Apologies probably opening a huuuuge can of worms.
Been away on the road bike for a few years. Came back and everything has changed. Bigger wheels. Short stems and long handlebars. Less gears and sometimes no front mech!
When I was last MTBing 29 was just coming in. 650b wasn't an MTB wheel size (or if it was - very niche). 29ers had a reputation for being as nimble as an artic.
Currently riding an old On One 456 Summer Season with old 110-140 Pikes. I want to scratch the new bike itch and wanting something new but similar. Lusting after something long travel and steel. Gut reaction is get something 650b. But chatting to LBS guy he reckons 29 much more manouverable these days.
Apologies in advance!
Personally I prefer 650b for razzing about on - 29er for longer days out.
Personally, I think 650b plus 2.8, or big old 29er about 2.4 to 2.5.
Plenty of people's MMV.
One of each is becoming a thing
Scienceofficer +1
26x 2.1 front for manoeuvrability and response. 29x 2.8 rear for rollover, Comfort and pinch flat prevention.
I went from a 26" Santa Cruz Blur of similar vintage to your 456, to an Orange p7 29er.... initially it felt a bit unweildy but after a few rides it feels right. The ride and geometry seems spot on for my mixture of half assed bimbling, few hours in the saddle and occasional trail centre outing.
If you get the right geometry for the handling you want I wouldn’t worry too much about wheelsize.
29ers can be sharp and 650b (if you get a bad one) can feel dead.
I’d try to get some test rides and decide what you want - if you go too long travel on a hardtail the head angle changes a lot from full travel to fully extended.
I decided for me 140mm travel fork on a hardtail was about right and I already had a spare set of 650b wheels so I went that way. If I didn’t have spare wheels I probably would have tested out some 29ers too.
The general consensus has been 650b for manoeuvrability and 29er for better rollover technical terrain - but I think that’s more blurred these days. Also having a 29er if you’re tall and 650b if you’re short is probably also a flawed view now.
29ers had a reputation for being as nimble as an artic.
See.. I never bought this from day one...
My first 29er was a scandal SS, with 110mm rebas, and was nimble as you like.. It was a beaut!
Then I got a Chromag Rootdown 29er with 140mm pikes...again, flick, pop, and lock the heck outta the thing!!
Currently riding a Kingdom Vendetta X2 - ever so slightly less nimble, but only cos it's long and slack..However, still jump and flick the thing like a BMX at times...
Not sure what bikes the critics were riding when they made those comments, but I think 29ers are t'oresums..
DrP
29er geometry was awful back then, the bikes (and tyres, wheels, forks) are much better now
Also having a 29er if you’re tall and 650b if you’re short is probably also a flawed view now.
As outdated as going off seat tube length I reckon, but there must still be a point when a 29er becomes a bit cumbersome if you're short and a 650B too wee if you're tall.
26" for me though.
A sorted hardtail with decent fork and 29 wheels shod with decent 2.4ish rubber is a very good thing indeed.
Some 650b hardtails are a bit too close to the ground for techy, rocky terrain where pedal, crank and even BB ground strikes begin to become more of an issue. Big tyred 29ers tend to be a little further off the ground and get around this problem. I love my Solaris; steel, 140mm coil fork, 2.5 & 2.6 tyres etc.
I'm now a 29" convert but there is a "third way"; pick a frame and fork that accommodates both 29" and 27+ and stump up for two wheelset, 27+ for more gnarr applications, 29" for more general use..
Personally I would tend to opt for 29x2.3/2.5" for general purpose, year round riding, but that's just me...
+1 for 29 and b-plus
29 is better for me most of the time but plus is awesome fun sometimes too.
Plus rear and 29 front is another option too then, works good for steep and tech stuff
I think the only limitation with 29” bikes is when you run out of clearance between yourself and the rear tyre on steep stuff. This can be helped by increasing the reach and/or slackening the head angle and/or lengthening the fork (to increase the front centre) but there comes a point when things end up unbalanced or unwieldy.
My hardtail happens to be 27.5 (with a 2.5” front tyre and 2.3” rear) and although I think I’d prefer a 29” one I don’t ride it enough to justify the cost of changing - and it’s a bloody good bike as it is (Bird Zero AM).
I have a Bird Zero 29 and buzzed my backside on the first couple of rides but you don't need to be that far back even on steep stuff and I've not noticed more recently. I was first in the 29ers are not for me but the Bird is a hoot, I love it. Just back from the Golfie and it was a riot today, big puddles, super slidey roots, amazing fun. 29ers rule.
I bet riding behind someone pissed from the night before on a 26" 4X hardtail with street tyres would have been MOAR fun.
Had you bothered to mention you were heading down.
#Pissup #brewery #FknHipster
If I'd thought that you'd be up in time I woulda done. All the mud is at the bottom of the hill now so street tyres would be a good option, for some of us.
“Some 650b hardtails are a bit too close to the ground for techy, rocky terrain where pedal, crank and even BB ground strikes begin to become more of an issue. Big tyred 29ers tend to be a little further off the ground...”
That just depends on the BB drop of the frame design - Cotic’s hardtails are on the slightly higher side nowadays (they used to be a lot higher) and a bike designed for 27.5+ and 29 will be higher with decent sized 29” tyres. But that Bird Zero AM 29 is seriously low, even with 29x2.6 tyres.
Id argue that rather than 29er bikes changing for the better, people have just realised that longer (and lower and slacker) is better. Smaller wheeled bikes chainstays have grown that extra inch so now they're both 'stable'. Riders having realise that a bike that's stable is actually faster and twitchy isn't fast even if it feels it.
The problem with some early 29ers wasn't that they were particularly stable, it was the long back end was mated to a front end trying to emulate the worst traits of twitchy fast handling 26" xc hardtails. If long/low/slack had been developed before big wheels then they'd have been better suited.
Bb height are an oddity. Back in the days of 26" wheel an 11" bb height would be low but not unusual, so the Bird would have been about average (11.1-11.5 depending on fork).
Cheers all. Food for thought. I've signed up for some demos of both sizes.
“Smaller wheeled bikes chainstays have grown that extra inch so now they’re both ‘stable’.”
That isn’t the case on the vast majority of hardtails. The 26” ones were around 16.5”, most 27.5” ones are under 17”.