Given that the failure mode for wheels under high load is mainly tacoing

Yup 29ers lose out there generally. So instead of 650B, maybe someone should’ve widened front hubs from those old roadie dims. A few people have but not sus forks, why RS or Fox haven’t widened fork leg spacing I’m not sure. Probably scared of the ‘ffs new stds’ backlash and the letters from Angry of stwshire. We already have 150mm rears so why not more on the front.

Player? You’re being played mate.

Hey check yourself bra.

Ill accept that i/we’ll all be riding 650B eventually (we wont have a choice), I don’t like and will never own a 29er. The position that 29 is better all round for everyone and that we’ll fall into line is simply wrong. Won’t happen.

We already have 150mm rears so why not more on the front.

Have you not read the thing from that company? 🙂

See you in Taichung?

^ Yeah, need more of it tho. Will do.

And for this reason I am ooot.

I just don’t care. My rubbish out of date 26 inch wheeled bike feels great to me. Why is everybody getting so hung up on wheel size? If it feels good, just ride it with a big smile on your face.

I’ve ridden 29ers almost exclusively the last 3 years, they’re different/better in pretty much every way, I’d proffer that an incremental size inbetween would be just that, an incremental improvement on 26″.

Yep agreed. 99% people who say 29’ers are crap have either ridden a crap one, rode a good one for ten minutes or they’re just squids.

jameso – Member

We already have 150mm rears so why not more on the front.

The thing I particularily like about the 150mm rear standard is that a lot of hubs end up basically spacing the flanges in anyway, taking away any of the benefits and just making a functionally identical but heavier hub that required a wider (therefore often flexier) and heavier frame, and often also wider cranks. Thus rendering the whole thing a gigantic bag of shit.

I’ve ridden 29ers almost exclusively the last 3 years, they’re different/better in pretty much every way, I’d proffer that an incremental size inbetween would be just that, an incremental improvement on 26″.
Yep agreed. 99% people who say 29’ers are crap have either ridden a crap one, rode a good one for ten minutes or they’re just squids.

Didn’t you hear? The industry thinks 29’ers are crap as well 😉

Glad I didn’t drop three grand on a Giant 29er, as I was considering a few months ago. Credibility -> blown.

29’s not going away for as long as Niner can make a profit, & if Niner is the only choice I’ll live with that, 29 suits me.

Horses for courses of course.

Thanks for posting Cyclenaut, I was wondering what that whole “650b for longer travel, 26 for shorter” comment was all about in the video. Not sure I agree even after your clarification, but thanks for making the point clear (and a general thanks for being more measured rather than bubbling over with a single over simplified marketing line like some others). You’re basically saying that the kind of riding people tend/want to do on longer travel bikes suits 650b more than 26, yes?

You’re basically saying that the kind of riding people tend/want to do on longer travel bikes suits 650b more than 26, yes?

Obiously not everyone at trek got that memo. From their Session page:

The original 26″ mountain bike wheel size is now the smallest of three available diameters. It’s the most flickable, most playful wheel size.

The MTB standard for versatility, light weight, and maneuverability.

While I don’t agree, it’s completely logical for them to say/suggest/think that people who want longer travel aren’t the same people who want “versatility, light weight, and maneuverability”.

Glad I didn’t drop three grand on a Giant 29er, as I was considering a few months ago. Credibility -> blown.

Im pretty sure the frames will still be available for a few years yet, even if they stop making complete bikes. After all, they need to keep some warranty replacements etc surely?

I rekon for 2015 alloy 29ers will get the chop, and then 2016 the carbon ones will go (complete bikes). And they will be re-introduced again with all new 29er framesets in 2017. If you look on mtbr there is still a massive appetite for 29ers in the USA.

andypaul99 – Member

Im pretty sure the frames will still be available for a few years yet, even if they stop making complete bikes. After all, they need to keep some warranty replacements etc surely?

I think it’s more that they’re marketing the 650bs essentially by saying “Our 29ers that we told you were great last year actually suck balls”

That amuses me tbh but it’s not like you could ever trust marketing anyway so I don’t see that it makes an awful lot of difference.

“Hey, we have another option, for when you want slightly bigger wheels, but don’t want a 29er”

I don’t think anyone would complain if that was the angle/message.

Im pretty sure the frames will still be available for a few years yet, even if they stop making complete bikes. After all, they need to keep some warranty replacements etc surely?

Not necessarily, they can offer an alternative or partial refund instead, from Giant’s point of view it’s probably cheaper to deal with a warranty with a new frame from normal stock than have to specially stock deleted product.

Yeah I agree 29ers are here to stay. Leastways, mine are!

