[url= http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/gear/article/best-mountain-bikes-under-1000-30433/ ]Bikaradar best MTB 'under $1000'[/url]
Cannondale Trail SL 3Cons: Small-diameter wheels, disappointingly narrow tires
26" wheelsets are now being seen as a 'con" for $1000 MTB range bikes? When did this happen? Did I go to sleep like Rip Van Winkle and wake up in a world of flying cars, teleportation using the mind and no obesity problem?
and next year 29ers will be a con, lack of spares etc. It will all be 650b.
To say it is a scam is a bit much, but some mags seem to exist to push the next fad that the manufacturers have created. Not so much is there a need, but how do we sell what we have.
Its a US website.
Its a US website.
Owned by Future Publishing and based in Bath?
Andy
Current mtb mag trends are a load of bollocks. No problems riding 26" and 20" wheels here!
I suspect that by "con"they mean negative point, as in "pros and cons", not con as in scam.
It's a sad day though, when a 26" wheel is considered a bad point on a bike.
Article:
Best mountain bikes under $1,000
By BikeRadar [b]US[/b] staff
Strange how they decided to review the 26-er at all, when a 29-er SL3 is also available.
As the only 26er bike on test, the Cannondale benefited from the nimblest handling feel and quickest acceleration.
It does make you wonder what people are looking for in a bike if it's not this.
+1 Rio
As the only 26er bike on test, the Cannondale benefited from the nimblest handling feel and quickest acceleration.
That would seem to show that 26" wheels are an advantage not a disadvantage, unless you're racing I suppose and small advantages in overall speed are important
16" is the way forward!
16" is the way forward!
no bromptons on there!
16" is the way forward!
Anyone else thinking of Krusty on his clown cycle?
No problems riding 26" and 20" wheels here!
Indeed, in fact I'd really struggle to get my leg over a 29er 😆
That NZ clip is absolute class! I'm off up the woods now on my BMX 😛
Is the con not the fact that manufacturers use the same size wheels on bikes for the full range of heights from below 5ft to well over 6 ft?
Surely 26ers are better for small riders, 29ers have advantages for tall riders and average riders can use both.
That NZ clip also reminds me of these:
[img] 
[/img]
[i][b]Cons:[/b] Small-diameter wheels[/i]
[b]Bonkers![/b]
This is why many people are no longer buying magazines for reviews. They're often pointlessly biased due to advertising revenue or based on an unrealistic agenda. Such a shame.
[i]Is the con not the fact that manufacturers use the same size wheels on bikes for the full range of heights from below 5ft to well over 6 ft?
[/i]
I think I remember Brant saying this a while back.
Is the con not the fact that manufacturers use the same size wheels on bikes for the full range of heights from below 5ft to well over 6 ft?I think I remember Brant saying this a while back.
And there I was thinking all I had to do to fit on a small bike was change the springs to higher rate ones and stick more seatpost out of the frame 🙂
[img] 
[/img]
I still want a Hooligan. Or a Moulton.
I would tend to agree with a lot of that statement but I think it is probably more to do with the fact that leaps forward in technology are now few and far between, as are different routes, rides and stuff of general interest, the majority of which have been done to death.This is why many people are no longer buying magazines for reviews. They're often pointlessly biased due to advertising revenue or based on an unrealistic agenda. Such a shame.