[Closed] Are 26ers a dying breed?

Seems like the
industry is flailing around looking for the
next best thing and sales advantage but is
actually putting everything at risk by
confusing the market and alienating it's
customers.

I have recently bought a new bike recently, a 29er...though with 23mm tyres and drop bars...

I shall not buying any new mountain bike kit for a while until the dust settles on this issue.

I am a short arse at 5'6" and at the moment I've got a light weight racy HT and a heavier long travel HT. I need to sell one to find room in the garage. So I will be selling the racy HT. If I were to consider a 29er HT it would be just for xc riding which would limit my riding (echoing Cy's quote regarding the Solaris being more suited to long steady rides for short people a couple of pages back on this thread).

Hopefully we shall all have a drier summer this year and I will be dodging trees on wooded singletrack on my 26er. With the option of putting on a lightweight wheelset for longer distance events.

I will not be making any major MTB purchases for a while because I want one bike that can do multiple jobs and at present it is not clear if this is possible with a 29er for a short arse.

I'd agree that the industry is unlikely to support three standards long term, but I still think that there is a chance that the 29ers will die and we'll be left with 26 and 650B.

Imagine that you are a manufacturer wanting to push 650B as the "next big thing" (either because you missed the 29er boat or because your 29er sales have fallen off). Who are you going to target in your marketing campaign, the 26 or 29er crowd? The 29er riders are by definition early-adopters. People who change bikes frequently and are always looking for something new. The 26" riders are, by contrast, reluctant to change. I reckon that you'll get more sales by pitching to the 29er riders ("all the advantages of the bigger wheel, but more fun") than the curmudgeonly old 26" riders.

Well it's a possibility.

I can't see 29er dying off - it's actually a sensible size for taller riders. Ultimately I think it'll come down to between 26" and 27.5", and which one survives...

I can't see 29er dying off - it's actually a
sensible size for taller riders

Why?

Why is it always about Skillz and speed ...why can I not just mince around on my 29er like I did on my 26er

Typically the more skilled the rider, the smaller the wheel size. Larger wheels make bike skills more difficult (manualling, jumping, pumping etc)

Most people who buy 29'ers are not bothered by this as they gravitate towards climbing and covering ground rather than skill.

Those riders who are skilled on a bike are not interested in anything that makes the bits they gravitate to, harder.

Hence the polar opinions from different riders.

If you spend some time really thinking about it, it's pretty obvious that by scaling a frame to fit riders from 5'2" to 6'6" without changing the size of the wheels, you're going to end up with very compromised geometry. We make a bike change direction (in 3D) by moving our centre of mass relative to the bike's centres of balance. The further our centre of mass is from them, the less we have to move it. The greater our centre of mass, the less we have to move it.

Therefore a very short and light rider on a big wheeled, long-travel, slack angled, long wheelbase bike will need to move a HUGE amount to make that bike to what its rider wants - ie the bike is too stable and too difficult to manoeuvre. Conversely, a very tall and heavy rider on a small wheeled, short travel, steep angled, short wheelbase bike will have to move tiny amounts to make that bike do what its rider wants - ie the bike is not stable enough and too difficult to keep balanced and controlled in the gnarr as external forces cause the rider to involuntarily move, thus destabilising the bike.

If a wide range of head angles, wheelbase and suspension travel are valid for MTBs then so too should be wheel sizes. Bigger wheels make sense for most taller riders and for less tall riders that favour stability over manoeuvrability.

I ride with quite a few different riders on everything from 160mm FS to rigids on my local trails. Everyone has trails that they're best at and one ~5'8" rider on a rigid 29er is quickest on the tightest twistiest trails - not because it's a 29er but because of the whole bike's geometry (it's a Jones) and its rider. On rougher faster trails my smaller wheels but long forks and slacker angles prove faster. It's complicated!

Hehe that's me 😀 haven't seen you about for a few weeks, Alex.

Double post.

While it's not the whole story there is something in this "skills" argument. As a long time roadie and recent convert to mountain biking I have no problem covering the miles on rough trails, but my skills are rubbish (skills course is booked, before you start). By skills I basically mean anything that involves lifting one or both wheels off the ground. Even with a 26" bike that is on the small side for me I can only lift the front wheel a few inches for a few seconds, so I'd be reluctant to get any bike that would make that even harder. If and when I ever get to the point where I can move the front wheel around at will and take jumps/drops in my stride then I may be more interested in the ability of a larger wheel to roll over small obstacles more easily.

