This is not a question relating to benefits and disadvantages of the sizes, this is already well documented and argued.

My question relates to the accessibility of the sport of mountain biking. This year we expect to see different wheel sizes for different courses in DH. We already have it in XC and endure although I believe it is closer to a full 29er field now.

As a kid looking to race DH etc will it not become a large barrier (as if 4k bikes are not already) viewing that certain tracks are better suited to one wheel size when than another. This could change at the same venue depending on how the course is taped etc. So now to confidently turn up at the track with an equal opportunity you need 3 different bikes?

This barrier or perception of a barrier may do the sport harm – what do you think?

My feeling is that a set size wheel limits the requirements to level the playing field and should promote greater participation which helps the sport. To repeat, I am not arguing about the benefits or disadvantages of different wheel sizes. This is a question about “sport”, not innovation.

Not sure what the UCI have do do with sport.

As a kid looking to race DH etc will it not become a large barrier (as if 4k bikes are not already) viewing that certain tracks are better suited to one wheel size when than another.

Shouldn’t do because in reality it makes very little difference.

This is a question about “sport”, not innovation.

Without innovation, sports (and associated objects) die, or at least go up blind alleys – especially mechanically aimed ones.

For one example, look at the ban on ‘dustbin’ fairings in m/c racing in the 50’s – put m/c aerodynamics (and protection) back years.

Unless it’s a one make series with same bike, with same suspension, hardware etc, it’s still not fair as fork X could be considered better than fork Y.

Can’t see it being much different to how it was five years ago.
I race at XC enduros. I only have 26″ bikes. However, some courses suit hardtails, some suit full-suss bikes. I am in the fortunate position of having both so I can choose the most suitable bike for that race.
Nowadays the choice is 26″ HT, 29″ HT, 26″ FS, 29″ FS, (and 650s, fat bikes etc etc) it’s just more options, only two of which are open to me. Most people will choose the one bike which is suitable for most of their races, same as they used to when the only options were HT or FS, those who can afford more bikes will have more bikes.

The UCI have applied this to the road and Cross, fairings are banned, tyres have to be within certain bounds, weight limits, seat angle, saddle set back.

I can see some logic in saying that there are certain criteria that define a raceable bike.

But has Mountain biking in general settled, would the manufacturers accept the restrictions? after all they need to sell kit, or more specifically new and ‘better’ kit.

At the end of the day the best riders do tend to win, kit isn’t the whole picture. Marginal gains.

There’s never going to be a “perfect” bike for any discipline – rider size, style, terrain and other factors all bring multiple variables into the mix.

I know that in Enduro right now, there’s a mix of 26″, 650B and 29″ – and not always on the courses you might think or from the riders you’d expect.

Without the media attention of racers on their new bikes, manufacturers would see a decline in sales (or at the very least, not the uplift in sales that a successful season’s campaign can drive) and that in turn means less bikes sold, less technical innovation and ultimately less progression for the sport. In time, if a sport doesn’t innovate and adapt, it can rapidly turn into a bit of a niche thing – think of “real tennis” for example.

To gain greater mainstream exposure and grow a sport, there needs to be constant innovation to drive the revenues for the manufacturers that then justifies them sponsoring events, in turn allowing event organisers to put events on, to allow people to ride and race.

Manufactures will push the UCI so they can sell more bikes. Us, customers and participants have no impact / say in this.

Its wrong and daft, but inevitable. Isnt there already some daft rule about baggy clothing ?

Road and track cycling and bmx have not suffered through stricter rules etc.

Formula one as an example struggled to be a “sport” through the Schumy years due to being a money competition.

Take on the points about same bike etc but there becomes a tipping point and wheel sizes and multiple bike choices may put people off. Especially younger competitors that want to win their classes, gain sponsorship and become professional. This year it sounds like we are going to have it tested at the top level so time may tell if there is a real difference. The “perceived” difference may be enough to put people off.

Take on the points about same bike etc but there becomes a tipping point and wheel sizes and multiple bike choices may put people off. Especially younger competitors that want to win their classes, gain sponsorship and become professional.

If you can’t win your class, gain sponsorship and become professional on a 26er it’s unlikely you’d manage it on a 29er.

MTB racing is still relatively new. The various standards bikes are built to were effectively set by what was available in the late 70s. We’ve seen the demise of the standard headset and bb but experimentation with wheel size has only just begun. It’s to early to fix 26 (or 29) as the wheel size for competition.

naah,

tyre choice makes a massive difference to your race results – there’s plenty of people happily turning up to races without 3 or 4 different tyre sets, and just having a blast on their knackered high-rollers.

