 can fit 2.6″) and therefore the difference up to 27.5+ is getting smaller.
    27.5+ is hovering around 2.8 to 3.0 tyre choices, with smaller 2.8″ being preferred(?).
    29+ doesn’t seem to have taken off anywhere as much as 27.5+ (at least for full suss).
    If all of that is true then this points to a convergence roughly equivalent to a 29″ with a 2.3″ tyre.

    What do you reckon?

    *I still ride 26″ BTW!

    parkesie
    Free Member

    The only time I’m bothered about what size my tyres are is when I need a new tyre.

    dmorts
    Full Member

    If you want/need a new bike though tyre/wheel size is a bit more of a consideration!

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    greyspoke
    Free Member

    In what way? Do you buy new ones the same as your old ones, or do you make sure you have a selection of tyres in every size available at all times?

    chakaping
    Free Member

    I’ve converged on 29in for trail bikes, but I don’t think everyone will for a fair while yet.

    Interesting question though, if you think in terms of 20 years’ time or whatever.

    madhouse
    Full Member

    Personally I’d say 27.5.

    Caveat on that would be ‘it depends on your trails’. I’ve ridden a 29 around my local trails and it’s just not nimble enough when it comes to changes of direction. I can totally see the strengths of 29 though.

    When it comes to upgrading my 26 (not any time soon) I’ll be going 27.5.

    soobalias
    Free Member

    no.

    not wanting to make the obvious u-turn from 29 back to 26, we have been presented the way forward 650b/27.5

    most folk will tolerate that as its as close to 26 as seems likely to exist in the new standards/near future

    + is all the hype of fat, but which you can put on your 275 wheels, in a 29 frame

    qwerty
    Free Member

    28.25″ is where the cool cats are headed.

    oliverracing
    Full Member

    dmorts
    Full Member

    Personally I’d say 27.5.

    not wanting to make the obvious u-turn from 29 back to 26, we have been presented the way forward 650b/27.5

    The thing I am trying to get at is 27.5″ seems to be increasing in tyre size, and may merge with ‘plus’.

    The future is looking like it will be 27.5″ with fatter tyres or 29″ with skinnier tyres both in the same or very similar sized frames

    eshershore
    Free Member

    to see perhaps a stabilizing standard look at this 2017 trail bike from the World’s largest bike manufacturer: 27.5+ and 29’er compatible in one frame set.

    They offer the 27.5+ models and 29’er models on same frame set with change of wheels/fork

    they never made a “fat bike” as they don’t rush to market to satisfy niche trends

    dmorts
    Full Member

    Didn’t Giant have a thing about sticking to 27.5″ only? 🙂

    Edit: Actually ignore that it’s not really helpful to the discussion

    scotroutes
    Full Member

    I still think 29″ wheels are a bit much on very small full suspension frames – especially if you think a “trail” bike has 130-150mm of rear suspension and you want a dropper post. It does therefore make some sense to have different wheel sizes for rider height. On a hardtail it’s less of an issue.

    Scienceofficer
    Free Member

    I still think wheel size shouldn’t be categorised at all by genre. It should be a choice proportional to rider size, like bar width, stem length, frame size, seat post height and crank size.

    dmorts
    Full Member

    I still think 29″ wheels are a bit much on very small full suspension frames

    Yes, but you could get around that by using skinnier tyres on 27.5″ rims or fatter tyres on 26″. I don’t think 27.5 or 26 for that matter are going to disappear completely.

    scotroutes
    Full Member

    I’m only 5’7″ and much prefer a 29er as a long distance hardtail, 27.5 for messing about in the woods. Purpose is important.

    dmorts
    Full Member

    I still think wheel size shouldn’t be categorised at all by genre. It should be a choice proportional to rider size, like bar width, stem length, frame size, seat post height and crank size.

    That does make sense, but looking at the genre of trail bikes for the averaged sized rider, wheel size seems to be converging in the way I stated at the start of the thread.

    soobalias
    Free Member

    the creeping to fat tyres on 275 and using a 29 frame wont last (IMO)with already significant kick back.
    grippy or draggy, paper thin sidewalls or heavy as an anvil…… there doesnt seem a compromise, that cant already be achieved sub 2.4″

    the fat fad will fade and then folk will want tighter tolerances again, not tight like the yanks like, but uk-mud-tolerable clearances

    the magazines tried to push plus sized modals, but anorexia is still a problem

    philjunior
    Free Member

    I’ve got a 29er trail bike. I like it. I can’t think of any way it’d be made better with smaller wheels. I’ve never ever found myself not able to turn the bike quick enough.