Matt, your not making any sense – he’s saying they are more likely to offer you a 650B as a replacement for a broken 9er, not that 9ers will be around for long into the future

it’s completely logical for them to say/suggest/think that people who want longer travel aren’t the same people who want “versatility, light weight, and maneuverability”.

If the session isn’t a long travel bike, I don’t know what is.

I worry that sane people who don’t care are under-represented on these threads.

I have a 26er and a 29er and am not especially RaD. I prefer the 29er for everything, but I’m not sure the wheel size is the main reason. When I next need to buy a bike I’ll buy what they’re selling.

😉

I laugh at all the people who care if it’s faster or not. I’m sorry Giant, I couldn’t give a **** if it’s faster on lap times in your laboratory. I want FUN. I don’t race, I’m in this for a laugh; I want a smile on my face. **** absolute speed.

I’ll bet the overwhelming majority of mtbers don’t race. I’m willing to bet most just want a fun bike. A good friend of mine taught me to evaluate every purchase along the lines of “will this make things more fun for me?”

It’s a good rule of thumb. **** 650b, **** Giant, and **** all the other bike industry arseholes.

Seems to me that a lot of the people who sneeringly referred to long travel FSers as “skill compensators” are now riding 29ers, mainly because they make it easier.

Wow, there wasn’t a single functional human being in that video, I thought I worked in a cynical, jaded sector but those folks looked seconds from shrugging off their skins and revealing the lizard beneath.

I love specialized and their sitting on the fence and seeing what happens with 650b stance. Where in reality they forgot to order their 650b wheels.
I also love how upset people get about wheel size.

I love specialized and their sitting on the fence and seeing what happens with 650b stance. Where in reality they forgot to order their 650b wheels.

Wrong. They were testing 650b three years ago.

After watching that I would never buy a Giant product if there was a chance that it would contribute to that pillock’s wages.

An eminent cycling journalist 😉 told me a few months back that there was no real difference for the average rider. That’ll do for me.

And testing 650b wheels 3 years ago affects them missing their window for their wheel order in what way ?

Wrong. They were testing 650b three years ago.

So they tested them 3 yrs ago and decided to stay with 26″ on their bigger bikes. This must say something about the “massive” increase in performance they found 27.7″ to give, pretty much F all for the average rider.

I can’t understand why people are getting so uptight about wheel size. If you’re happy with your bike then ride it. If not get another and ride that one. It’s not hard.

And secondly marketing is marketing. There’s nothing to say you have to be sucked into buying every time something new comes out.

ianv – Member

JCL
Wrong. They were testing 650b three years ago.

So they tested them 3 yrs ago and decided to stay with 26″ on their bigger bikes. This must say something about the “massive” increase in performance they found 27.7″ to give, pretty much F all for the average rider.[/quote]

No. No, you don’t understand, JCL knows better -it is so apparent

I worry that sane people who don’t care are under-represented on these threads.

I have a 26er and a 29er and am not especially RaD. I prefer the 29er for everything, but I’m not sure the wheel size is the main reason.

Fair point.

I have a 26er and a 29er and am not especially RaD. I prefer the 26er for everything, but I’m not sure the wheel size is the main reason. 🙂

I don’t have a problem with 650b being about the industry marketing a new product to basically make them more money because mountain bike technology has effectively stalled for them and 29er is a no go, at least this side of the pond.

26 may be dead in terms of new complete bikes from the big names, but doesn’t make it dead on the trails. Out of a range of 50+ people I’ve ridden with in the last year, there are 3 or 4 at the most I can think of with 650b. More with 29, but the rest are 26. Some considering 650b if they’re changing bikes and few if any think they need to rush out to sell their 26 bikes in case they spontaneously combust because it’s 26.

Myself, and probably like a lot of people, having more than one 26 bike and lots of tyres I’m not about to go 650b because I want to keep all my kit the same ‘platform’ so I can swap things about and have spares so I have one bike I can ride at least if the other is out of action. Changing to 650b means changing two frames and sets of wheels & forks. Not going to happen any time soon.

When I’m done with them though I’ll buy what’s on the market and if that’s 650b then so be it. Makes no difference to me in the riding.

What does get me however is the marketing BS.

Love this bit from Giant – http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-gb/technology/tech27-5/94/

So “27.5” is better because it’s lighter… except only to 29ers
It rolls better… but less so than 29ers, so not really the best.
It accelerates faster… than a 29er, but a 26 would be better.
Better traction than a 26, fair enough… but a 29 would be better.
It has a stiffer frame… than a 29, but a 26 would be even better.

So yeah, it’s neither one or the other, so obviously the only choice is to offer the middle which is not best at anything 😉

Plus of those “benefits” the rolling and traction can be dealt with by tyre choice instead of changing frame.

