Forum menu
So how did adopting 148 over the pre-existing 150 change that ?
Becasue with 150mm you need to change the design of the drop-out and the brake mount as well to accommodate them, don't need to do that with 148mm
Becasue with 150mm you need to change the design of the drop-out and the brake mount as well to accommodate them, don’t need to do that with 148mm
So on one hand change a dropout and brake mount (both add on parts from a frame POV) vs develop a whole new incompatible system and frame ??
And yet you want us all on totally backwards-incompatible bikes? Kettle Pot Black etc etc
IF THERE IS AN ACTUAL BENEFIT!
Not pushing home because the derailleur had an interaction with the terrain we ride over is a pretty large benefit.
And that's before we start getting into the suspension compromises that have to be made to accommodate the derailleur system.
Did I mention the 400 pound cassettes that are that price because they are unsprung mass and have to be as light as humanly possible whilst being exposed to all the crap the trail can throw at it?
vs develop a whole new incompatible system and frame ??
Because the 150mm axle standard isn't 19mm, doesn't fit into existing 3.5 mm recessed dropouts doesn't add anything to wheel strength, and puts the brake mounts in the wrong place. and is actually 157mm wide and widens Q factor, which is fine when you're not pedalling on a DH bike, but a pain in the knees for lots of folk.
Becasue with 150mm you need to change the design of the drop-out and the brake mount as well to accommodate them, don’t need to do that with 148mm
With Boost the brake mount is in a different place.
You can use an adapter to shift the rotor to the correct position but that still begs the question what was wrong with 150mm/157mm?
IF THERE IS AN ACTUAL BENEFIT!
[clears throat] Ahem: Just because you keep saying something, doesn't make it true.
I thang yuu, I thang yuu, I thang yuu...Here all week folks, try the fish
[clears throat] Ahem: Just because you keep saying something, doesn’t make it true.
I knew I shouldn't have used caps for only part of the post.
You completely missed the part where I listed the benefits I can think of off the top of my head.
I'm lost on what the relevance of all this is to choosing between 27.5" or 29".
molgrips
I think that’s a simplistic and cynical view.
Is it cynical to think that in a corporate office somewhere a major investor/shareholder is expressing "I'm rather cynical that you have done everything possible to drive new bike sales"
I’m lost on what the relevance of all this is to choosing between 27.5″ or 29″.
There isn't.
3 or 4 pages ago someone suggested 27.5 was a significant improvement over 26" and then it was party time.
Anyway, all things being equal 27.5" is going to be cheaper than 29". Also, it's going to be easier to store which isn't a consideration for many but for some of us it is.
I don't think there's anything particularly contentious in that last statement but no doubt someone will be along to correct me soon.
I’m lost on what the relevance of all this is to choosing between 27.5″ or 29″.
27.5 is (I'm told) already agreed to be discontinued...
You completely missed the part where I listed the benefits I can think of off the top of my head.
There are loads of benefits to gearboxes and cassette-in-a-box designs, I totally agree with you. Whether there will ever be a mass movement from derailleurs to them (like the shift to different wheel sizes) I dunno. With my magic ball fired up, I can't see it happening in the next few years, There's loads of options available, but apart from their evangelists, I don't feel like everyone is soo fed up with mechs that they feel that they have to go immediately.
I reckon that outside of a text book, chain line is non issue, efficiency is a non issue, and the impact of chains on suss performance is a non-issue, 'solving' those will have minimal tangible benefit for 99% of MTBers
I’m lost on what the relevance of all this is to choosing between 27.5″ or 29″.
I think what we've learnt is that the only reason anyone would choose 27.5" is that they are gullible fools, hoodwinked by "big bike". The idea that folk might ride a few bikes and decide by themselves what their preference is? Absolute nonsense.
This thread has become a classic example of a conspiracy theory. It's both hilarious and drastically sad at the same time.
Is it cynical to think that in a corporate office somewhere a major investor/shareholder is expressing “I’m rather cynical that you have done everything possible to drive new bike sales”
People still bought new bikes when 26 was the only size. Point is that there are other ways to do this. It's entirely possible that they did market research and customers went 'well, I do want bigger wheels because of the better rollover, I tried at 29er but it was too slow so can we have a medium ground?'
I still think it's overly cynical to assume it was ONLY a way to force people to buy new bikes. And let's face it, small wheels weren't the only outdated standard on my old bike. It also had a straight steerer.
It also had a straight steerer.
let's not get deviate the thread into the way that "Big Rolled Steel" force us into buying already obsolete CSU standards, the bastards.