    I can see for shorter riders it would be getting towards a pretty high front end with a 29er though, and for them I can see a 27 or 26er might work better – similarly at the rear end for chainstay length/accommodating suspension/constantly sitting on the rear tyre reasons the same applies.

    greyspoke
    Free Member

    if you subscribe to the “long means long chainstays as well” variant of long low slack geometry then maybe there is room for an extra inch or two of tyre diameter within a basic safety bicycle setup. 31″?

    deadkenny
    Free Member

    dmorts – Member 
    I don’t think 27.5 or 26 for that matter are going to disappear completely.

    Industry is trying hard to kill 26. Still old stock about, especially second hand, but it’s getting increasingly harder to get new 26 wheels/rims. Not impossible, but the selection is often far lower than for 27.5 and 29.

    Still, I’m determined to get a bit more out of my 26er Nomad. One more set of wheels on order and will run it for another year or so.

    thomthumb
    Free Member

    I was open to a 650 after only haveing ridden 29er for a few years. Test rode a few bikes but I prefferred the stability of the 29er.

    I’m 180 cm tall and i struggle with front end height: I have -17 stem on my hardtail. Some of my mates are much shorter, I can’t see them fitting 29″ full sus bikes. Probably not even hardtails.

    epicyclo
    Full Member

    After owning a fatbike, I’m not interested in riding a skinny bike on rough trails. Gravel, maybe.

    However for most of the year 4 – 5″ is excessive unless you are riding fatbike specific territory like peat bogs etc.

    I like the way 29er+ rolls, but the dimensions of the wheels makes for a too stretched out bike for me, or toe overlap.

    So this recent trend to 650b+ is encouraging, a bit more volume, and the same diameter as an ordinary 29er is going to make for a better trail bike.

    Even better is the ability to run 29er or 650b+ on the same frame. There’s your gravel bike and mtb in one package. 🙂

    I’ll be making the move, and it’s a shame Giant don’t sell this model in the UK.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    I’m happy to have the choice now, tbh. As long as I can still get 26″ tires. I am wondering though, I might have enough clearance on my 26er FS with a slight mod to the frame to fit 27.5. Might be fun to try.

    dmorts
    Full Member

    Some of my mates are much shorter, I can’t see them fitting 29″ full sus bikes. Probably not even hardtails.

    If they ride medium frames normally then they might be ok on a 29er according to Norco

    http://singletrackworld.com/2017/01/the-2017-norco-sight/

    That’s about the new Norco Sight in 27.5″ and 29″ flavour. To quote Norco (indirectly)

    The two bikes are almost identical in fit. While the 29er has 10mm less travel, both frames feature the same rear centre lengths (that’s chainstay length).

    Note: no small or xsmall in 29″ (which makes sense).

    EDIT: I have seen this elsewhere when looking at 29 and 27.5 versions of bikes, very similar geo. with the 27.5 version just having longer travel. My wife’s Orange Diva for example was 29 one year then 27.5 the next with the stack height remaining the same. The 29 had 100mm travel and the 27.5 had 120mm

    canopy
    Free Member

    I’m only 5’7″ and much prefer a 29er as a long distance hardtail, 27.5 for messing about in the woods. Purpose is important.

    I’m also 5’7.. and think similar..

    I’d go so far as saying my ideal quiver would be 29er HT, 27.5 FS. But I’d rather just one bike.. so 27.5 FS it will be when I can upgrade. (Not much wrong with my 26er IMO.. )

    molgrips
    Free Member

    quiver

    Mate, you are not allowed to say ‘quiver’ on here.

    thisisnotaspoon
    Free Member

    That SS giant looks cool.

    I’ve largely concluded that 29″ wheels are better at any riding niche that isn’t done in skinny jeans. The caveat to that is that 29″ wheels don’t fit into a lot of frame designs (and people sizes). so a lot of longer travel bikes will stick with 650b because even if you package the wheel in the chainstay (easy enough), you can’t get the suspension travel without hitting the seatube or having a very rearward axle path.

    OTOH, maybe we’re due for the next instalment in the seven year cycle of elevated pivot, idler pulley suspension designs.

    dmorts
    Full Member

    I’d go so far as saying my ideal quiver* bikes would be 29er HT, 27.5 FS. But I’d rather just one bike.. so 27.5 FS it will be when I can upgrade.

    I used to think this, then 27.5+ came about… and now slack and fast looking 29er full suss bikes too… hence me starting this thread!

    e.g.

