Don't make the mistake of buying an older 26" wheel bike. The new 29'ers are such a big improvement. They roll over rough terrain so much better it isn't funny. Other than that an aluminum frame is fine for just having fun. Any decent 29er is going to have disc brakes. Hydraulic is nice, but not absolutely necessary. I have a hardtail and it is fine. I don't see the need for rear suspension unless you descend like a lunatic on really technical trails.

Oh, please...what a load of horse-hockey...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

That's a good idea, especially for someone just trying things out. Despite what many may tell you, 26" wheeled bikes are every bit as capable as any other sized wheel bikes. Here's a hint, MTB handling is more about the frame geometry than any wheel sizes. Seriously.

If I needed to replace my current MTB, I'd seriously try to find myself a 26" wheeled Santa Cruz SuperLight.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I agree, the roll easier over objects statement is over-sold too

Agreed.

To the OP, I would concentrate on 26" & 27.5" wheeled bikes. I have an old 26" Iron Horse that I will never get rid of.

WAY oversold.

Most don't realize that the "stability" they all perceive from larger wheeled bikes is because they necessarily had to increase the wheelbase just to fit the wheels in there (not to mention the increased trail due to using fork offsets designed for 26" wheels initially).

Hey, guess what?...if you put 26" wheels on a bike with a long wheelbase and trail, it'll handle just like that 29er you've been coveting ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I'm convinced that "27.5" wheels (or 650B wheels, which are actually ~27") only exist because the MTB industry couldn't admit that there was nothing wrong with 26" wheels in the first place. The "working radius" (distance between the hub and the ground) of a 650B wheel is only 12mm different than a 26" wheel.

12 measly little mm...

Placebo wheels :-/

P.S. I'm finding it somewhat amusing that I appear to be somewhat grumpier than grumpiermike on this subject ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I am an avowed 29er fan but that said you will get the most bang for you buck looking for a used 26-inch wheel bike. Poke around your local bike shop and see if they have anything used looking for a home or know any of their riders looking to sell off any bikes.

---

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson

True if the trails are smooth and flowing, not true if they are technical in any way... oh hang on, you said they were technical trails...
So in your case and as an answer of some use.. yes a full suspension bike will be fine and often beneficial....

Pretty confident you can find something from around 2010 onwards in good condition for not many dollars, and yes a 26" bike will be cheaper as the market endeavors to find a reason for the need for 27.5

Sure a 29er full bounce would be good, but nowt wrong with a 26 full bounce either... may have lock out or platforms on the suspension too so you can flick it open for the trail, and lock out for the roll too and from the house..

What about the brake issue, disc the way to go or will the v's do just fine?

---

_________________________
I got nothing.

I bought a Specialized Epic w/ 26" wheels used. Just really hard to get more bike for less money. SRAM X9 w/ hydraulic discs. Street value under $1k. Replacement cost with something new over $3k.

---

/kj

http://kjmcawesome.tumblr.com/

Disk all the way. No question

V's were what we thought were good after cantilevers...
Then we started using discs in 93 and realised brakes that slow you down were heaps more useful...
Also huge sale of shimano mtb groupsets on right now... So if u find a reasonable chassis u can sling say a shimano SLX groupo on and ur laughing...

I ride a Cannondale Flash 3 with 26" wheels and love it. The 29'ers are too hard to handle for me on tight trails. Mine has hydraulic disk brakes but cable pull brakes work just fine. I don't mountain bike all the time so I did not see the need in a top of the line full suspension bike, besides I feel like I have more control and feel with a hardtail. What ever you decide you will enjoy it, it's a nice break from all the training we do on the road or on the trainer.

Really, Is this your personal opinion or fact? I would say it depends on what you are riding. All the 29ers I tried couldn't match the same tight, technical courses that I tend to do as on a 26. In fact, I was so impressed by the recent test drive of a 26", I just bought another.

So, in my opinion, you should test drive a wide range and go from there.

---

On the internet, you can be anything you want. It is a pity so many people choose to be stupid.

If you're new to mountain biking and have no clue what you're doing I would suggest a fat bike to learn on. Fat bikes are amazing beginner bikes. They give you loads of traction and they really do roll over things much easier than other bikes. They are a blast very fun to ride. Once you feel confident on a fat bike you can graduate to a regular mountain bike if you feel the need for real speed\racing etc. Fat bikes are FUN, great exercise. There are still a lot of haters because of the some what newness (they aren't that new) and you'll hear they are un-necessary fad etc etc. You’ll just have to trust me it’s a great way to learn and have fun. I’m a very long time mountain biker and love mountain biking racing xterra and the like and I have a fat bike for winter riding and FUN… Just my 2 cents.

Well, it's a fact that a circle with a larger radius will be able to roll over obstacles better than a circle with a smaller radius. The old bikes with the huge front wheel were designed to take advantage of this property before rubber tires. This isn't just conjecture.

I agree that people should test ride many bikes. Demo days are great for that. I raced a 29er a few years ago, went back to a 26 the following year. I will still go demo 29ers when they are available. Niner has made some good movements in their small sizes. I would really like to demo a new Superfly, looks like they are making better geometry for small bikes.

It is true that a larger wheel will roll over objects slightly better but if you aren't tall enough to pull the front tire over objects you just crash into and over them. That point is way oversold and should not be the reason to purchase a 29er over a 26er

I'm not much in the height department, 5'7" at best. What about shocks, dual or just front?

---

_________________________
I got nothing.

That really depends on how much you want to spend.

At 5'7" you could go either way on the 26/29 bikes.

