[Closed] Anyone gone back to smaller wheels from 29er?

Never moved away from 26". Everything 27.5" or 29" I've tried has left me feeling a bit meh.

I'll keep rocking the bandit until it falls apart or snaps. Hopefully by then they'll be making 26" trail bikes again...

Orange 5 29 is 140mm which is classed as long travel for a 29er.

I'm sure the codeine is even longer.

In your mind i'm sure it is.

I'm on my second Trek Superfly HT and can't see myself going back to a smaller wheel or going FS.

I'm on my second Trek Superfly HT and can't see myself going back to a smaller wheel or going FS.

What is it you like so much about the Superfly?

My most used bike is a 26" hardtail with a v short wheelbase. It is perfectfor the tight twisty singletrack near where I live. Most other places inc. trail centres, open moorland and scary steep stuff it would be inferior to most new bikes

In your mind i'm sure it is.

Would you not say that 140-160mm is long travel for a 29er then ?

I may need to revise my comment about manuals being hard on a 29er

Yes, after riding and practicing skills stuff on various wheel sized bikes, I think it's very difficult to be prescriptive on 'manualability'. As well as the more obvious stuff like geometry, Ive noticed even things like shock tune can affect things like ease with which the bike can be manualled. I've had 26" that have been easier to manual than 29ers....and vice versa. As an example, I had a single pivot Salsa Horsethief 120mm FS 29er (currently selling the frame;) which has 460mm chainstays - and that was easier to wheelie and manual than my Tallboy LT that has 450mm chainstays and a slightly lighter front end! Even though the Devinci Atlas has 430mm chainstays and very firm feeling 110mm rear suspension, the Salsa was much easier to wheelie, and had a more natural balanced feel when getting the front wheel up - definately less of a full on involving handful that the Devinci can be on rough natural trails. (I though it might be bar height on the Salsa that made things easier, but I double checked relative bar heights, but they were actually slightly lower than the TB - all I can think is that it's down to a combination of suspension action and BB height(?))

Niner WF09 will take 160mm forks
http://www.jungleproducts.co.uk/niner/wfo9

Would you not say that 140-160mm is long travel for a 29er then ?

I moved from a 26 Epic to a BMC FS 29'er and have found the bike so much better everywhere I ride. The majority of my riding is across the South Downs so xc type terrain but I have riden it at trail centres and Afan and it has never felt slow or unwieldy. I recently bought an Orange Five Alpine 29'er to try a long travel bike to see how well big wheels and slack ha would work out. I've been really surprised not only how well it worked at BPW and Afan but also climbing and xc type riding. I thought it might be a very limited use bike but I could happily use it as my only bike to be honest.

Whilst at BPW I rode my Brothers 26'er for a wee while but I was more than happy to get back on my 29'er 🙂

I would like to try a decent 650b over a longer period of time to give it a good go but so far I've had quick rides on a Stumpy and SC Heckler and neither had me wanting to change from either of my 29'ers.

Ive got a 5 29er as my only bike and would echo Andy's comments above.

I had my first 29er in 2008, gary fisher xcaliber. it was a nice bike and all the things you'd hear about 29ers then were true, rolled nicely, held speed, was a dog in tight switchbacks...

I actually really liked it, so much so that I sold my 26er and used the 29er.

but, I bought an old 1998 kona 26er as a commute/messabout/hack thing. The turn of speed through the tight stuff brought a grin right back on my face and I started to question the whole 29er thing, and whether mny riding style, had actually changed.

So back to 26ers I went.

I picked up a Scandal 29er about 2 years ago, with the intent to use it as a hack bike as it was very cheap.

then found I was riding that more than my 26er carbon bike. For me, holding speed through singletrack was great, and much more enjoyable than on the 26er. I could sacrifice a little climbing ability for more fun through the twisty stuff. So I swapped the good bits off my 26er, and sold it.

I had one bike. The 29er scandal for about a year. it was great.

It's still my main bike, but I now have another, cheaper 29er as a hack bike.

would like to try 27.5, but my wife would rather I didn't. 😉

160 rear yes 140 no.
I've been riding a Tallboy with 135 rear and 160 front for a few years but i'd not consider it to be a long travel bike.

You might not but from every other direction it seems to be accepted that 140mm+ on a 29er is classed as long.

A larger wheel doesn't magicaly turn 140 into 180 you know. 😉
As good as my 135-160 combo works on a lot of stuff it ain't no long travel bike.

Ok stu.

Just to help you out a little. 😉

Long travel.
[img] [/img]

Not long travel.
[img] [/img]

Erm..... That's a downhill bike of course it's a longer travel than the orange. ???

Two different types of bike.

I'm riding 26" & 29" these days, 29" Scandal XC machine, 26" Soul.

Scandal just feels so fast, stable, and covers ground brilliantly, 100mm sus fork, climbs really well, ideal for training/xc rides on all surfaces.

Soul is much more fun for techy stuff, trail centres etc, just nimble, handles quicker, jumps better.

I like both & can switch between them easily.

Two different types of bike

To me, 29" makes sense for fast, short travel hardtails.