Hehe that's me haven't seen you about for a few weeks, Alex.

We seem to be out of synchrony Ash - I thought maybe your big wheels didn't work in the mud or that your bare Ti frame might rust in the wet! 😉 Are you out this Tuesday? I'm going to do some DH stuff tomorrow, the steeper and less ridden trails are in much better condition than the Stanmer Somme, if you fancy some plummeting and pushing back up?

[b]A well designed 29er is a sensible option for taller riders in exactly the same way a 24" kids bike is for a shorter rider[/b]

...but I've yet to see a short arse above the age of 23 with the confidence to admit this fact! and those in the bicycle industry know where their income comes from 😉

Im 5 foot 7 possibly just under, with a 29 inch inside leg, trouser wise, 29ers are a no no for me as if i need to ditch the bike and step of the back i get a tingling sensation on my nuts.

Different wheel sizes benefits everyone.

The only people that care are trolls.

Skilled people will be able to manual, wheelie and jump 29ers as well and easily as 26ers. Wheel size is irrelevant to rider height. You are not seated any higher off the ground on a 29er than a 26er. My bike has the same BB height and wheelbase as the 26er version of the same model, so the rider is seated exactly the same. Kids bikes do correlate wheel size to kid height as there is such a huge difference in height from a 12 month old to an 8,9 or 10 yr old you physically can't fit larger wheels under a small child. The comparison to the 26 vs 29 adult bike is not the same. The difference in top tube length between a small adult frame and a large one is usually very small, a cm and a half or so.

Already Many of the big brands don't offer their more targeted XC bikes in 26 inch wheel sizes, only in 29er, so 29ers are not dying off and are in the ascendance. Similarly brands like Scott and Norco have already ditched 26 ers on their long travel 150/160mm AM bikes in favour of 650b. So in some areas with some big brands 26ers are already dead or in the final years of production. And these big brands are big sponsors in the sport, it doesn't take a genius to see what wheel sizes will influence and shape the sport going forward.

Other sports have gone through even bigger transitions and ended up all the better for it. Skiing springs to mind. 10 yrs ago it was all about long parallel sided skis, now it's about much shorter curved edged carver skis and the sport is much much better as a result.

Skilled people will be able to manual, wheelie and jump 29ers as well and easily as 26ers

I'm sure that skilled riders can do just fine, but it's not true to say that it is just as easy on a 29er. While a 29er may have the same wheelbase as its 26" cousin it will usually have longer chainstays. Longer chainstays and heavier wheels make it harder to lift the front wheel. Not impossible, but harder.

I'd also be cautious about making long term predictions based on the short term marketing decisions of a few manufacturers. A manufacturer may have 650B and 29ers in its lineup this year, but that doesn't mean they wont switch to 26" and 650B (or some other combination) if they think that will result in higher profits next year.

I'm a short arse and would look ridiculous on a 29er I think. Low standover 26" mtb or a proper sized bmx for me until I can't get either any more!

Other sports have gone through even bigger transitions and ended up all the better for it. Skiing springs to mind. 10 yrs ago it was all about long parallel sided skis, now it's about much shorter curved edged carver skis and the sport is much much better as a result.

That doesn't necessarily mean all change is good though. Why did we end up with VHS over Betamax?

Double post...

Skilled people will be able to manual, wheelie and jump 29ers as well and easily as 26ers. Wheel size is irrelevant to rider height. You are not seated any higher off the ground on a 29er than a 26er. My bike has the same BB height and wheelbase as the 26er version of the same model, so the rider is seated exactly the same. Kids bikes do correlate wheel size to kid height as there is such a huge difference in height from a 12 month old to an 8,9 or 10 yr old you physically can't fit larger wheels under a small child. The comparison to the 26 vs 29 adult bike is not the same. The difference in top tube length between a small adult frame and a large one is usually very small, a cm and a half or so.

This sort of stupidity really doesn't help anyone's understanding. Correctly sized frames exhibit much larger differences in top tube length, which is only increasing as manufacturers realise that using longer stems to compensate for insufficient ETT on larger sizes is a bodge. More force is required to manual a 29er than a 26er with otherwise identical geometry because the 29" wheels have greater rotational inertia and the axle height (which you pivot about when manualling) is higher which reduces your leverage (as its closer to your centre of mass).

