There’s yet another 29er v 26er thread that’s descended in to an argument going on elsewhere at the moment.

From my own limited experience, I reckon bigger is better for wheels, for the type of riding I do.
29″ is a realistic maximum, taking in to account fork travel, handlebar height, wheelbase, toe overlap and so on. It’s also widely available, so that’s what I ride.

If other people are doing the sort of riding where they feel that smaller is better, why are they so attached to 26″ ?
Wouldn’t 24″ be even betterer ?
Wouldn’t a sort of 20″ BMX/Moulton/MTB be best of all ?

What’s so special about 26″ wheels that makes them better than any other size ?

26″ = mountain bike, anything else is different, and so cannot be called a mountain bike.

Cannondale used to do a really cool bike (Beast of the East) with 26 up front and 24 on the back. I would love one of those. Best of both worlds surely.

It has to be good.

Small is beautiful.

Cannondale made something with a 24″ back, 26″ front.

Really (and I know this might be an unpopular view) 26″ is a happy medium for the kind of riding most people do. Small enough to be reasonably manouverable, large enough to roll over most stuff reasonably well.

Plenty of 24″ about in dirt jumping/skate park mtbs

MidlandTrailquestsGraham – Member

What’s so special about 26″ wheels that makes them better than any other size ?
why are they so attached to 26″ ?

Choice of components, tyres, ease of finding replacement tubes etc.??
It’s what came on people’s bikes? The fact that many don’t really care and are happy enough on the size of wheels they’ve got??…….

Perhaps people don’t really care either way?!

I don’t intend to change my bike(s) for the forseeable future. I have invested quite a lot of money in them and can’t justify replacing them just because a bigger wheel might be better. Even if it is better, I still can’t really justify it. Much the same way that I couldn’t justify getting an XTR rear mech for my Inbred, when an SLX one will do.
An estate car would better suit my needs that a small hatchback, but guess what….?! I haven’t rushed out to swap for one of those either. Because I can’t really afford/justify it.

When the time comes to change bikes I will probably try all sorts of bikes; wheel size won’t really be a deciding factor, it will be the bike as a whole. Might end up with a 26″ bike, might end up with a 29″ bike, might end up with a 650b bike.
Don’t really care, so long as it’s the best bike for me, for the sort of riding I do…..

The only people that seem to bleat on about it is,
– people who ride 29″ bikes and can’t possibly fathom why everyone else hasn’t made the swap
– people who can’t see what the point is and think that 29″ wheels are a marketing fad.

I have to say that I do err slightly on the side of thinking that it’s just another thing to try & get people to buy into. Kit is so good now (on the whole) that people are happy with their lot, sales of mountain bikes have been falling and then hey presto – a ‘newer, faster, better’ is pushed hard to get people to adopt it. But hey, I am very cynical.

Poor Troll, 0.5/10.

shortcut – Member
Cannondale used to do a really cool bike (Beast of the East) with 26 up front and 24 on the back. I would love one of those. Best of both worlds surely.

It has to be good.

Small is beautiful.

I think the first Big Hits were 24″ rear too

Oh, yeah, I hadn’t thought of trials and stunt riding.

If we just stick to conventional MTB riding though, however that might be defined. Let’s say bikes that get ridden a reasonable distance at a reasonable speed, whether that’s from top to bottom of a DH course, or many miles of remote XC.

It looks like the only choices are 29″ or 26″. Why not 24″ ?

It’s not just the limited choice I find odd, but the way some people are so fanatically defensive of their 26″ wheels.
If 3″ bigger is such a hindrance to the way they ride, wouldn’t 2″ smaller be an advantage ?

Perhaps people don’t really care either way?!

If that was the case, there wouldn’t be so many 26 v 29 threads.

Lower BB on 24″ hindering general riding perhaps?

Lower BB on 24″ hindering general riding perhaps?

Only if your framebuilder misread the diagram 😉

BB height is independent of wheel size.

24″ wheels on the front probably don’t roll well enough over techinical terrain, hence why some bikes had them on the back only. That means dealing with two different sized tyres and tubes though, and people just went for 26″ bikes, so manufacturers stopped making bits for them.