It might also be quicker or smoother on longer travelled and/or full sus bikes, but the fun and enjoyment I get from riding bikes is not all about speed and going as fast as I can ALL of the time.

So how would you differentiate between a long travel 26er and a downhill 26er or are you just being pedantic for the sake of it.

There aren't many 29ers that are 140mm+ hence why they are classed as long travel.

Renton, for once I think most of us agree with you! 😉

The way I see it is with 26/27.5 there are short (<120), medium (120-155) and long (155+) travel bikes, plus downhill bikes (which I don't think need separating by travel because their function is so clear (like slopestyle and 4X bikes too). And with 29ers there is narrower range of travels, just short (<125) and long (125+). I can't think of a single 29er with more than 155mm rear travel - there may be some but not enough for their own pigeonhole.

I have been having thoughts along the lines of the OP, I have a Sultan with a 120mm fork and it's cumbersome in the twisty stuff and my mates on 26 and 650b get away from me in these situations.

I have looked at lots of bikes 26 and 650b but I can't ignore the benefits of the bigger wheels and I'm a tightwad and buying another 29er frame and moving everything across would be cheap 😛

Other than the Devinci previously mentioned what are considered nimble 29ers preferably alloy frames?

I can't think of a single 29er with more than 155mm rear travel

[img] [/img]
I think Lenz also built something along the same lines too.
Irrespective of wheel size 140mm is not long travel 160+ is.

Chief.... I think ssstu is just looking for an argument.

Because of the wheel size 140 IS classed as long travel on a 29er.

If you make them any longer travelled people won't be able to get on them.

Lenz also offering a long travel 29er.

[url] http://lenzsport.com/mountain-bikes/pbj/ ][/url]
Note it has more than 140mm.

You keep telling yourself 140 is long though. 😉

Interesting thread but it has to depend to an extent on the individual. Out of curiosity I tried out 29 and 650b enduro's earlier this year and went back asking why they bothered making the 650b because for me the 29er was a far better ride (and better than the Whyte and Trek 29er's I also looked at).

None were any faster on the same trails than my 26" strive according to strava but the 29 enduro was as much fun and left me wanting more. It's all just riding bikes at the end of the day

I've read most of the first page and it's all very convivial, which is very lovely to see on a potentially fraught issue, such as the size of one's wheels.

Has it degenerated yet to a slanging match? 😉

Haven't read page 2, although from reading the first few posts on page 3, am I right thinking that it's starting to warm up over a few extra mm's?

The Enduro29 is 155mm travel. The Lenz equivalent is 150mm. The Lenz DH bike is 7" travel but it's a downhill bike, not something you can ride down AND up.

The Tallboy LT is long in actual travel but doesn't have modern long travel 29 geometry.

Well done sss for proving you're a dick and for also ignoring what's in front of your face. Shame as there was no reason to troll this thread.

I only asked what real long travel 29ers were out there. 🙄
Some people even answered instead of getting all insulted.
No need for insults.
I'll leave you and your long travel bike to it.

To me, 29" makes sense for fast, short travel hardtails.

It might also be quicker or smoother on longer travelled and/or full sus bikes, but the fun and enjoyment I get from riding bikes is not all about speed and going as fast as I can ALL of the time.

Agree/disagree; long travel 29ers (>130mm) are a bit dull on most terrain I've encountered because they flatten everything. I couldn't find anything to challenge them in the UK outside of a DH track! Short travel slack 29ers (100-120mm) are much more versatile and fun.

I guess it depends on what you mean by fun but my take is being able to pop off anything, ping from obstacle to obstacle and move the bike around the trail. Generally pretend to be a small child riding a BMX or relive the speeder bikes scene from star wars. I can do that much better on my Phantom than I ever could on my 26" wheeled bikes of any travel or suspension type.

Having had at the same time a
Yeti asr 7 so 160 front /160 rear ...26er
Turner Sultan 140 mm fromnt /125mm rear ..29er
Rocky Mtn Element 120 fr 98mm rear ...29er

29er suit me better, going back to the 26er was just not right, felt unstable, twitchy, and just not right so settled on 29er

sold the Turner as it was flattening everything and whilst a great bike I just felt it was too much for me

Rocky does everything from 100 miles Fred Whitton to just playing out and nevers feels it is too little travel nor getting in the way, going up it was 2 to 3 minutes faster that the turner and descending is an equal- ish just more interesting

I have supplemented it with a Ritchey 29er hardtail which due to back injury is sat doing nowt but it is a great bike

so no will never go back to 26 though was tempted by a Turner six pack and having ridden a 650 not bothered

the fun and enjoyment I get from riding bikes is not all about speed and going as fast as I can ALL of the time.

this x10,000

but then I come from a time before strava and endooro

Shackleton - Member

I guess it depends on what you mean by fun but my take is being able to pop off anything, ping from obstacle to obstacle and move the bike around the trail.

TBH that depends a lot on the bike- my Trailfox (150mm 29er) despite being enormous has a ton of "pop", it's very easy to lift and drop and move. In fact easier than my old 26er, in some ways, I keep turning into corners too hard and having to correct... I think suspension and geometry and weight is as important as travel and wheels.

