What size wheel? Hopefully this will end it…….

But probably not, as it does not take into account, “it’s what I ride so it got to be the best” 😉

Think it be real interesting to see the results.

How they testing[/url]

I’m fairly sure that nobody cares…

£100k of kit to prove 29ers are faster?

Where is part2? I’m interested to see the results

Part 2 out next Friday.

I’m looking forward to hearing the results. Fantastic to finally see some real science being applied to this question. Good on them.

Tick
as I assume someone will post part 2 here as well.

I am with you bantasanta, don’t really care, as long as you out on a bike and enjoying it. BUT with “wheel size” treads appearing every other day & 26″ is dead etc, thought it be interest to others, more so as STW massive like to see lots of data 😉

So what do you think the results be?
29″ the fasted by just a few sec over the whole lap, but 5 times the energy used.

Oh also did they take in rider height? I think that is a big factor as well.
I know they weighed them…..

Results were on twitter now I don’t know if I can mention them without it being a spoiler! To me the results tend to indicate a problem with the test but maybe they will discuss that in more detail.

Can you post a link to the results akak?

If this link works see the replies… https://twitter.com/Howard_Hurst/status/558694857783640065

I tend to agree with your analysis of the results akak (that their results tend to indicate a problem with the test)

Thanks akak – see what you mean about the results!

27.5 the slowest, test must be wrong.
Lmfao.

I would have told you 29ers are faster for a bargain £25k….

It’d be interesting to know how used the riders were to the different bikes. I know that switching between bikes takes me a while to get used to the quirks each bike has.

Great result.27.5 is the slowest.
All my bikes are 26 so my bikes are better than all your fashion conscious wheel geek type wheel things… 😉

What about fatbikes? Would also be interested to see the geometry changes and how santa cruz accounted for that.

I dunno about fatbikes, but I wanna see a result with fatter riders, them guys is a wee bit trimmer than me 😉

I have bikes in all 3 wheel sizes I m all of a muddle now !

Nice, I’ll offer them £450 for that 26″ Santa Cruz when they’re done, being obsolete an all…

chip

27.5 the slowest, test must be wrong.

Or 27.5 is a sucky compromise that is neither one thing nor the other?

😆

Interesting but let’s face it, it’s just about impossible to test this scientifically. There are so many variables and you can’t blind people to the wheel size they’re riding. Luckily, it’s been proven that MTBers have no psychological bias or emotional attachment when it comes to wheel sizes. 😉

Cheezpleez – Member

Interesting but let’s face it, it’s just about impossible to test this scientifically. There are so many variables and you can’t blind people to the wheel size they’re riding. Luckily, it’s been proven that MTBers have no psychological bias or emotional attachment when it comes to wheel sizes.

Did you not see the part where they have covered the cyclist with sensors? They can measure the exact effort used, and a massive amount of other variables. You saying “impossible to test this scientifically” doesn’t make it so… they ARE testing it scientifically. The rider knowing which bike they are on doesn’t matter in this test, they are not just timing a loop, they are measuring effort as well, and presumably using maths and science and stuff to reach a scientific conclusion.

Now, once the results are published in full, you would be welcome to read through them and questions the results scientifically.

Now, once the results are published in full, you would be welcome to read through them and questions the results scientifically.

A week,That’s if the scientist in question doesn’t find himself “sleeping with the fishes” first. 😀

Please can someone put a gif up of a dog chasing its own tail?

I think that is a suitable metaphor for wheel size threads on here, and I’m sick of the cats/kittens getting all the modeling work as a by product.

As it’s a wheel size topic it has to be a couple of kittens…

Maybe this might prove that the bike companies have very good marketing departments and sell/force us to new wheel sizes. I have 26 and 29 bikes. I like the very different feel of both. Tried some 27.5 and to be honest they were nothing better than my 26 enduro could offer, marginal improvements at best. Certainly not worth the outlay in my opinion. all three sizes have been around for a while, why the big thing now? Yeah manufacturing improvements have helped but not to the point we need to bin a while size!

There is a place for all sizes of wheel as variety is a good thing but not at the expense of another IMHO.

So, we had bikes that were fast and flighty downhill, and also bikes that were super fast cross country race machines… and we’re steadily replacing both with bikes that are somewhere inbetween. Very surprised that the inbetweeners did worse than the little wheels at Clayton Vale though, would expect them to much the same, it’s not challenging or rocky terrain, and the downhill sections are pretty short, don’t see how either would have an advantage over the other really… unless the little wheels they used were lighter.

The rider knowing which bike they are on doesn’t matter in this test,

The best experimental methodology involves the person not knowing what the experiment is about nor what group they are in.

This has neither of these controls and experiments consistently show this does matter.

Given this, and scientist do double blind experiments, could you explain your reasoning please?

I have 26 and 29 bikes. I like the very different feel of both.

Agreed, different enough to be well worth the hassle of 2 sizes of spares and stock etc for shops and riders.

There is a place for all sizes of wheel as variety is a good thing but not at the expense of another IMHO.

If only…

I’d say cheezpleez is right. Surely the only science in all this is the difference in rolling resistance and wheel weight and you don’t need riders to test that. The rest is noise created by handling, rider preferences, rider input/feedback etc as well as terrain.

You just can’t say ‘this wheel size is faster’. You could say ‘I prefer this wheel size’ and that’s cool, we all have opinions and go faster on bikes we like.

Junkyard

The best experimental methodology involves the person not knowing what the experiment is about nor what group they are in.

This has neither of these controls and experiments consistently show this does matter.

Given this, and scientist do double blind experiments, could you explain your reasoning please?

How do you expect to do a blind test of riding different bikes?

The measurements taken of the muscles, oxygen / CO2, power output at the wheels will all go to measuring if the subject put in more effort on a certain bike, and can therefore measure that and account for it.

Do it with 50 different riders over 50 different locations on 50 days over 12 months and then you’ll have some data, even going to the lengths they’ve gone to isn’t enough actual data to draw any conclusions.

My gut feel based on all the various bikes I’ve ridden is still that 29 is faster for general XC, and I say that as someone with an entirely 26 bike collection and no intention of changing in the near future, but gut feel isn’t science.

Gah!

So really
Which Wheel size is faster over this course in a XC discipline for XC racing whippets.

Which is a bit more specific than which wheel size is better this will settle it.

The data pool is small, the range is small and the results are specific to a certain type of riding.

In a nutshell 29er was faster buy about 14 s over 4km. Strangely 27.5 was slowest.

Science, Science, Science, Science, Science, Science gut feel tells me 27.5 should have been better

On that course, there is no where that you’d expect any difference/advantage between 26/27.5, but if the 26 wheels/tyres were a good chunk lighter, then their results might make sense. I have to agree that their results are statistically irrelevant though. Then again, no worse than the “science” Giant threw at us last year…