I have three 26″ bikes, none of which came as complete bikes. They all have origins in previous 26″ bikes, usually I upgrade frames with existing wheels & forks, or vice versa.

That’s my only “objection” to different wheel sizes – that changing most likely means a new frame, forks and wheels. Like that Santa Cruz Bronson – a longer, lower Nomad, in effect, just the sort of thing I’d like for my next bike – but while the frame is just about within reach financially if I scrimp and save for a bit, the new forks & wheels it would require put it out of reach for me. If I thought 27.5″ was a massive leap forward for 6″ bikes, I’d probably go for it regardless, but I know it’s just a small change, and doesn’t justify that extra cost for me right now. I don’t think I’d go 29″ for a longer travel bike, based on the ones I’ve tried, although that new Specialized Enduro might change my mind if I have an unexpected lottery win.

If I was buying my Soul from scratch, I;d probably be on a Solaris, but I had 26″ wheels and forks to fit to it, so decision was made. And I love the bike, no regrets.

To answer the original question – 26″ wheels are what I started with, because that’s all there was, and they’re what I’m stuck/content with. Don’t really get the defensive mentality about wheel size, tbh – I guess it stems form peopel having put hard earned cash into a bike, and not wanting to believe they’re bought the “wrong” thing.. Call it insecurity.

I had an old big hit with a 24″ rear wheel, and it was great fun – cornered well, really easy to pop the front wheel up, felt easier to move around than other 8″ bikes of the time. It really got hung up in rock gardens though…

Most of these things have been tried. 24″ rear wheels have been used but never gained popularity. Tyre availability, no need for the strength, poor rolling over the rough, that much manouverabilty not needed etc, not sure the exact reason but they never took off (rolling disadvantages would be my guess). Good point above about mixed wheel sizes.

26, 27.5 and 29 have been tried and liked by many so it seems that ‘general conclusion’ is that 26″ is as small as you’d want to go.

All these sizes were tried in the early days, 26″ was the most readily available and got the wheels rolling, but other sizes were recognised to have positive attributes even back then (apologies if that’s egg-sucking history lesson #1!)

Niche-prize for the first person to build a 47.5er with a 24″ rear wheel and 650b front wheel…

You’ve actually given me a great idea, thanks. Going to try switching to a 24″ wheel on the rear of my Nomad. I’m using it mostly on uplifts now and I was looking for a way of lowering to bottom bracket and slackening the head angle. Should be an interesting experiment if nothing else 🙂

Well over a decade ago 24″ wheels were being discussed in the US as the next big thing for DH… The people trying to introduce this standard did use the wheels with massively high-profile tyres though. This meant that the effectice complete wheel size was equal to a 26″ anyway.

I have a rigid SS 29’er and think it is great for what I use it for – local, fairly flat XC and tow-paths. However, I don’t intend to go for a different wheel standard for my next ‘big’ bike. I will stick with 26″ wheels as I don’t think I will gain anything from changing it. As the cliché goes – If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

No need for massive profile tyres when you’ve got 200mm+ of suspension. Much better to control via suspension than tyre profile. And larger wheels roll over things better so better suited to downhilling if you can get the suspension travel you need. Its a balance.

No-one is saying 26″ is broke and needs fixing, its just that other wheel sizes may bring overall benefits. There is no reason for 26″ wheels other than that was what was available at the time the first MTB bikes were invented. When you apply physics/engineering to it, the answer that comes up is something other than 26″ for the optimal sulution. As with any engineering problem, there is never one solution to rule them all – everything is a compromise and the skill is in making the best compromise.

The biggest argument for 26 inches is that it’s already got the best market share, the best choice in frames, wheels, forks and tyres, and the best parts availability. Even if 650B or 29 was universally better- and neither are- that’d still be a big thing to fight against. So a vote for 26 inch isn’t a vote for smaller wheels, it’s a vote for “What I already have works brilliantly so why would I spend thousands of pounds to change it for something that’s at best slightly better”.

