this one is [u]very [/u]small, that one is [u]far [/u]away

How does that pic settle the debate?

father and son bikes, the 1st is a childs yes?

Sorry - not sure what happened there my write up seems to have not appeared. Anyway - After 2 years on a 29er me and my riding buddy did a bike swap - I took his Yeti 575 26er for a spin and he took my Transition Covert 29er for a spin. We took the bikes down a familiar and fairly fast technical rocky descent, but with some slower sections where you have to pick your way around large boulders. Though not a comprehensive or scientific test, more of a seat of the pants feel test - my conclusion is that both bikes are brilliant! Yes, you know you're on smaller wheels, the larger wheels do iron out the bumps somewhat, but with the 140mm suspension on the Yeti, and even though the bike was moving about more in the vertical plane, it was definitely a case of the rider being the limiting factor rather than the bike - you'd have to be going pretty quick before the 29er effect was an advantage.

Both bikes are pretty comparable as they are similar geometry, both 140mm front and rear suspension, and similar sizes - the BB, saddle and handlebar heights are near as damn it the same height from the ground on both bikes.

So for me, I really don't think any difference attributable soley to wheel size is that significant - it might be on a hard tail or a short travel full susser, but on longer travel full sussers, I think the suspension does make up a bit for the smoother rolling of the larger wheel and to eek any advantage the larger wheel size might offer in rolling over gnarly terrain you'd have to be really gunning it.

I needed to settle this debate, so test rode a cotic solaris 29er and then back to back a cotic soul 26er. Both great bikes, but don't be taken in by the 29er hype. 26er more twitchy, more fun, quicker to accelerate. 29er smoother, arguably a bit quicker, but ultimately not as much fun as a 26er. All in all I'll be sticking with my orange 5 and pimping it!

This thread hasn't given me the closure to this debate I was hoping for.

Toasty, the only way YOU can settle this debate is to go and ride one!

both bikes are brilliant!

Classic confimation bias - you already know bikes are brilliant so what else you possibly conclude?

Davidbrown - testing two steel hardtails settled the debate that you want a pimped full sus bike.........?

2 steel hard tails convinced me that I would still love a steel hard tail, but rather than spend 2-3k on a new bike, I would get more enjoyment out of putting right the bits that are worn out on the 5 and keep riding that for another year or two.

In which case, good call.

Had a 26" steel HT SS and have a 26" FS. Recently bought a 29er steel HT (which can do SS as well). Prefer the 29er to the 26" HT and I think I enjoy it more than my 26" FS. Not a case of debate settled, that's just my personal opinion. However I do find the 29er fastererererer over XC type stuff.

It's not about the wheel diameter

Ride what you like, like what you ride.
The path to enlightenment.

Rode my 26er for the first time this year. Felt very twitchy.
There again it felt fine last year so need to get used to it again I suppose.

Had a rigid steel 29er SS. Now have a HT steel 26er. Same geometry (Virtual top tube length, stem length, head and seat tube angles, wheelbase, trail etc). The only difference I feel is that the 26er has slightly faster steering. Switching the 26er to the carbon seatpost (about the only thing not stolen!) improved comfort at the rear, which I had originally ascribed to a smaller rear wheel not rolling as easily. The difference really is minimal (rather pleasingly).

I'm convinced that much of the debate is about [b]geometry [/b]not wheel size. Just switching stem length changes bike handling. Hence a controlled comparison is not as easy it might seem. I also rather like the Recon Golds on my new bike - what took me so long 😉

I'm convinced that much of the debate is about geometry not wheel size.

This thread sums up what I've been harking on about in terms of my experience with 29ers. One's more comfortable, ones a bit more playful but neither of the sizes seem to see such a huge performance difference that it warrants taking one over the other. The decision should come down to feel and how you like to ride.

That is the reasonable view to take unless several groups undertake randomized controlled trials looking at performance and then pool the data gathered in a meta-analysis to try to give us an answer.

I really hope the mountain biking community make their choices in an informed fashion instead of just being suckered in by marketing.

TiRed- how can the geom be the same with diff wheel sizes. The wheels wouldn't fit, surely?

Ride what you like, like what you ride.
The path to enlightenment.

+1

This debate is old hat.

This...

neither of the sizes seem to see such a huge performance difference that it warrants taking one over the other. The decision should come down to feel and how you like to ride.

And this...

I really hope the mountain biking community make their choices in an informed fashion instead of just being suckered in by marketing.

I have a 96er with a custom frame to sort out the geometry, am I allowed an opinion on this thread?

Looks like the 26er is in front of the 29er, so must have got there first, and is therefore the fastest. Settled. 😈

edit: I was certainly tempted to try a Bandit in both guises.

Toasty, the only way YOU can settle this debate is to go and ride one!

Not sure there is a debate. I've got both, both have merits.

I really hope the mountain biking community make their choices in an informed fashion instead of just being suckered in by marketing.

Yeah, otherwise we'd have spent the past 5 years on 150mm trail bikes with ~720mm bars, short stems, Reverbs, with big axles and tapered headtubes. Crap, hang on.