Also, intended ask what this cassette-in-a-box business is all about? Difficult to search for given Box Components.
The idea that folk might ride a few bikes and decide by themselves what their preference is? Absolute nonsense.
I know. You only have to look at the huge choice of 26" bikes that were available in 2014 to see that consumers freely chose to convert to 27.5 and it was in no way simply forced on them from one year to the next in a cynical move of planned obsolesence.
Planned obsolesence?! You'll be trying to tell me climate change is real next!
Also, intended ask what this cassette-in-a-box business is all about? Difficult to search for given Box Components.
Also, intended ask what this cassette-in-a-box business is all about? Difficult to search for given Box Components.
Have a look at Williams Racing Products on instagram.
It's still at a very Heath Robinson stage but it's promising. Particularly if you go the route of a jack shaft with a high pivot (like the Starling Sturn).
Williams is also working with Trinity MTB,
https://instagram.com/trinity_mtb?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
https://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/internet-rummagings-toms-christmas-baubles/
Bike buyers forced the change to a large degree. Cotic kept making 26” wheeled frames ‘till absolutely no one was buying them.
From my viewpoint, for a normal sized person (0n a large frame) 650/27.5 mountain bikes look well-proportioned where 26ers looked too small/BMX-like and 29ers look a tad too large.
Plus the fact that 29ers roll over stuff more easily, combined with slacker angles, means that you need to seek out ever more technical/steeper terrain to get the same 'adrenaline rush - which reduces the amount of accessible riding areas.
You only have to look at the huge choice of 26″ bikes that were available in 2014 to see that consumers freely chose to convert to 27.5 and it was in no way simply forced on them from one year to the next in a cynical move of planned obsolesence.
29ers were one of the last real MTB innovations, at least before e-bikes. It was a really slow burn thing before it took off. When it did it caught a few brands out, some predicted it'd never take off over 26" while others were seeing where it worked well. When 27.5 came along (after being pushed a few niche brands for 5+ years) brands moved onto it much faster out of fear of being left behind again for a model year or two more than anything else.
Take a look at the state of the bike industry at the moment, it's a mess. It's all come from a lack of co-ordination and planning and the need to compete over a stagnant market where there's little real innovation left to be had. The bike industry being a co-ordinated coercion and influencing machine is so far off the mark imo. It's a bunch of (mainly) blokes running around trying to figure out when to jump on a trend or trying to create trends (dependant on brand size). Then trying to get it all done with contract manufacturers who work for loads of other brands and might not want to change what they do, or might have so much business tied up with one brand that it influences things for better or worse.
Planned obsolesence?!
People love to roll this out. From what I can tell it seems to be a conspiracy theory, with perhaps a few examples. It goes all the way back to the suggestion that they could make lightbulbs that last forever but they don't. This in turn may come from the existence of really old light bulbs that lasted for a century or so. My dad saw a few of these but they were in applications like cinemas where they were slowly brought up and down, which is what made them last a long time. But then, hey, they did start making lightbulbs that last for far longer, and used much less electricity. The scoundrels.
People go on about white goods not being repairable because planned obsolescence which is really not true. What they do is make them cheap, and that means that repair companies go bust because it costs more to pay someone to work out what's wrong than it does to buy a new one. But that's a reflection of the efficiency in manufacturing and the difference in cost of living between where it's made and where the repair person lives. I have fixed loads of white goods in my time, and in most cases it was pretty easy. The parts are generally readily available on eBay.
So I think that things sometimes LOOK like planned obsolescence if you are a grumpy arse and want something to moan about and sound all superior and make yourself feel better that everything was better in your day and everything's gone to pot these days wah wah wah but you don't really want to analyse the situation. Whilst enjoying your £250 washing machine that uses a fraction of the power and water, whilst riding your amazingly capable bike and driving your 150k mile car that is as good as the day it was made, that you only paid £3k for, that does 60mpg and has 150bhp and aircon, completely unlike back in the day. And for which spares are still totally available, incidentally.
“3 or 4 pages ago someone suggested 27.5 was a significant improvement over 26″”
That’s the second time you’ve said that. I actually said that 26” MTB tyres happened by accident (because they were already available for beach cruisers) and that if the first MTB manufacturers had had the money they’d started out with bigger diameter tyres. Most of those who started modern MTBing are still around and have said this in interviews.
Bike buyers forced the change to a large degree. Cotic kept making 26” wheeled frames ‘till absolutely no one was buying them.
Cotic kept making 26" because 27.5 made no sense from an engineering point of view and Cy Turner has said as much.