If you aren't willing to spend at least $2500 on a bike then stay with a HT and a really good fork.

There is a local trail about 9 miles long that I was doing a demo with a few different 29ers. These were bikes that I've never ridden before, they were the Niner Jet 9 (FS) and Air 9 (HT). My first lap was with my current bike, second lap was with the Air 9 (HT), third lap was with the Jet 9 (FS) and then a final lap with my bike again. Between the two 29ers I was sightly faster on the FS...by about a minute (with similar heart rates). That bike is about $1300 more than the HT

If the trails are tight and technical, you will probably be perfectly fine on a 26er. I have a 29er and it doesn't handle nearly as well as my old 26er on tight trails. If I had a choice, I'd take the 29er becuase it's a bit faster (trails I ride are not super technical and I've been riding a while so my skills are likely better than someone new to MTB) plus I ride a larger frame which incorporates the larger wheels a bit better than a smaller frame. The one issue you might have when looking for a bike from the 90's-00's is the components, they might be pretty banged up so make sure to take a good look at them. A budget of ~$800 should get you a pretty solid bike to start with.

I never had a problem on tight technical trails on my 29er but then I was on a small frame.

I agree that $800 will get a decent bike to start with.

I didn't/don't have problems on the 29er, I'm just saying my 26er was easier for me to ride on tight trails, there are probably some other variables to factor in as well.

This may be true, but from a practical standpoint, I would look at 27.5" and 29" primarily. When Specialized, Trek, and Giant have all thrown their weight behind 27.5" -- and almost 100% of World Cup XC wins coming on 29" and even most DH bikes moving to 27.5" -- you can be sure that availability of good 26"-compatible parts is going to falter.

Hence: My 26" Kona from 4 years ago has quick-release axles, which are all but dead in the mountain bike world. To upgrade even something as simple as my wheels, I'd have to get a thru-axle --> I'd have to get a new frame and fork to accommodate it --> If I have to buy a frame and fork to get what is currently accepted as the standard, then why not get a frame/fork that is also up with the times as far as wheel size?

I haven't ridden a 27.5", and it's been several years since I rode a 29er. No doubt they've improved their geometry and handling. I'm not really arguing their merits on the trail, because I can't. But for a person buying a new first bike, if they don't want it to be obsolete and "upgrade-proof" then I wouldn't buy a 26" right now.

I'm biased as I still have my "race bike" from college. Shock is totally worn out, it's a "heavy" steel frame, 9 speed, no disc brakes (gasp!). Guess what matters most? Rider skill, bike fit, tire selection & tire pressure. A 26" will be able to use a shorter wheelbase with the same foot clearance... and and as such, should be more nimble. The rotational inertia and gyroscopic effect will be different as well. A smaller diameter wheel won't resist a change in direction as easily. Overall is a 29" a faster bike is a lot of situations. Probably, but I think you might be splitting hairs a little. You trading rolling resistance in some cases for corner speed. Can you adjust the geometry of a 29 to compensate. Yes, you could. Though I think most riders are wanting a bike that "feels" faster and is more stable, not more twitchy and nimble. 95% of MTB riders are not trying to carve up corners.

I'm also the same person that doesn't mind using my cross bike on fairly rugged singletrack, just for the challenge. I have to admit, it's fun making guys on tricked out full suspension bike look bad especially on tight wooded sections with tree roots. IT does give you a solid workout.

I think you could look used and find a pretty good entry level bike for as little as $600. Hell, I'd probably sell you mine for $300 (Marin, 9 speed XT, Mavic 222 wheels, worn out Manitou fork). All I have are some gravel roads. It would make my wife happy. :)

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

As a owner of a large 26er and a medium 29er, I would suggest sizing down if you go the 29er route. I have ridden several 29ers and it was not until I sized down that the 29er world opened up for me. 29er for racing and the 26er for fun.

That depends on what type of trails and in what conditions you're riding.

The truth is, for most conditions/situations, V-brakes are perfectly fine...as long as you keep them properly set up and adjusted (one of my pet peeves is when people compare poorly maintained/setup examples of one technology vs. a brand new setup of another).

In fact (and I've suffered ridicule at the hands of some supposed "technical experts" for this) I find that I actually prefer the performance of V-brakes over MTB discs in certain situations, although it's admittedly the case in a very small amount of riding I do. I find that in the case of VERY low speed maneuvers, such as trying to negotiate a tight, steep switchback, that disc brakes tend to "grab" as your speed gets very close to zero, while with a V-brake it's easier to feather them at that limit of speed. Like I said, it's a very special case...but it is something I've noticed. It's amazing that some folks can't fathom that perhaps a disc brake isn't as good or better under ALL situations.

Anyway, to be honest, the largest difference I found between V-brakes (properly set up and maintained) and disc brake setups on MTB is not so much in the braking "prowess", but actually it's in the fact that the amount of lever effort required BEFORE the brakes engage tends to be dramatically reduced (even with cable actuated models). This allows for less hand fatigue under situations where you're getting off and on the brakes a lot (such as a long descent). Also, the braking in adverse conditions tends to be more consistent, not to mention that if the rim happens to get knocked out of true, the braking is unaffected. The downsides of discs are that it's sometimes tough to get the pad spacing just right so that there isn't occasional brake rub, and they tend to be noisier at times.

In any case, most MTBs from the early 2000s and up at least have the hardware mounting locations for discs on the frame and fork even if they didn't originally come that way. So, if you're looking at a bike from that era that doesn't have discs, you should be able to add them if you wish to do so.

