Forum menu
2 bikes to same spec, both hardtail, both 120mm travel forks. Both weigh 24lbs.
What real world difference between them?
Thanks.
faster rolling, easier over stuff but there is no way you would build a 29r with geo from that long ago....
At what? Downhill? XC? Covering 100 miles?
XC riding only.
I pretty much have this. On smoother woodsy singletrack the 26er feels more nimble and accelerates faster. It also hangs up more on rocks and roots which the bigger wheels just roll over.
Caveat : the 26er is a bit lighter as the wheels and tyres especially have less material in them, and the 29er does have slightly more modern geometry.
I went from a 26 inbred to a 29 inbred transfered most of the parts, except forks and wheels obviously. It wasnt hugely different but it was different. Bigger wheels dont get stuck on stuff in the same way and therefore carries momentum better. But wheels are heavier so maybe a bit harder to accelerate. Cornering in the twisty stuff is different too needs a different approach more measured i guess. Ive gone 29er across the board now. But im not a downhiller big air guy, i'm also 6'2" and ithink it makes more sense on the bigger frames.
IME It's really noticeable when you hit tarmac. You have to put a lot of pedal strokes in on 26 to keep up with 29'ers going up and down tarmac hills, where they coast and put noticeably less effort in.
29er- bit more grip, bit less tiring. I don't say "easier", it doesn't feel easier as you ride but over time you're just having to put in less effort for the same result, or getting more result for the same effort.
Course, it's also likely that hte 29er will be newer and quite likely longer, slacker etc- I'd rather ride a 26er with the overall package of my current bike, than a steeper or shorter 29er.
I'm the sort that didn't really notice a slight change in stem length or of frame reach etc.
That said,I did notice the difference going from 26 to 29.
I'm sold to be honest for most of the reasons mentioned above.
In riding absolutely nothing significant. The feel of the ride of a bike was different from one 26er to another 26er. I had some short and twitchy feeling 26ers as well as some longer and more sluggish handling 26ers, so the feel of the ride going from 26er to 29er is within the realms of the differing feels within 26er mountain bikes. The biggest thing you'll notice is how much front wheel you can see sticking out in front of the handlebars. Wasn't so much of a shock for me until I went back and rode a mates 26er and there was a small piddly wheel out in front.
I'd say the bigger you are, the bigger difference you feel after switching to 29er.
Me being 6ft4, I finally didn't feel like I'm riding kids bike. It just suits much, much better.
+what was said above
There are a few other studies around, most showing between no statistically significant difference or a very (less than 2%) small advantage to 29er.
nothing - only difference you'll feel is the fact the bikes are different.
Bigger wheels roll over bumps of any given size more easily; smaller wheels have less rotational inertia and therefore less tendency to want to carry on in a straight line. To what extent you find those noticeable going between 26 and 29 is perhaps another matter, let alone which balance of those two things you prefer, but that's essentially the physics of it. To what extent you find one balance or another to be faster in a race is another matter again, and may be irrelevant to you anyway.
IME It’s really noticeable when you hit tarmac. You have to put a lot of pedal strokes in on 26 to keep up with 29’ers
Tarmac should be where the difference will be at its least. Lots of speed records have been held by 20"-wheeled Moultons.
You can also go the other way to really feel the difference. Try riding a BMX off road and you will find the 20 inch wheels really don't roll well. Try a 24" wheeled cruiser and they will be better, try 26" wheeled MTB and better again
I have ridden all 3 off road many years ago as had the bikes so had to try it.
nothing – only difference you’ll feel is the fact the bikes are different.
Based on what experience of 29'ers?
Depends on your terrain. All these people saying there's no difference must be riding in areas of the country with dirt based trails.
There's a steep tough climb near me with lots of rocks. I got close to the KOM on my then-new rigid 29er. So I got out my old 26er XC race bike which was FS and much lighter (about 21lbs), feeling sure I would smash it. I was very surprised to discover I couldn't even clean it - took me three goes. When I finally got up it my time was slightly slower, and quicker elsewhere on the rest of the ride as you'd expect, but it was MUCH harder work to keep going on the steep rocky stuff.
Based on this experience I replaced the 26er with a 29er XC race style FS that is much heaver at around 28lbs (but has similar angles) My times are better than the rigid 29er as you'd expect and much better than the 26er.
The 26er on the other hand was lightening quick on smooth trails, and the much lighter wheels and tyres made for incredible acceleration.
I have both and I think it makes a negligible difference to the overall speed and capability of the bike, certainly a far smaller difference than tyre pressure/compound, geometry, suspension travel etc.