However the perception of gains and losses may make you give up the sport earlier or not even enter – less participation.

I can’t think of many popular wheel vehicle based sports that different wheel sizes is a benefit to the sport? Motorsport – Formula racing, toca etc use a strict size.

Do Motorcross and Superbikes etc all benefit from different wheel sizes in the same class?

I know many have dabbled and then set the size solid, lesson from history?

Innovation does not make “sport” alone. Chess and Poker are still pretty solid games etc..

However the perception of gains and losses may make you give up the sport earlier or not even enter

I suspect those with that fragile levels of determination wouldn’t make it anyway.

I agree completely but I am talking about participation, not the very select few that actually make it.

In which case we come back to the point that for those participating, the difference the wheel size makes is a bit less than bugger all.

That may be your perception but I doubt it will be everyones after a year of marketing madness and results to ponder while people ride different wheels at different races.

As a starter:
http://www.pinkbike.com/news/Opinion-Mitch-Ropelato-Wins-Fontana-DH-on-a-29er-Trail-Bike.html

So somebody winning a DH race on a 29er means people will have the perception that it’s no longer fun for a punter to race DH on anything with smaller wheels? If anything you ought to be applauding that the bike being ridden there is a whole lot cheaper than a typical DH rig!

UCI and “level playing field”? Really?

My point would be that someone with a 26 DH bike might be looking on thinking they should have a 29er for that track. Suddenly they need 2 bikes for the one sport to think they have a level playing field or they choose not to enter. It is murcky.

I’m sure for anybody thinking of doing the pro race at Fontana as their first ever DH race it’s likely to be a big issue.

I think no MTB Disipline should not be constrained by the same sort of technical regs as Road and TT racing, MTBing is a relatively young sport and without a healthy dose of innovation and experimantation it loses some of it’s excitement, I said it on another thread but it’s far too soon in MTBings evolution to start having “Traditions” IMO…

Realistically if 2013/14 WC DH racing establishes that different wheel sizes benefit a world class professional athelete on one or two course more than another, what does that really mean for the Privateer racer? He/She is still only going to be able to afford one bike/wheel size to compete on, and will probably just go with whatever suits 90% of their riding / competition rather than the overpriced kit shown to benefit the top 5% of the sport on perhaps only 10% of the courses they encounter…

As for Enduro (I assume the OP is thinking more Gravity Enduro than Endurance/XC type Enduro) I think leave the sport to find it’s own way again, over constrain anything and you run the risk of ruining it, GE in the UK doesn’t need lots of technical regs limitations it needs to be truly accesable to anyone with a mountain bike, and the term “Mountain bike” covers an awful lot of quite varied machines these days.

Quite like the replies and had thought along the same lines playing devil’s advocate. But I do still worry about cost going up and the few that can afford it meaning an unlevel playing field. The 10% of races may be the difference between winning a sponsorship deal, championship etc etc.

That and that it leaves the flood gates firmly open to ever changing standards and may lead to less support for legacy equipment at faster rates etc.

Do I worry too much?!

Yes

But I do still worry about cost going up and the few that can afford it meaning an unlevel playing field.

True, but nothing to do with wheel sizes. Someone who can afford XTR will alsways have a (small) advantage over someone who can only afford Deore. People with more cash will buy better/more bikes, always will be true.
Doesn’t necessarily make them any faster though…

No different to one course suiting a 6″ travel bike and another suiting a 8″ travel bike.

The sport only becomes unacceptable for the average person if you only want the “factory jackson” pro look complete with £4k bike.

A £1k 2nd hand bike would be fine for a start.

I’m still not sure what the original point was?

£4k (or even £10k) bikes existed before 29ers, 29er DH bikes are yet to appear for sale anywhere mainstream or even win a race (an XC 29er won a downhill XC race against a DH bike). Some bikes have always pedaled better than others, not many had a Sunday for tracks with flat corners, a V10 for bumpy tracks, a Demo 8 for pedal tracks and a 224 for muddy days (hypothesising I’ve ridden none of those).

The average DH’er is probably more interested these days in getting an XC bike or even a road bike for training if Dirt’s anything to go by as training figures much higher on their agenda than it used to.

I think the OP’s confusing STW (so middle class it probably bleeds Rioja) with “beginners” or even the rest of the world. STW wouldn’t dream of taking up DH without a 13plate Sprinter, EZup and full Park toolkit. I spent the first 7 impoverished years of my biking career on 2 bikes (one at a time).