So yes...discs hold an advantage over V's for the MTB use case. But, depending on the riding conditions you'll be encountering, I wouldn't stress too much if the bike you end up with has V-brakes. If you end up with a MTB with Vs, just make sure you use quality pads (Koolstop Salmons are my favorites) and low friction cables, along with having them set as close as possible to the rims.

Just my 2 centavos...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

They're certainly not anybody technically proficient if you can make them look bad on a CX bike in those situations.

You can certainly find something to fit your needs. Get in at a low level price point (older, 26" aluminum hardtail w/ disc brakes) b/w 500-700 and that way you won't feel "left behind" once you figure out how much you enjoy it.

Personally, I like disc brakes significantly more than the alternative. They are very confidence inspiring.

On the surface, that's all sounds logical and reasonable...BUT...it's also a fact (if you do the geometry/math) that the difference in approach angle for a 26" wheel and a 29" wheel to an ~3" tall obstacle is on the order of ~1 degree. Add in a squishy tire attached to it at low inflation pressure, along with suspension, and any differences are going to be "lost in the noise". Seriously.

Someone mentioned higher rotational inertia for the 29" wheels vs. 26" wheels...do the math on the possible differences in rotational inertia and then compare that to the overall inertia of the rider+bike travelling linearly and then get back to us ;-) Here's a hint...the inertia differences of the wheels is an extremely small fraction of the total inertia of the entire system.

Like I said above, the things that people attribute DIRECTLY to larger wheel diameters is actually attributable to the frame geometry changes required to fit the larger wheels...but, there's no reason one couldn't make those geometry changes with 26" wheels to get the same behavior, if that's what is desired...

I think it's time to do Jonny's "blinded" test on bikes with different wheel sizes but the same wheelbase, trail, and BB height values :-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Definitely disc. You can feather the brakes with one finger to get speed under control. With Vees, you will most likely need to pull hard to get the same effect.

That's odd...I've ALWAYS braked with 2 fingers on the rear and only 1 on the front lever...even going back to the days of short arm cantilevers with a straddle cable (which also work as well as V brakes WHEN PROPERLY SET UP).

Never have had an issue "feathering speed" with any sort of MTB brake :-/

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

We don't know your budget and if you're looking at new or used but I'd personally say if you have 800-1000 to spend, go get a new hard tail with hydro disc brakes. I think you won't find much in terms of 26" bikes, but if you do, they'll probably offer more bang for the buck. If you can find something from previous years, even better.

I'm not sure what your price range is, but I'd suggest buying a used hardtail (cheaper than full suspension) from ~ 2005 to present. You should be able to get something fairly nice for around $500 with disc brakes and a decent fork. A year ago, I bought a 2011 Specialized Rockhopper Expert 29, helmet, and Yakima bike rack off a guy on Craigslist for $600 and I've been happy with this bike. I wouldn't worry as much about 26, 27.5, or 29 wheels at this point and just find something that's in good shape and ready to ride. If you like mtb, you'll end up wanting to upgrade soon and you'll be glad you didn't have too much of an initial investment (that's where I'm at now - can't wait to say hello to a new Santa Cruz 5010!!!!!).

Feel free to check out my blog : thedirtytire.blogspot.com. I have a lot of information on there about different bikes and equipment I've ridden.

I agree with some of the others that suggest getting a used hardtail to start out with then once you know you will stick with it and get some saddle time try to find a bike demo day or rent some bikes to try them out. I started with a 29er hardtail and after breaking the frame I got a 27.5 full-suspension and love the new bike. I always felt like I was fighting the front end on the 29er. For my riding style I feel like I'm in more control with the 27.5. I don't care what anyone says, my back is much happier with the full-suspension. I'll take some added weight for comfort. No matter what you decide have fun and ride your own ride.

I moved very close to mountain bike trails at the end of tri season, but have been mt. biking in the off-season for years. I haven't really touched my tri or road bike since the last race of the season. My opinion......just get a bike that fits and is safe. It will take a while before your mt bike skills are sharp enough that you need some of the stuff others on here are going back and forth on. No one wheels size is perfect. If you're on a budget, a hardtail is going to be more bang for your buck and less maintenance.

Something else to consider is the amount of people leaving their super expensive 26/27.5/29 lightweight full suspension bikes in the garage to ride a single speed or fat bike that weighs 30+lbs, but puts a big smile on their face.

You can have fun and gaintain (you heard it here first!) fitness without needing the latest mt bike fad. I switch between a 10 year old 26" hardtail that's usually set up as a single speed and a new 29" with 5" of suspension on each end, 1x10 and a dropper post. They are both fun and I never am on a ride wishing I had brought the other bike instead.

Some "upgrades" and tweaks to look out for:

Wider bars and shorter stems help with handling on corners and descents were newer off road riders might need a boost. At 6' of mostly upper body, I am around a 70mm stem and 725-750mm bars. Loving it after riding 685mm bars on 100-110 stems for so long.

Tubeless tires. I haven't had a flat mt bike tire in 8 years even though I will run them down until they become slicks.

Don't be afraid of wider tires and lower pressures. 2.2-2.4 up front is pretty nice and can commonly be run under 30psi tubeless. 10% higher tire pressure out back and maybe .1-.2 narrower in width and/or slightly less aggressive tread. The grip up front is more important. Tires (and pressures) make a huge difference for mountain bikes. Go with whatever your LBS says is best for the area. Specialized and Trek have been putting out pretty good mt bike tires lately, so there is an excellent chance that whoever is closest to you will have one of the two. There are many other good brands too.