The problem was customers saw that Giant, Spesh, and Trek were saying '26 is dead' and they quite rightly believed them because once those three have decided on a direction that is the direction the industry is moving in.
If 27.5 was such a no brainer, why was it available but on the fringes for 7 years until suddenly it was the new 'standard'?
When 27.5 came along (after being pushed a few niche brands for 5+ years) brands moved onto it much faster out of fear of being left behind again for a model year or two more than anything else.
This sounds right.
People love to roll this out. From what I can tell it seems to be a conspiracy theory, with perhaps a few examples
I know. Just like climate change. May I suggest you read up a bit on the Right to Repair movement? It's not just a few isolated examples.
That’s the second time you’ve said that. I actually said that 26” MTB tyres happened by accident (because they were already available for beach cruisers) and that if the first MTB manufacturers had had the money they’d started out with bigger diameter tyres. Most of those who started modern MTBing are still around and have said this in interviews.
Well, then, would a 'Yeah, 27.5 is bollocks' have killed you?
Anyway, most of the inventors of mountain biking started off with more or less the 'right' geometry and then turned them into road bikes with slightly fatter tyres.
It's only now we're returning to the original geometry so I'd take what Gary Fisher et al say with a pinch of salt.
The problem was customers saw that Giant, Spesh, and Trek were saying ’26 is dead’
But it isn't just a one way process. The public demand for 29" XC bikes in the early days outstripped bike, fork, and tyre manufacturers making them
Cotic kept making 26″ because 27.5 made no sense from an engineering point of view and Cy Turner has said as much.
History is littered with companies that stuck to their engineering principles and ignored market forces. You can't run a company like that.
It’s only now we’re returning to the original geometry
Hmm, in terms of head angle, perhaps, but not in terms of basically everything else about the bikes.
May I suggest you read up a bit on the Right to Repair movement?
I'm well aware of it - it's about the RIGHT to repair. That doesn't mean things weren't repairable before this came out. I can give you a list of all the stuff I easily fixed with OEM parts if you like?
listening to a bunch of forumites who are trying to justify spending several months wages on a bike to play in the woods on
That's what it's really about. We got there in the end!
You're wrong anyway as it's more like a few days income for me, and I never thought of justifying it....until YOU mentioned it.Reverse snobbery and bitterness. The perfect forumite's driver. And projections, plenty of them. Mostly not even conscious.
The public demand for 29″ XC bikes in the early days outstripped bike, fork, and tyre manufacturers making them
And conversely, the hold outs, like the cotic BFe, Kona 167(?) Orange Alpine didn't sell very well.
All the online moaning turned out to not be "I want to buy another 26" bike", but rather "I like my current bike that I already own and I don't like that it has become obselete and I'm going to moan about it"
There's a lot of Spesh hatred in this thread, which is odd because they were one of the last to convert (probably due to stock/financial rather than perfomance/engineering reasons) but they were commitnig to sell every model in 26 and 29, and saying 27.5 was pointless for quite some time.
It was Giant that went full in on 27.5
History is littered with companies that stuck to their engineering principles and ignored market forces. You can’t run a company like that.
It wasn't market forces. The public were not clamouring for 27.5. 27.5 had been available for 7 years with very little traction.
It's just that one day they went to the bike shop and there wasn't a 26" bike to be seen.
Hmm, in terms of head angle, perhaps, but not in terms of basically everything else about the bikes.
In terms of head angle, in terms of wheelbase, in terms of rim width, in terms of handlebar width...
Do you know how we got the first 'lightweight' mountain bike rims? Gary Fisher split a road rim, cut a section out, carefully increased the bend, and then reconnected the ends.
Let's face it, the original guys found mountain bikes. They invented gravel bikes.
Gary Fisher split a road rim, cut a section out, carefully increased the bend, and then reconnected the ends.
That was Keith Bontrager, re-rolled Mavic MA40s
Geoff Apps would have gone 650B from the start
Anyway, to the OP,
Here's my 27.5 Banshee Rune halfway through a 100km gravel loop.
It was fun, if a bit slower, but who cares. I certainly don't care about 29ers.
The public were not clamouring for 27.5
Actually, they were. Might have started off slow, but eventually everyone was asking if they could squeeze 275 tyres into 26 bikes, and sales of 275 bikes completely took over from 26 bikes where direct equivalents were available.
It was Giant that went full in on 27.5
This. And some of their claims are why people still think it was all marketing bullshit, because they pushed so much marketing bullshit in a failed effort to make 275 replace 26&29.