I can't really give an objective comparison. When I went from a 26 SC Superlight to a 27.5 Trigger Carbon I don't really notice the wheels but I felt much more confident on the bike - could just be more modern bike and wider bars etc. When I went from that to my current 29er Hightower I felt a big difference - it's the front wheel looks huge, it definitely felt like it carried more speed down fast flowing Singletrack and through the rough stuff (though as it's winter and I'm not fit I've not beaten any PRs, also dog walkers so I slow down). The surprise for me was, and it's obviously down to comparing apples and oranges really, but my 29er is more nimble/agile than the Superlight and Trigger, and I'm also more IN the bike than ON. Maybe it's not really any different, maybe I'm just more confident, but it feels like it.
Just to counter the notion that 29er is less agile and more tricky than 26er. Rather than one bike is that Vs another regardless of wheels.
Can people posting views please state where they ride and the kind of trails on which they observe no difference?
South Wales, rocky trails.
29er rolls better. They really do. Less effort on climbs, riding over big bumps is easier. I'm sure there are tests on the web and in mags from 10-15 years ago showing how the 29er is faster over a given distance.
Overall, just makes going for a ride a more pleasurable experience I reckon.
29ers are usually longer in the wheelbase, taller at the front and higher off the ground. As such they're more problematic on tight, twisty things and on technical climbs. Combinations of the two are difficult and often require a mid turn trackstand and a hop whereas I might've been able to get my 26er around without it - switchbacks etc are slower or at least seem so. I also find that they require a little bit more muscle (particularly with the newer, heavier tyres) when throwing them down fast, technical, trails with sharp bends, but that maybe just old age (36) and lack of fitness. This is a Comparison between A Mojo, Mojo HDR (650b) and a Yeti sB95c on similar terrain.
South Wales, Lake District, North Yorkshire. Natural and Trail Centres (Afan, Cwmcarn, Dalby Whinlatter)
As above. A 29er is quicker in my experience and beats you up less, unless you're somewhere very tight indeed - there are a couple of turns on FTD climbs in Cannock that I have to think harder about on the 29er. I also find on the 29er I run faster tyres longer into the winter. BUT it's harder to pedal in a given gear (bigger wheel to turn, innit) and slower upto speed.
Still ride my 26 inch Heckler as it's splendid, but for full days out it's 29er for me. Unless I was in the Alps and then littler stronger wheels and tighter turning.
Peak, N Wales, local trails, occasional multi day events.
interestingly, i've jus noticed that scott are no longer making 650b xc race hardtails in carbon, only in alloy. The race focussed RC version of the spark full suss'es are only 29er too. Clearly they have come to the conclusion 29er is the only way (or percived to be the only way) for xc racing.
“maybe just old age (36) “
At 36??? Poor old soul...
I found the biggest difference when I first got a 29er was the amount of body language you need to put into the bike on turns. The first thing I did with the bike was take it down one of my regular downhill trails and I overshot nearly all of the bends because I was so used to the amount of movement needed on my 26 inch bike. These days on the ever increasingly rare days I ride the 26er it feels noticeably twitcher than my 29er plus having that tiny wheel out front makes it feel like you are riding a kids bike.
I found a hugely significant 'real world' difference when I first tried a 29ers (mostly due to faster rolling/keeping momentum), to the extent I couldn't go back to my other 26er and sold them. Depends on what sort of riding you are doing of course, and so long as you are having fun, who cares.
These days on the ever increasingly rare days I ride the 26er it feels noticeably twitcher than my 29er
Yes, this - I swapped bikes with my son and rode my old 575 down one of the DH tracks I'd been riding the 29er down. It was quite scary in a way I couldn't quite put my finger on - twitchy is a good way to describe it. Wasn't [i]bad[/i], just different.
Can give you an on/off road comparison?
Not mtb, but I've got a 26", 50cm Disc Trucker and Mrs S has a small 29" AWOL.
Both clever frame designs that ride well and don't suffer from overlap. The DT is a bit heaver, couple of pounds.
The AWOL is better rolling off road, but much less involving on it. Handles really well on singletrack, but you do need to plan ahead a bit. Really confidence inspiring, needs a bit of effort but good fun, faster the better, encourages you to shift around and get stuck in.
The Surly is much less docile on singletrack, a bit twitchy, pushes the front on soft stuff and you get rattled around a bit. Fun though. You're much more connected and there's loads of feedback, but it needs a smoother approach to enjoy it.
The Surly feels sharper and offers much more precise feedback on the road. The wheels are about the same weight as the bigger hoops on the AWOL but feel much more responsive. It's more fun to ride unloaded than the AWOL, yet handles heavy loads much better. It's a nice trick.
Average road speeds are about the same, but you have to be smoother on the Surly when you're tired - the AWOL just ploughs on regardless but never really lifts the soul on the tarmac.
Based on how well the AWOL rides off road, I'd definitely try a rigid 29er when it's time to replace my current 26" hardtail.