1x10 for gearing (you're not going to find 1x11 at your price point) is the real deal. It's an easy conversion too. Rip off the front derailleur, shifter and cable. Take off the rings from the crank. Maybe one of them will be the size you need and you can put it back on. An 11-36 out back with a single ring up front will handle nearly all offroad speeds and getting to the trail on pavement. Something closer to a 30-32t up front for a 29" makes sense while many could get away with a 34t on a 26" as long as there is some good fitness there. Just ask your LBS what the best size is for the trails you are going to use. Some newer rear derailleurs have a clutch that helps keep the chain on. A chain guide will eliminate nearly all chain drops if mounted properly. Narrow wide chainrings work really well too (preventing chain drop) in combination with a clutched rear derailleur.

My 2 cents:
frame = aluminum is great and cheaper
Disc brakes = if you are new...a must
Wheel size : doesn't matter that much if you ar new. This likely means 26 as that is what you will find used for the most part and if you go new they seem to be out of favour so you would probably get a deal.
Tires: these are not to be overlooked. This is not a road bike and the right tire setup can make a huge difference.
Personally, if you can find it in your price range I would go full suspension. I get the hard tail if you want to race, you don't need a rear shock and yes I can ride ride my CX bike down gnarly trails too but if I am not racing why would I want my body to be the shock absorber for every hit on the trail. I ride MTB a lot and appreciate the comfort of the rear shock...more enjoyable.

Happy trails and welcome to the mud!

I'm going to buck the trend a bit and say go full suspension. I come from a road background. Last year I started riding my wife's 26" hard tail on the technical trails in the area (Sedona) and it beat the crap out of me. I got a full suspension 27.5 earlier this year and find the riding a lot more fun. I have roadie teammates who listened to the 'get a hardtail first' crowd and they were very disappointed. Many ended up buying a new FS bike soon after. If the trails in your area are technical at all, the FS is a lot more fun.

Set a price point for yourself and find the newest full suspension bike you can afford. Disc brakes are great on a MTB. Hydraulics are even better but not a necessity. Tires can be found pretty cheap (WTB seem like nice tires @ ~30 each) and tubeless is the way to go on technical trails. As others said, there is nothing wrong with 26" bikes. Older 29" bikes can feel cumbersome because they were rushed to market without many design modifications. This is especially true for shorter folks (I'm 5' 7" and found them slow to handle). Newer ones are more nimble but may not be available at your price point.

---

---

Judging by some of these responses my advice would be to go to a mountain biking forum for advice rather than slowtwitch....

In reality if you're just trying it out, find a good used bike for whatever you want to spend and just ride it on trails. You'll either like it and start thinking about upgrades or not. If you like it, then you can listen to the debates of wheel size and FS vs Hardtail. Til then, just get some trail time.

I bought an Outcast singlespeed 29'er from bikesdirect for $600 shipped when I first started MTB'ing a few years ago. Even though I've since added a FS scalpel, I still ride the SS a ton. Having a bike that you can kick the crap out of when you are just starting out is a nice feature.

I read this and see Roadies are soft.

---

"Base training is bull shit" - desertdude

Haha...was thinking the same thing when I got to your post. Unfortunately, MTBR isn't much better with the HT/FS and 26/27.5/29 debates.

I've only raced a few road bike races on the road...Basically one full season, worked my way up to Cat 3 and then didn't have the willingness to travel to keep racing to maintain or advance my license. Around here, there are mountain bike races a plenty though so I race mountain bikes at least a dozen times a year...not including XTERRAs, and have been racing for almost 15 years now. I race true world-cup style X-C races, I've raced several 24-hour events, and I have raced several in the 50-100 mile range. I have ridden 26, 27.5 and 29er. If your goal has anything to do with performing well in XTERRAs or cross country racing, a 29er is the only way to go...

DO NOT buy a 26er unless you want to ride gravity style...and in that case...buy a 27.5. Maybe if you ride slope stile or dirt parks...then you'll want a 26er.

If you'd like, I can give you STRAVA segments that show the difference between 29er and a 26er that were comparable in all other metrics (weight, HT, same fork, etc.), and the 29er was significantly faster in climbs and technical descents.

I repeat: Oh please...what a load of horse-hockey.

3 things: First, I'd be willing to bet that your 2 bikes had different geometry where it matters (e.g. trail, wheelbase, and chainstay length). Additionally, I bet you used different tires on each. And lastly, without actual power readings, those Strava segment comparisons mean nothing.

Oh...and since you're listing out MTB "palmares", I've been riding and racing MTBs since the mid-80s...plus, I feel I have a pretty good handle on physics ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

To the OP:-
Many triathletes been riding Mtb for years... Nowt wrong with the opinions being aired here.....
Just be thankful you're getting into it now cos in '89 MTB's were shite... Crap tyres, crap brakes, no suspension and heavy assed steel frames.... But man were they fun and made u strong.. 11kg rigid bike with canti's, 3kgs plus for the wheels on 1.95...
In short whatever you get will be a heap of fun and I the right terrain challenge you... Just get into it and with time you'll find the characteristics that matter to you on your trails...
Have a ball mate... Oh and don't be surprised to be drawn toward 24hr solo's... They hurt more than IM ....
Best of luck...

Same tires (conti race king protection 2.2 both set up tubeless), and you are right about geometries (trail and chain-stay length etc) and power. But the 26er had lighter rotational weight, and lighter over-all weight, so I'd say the advantage was slightly tipped towards the 26er, but I'm also not talking about fractions of seconds over a mile climb and a mile descent...two rides, a couple months apart (at a time where I would say I LOST a fair amount of fitness) and no question the 29er was MUCH faster.