The public were not clamouring for 27.5
Hmm. After 29 became the thing, 26 started to look really flippin small. And a lot of people buy bikes on how they look.
A 26er earlier. Much, much earlier. Look at those teeny tiny wheels!
[img] 
[/img]
I feel like the very fact we all refer to 27.5 wheels as 27.5, when they are less than an inch bigger than 26", demonstrates to some degree the success of the marketing departments
That said, I'm def in the bigger wheels are better camp. I won't go smaller than 29er again even at my very average height. The issue to me is that 27" wheels weren't different enough from 29 to be worth it
I still don't get boost though. My 142mm rear end 29er fits at 2.6" tyre and 36t oval chainring with a reasonable 440mm chainstay length. And if wheel strength was such an issue why do so many 29er wheels nowadays only have 24 or 28 spokes?
And if wheel strength was such an issue why do so many 29er wheels nowadays only have 24 or 28 spokes?
Because of the extra 3mm each side that Boost 148 gives you, means you can build a wheel as strong as 26" used to be on a 135/142mm hub with fewer spokes - although wheels with 24/28 spokes won't be as strong as wheels with 32 spokes. Previously 29" had 135/142 hubs and they were mostly cheese BITD. Fine for XC, toast if you showed them anything remotely chunky. DH didn't move to 29" until what? 2017? (I remember the Mondraker Insta of Fox 49 dual crown that caused a minor kerfuffle )
Sounds like they could have just gone for 36 spoke instead of creating a whole new hub and frame standard. Even Mavic Deemax are only 28 spoke nowadays
Back to the wheel size thing though. I wonder who could tell the difference between 26" and "27.5" if they were moving back from a 29er?
I remember the one thing that's made me consider going back to 27.5 would be to run G-One 2.8" plus tyres
Sounds like they could have just gone for 36 spoke
Nah, you still need to sort out the space around the BB, that point needs to be wider as it's the main pivot, as early 29" were too flexy with longer chain stays and no space for wider tyres that were becoming popular. The 3mm difference just about allows for all of that, while still keeping the Q-factor reasonable; it's why 142mm (just introduced at the time) had to go when folks started looking at manufacturing useful long travel full suss. 29" bikes.
I think it's part of the reason why Boost148 was/is so unpopular, 135mm had been around for a couple of decades, then along comes 142, and it's junked almost as soon as it hits the shops for 148mm along with everything else changing as well. I've no idea why folks think it was marketing led; it was a total bit of a mess for 3-4 years.
I wonder who could tell the difference between 26″ and “27.5” if they were moving back from a 29er.
I reckon so. I still have all three wheel sizes and each is "different" enough. However, much of that is also down to other factors, like geometry.
But I have a Sirius 4g, with 29 x 2.6" rear, space for a 36t oval chainring (with a non-boost chainline) and 142mm rear spacing. With the sliders where they are the chainstays are at about 440-445mm
Edit: ah, unless boost was needed to make clearance on full suss frame? I'm coming from a purely hardtail background
Still on 27.5 but open to anything that rides better come the time to get a new bike. Tried a 29 wheeled bike and didn't like it, but that doesn't mean I won't like the next one I try, if it's a substantial improvement over what I've got. Pretty happy with what I've got, tried it back-to-back with much more expensive bikes and it compares well if not quite as good in certain aspects, but I can live with it! My ****ing about/pump track bike rolls on 26'' wheels in 27.5'' frame and fork and I love it! Could put 27.5 wheels in there but no need as it works perfectly.
First time I noticed a speed difference between wheel sizes (26 and 29) was a road section between trails. The two lads on 29's were coasting and chatting, while us lads on 26 had to pedal more often to keep up. Although it was hardly scientific given they were different trail bikes with different MTB tyres.
It would be interesting to compare bikes with the same geometry, tyres and suspension spec, with different wheel combinations, back-to-back on the same trails with a consistent rider. But it's pretty much impossible to do! I suspect the difference would not be as much as people think, except on longer high speed trails where the advantage could be maximised.
Some of the last of the 26 bikes are still decent bikes to ride, without the latest hub spacing, 35mm handlebar, 30mm rims. I'm thinking bikes like the Transition Suppressor and a few others that weren't a million miles away from the latest bikes. There's no doubt in my mind that a 29'' wheeled FS bike, that is as long and slack as you can reasonably go, with suspension set really soft, would absolutely obliterate the famous Peak bridleways and would be the only way to keep KOM's on them.
Watch Pinkbike fails for the 29nr kiss of death in action. Although it can happen with all wheel sizes, can be mitigated by the adaptation we all do and better technique.