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.