I have a fairly good handle on physics as well (first BS was double major in math and physics and second BS was in civil engineering and I'm a register professional engineer).

There are a few folks on the world cup circuit that are ridding the 27.5 (Nino Schurter is the only prominent one that comes to mind), but the vast majority of the pros are ridding 29ers, and from my experience...that's not due to market pressure.

We have a Scott dealer and a Giant dealer, so I have had the pleasure of demoing the exact same spec (tires, wheels, components etc.) Scott Scale, Scott Spark, Giant XTC, Giant Anthem in 27.5 and 29, and regardless of the heavier weight, the 29er was faster each time.

No matter how hard you are, suspension when set up correctly affords more grip and the oppurtunity to go faster and that is what it's all about. ;)

A hard bastard on FS with skills is gonna be flying....
Same dude on a hard tail will be slower... Just... And if not, then coulda gone faster on the FS ;)

Right all this mtb talk is making me wanna go to the trails.....

Good points, there are many elite level riders who choose HT over FS even in technical conditions. I would imagine the reasons vary but I have heard weight and control thrown around.

---

"Base training is bull shit" - desertdude

Totally in an xc race the power delivery, acceleration out of corners and weight can be make or break on an xc course....
Same riders on a rough technical Ungroomed trails would likely run a FS rig.... I know I do...

probably your best value is an aluminum 26 inch wheel bike with front suspension only. I have been using full suspension lately and like it for real rough trails but for the money a hardtail 26 wheel with a decent fork is hard to beat. The tubeless tire setup is a nice upgrade. If the trails are only rolling and not super hilly, you may find a 29 inch wheel fully rigid single speed is a nice way to go, the bigger wheels soak up a lot of the shock and you can go pretty fast with one gear, it's easier to maintain and save weight, just a thought.

Get disc brakes at least, the rim brakes were a pain in the neck.

26 or 29 inch wheels are fine, I like the smaller wheels myself having used both a lot but most of my friends use the bigger ones and love to drone on about how great they are

Wheel size is based on use. Generally speaking, for joe recreation, either size is fine. For racing, 27.5 is the perfect median. Outside of that you need to pick base on course. Lot's of climbing and tight = 27.5 or 26. A trail that flows strong and not very tight = 29er.

---

_________________________________
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

riders win the Olympics and world cups on all different wheel sizes. Middle aged men sit around and debate about it.

Dangle writes a great post. I also spend more time on my MTB than on a tri or road bike.

I have been recommending friends (and my kids) buy a hardtail (front suspension only) with hydraulic disc brakes. Hydraulic matters because they are largely maintenance free. Fit is most important, and any of the wheel sizes work well on the trails, if you have a longish stretch of road or a lot of flat sections of trail, a 29er will be faster.

Brand doesn't matter that much - all will be good quality in a bike shop. Look for something with Shimano SLX or better (Acera ->Deore -> SLX -> XT -> XTR) or SRAM X5 (X5, X7, X9, ...).

Single chainrings are the 'new thing' (especially on burly Enduro or downhill bikes), but for a new rider a double is probably best. If you live in steep terrain areas, a triple may make sense but they tend to be buggy shifting so avoid it if you can.

Examples would be a Giant Talon, Specialized Rockhopper, Trek Stashe or maybe a Niner EMD if you want to get away from the mega brands...

---

" I take my gear out of my car and put my bike together. Tourists and locals are watching from sidewalk cafes. Non-racers. The emptiness of of their lives shocks me. "
(opening lines from Tim Krabbe's The Rider , 1978

Every time I see folks arguing about wheel sizes for MTBs and saying one is better than the other for various uses, in my mind I see the arguments REALLY being about frame geometry :-/

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Cool. Then I have a fun problem for you. Take a model of a wheel as a simple hoop (pretty reasonable for the wheel sizes we're discussing. i.e. all of the differences are at the outer edge). Solve for the kinetic energy of that wheel traveling at a fixed tangential velocity (fixed road speed). You don't even need to plug in values. Just look at the equations using variables. Don't forget to simplify ;-)

So...look at that and tell us: does the kinetic energy of that hoop vary with the mass, the radius, both, or neither? Report back here with your findings.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Science and physics go both ways. We don't only try to make predictions based off of known scientific concepts. We also make observations, then use scientific concepts to quantify what's going on. The observation is, 29er is faster on x-c trails.

But, the wheel diameter wasn't the only thing varied in what you "tested", so it makes no sense to attribute any differences you observed to simply that one change. Not only that, but if you do the exercise I outlined above, it might give some insight into which variables matter and which don't.

Humor me...it's a good way to get intuition for the situation...at least in regards to the common "larger wheels have higher inertia and thus roll over objects easier" meme.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Back to back to back to back rides of mine while swapping bikes says otherwise.

So faster for some while not faster than others.

Perhaps still another 29er with different geometry would work better but I haven't found it yet.

jaretj

That doesn't really matter. If it's not the wheel diameter, then it's all the other variables, and the result is the same. The 29er is faster.

So then what's stopping you from doing those other variables with other wheel sizes?

It's not about the wheel diameter.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

The result is not the same. I've beaten loads of 29ers in races on a 26er and a 27.5. Now my perspective is based solely on mountain bike racing, not recreational mountain biking. Assuming the same engine strength, a 29er will not accelerate as fast as a 26er. A 29er will not do a dead climb as fast as a 26er. If a 29er is the fastest bike, then why are we seeing the rise of the 27.5? The 27.5 mutes the differences and is an extremely fast bike.