Seems to me there’s a market surely for those who want the best of one or the other end or just what suits them best. Though I can understand a big company wanting to cut out the stuff that probably won’t sell so well for them.

So they tested them 3 yrs ago and decided to stay with 26″ on their bigger bikes. This must say something about the “massive” increase in performance they found 27.7″ to give, pretty much F all for the average rider.

Their position has always been that 26″ is great, 29″ is great and different enough to exist alongside 26″. 650b doesn’t offer much over 26″ and doesn’t do what a 29″ does so what’s the point? They’ve got tons of cash and the best R&D and could have easily gone 650b but didn’t. I think they deserve credit for their stance on it. If Trek (who sort of did), and Giant did the same 650b may have fallen on it’s ass.

However, they’ll have no choice but to go 650bs now when 26″ fork/rim/tyre options dry up.

That Giant marketing stuff above was very convincing……….in making me want a 26 ” bike. Now where could I find one of those.

Plus of those “benefits” the rolling and traction can be dealt with by tyre choice instead of changing frame.

This point seems to be often overlooked, but is a very good one. I recently built up a 29er. Having read about the “massive” improvements in traction and being concerned about weight, I went down to a lighter tyre and slipped (and crashed) all over the place, before going back to my usual tyres. There may be a slight increase in traction with the larger wheel (although I’ve not noticed it yet) but since it is less than the difference between two tyres from the same company it is largely irrelevant. I could get more traction (with less of a weight penalty) by putting a stickier tyre on my 26″ bike.

Not that I’m against 29ers, but the traction issue is a bit of a red herring in my opinion.

What that video says to me is that the bike industry big players do collude and force the rest of the market. People poo-poo the idea of this as ‘conspiracy theory’, but it’s not unusual in unregulated markets. Even the price of iron ore is still mostly set this way IIRC.
AT some point, 29″ started to become more popular. Then the price of materials form the far East started to go up and a global economic downturn put off the consumer. So heavy, heavy marketing on the 29er seemed like a good idea to rejuvenate sales and secure profits. 29ers are also ideal as the wheels are fairly obviously different, so the consumer can ‘set themselves apart’ on the trail by having the ‘latest wheelsize’. However, this didn’t work quite well enough (small people like me for example will never by 29″) so they have decided that to ensure they can still pay dividends to shareholders, they will have to market 650b as the ‘one true size’ and kill off 26″ and the associated 2nd hand market. One of the reasons 26″ has to go is that it’s not that easy to tell the bikes apart, so for this to work, 26″ simply has to ‘go away’. The prime example is Boardman, who always says that they take 2 years to release a new bike so they ‘can really use all that R&D’. However, he is quoted in Bike Magic in July 2012 that he’ll ‘never go 650b’. So clearly, there was no 650b being developed by Boardman less than a year ago. 2 weeks ago, he releases an ‘only 650b’ MTB range. So, all the ‘maths and research’ that was pointing to 29″ last year and the year before is apparently suddenly pointing to 650b. Yeah, right.
That’s not to say that the different wheel sizes don’t make great bikes – just that the market is being forced. It will be very tricky though. ‘New’ people and youngsters coming into MTB buy a lot of new bikes, as do people with disposable income and those who ‘must have’ the latest thing. They can be sold whatever in the shops. But there’s a solid hard core that remain avid MTBers for longer. If I remember correctly, the polls show that most people on here have a standard 1 1/8th headtube still. So there will still be a strong, genuine, consumer demand for 26″ that will be hard to ignore.

Not that I’m against 29ers, but the traction issue is a bit of a red herring in my opinion.

The difference in rolling isn’t though. I have to admit I was amazed at the difference, having been quite sceptical.

being concerned about weight, I went down to a lighter tyre and slipped (and crashed) all over the place

Sounds about right. When I was riding the 3 sizes back to back I thought tyre volume/tread/pressure was all-important – a skinny, light 29er tyre can be a bit hopeless compared to a chunky 650 / 26. A chunky 29 was gripper than any of them. Sod the weight and get a decent 29 on there. It’s not as fast up to speed but it’s marginal and once rolling it evens out. Light wheels are generally over-rated imo, when people worry about 100-200g per tyre etc.

Got a 650 hardtail, and it seems to work well, putting the bike along side a 29 er and a 26 er, aesthetically it looks right!! The 29er wheeled bike looks slightly odd, the 26 er wheeled bike look too small in comparison.
The running gear on the 650 is identical from a Cotic Soul (9 speed , 32 front) and it does outclimb the Cotic, however it may not be wheel size but frame geometry that provides the difference ( longer front centre, longer seat stays) but it is a slacker angle bike.
It does not seem to stall in Mud holes quite so much as the 26 er hardtail but its very subjective.