But it does steamroller some trails. Rode it down falla brae at glentress yesterday and it felt slow. Strava says it was my fastest ever, I can believe it but I wasn't racing, I don't want to go fast so much as I want to feel fast. OTOH pissing about on easy trails in the pentlands it's fine. Maybe it's fast easy trails that it takes some of the fun out of? And slower easy trails, it's fine...

I must admit that I have no problems with a bike "flattening everything". I like to ride up and down remote mountains in this corner of Scotland and no matter how capable the bike is I can always find stuff I don't have the confidence to ride. So, the more skill compensation the better as far as I'm concerned.

My problem with long travel 29ers (and yes, I count 140mm as lomg for a 29er) is first that they might be a pain to ride up the mountain and second that it might be too much hard work to move it around in the tighter sections and to loft the front over the stuff that they can't blat through.

bowglie makes some interesting points about 'manualability' though. I'm sure there is more to it that just "longer chainstays make it harder to manual". Actually I wonder whether it's just a case of different bikes needing slightly different timing and it taking time to adapt. I certainly notice that the rear suspension on my Five tends to absorb any input from my legs then give it back as it reboounds. So, the timing between legs and arms and relative to the obstacle is a bit different to my HT. If I just ride one for a while I find I strugle to lift the front on the other. If I keep swapping and changing then I'm equally crap on both 🙂

I ride a Whyte t129 SCR and a Niner EMD, both 29ers.

The Whyte is considered long but is a shit load of fun, the only time I can tell is in REALLY tight switchback corners, which I don't ride too often, having said that it was awesome on the ranger descent of Snowdon.

It's 120 rear and 130 front, doesn't flatten the trail but it is seriously quick. I came off on Sunday on the final descent of the 5 dales route as I was carrying a bit too much speed through the final corner after the big berm.

The Niner is more compact and a real blast to ride with the ridged fork, smaller wheels wouldn't be as good on a bike like this.

At this stage I wont be going back, but there are aspects to 26 that work better in certain areas. My change to 29er wasn't exactly intentional or calculated either.

First off, I'm 6'2" and ride L/XL frames (& I think this sways my opinion some). I regularly ride Peak District (mostly Dark Peak, sometimes White), trail centres (wales, Scotland), natural Welsh & Scottish trails and my local woods (twisty singletrack)

I've had a Mojo DH (160fr/rr 26") for 3 years, absolutely love it. But was a bit too much for some of the riding I was doing (trail centres, local woods and White Peak), so got myself a Transition Bandit 29 (130fr, 120rr 29") as a short travel rig for easier trails. My first time for a 29r. It sold me on the benefits of 29ers, better roll over, stability, lower BB drop giving great cornering feel.

Last year an opportunity presented itself to get an Intense Carbine 29 (160fr, 145rr).....WOW, love this bike. For rough and rowdy rocky trails (think Dark Peak) then this is an awesome trail bike. Strange thing is though, this does not feel OTT on easier trails like the Mojo did, (maybe because Carbine is lighter?).

This issue with 29ers on [u]very[/u] tight and [u]very[/u] techy trails (think Les Arc hiking trails) is true though & I think the smaller wheels are better for this.

But for 99% of the rest of the riding I do (i.e. this country), the stability, traction, cornering stability (lower BB drop) I much prefer the Carbine, I do not think I would go back smaller wheels, unless the choice of available new bikes dictated it.

The Transition has gone - became redundant. The Mojo will stay for alpine holidays as I still love it for that.

Don't think i'd change back from my transition smuggler, doesn't feel big for a 29er, still has that fun playable feel and it just rides nice.

29ers aren't for everyone though but I can't see me going back anytime soon (and I usually change bikes a lot)

my Trailfox (150mm 29er) despite being enormous has a ton of "pop"

Maybe that's because it's only really 140mm travel? 😉

http://linkagedesign.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/bmc-trailfox-29-2014.html

Nice bike though!

Northwind.
You should try the B+ thing in your Trailfox.
I hear they'll fit a 3" tyre in the rear.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]
/p>

What tyres are those? They look huge.

Trax Fatty's on 45mm rims.

If I keep swapping and changing then I'm equally crap on both

I think tandemodium has hit it spot on too

This issue with 29ers on very tight and very techy trails (think Les Arc hiking trails) is true though & I think the smaller wheels are better for this.

I took my Tallboy LT to South Tyrol last year and rode almost entirely on those type of hiking trails - I'm going back again this year and am trying to weigh up whether to take my Blur or the TB LT. I'm finding it very difficult to decide, as there were quite a few places where I remember being glad I was on the big wheels - but some of the exposed hairpins were proper a**e pucker jobs. I guess it comes down to working out the best compromise for the type of riding - personally, one of the reasons I'm swaying towards the TB is largely because its cockpit setup is more comfortable for long days in the saddle. The Devinci Atlas is faster and easier than the Blur or TB LT uphill, but I think both of the latter are more forgiving on descents than the Atlas when the rider is tired, and on unfamiliar trails (I still find it a bit surprising that the Blur feels less flickable and hyperactive than the Atlas).