Today mountain bike trails are being built for the 29er, meaning they flow very well. They are designed to hold momentum. Historically, mountain biking was done on trails built for multi-purpose, thus the 26 we designed for those trails. For joe average, the 29er is the best option. For joe racer, the 27.5 will be the best option. For joe budget, a 26er is the best option.

---

_________________________________
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

24 Solo is much more fun then IM (having done a few of both...)
The fellow racers are much nicer and don't mind having a solo drafting for a bit. I've even been offered a wheel to follow a few times. Now if you're on a team and try drafting off me? Different story :)

---

Vale!
Tracy T
http://www.thelencoaching.com
Some light reading::: http://www.tracythelen.blogspot.com

The other variables are there to accommodate the larger wheel size, and the larger wheel size accommodates other changes. For example, where the bottom bracket is located relative to the axles. On a 29er, the bottom bracket is essentially the same height as the axles. If you do that with a 26er, you'll be striking your cranks on every single obstacle you come by. Also, having the BB set at the same height as the axles minimized how much it "swings" as you lean the bike over in a turn. It also seems to give you the feeling that you are "in" the bike, as opposed to "on top" of the bike. For me, this give me a ton of confidence. Is it as nimble as a 26er (having the ability to flick it from one side of the trail to the other)... absolutely not. But it doesn't need to be, because you can choose more forgiving lines.

Now if smaller wheels are always better, why aren't we all riding road bikes with 650c wheels, or even 24-inch wheels? Why aren't off-road jeeps, rock crawlers and baja trucks running 18"-20" wheels instead of 33"-35"?

My girlfriend is big into the MtB scene. She convinced me to pick up a steel 29er hardtail.

I could not be happier. The whole MtB thing has made riding a bike fun again. Sure. I fell down a bunch. But, it is just so, so, so different from TTing, racing crits, and even CX.

Buy something, ride it, have fun.

Oh. And go race it too. MtB racing is way chill. A triathlete can learn a lot about being a better human being before a MtB race.

---

---

Twitter @achtervolger

If you consider 5 to 6 cm BB drop the same as even with the axles then yes the bottom bracket is essentially the same height as the axles.

Truth. I think gold, silver, and bronze at the men's race in London were all on different sized wheels. I think it all comes down to preference, riding style, and the kind of trails you ride.


EDIT: OP should go to the local LBS and see what they say and sit on some bikes and see what works. They'll be much more useful than a bunch of internet strangers.

i'm not even sure if you can buy higher end 26 wheel stuff in shops. That's partly why I like it, I can buy nice frames and wheels at fire sale prices

Here you go:

Men
Gold = 29" FS, Silver = 27.5" HT, Bronze = 29" HT

Women
Gold = 26" HT, Silver = 27.5" HT, Bronze = 29" HT

Old ones are especially soft!

Youtube the trails in Sedona and you'll see why an FS is the way to go. The pros here all ride FS too, and there are plenty.

---

---

And of the ones that matter (wheelbase, trail, head tube angle) there's nothing stopping frame designers from using the same values for 26" wheels as for 29". The reverse isn't true, obviously. You want a 26" wheeled bike that handles like a 29er? Just give it a longer wheelbase and longer trail.

Ummm...you may want to investigate that a bit more. What you are referring to is known as "BB drop" and is a measure of how far the BB is below the axles. From what I've seen, 29er frames typically have BB drop values 30-35mm larger than equivalent 26er frames. In other words, the 29er BBs are LOWER relative to the axles than a 26er. This is done to keep the height of the BB relative to the GROUND in approximately the same location, thereby minimizing differences in the height of the center of mass of the bike+rider system.

Again, see above about BB height vs. the ground...the bike rotates laterally about the tire contact patches, not the axles, and the height of the BB relative to the ground is approximately the same for both. You may want to re-think this one as well

So, what you're saying is its a psychological effect...got it. There's a reason I called them "placebo wheels" above ;-)

And all you mention above has to do with frame geometry and not the wheel sizes...despite what everyone has been sold.


That's a straw man. I never said that one size wheel was better than the other in regards to the wheels themselves. Now then, certain sizes make certain geometry choices easier to accommodate, but that's usually in the smaller sizes


Simple. Because it's been shown that using smaller wheels on a road bike doesn't impart any performance advantages, so it makes no sense to go away from a well-established standard. The only exception is for fitting purposes for smaller riders, which is why you typically see 650c wheels on small sized road bikes. It's too bad this didn't happen in regards to MTB wheel sizes as well.

As the owner of a Jeep that's taken off-road, I can tell you that the choice of tire size is all about axle-ground clearance and body clearance for a given suspension lift. Even so, there are gearing and axle strength trade offs that need to be considered when fitting larger tires. Your analogy falls down here as well...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

The jeep analogy holds, you are just neglecting other variables that also apply to bikes, such as contact area and approach angle.

Funny how people refuse to accept that 26" is for all intents dead. It is like 2000 when the holdouts were arguing against disc brakes.

Tech moves on. For 90% of riders a 27.5 or 29 is the best solution.

But it has been pretty entertaining to watch triathletes argue about it...
26" is still alive and well in the DH arena, but not so much in the XC. Some all mountain bikes do still have 26 - Stumpjumper Evo comes to mind. Maybe in a few years when everyone has converted to 29 or 27.5, the bike companies will go "look! We found the perfect size wheel!"

