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