Furthermore the packaging of the wheels becomes more difficult as you shrink the frame, which can't be ignored if you want clearance for big tyres, mud and long-travel suspension.

Bigger wheels can be good but they are not a panacea and the shorter and lighter the rider, the sooner their balance of compromises becomes skewed against good manoeuvrability.

Go tell my friend Ray that 29ers are no good for smaller lighter people. If you can catch him.

Go tell my friend Ray that 29ers are no good for smaller lighter people. If you can catch him.

Please turn on your brain when reading! 29ers are great for smaller lighter people if they prefer that balance of compromises - being smaller increases the probability that you won't like larger wheels but that's all it is, just probability.

the sooner their balance of compromises becomes skewed against good manoeuvrability

He destroys twisty singletrack on it.

He destroys twisty singletrack on it.

Which is exactly what I said further up this page about futonrivercrossing and his 29er!

A small light rider with an active riding style will get on much better with a 29er than a rider of the same size and weight with a more passive riding style. I'm betting that Ray is strong for his size and/or has great timing and balance, which means that his 29er works better for him than 26ers.

The only reason some brands have dropped 26" in favour of 650b in 2013 is due to wanting to be ahead of the sales curve. They don't want to make the same mistake they did with 29ers and play catch up *if* the market takes to 650b.

I'm sure they haven't dumped all of their 26" CAD drawings in the bin. For someone like Norco it makes sense to offer 650b over 26" for the coming season. They sell complete bikes, and at the moment 650b is thin on the ground in terms of 'complete' offerings - so if the market takes to 650b in 2013 then they're one of the few players with a range to offer the consumer.

I think it's interesting that (and potentially telling) that Spesh haven't released a 650b model for 2013 - maybe they realise it'll come down to between 26" and 650b and think the former will win out. Which wouldn't be any surprise considering the amount of after market products available.

Skilled people will be able to manual, wheelie and jump 29ers as well and easily as 26ers.

Put down the crack pipe.

Next you will be telling us that a skilled rider can manual, wheelie and jump a 26" bike as easy as a bmx.

I don't think you understand how wheel size effects geometry, and how this effects how a bike handles.

I think it's interesting that (and potentially telling) that Spesh haven't released a 650b model for 2013

But they have as good as given up on 26" wheels: no Stumpjumper/S-Works hardtails, no Epics, no Stumpy FSRs (except the Evo).

But they have as good as given up on 26" wheels: no Stumpjumper/S-Works hardtails, no Epics, no Stumpy FSRs (except the Evo).

So they've moved to 29 for all their XC and trail bikes - no surprise. However they retain 26 for dirt jump, downhill, and all-mountain rigs. That's hardly dumping 26. It just shows Spesh also think 26 is for more aggressive riding.

Why did we end up with VHS over Betamax?

Very interesting thoughts on PinkBike related to 29ers:

"...before the 29er can sprout longer legs, it will have to develop some big-wheel-specific component standards - some of which exist and others that must be invented. Breaking through the 29er travel
barrier will require a redesign of many major components: Wider bottom bracket shells and crank spacing to move the chain-line outwards in order to make room for wider tires and shorter chain stays. Zero-offset crankarms to return the Q-factor back to normal. Wider rear-axle spacing (probably 145mm) to move the cassette cogs in line with the chainring and wider hub-flange spacing to reduce the spoke angle and strengthen the wheel. Up front, wider hub flanges may require a wider axle and fork crown metrics. Heavy wheels are already a thorn in the side of the 29er, so to keep the weight down, wider, lightweight carbon rims, and tires with wide, aggressive tread and low-profile sidewalls must be considered. Because the front derailleur swings into the exact spot that the tire must occupy, SRAM's XXI drivetrain is tailor-made for the new 29er - long-travel plus big wheels equals no front mech. Other component makers will be pressured to follow. Where the big trouble occurs for the long-travel 29er, however, is that suspension designers must figure out a way to keep the bike's chain stays short enough to ensure proper handling, and still figure out a way to arc the wheel away from the rider's butt when the saddle is slammed..."

When I've ridden my 26er into the ground I'd like to try a 29er with all those future improvements!