To the OP - forget all the blather about wheel sizes and find a bike that fits you and you feel comfortable riding. Doesn't matter what the wheel size is - if the bike doesn't fit it won't be fun. Test ride as many different styles as you can. You might like the stability of a 29er, but find the geometry of the smaller wheels fits you better. I've been on both and have flipped from 29ht to 26fs in the middle of 24 hour race - so I'm neutral in the whole wheel debate.

You'd be better off getting a newer bike and spending a little more money then a bargain from the early 2000s. Technology changes very quickly and finding "antique" components for that old farm might be hard or more pricey. A HT will give you more bang for your buck, but will required a steeper learning curved for fun. The FS will make the every day riding fun, but will hide and compensate for some of the basic skills needed to ride smoothly.

---

Vale!
Tracy T
http://www.thelencoaching.com
Some light reading::: http://www.tracythelen.blogspot.com

27.5 is a joke. It's actually closer to 27"...and the only reason it got put out there is because there were a lot of people who went all-in 29ers and were convinced (or convinced others) that there was something "magical" about the wheel size...and then realized that there are geometry limitations for a lot of people with the large hoops. Look at all the tortured tube paths to get the wheels in the right spots and allow decent amounts of travel. But, to go back to 26" wheels would just cause way too much cognitive dissonance.

Yeah...26" has basically been "killed" for nothing except misunderstanding and fashion. To compare the wheel changes to the move to disc brakes for MTBs is silly though. Disc brakes actually add some performance value for the use case.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Contact patch area is more a function of tire pressure and approach of the tire doesn't matter as much when suspension is involved.

Oh, and no response about how you were completely wrong about frame geometry?

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

So two rigid bikes... Would you choose a 29er or a 26er? I have ridden a ridged monocog, and a rigid specialized carve, and the 29er makes a difference. The rate of acceleration is dampened with a lower approach angle, so it's not that it doesn't matter, it's that the suspension doesn't have to work as hard with a 29er. That is why over 9 out of 10 World Cup pros ride 29ers.

As for geometry... Go ahead. Have moots or geek house weld you a bike with 29er geometry and 26er wheels. Why haven't bike builders already thought of that?

Ride as many as you can before you make a decision or at least find out what other riders in your local area prefer.

29 and 27.5, thru axle and disc are the current wheel standards regardless of any other discussion. It is what is available and will be best for resale. If you can find a good deal and really want to save some money, look at all options, but I would steer to the current standard.

I was set to to buy a new 29er hardtail last spring to replace my 2003 9 speed, 26er, vbrake hardtail. My LBS has a demo program and sometime the brand they carry will bring a fleet of demo bikes for a weekend. I rode a 29er hardtail, 29er full suspension trail bike and a 29er full suspension cross country bike. I rode them over the same 5 mile course a couple of times and I was consistently faster on the full suspension cross country 29er than every other bike. For the trails in my area- unforgiving rocky desert with some sustain climbs/descents, some short steep stuff- the full suspension cross country bike worked best for me.

I ended up buying the Specialized Epic because it worked best for me on my trails because I was able to demo other styles of bike I was confident that it was the right choice. I'd encourage you to try to do something similar if that option is available. At the very least go to a local trail one Saturday morning and talk to some riders and observe what they ride, rather than a bunch of folks on a tri forum.

---

Suffer Well.

I choose the bikes for the particular purpose based on geometry, not wheel size. There actually is no "29er or 26er specific geometry"...there's just "geometry".

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I've ridden the exact same bike with 26" and 650B wheels (same model of tire), and I definitely preferred the 650B. Near as I can tell, 650B started more from folks doing conversions than some grand bike industry conspiracy, but whatever... My first mountain bike was 700D (just a hair bigger than 650B), and I always thought the bigger wheels felt better, irrespective of the geometry. Unfortunately it got to a point where I couldn't buy a decent tire for the damn bike.

My 650B wheels measure 1 3/4" bigger than the 26" equivalent (almost 28"), since the tires seem to scale a bit in size. Obviously, that depends a bit on the tire. I think all of the hang wringing over it is funny though. Personally, I'm glad that 27.5 took over, because doing the conversion thing was a bit of a PITA.

That said, if I was looking for the absolute best deal, I'd probably get a 26" wheel bike since they're going the way of the dodo.

So, you're saying you put the 650B wheels on the 26" frame? If so, I hate to break this to you, but you changed the geometry doing that ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Really? besides, BB height, what's changed? Seems like wheelbase, head and seat angles and chainstay length are all the same?

Look, given your responses so far I'm pretty sure that you'll fight to the death to defend your own biases-and I have no time or inclination to go down that road. I've ridden a mountain bikes that are a lot longer than the my current 650B bike, and the bigger wheels (which measure about 28") feel like they roll better over stuff. And since I'm not racing offroad, what feels better is really my only concern.

I'm not claiming a huge difference, BTW, but it's noticeable to me--and I'm not generally one to notice stuff.

Have you ever actually ridden bigger wheels in technical terrain?

Yeah. It's an industry conspiracy. It could not possibly be people comparing one bike with another and deciding the larger wheels work better for their type of riding.

What do you think I do at demo days at Interbike ;-)

If all you did was swap wheels, then yes, you obviously changed the BB height by the difference in wheel radii...but, you also, perhaps less obviously, increased the trail dimension on the steering, since it too is a function of wheel radius. Thus, you made the steering more inherently stable.

BTW, this is exactly what happened with 1st gen 29ers since they tended to use the same lowers (and the same fork offset dims) on 29er as for 26er suspension forks. That increased trail was a huge reason 29ers got a rep for just keepin' on going straight through rough stuff.