Apparently this week I'm supposed to be using wide flat bars, really can't keep up with the tech.

Wobbliscott, I think it was better when you just posted the photo and left us all guessing at what fundamental truth you'd stumbled across.

That way we could all draw our own conclusions what you meant, willingly supported by our pre-conceptions. Now you've explained it, it'll just degenerate into another 26 vs 29 slanging match... 😀

96ers are the truth

I really hope the mountain biking community make their choices in an informed fashion instead of just being suckered in by marketing.

I love the assumption that people who buy 29ers have been "suckered in by marketing"

29ers are better for most MTB applications - Fact .

29ers are better for most MTB applications - Fact .

Poor troll.

Phew! I'm glads thats settled then, no more clown bike threads from now on, no more 'my BMX doesn't have big wheels so you must be a dick who can't ride' comments, no more 'but it'll kill 26inch wheels and I won't be able to buy new tyres' cobblers, no more 'it's all a marketing con' obblocks..finally, It's over..
I'm so happy..

finally, It's over..
I'm so happy..

Im all emotional we wont have to read another 29er debate thread TBH..... 😥

[quote=Ramsey Neil ]
29ers are better for most MTB applications - Fact .
For the use that the overwhelming majority of mountain bikes are bought, this is correct. STW does not represent "Mr (or Mrs) Average MTB Buyer". Look at the sales figures for the likes of Halfords, include all the supermarket stuff and the likes of Decathlon and then all the nice MTBs that never see anything more gnarly than a Sustrans route or canal towpath. For all of these, a 29er (let's face it, we're meaning a hybrid) would be much more appropriate.

That doesn't mean that 26ers don't have a place, it's just that, in the grand scale of things, they are going to become a bit niche.

Satisfied my 29er itch last sat with a demo on a Rumblefish and 529 courtesy of Dales Cycle Centre 😆
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/27084274@N08/8634554011/ ]DBC demo day[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/27084274@N08/ ]john_henry_mtb[/url], on Flickr

[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/27084274@N08/8634581397/ ]DBC22 demo day[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/27084274@N08/ ]john_henry_mtb[/url], on Flickr

[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8528/8634564591_b25dfbfda1_c.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8528/8634564591_b25dfbfda1_c.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/27084274@N08/8634564591/ ]DBC35 demo day[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/27084274@N08/ ]john_henry_mtb[/url], on Flickr

My own fs bike is an old, `05 Kona Dawg Primo.

The Trek climbed better than the 529, went along the flats better than the 529 and was not much behind when descending. The route was not very technical and I would think if the trail was very rough then the 529 would win that bit,maybe? The Trek felt easier, lighter to pedal and more manoeuvrable so maybe of really rough stuff there would not be much difference.

Another demo on rougher ground is required to make a definite appraisal 💡 😆

What bike would I have chosen on the day if buying?
The Trek Rumblefish.
Only because the 529 is too much bike for what is my normal riding.(+ the extra cost of replacing the crap Avid brakes!)

My auld Kona will do me for another few yrs, there is just not enough difference to warrant a change atm.... 😉

bwaarp...The decision should come down to feel and how you like to ride.

Same height bars but at least 35mm difference in axle to crown for similar travel? Does the 26 have a massive riser on it?
29er Covert is 130mm rear travel IiRC unless modded somehow and will have bigger bb drop if BB is the same height, and be a lot longer if the HA is the same.

Apart from that, I agree, each twheel size has different strengths and weaknesses, much like each bike within a wheel size. Rde the one you like. I'd have the Covert 🙂

"obblocks" haha.

My cat just sneezed...

Cheers

Danny B

Have you thought about writing for MBR?

I love the assumption that people who buy 29ers have been "suckered in by marketing"

29ers are better for most MTB applications - Fact .

I could pick so many theoretical holes in this theoretical concept but I can't be bothered as I've bored enough of you on previous threads in regards to this topic.

If I start another one, I'll be the replacement for "TJ + Helmet" jokes.

I ride with a friend who is about as quick as me. We have both wheel sizes, whoever is on the 29" has about 5% (about 10% on tech climbs) in the bag when on the big V's small wheels. If we run the same wheels there is nothing in it. The 26" is fun and lively and the 29" is stable and just eats trails.

The 26" is fun and lively and the 29" is stable and just eats trails.

So, as I ride mountain bikes for fun, I should ride a 26'er. If I want to exchange that fun for riding miles and miles I will get a 29er mountain bike.

I tend to agree with the copied statement BTW which is why my 29er Karate Monkey got converted to a CX bike for road and tow path type use.

I went out on my hack singlespeed last night in the mud, whilst dark. During that period it was the best bike in the world.

Note I haven't mentioned the wheel size, becuase it really doesn't matter.

Toasty, the only way YOU can settle this debate is to go and ride one!

He's got an Orange 5 (26er) and a Scandal 29er, but he could probably do with a couple of more bikes. You know, just to be sure...