I had an old big hit with a 24″ rear wheel, and it was great fun – cornered well, really easy to pop the front wheel up, felt easier to move around than other 8″ bikes of the time. It really got hung up in rock gardens though…

The other good point about the old Big Hit – you’d invariably get given free 24″ DH tyres by previous owners of said model. 🙂

20″ could have become the default wheel size for MTBs at one point. There were some builders in the US around the same time as the Klunker guys who were building off-road 20″ bikes. And Sheldon used to take his Raleigh Twenty off road in the 70s. I imagine MTB would have a got a lot more trialsy if this had caught on.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-big-wheels-versus-small-wheels-serious-question

Learnt to ride mtb on a 20″ wheeled Ainimal. Graduated to a 29er and now on a 26″. they are all bikes, all had different characteristics.

The small wheels coped well in most instances but did get stuck in some of the rooty ruts, and it was pretty heavy. Not noticed a huge difference between my previous rigid 29er and my new 26″ – except the smoother front suspension.

Personally, I think it is more likely that people notice changes in geometry going between wheel sizes more than the wheels themselves.

On-One are doing a 24in bike.

On-One are doing a 24in bike.

Please let it be fully rigid…

I love the Retrovelo Otto but the price isn’t working for me at the moment – an On-One could be just the ticket!

Please let it be fully rigid…

I assure you of that.

On-One are doing a 24in bike.

I always wanted a Gimp, never did get round to owning one 🙁

The biggest argument for 26 inches is that it’s already got the best market share, the best choice in frames, wheels, forks and tyres, and the best parts availability. Even if 650B or 29 was universally better- and neither are- that’d still be a big thing to fight against. So a vote for 26 inch isn’t a vote for smaller wheels, it’s a vote for “What I already have works brilliantly so why would I spend thousands of pounds to change it for something that’s at best slightly better”.

This. Much clearer than I said it!

For a long time my only bike was a 24″ darkangel, and it went everywhere, mostly dirt jumping but I did do DH on it including a week in the alps which was fine as it has 4″ travel forks (ha!) and it wasn’t thaaaaat bad! I couldn’t get down the ten percenter on the pleney without blowing my feet off and the same happened on supermorzine on the chute after the road. the braking bumps were savage… That’s where I found its limitations

I eventually went back to 26″ as I do more XC now and I’ve found rolling through the rough stuff is better but whips and tables don’t come so easy. If I was solely doing bmx tracks and dirt jumping then I’d consider 24″ but they don’t carry speed well enough once it gets rough.

Please let it be fully rigid…

I assure you of that.

A tentative ‘woohoo’ from me! Now I’m hoping for its focus to be xc rather than jumps or trials. Less chance, perhaps, but fingers crossed!

Is the On-One 24″ the Geoff Apps design?

So let me see if I have this right. 29er/700c for roadies that got lost and wandered onto the dirt and anything smaller for people with actual bike handling skill. Decreasing size denoting more skill, 26″ mtb, 24″ jump/street bike and culminating in 20 inch BMX wheels.

On-One are doing a 24in bike.

A Niche Too Far.

Surly, among others, make their touring frames in 700cc (29’er) for big people and 26″ for small people because frames at either end of sizing can have there geometry compromised to fit a popular/fashionable wheel size.
If 29’er are soooo good why has it taken about 30 years to realise when every nationality has been riding Cyclocross all this time and longer?
24 are for increased strength or very small people.
Could 29’er just be a sales gimmick for MTB’s that are now being out sold by road bikes?

greenman – Member

If 29’er are soooo good why has it taken about 30 years to realise when every nationality has been riding Cyclocross all this time and longer?

Hah. Well, all the other things that make CX bikes rubbish could mask the biggest imaginable performance advantage from the wheels.

(disclaimer- I like cyclocross bikes, but I wouldn’t if they weren’t rubbish)

In a rad to the power of sick midlife crisis moment a few years back I bought a 24″ bike

Have you tried riding one up a hill? It’s absolutely nackering!!!! It didn’t last long 😳

rigid, 20″ hard as ****

Is the On-One 24″ the Geoff Apps design?

That would be ace.

rigid, 20″ hard as ****

And totally fantastic. What is it?