The thing is, you can increase trail for a given head angle just by shortening fork offset. No need to change wheel diameters.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

You haven't been paying attention. People attribute magical properties to wheel sizes that are actually the result of working geometry changes. The bike industry is more than happy to sell you new stuff based on that, whether they understand that's the case or not.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

the argument my friends make is the big wheel is better for "rolling over stuff" which is nice, but there is a lot to be said for taking a nice line that rolls over as little stuff as possible. I like the smaller wheels because for me at least I find it easier to put the tire where I want it. Maybe I just need more time with the big wheels, they feel sluggish when I try them.

Yeah, that's one of those things that on the surface seems reasonable, but when the details are investigated with some physics and math it's apparent that there's not much difference attributable directly to the wheel diameter.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

If we have a 20" log on the ground, is it true that a wheel with a 10000" diameter would roll over it better than a wheel with a 1" diameter?
Surely the truth must be somewhere in the middle

Is it true that a wheel with a 10002" diameter would roll over it better than a 10000" diameter?

New study with reasonably well-controlled variables:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhS1HfvBeYA&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxfrykeSNCE

The fastest was 29er.

WTF was that? "Statistically there was no difference, but in practical terms there was." Wut? Does that mean that one recorded faster times on the course, but when you factor in energy expenditure it was at a higher power?

I need to see the data. That's an A number 1 example about why one needs to not completely rely on the conclusions drawn by the person doing a study.

I'd also love to see the details of the setups. Although all 3 bikes were the same model, IN PRACTICAL TERMS (to use Hurst's phrase) the "working geometry" of each of those bikes is significantly different, as best I can tell. That's going to make more of a difference than wheel size in a test like that.

Oh yeah...I loved the part about them observing that there seemed to be more arm muscle activation on the 26" runs on the descents...but they were going faster. So they concluded that this was a drawback...Ummm...maybe there was more muscle activation BECAUSE they were going faster??

Oy vey... Hey RChung, I think some VE analysis needs to be done on those laps ;-)

My only consolation is that they used this same deal to bag on 27" wheels...HAHAHAHA!

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Greater muscle activation on a long course could lead to fatigue which would be a draw-back in that setting. I believe he was saying that none of them had any statistically significant energy cost differences, but in practical terms, the 29er was the fastest. The study was partially funded by Santa Cruz, and they did their best to make bikes with identical geometries/weight and only varying the wheel-size.

The conclusion that made me thing of you was the statement, "You absolutely need to keep an open mind," and the statement, "29er was faster."

I think you'll be hard-pressed to find more-controlled study. I think if you had the study group be a bit larger, had them practice on each bike with a controlled training program for a few weeks leading up to the study and having a longer study period as opposed to only resting an hour between each set...that being said, you may not be able to control the conditions if you are controlling the physiological expenditure of each rider in that way. Perhaps documenting what each rider preferred before the test and trying to tie a correlation in that way would be better too.

I think in a more global/philosophical stance with science though, is good science leads to better questions, not necessarily solutions.

But, they were going faster.


Is that what he said? I don't think he was that specific...like I said, show me the full report.


Did they make the geometry the same? We don't know, do we? If they merely took the frames they already produced (most likely) then the geometries ARE different. If the researchers don't understand the consequences of that, then shame on them. Show me the frame specs.


I do have an open mind...but, an open mind isn't much use without some practical skepticism as well. Otherwise it is easy to be lead down the path of believing magical properties of things...


Yes. The fact that these riders may have been accommodated to one geometry of bike is something that came to me as well and could be a confounding factor. They mention that with the discussion of the 27" bikes...but, then doesn't that apply to the other sizes? My bet would be that the majority of their subjects mainly ride 29" geometry bikes, so wouldn't that be a bias?

If I were to design a similar study, ALL 3 bikes would have the exact same wheelbase, trail, head angle, and BB height. The gearing would be adjusted for the wheel sizes. Lastly, it would be best to have the riders wear a Jonnyo-style "blinding" setup so they couldn't see the bike they were on...seriously.

You don't need to tightly control the output. Just measure the power and evaluate which was "faster" using techniques such as VE.


Oh...I got a fair share of questions out of what's been presented so far alright :-/

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

They were going faster down hill on a 3 or 4k loop...does that mean the'll be going faster on a decent at the end of a 100 miler if the bike required greater muscle activation early on? From my racing experience, intuition would tell me no.

They said the 29er was 11-19 seconds faster...that was specific, and fairly significant. In a 20-40k time trial, aero weenies would drool over that kind of improvement from a piece of kit.

These guys occasionally put out white-papers so perhaps you'll soon see the data.

I didn't watch the video again, but from memory, I believe they did say that riders had experience with 26 and 29 (that doesn't necessarily imply preference), so rider bias is still out there.

Science is NEVER something to "Believe." Science is something to inform yourself with, and use and make the best decisions you can with the information and analysis available. Certainly, you've got to know how to read a report and question controls and bias (for instance everyone proclaims that wine is a health-food based off studies that only study resveratrol...any bit of evidence to encourage your own vice...). Just need to take a peak here (http://en.wikipedia.org/..._scientific_theories) to understand that our understanding changes, evolves, and gets better. If you BELIEVE Newtonian physics, you are technically wrong...doesn't mean that model isn't useful and cannot use it... Just need to understand its limitations

The Jonny-Yo blinders would be boarder-line unethical if you try to test real-world conditions. The only place that would work is in a straight-line on a predictable surface (an environment that would make this argument moot...lightest with lowest rotational inertia would win).