An aspect that hasn't been mentioned is flexibility. With a 29er you can run lower tyre pressures for grip and bump-eating better than a 26er, or pump them up for better rolling. Or put 1.5" tyres on and you are on the slippery slope to cyclocross... I think 29 gives you more options like that.
free wheeling downhill on the road, max I can get on my 26er is 61kmh, on the 29er I can get 72kmh. Both are spun out so it's all down to the gradient and I'm tucked as much as possible on either bike.
My 29" El Mariachi on the other hand is lightening quick to change direction. Extremely responsive. But then it has a 70.5 degree HA, which is unheard of these days it seems.
Went from 29er to 26, both rigid SS. Bigger wheels rolled better, but steered slower. Not night and day though. Both bikes were steel.
I preferred the 26er to be honest as I like the faster handling.
Dalby Forest.
29 just runs over stuff with less need for skill or body movement, and it feels like less effort. It needs less travel to do the same job.
26 felt more nimble and alive, and honestly more fun, but more work. In tight technical stuff (for me that is, not the average rider on this forum) it has the edge over the 29 due to being faster to move around.
Caveat: 26 was a trail bike, 29 is a XC setup. 29 is lighter though (carbon vs alu). Both FS.
Would I go back? Not sure. I'm getting older and lazier so the 29 fits me well. 🙂
free wheeling downhill on the road, max I can get on my 26er is 61kmh, on the 29er I can get 72kmh. Both are spun out so it’s all down to the gradient and I’m tucked as much as possible on either bike.
Really?
Given those speeds, you're looking at around 40% greater air resistance on the 29er if you're presenting the same shape. So you're effectively claiming that the difference in rolling resistance on tarmac caused solely by the change in wheel sizes* is equal to 40% of the air resistance of you on the 26er at 61km/h.
It won't be. Not even close.
* you're using the same tyre at similar pressures in each case, right? Both have the same width bars? And so on…
When 29ers were just starting to appear we had demonstrators . Nearly everybody who tried one came back raving about them . Faster up hill , faster downhill , better grip , better cornering , were some of the comments . Probably 75% bought 1 straight away . That really says it all for me , and my personal experience says the same thing .
My experiences broadly echo the views above.
Terrain: Trail Centres, Alps trips, natural trails in the Peaks, Long Mynd, and tame local woodsy singletrack.
I rode 26er big-ish (140mm) forked hardtails for ages (Ragley Blue Pig, Dialled Bikes Prince Albert).
Then rode a rigid 29er (Karate Monkey), rigid 29+ (Krampus) then ended up on a Chromag Rootdown 29er with 140mm forks.
29ers defo roll faster, need a slightly different cornering technique and the rear wheels (on a hardtail) don't get hung up on holes and bumps as much.
The only downside is that they do require more body english to really chuck them about but once you get used to it it's a non-issue.
Hardtail wise I wouldn't buy anything other than 29er, not really tempted by 27.5+ either to be honest. Quite liked 29+.
On a Full suspension bike I might be tempted onto a 27.5 bike but my default is to look at 29ers...
26" and 27.5" and 29":
the "fun level" might be the same. But each bike has it's "perfect trail".
If I bike the 29" bike on the "wrong trail" I might be fast - but the bike might feel like a "ship" - means fun level goes down. But at the same time I have the impression that I'am able to bike LONGER on the 29" bike without getting fatigued...? Maybe because every root and rock is really an obstacle for the 26" bike?
I'am not racing. But could imagine that the 29" bike would be my option then.
Also to go back to my usual point.... obsessing over wheel size means you miss a load of other stuff, something like the Hightower LT or Enduro 29 will be very different to my 100mm XC 29r some properties the same others very different, again the dozen or so 650b bikes I've ridden all feel different, same went for all the 26" stuff the way my old Blur LT tracked and climbed was so far from the same size and wheel sized heckler it replaced, it felt like it went over stuff way better.
Anyway go ride some bikes and ask what size the wheels are when you need a new tyre
Given those speeds, you’re looking at around 40% greater air resistance on the 29er if you’re presenting the same shape. So you’re effectively claiming that the difference in rolling resistance on tarmac caused solely by the change in wheel sizes* is equal to 40% of the air resistance of you on the 26er at 61km/h.
It won’t be. Not even close.
That sounds like an awful lot more air resistance on the 29er , are you sure that you haven't made a mistake .
Also to go back to my usual point…. obsessing over wheel size means you miss a load of other stuff
You don't want to 'obsess' over it to the detriment of all over factors, but I'd say it was my number one most significant factor when comparing like-for-like, or similar bikes.
Just do what I do and use one of each size. Works for me.
I meant each size wheel, not bike btw.