Sounds like a pain in the arse, i think the manufacturers will keep 29ers for XC and for selling to people who want to ride along canal paths and keep 26ers for crashing down hills....650b is intriguing though, Saracen do a 130mm 650b hardtail, it could be the perfect middle ground, i dont get the 29 inch early adopters anti stance towards 650b?
If 29 inch wheels do end up being too much of a pain in the arse to fit into decent gravity bikes then 650b is the natural plan-b for those who like larger wheels surely?

So am I allowed to really like my 29er or not?

Not until you get some peer reviewed scientific data to prove its 10% faster over rough terrain and 5% more efficient for a given energy output
And a pic of all the laydees who have swooned at your mere passing..
And non of the wheels haven't exploded for at least 48 hours.

So am I allowed to really like my 29er or not?

So they've moved to 29 for all their XC and trail bikes - no surprise. However they retain 26 for dirt jump, downhill, and all-mountain rigs. That's hardly dumping 26. It just shows Spesh also think 26 is for more aggressive riding.

I'm so bored of people saying 29" bikes aren't as fast downhill or AM and DH bikes would have them etc. You can't engineer 200mm of travel around 29" wheels without huge wheelbases. That is the reason why, not because they aren't suited to more agressive riding. A good 110mm 29" will wipe the floor with a 140mm 26" on rowdy trails. I'm sure when the 29 " Enduro arrives the 26" version will disappear within a year or two. As it is I think a 29" Evo would run a 26" Enduro really close on any descent and it'd destroy it when you hit a tech climb or flat rutted section.

The advantages of geo around 29" wheels are obvious. Specialized's position is it worth getting rid of 26" and changing everything for just over 27" when it doesn't have the advantages of 29". If you're gonna change, make it worth it.

Surely the main reason 26" MTB's will not die out is the fact that so many people have them.
Ok sure a load of bikes are becoming 29" or 27.5". But until they are being sold everywhere and are proven to keep going without the wheels buckling all the time then I don't expect to see the 26" MTB die.

As others have said, its yet another sales thing for the big manufacturers. Give it 3 years and everyone will be raving about 26" wheels again.

Seriously though who gives a s*** if 29ers are faster or not, unless you are racing then get over yourselves. MTB's are fun thats why we ride them, and I cannot see a different wheel size being more fun than others.

Spesh also think 26 is for more aggressive riding.

A good 110mm 29" will wipe the floor with a 140mm 26" on rowdy trails.

Presumably by that you mean it would be faster. No idea whether that is true, but even if it were its pretty irrelevant. Most of us are riding round in circles for fun. If a 29er is more fun than my 26" bike then I'm in. But so far none of the ones I've tried have been.

deviant.....this 29er likes crashing downhills 😀

[IMG] [/IMG]

You can't engineer 200mm of travel around 29" wheels without huge wheelbases

Which proves the limitations of 29". It's pointless without being able to put the geometry around the wheels which is why it it very unlikely to ever move into the freeride/downhill scene. 29" wheels are also weaker for aggressive riding unless they're built like a tank, in which case you're carrying even more unnecessary extra weight. All negative points - and they're likely to steer like a barge.

A good 110mm 29" will wipe the floor with a 140mm 26" on rowdy trails.

Popped into my local ASDA on my way home tonight after swimming to grab a quick snack, one chiller cabinet happened to be full of goods on special offer at 50p, I kindly asked the the guy stacking the shelves if I could please squeeze past to get a peperami and instead of simply allowing me past told me "the fridge raiders are nicer", I laughed and said "not if you prefer Peperami they're not!".. to which he replied, "but the Fridge raiders are healthier, 100% chicken!".. I laughed and said "ha ha.. you think that's chicken?"
****ing dumbass'd fit in well here!

You can't engineer 200mm of travel around 29" wheels without huge wheelbases

A good 110mm 29" will wipe the floor with a 140mm 26" on rowdy trails.I call bullpoo

A good 110mm 29" will wipe the floor with a 140mm 26" on rowdy trails

Another crack smoker. Do you see any 29'ers on the enduro circuit? No. Why? Because they are not as good as 26 inch wheels on "rowdy trails"

Perhaps the rowdy trails you are talking about are the sort of thing you find at a trail centre?

Do you see any 29'ers on the enduro circuit

I'm getting bored of contradicting people with actual facts now.Can you all do a little research before posting please xxx.