    *FTFY

    colournoise
    Full Member

    I’m still really hoping 26+ becomes a thing.

    swanny853
    Full Member

    now slack and fast looking 29er full suss bikes too…

    They’ve been around a little while- my meta 29er is pretty close to some of the current crop if I recall the angles correctly and it wasn’t a new model when i bought it three years ago. 2012 I think it was released. Trek remedy i think was another about the same time. 650b just came along and got in the way!

    cookeaa
    Full Member

    The idea of a HT frame that accommodates 27+ and a sensible sized 29″ tyre is starting to make more sense to me…

    Obviously sense will more than likely prevail and it would just become a 29er with plenty of mud clearance, but it’s nice to think you could change wheels based on seasons if you wanted…

    epicyclo
    Full Member

    colournoise – Member
    I’m still really hoping 26+ becomes a thing.

    It’s been a thing since 1998.

    Surly 1x1s have been able to take 3″ tyres since then. The problem being that the choice was small because the “experts” thought 2″ was big enough. Since Surly started distributing their own tyres (Dirt Wizards) it’s gaining a little momentum.

    benpinnick
    Full Member

    28.25″ is where the cool cats are headed.

    While I am sure said in jest, this is actually the truth. Within maybe [edit] 24 months I would say most bikes will be either 29.5 (but still called 29ers) or 28.25 (but still called 27.5).

    dmorts
    Full Member

    Can you elaborate further on that?

    greyspoke
    Free Member

    First “29er” tyres came up at ~ 28.5″ actual diameter, Gary Fisher decided to brand fat (in the old-fashioned sense) tyre + 700c rim diameter as “29er” because it sounded cooler than “28 and a halfer”. The early 29er tyres (eg the Bontrager Jones) were not very high, I read somewhere that it was in order to fit into the then current tyre moulding machinery.

    29″ is a size designation not an actual size.

    paulb2
    Full Member

    He means that the trend for tyres is getting wider. The ’29’ and ‘27.5’ sizes are based on a ISO rim diameter with a 2″ tyre so he’s saying that 29ers will trend towards 2.5″ tyres while 27.5s will trend towards 2.8″

    dmorts
    Full Member

    he’s saying that 29ers will trend towards 2.5″ tyres while 27.5s will trend towards 2.8″

    In that case there’s a 1.25″ difference between the wheel sizes (including tyres). That pretty much sums up what I was trying to get at. Following the trend, it looks like one frame (possibly needing very slight geometry tweaks) will work for both wheel sizes.

    epicyclo
    Full Member

    dmorts – Member
    ..Following the trend, it looks like one frame (possibly needing very slight geometry tweaks) will work for both wheel sizes.

    I think so. It’s an ideal way to have a general purpose bike.

    Assuming that the 29er size was for road and gravel use, you’d be using a tyre slightly bigger than 2″, so let’s pick 2.15″ as a medium choice.

    That gets you roughly 622mm + 55mm + 55mm = 732mm overall diameter

    Then for trail riding you use the 650b+ size with say a 3″ Nobby Nic

    Which is roughly 584mm + 75mm + 75mm = 734mm.

    So theoretically bugger all difference in diameter and no geometry changes needed.

    core
    Full Member

    I’ve recently acquired a mk2 Solaris, having gone cheap full sus (2nd hadn zesty) for a laugh/experiment on my 26″ wheels, and sold my Scandal as I didn’t like the steep angles(by modern standards)on the downhill.

    I’ve set the Solaris up as an xc bike still though, large frame, I’m 6ft, long arms, 70mm stem, 100mm forks. Does that really well, but I reckon with some B+(ish) tyres and a 120mm fork with a shorter stem it’d be bags of fun, even on the techy and tight, twisty stuff, I mean it’s not bad at that how it’s set up now. Maybe not quite as agile as a good 26″ hardtail in the really tight stuff between the trees, but overall covers ground brillianty for general xc and ‘trail’ riding.

    There is something about the directness of a hardtail that’s hard to beat, I like full suss for rocky, chattery, tiring stuff but on smooth, loamy local trails a hardtail is all I need.

    If I had to have only one bike right now I think it’d be a 650b light (for steel) steel hardtail with a 130mm fork and a dropper. PP Oka I suspect.

    I wonder if the bike industry itself will get tired of all the differing standards and having to manufacture all these products in a range of sizes?

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 55 total)

The topic ‘Are 'trail' bike wheel sizes finally going to converge to somewhere around 29"?’ is closed to new replies.