Kapusta, in the beginning, nuts decided to name a hill Repack. These nuts started with old 26" 'cruisers', a.k.a. junque. This hill became Repack because you'd have to repack the coaster brake hub after every run.
That said, the 26" wheel size will never go away. You can get tires everywhere, even in Bumflock Egypt.
If I were to tour the world on a bike, it would have 26" wheels, square taper English BB,
old school 1" headset, you get the idea.

 

Yes, everyone knows the story of Repack. It also illustrates why 26" became the standard: because it is what they had at hand to work with. And it is mostly just inertia that made it remain that way for all these years.

But now inertia is behind 27.5 for mid-to upper level mtbs, and every year that trickles down to lower price points.

No, 26" is not going away altogether (it has other uses), but it is only going to continue to decline in the mtb world. I agree with you on the world tour thing.... but what I (and 99% of riders out there) would want to tour remote regions of Africa with is very different from what we want to hit our local (or even destination) trails with. Seriously, how many rigid, rim braked, 26" bikes with 1" threaded forks do you think have been bought in the past 10 years for the primary purpose of mountain biking?

 

I think 26'' might come back for the same reason that vinyl has. Well, apart from the fact that vinyl is actually better!

There are a lot of young people who actively embrace old technology as a way of sticking the fingers up at the ********s who are trying to tell them what their future should look like.

 

I have to say I like this post.

 

He's just saying you can find these parts in more corners of the world than you can 29 or 27.5 tires, wheels, etc.; disc brake parts, etc. You rip a sidewall in some remote part of Africa, good luck finding a 29er tire but a 26er probably will be available.

 

Just thought I'd drop back in here and say how happy I am that this post was appreciated for it's intended purpose and is alive and sparking good opinion and theory mixed with fact and experience.

 

By all means. I can see advantages to bigger wheels in general for many reasons. And when you're getting into any particular discipline, get what makes YOU fly. Some of us are poor, but try to keep a decent, general purpose bike under our butts. I can still get in the dirt a bit. I can go on roads. Rain? So?
BTW this thang's not bad in mud.

 

I've got a very basic rigid bike (Spec HardRock) from '91 that is perfectly functional and was my first mtn bike. Got it when I was 30 y/o or so.
I have it looking commuter with fenders and skinny tires after I got a Kona hardtail in 2003 and use it for the ease of kid seat set up. I have grandkids these days and the Blackburn rear rack works well with a kid seat that clamps like a vice and can be on/off in less than two minutes. I'm taking the fenders off and bumping up tires to a 2.2 block tread to gain some ride quality. My new plus bike is spoiling me; 27.5 x 3.0.

In fact, that theme is carrying over to the Kona as well. It works fine and I have no issues with either of my 26" bikes but I'm starting to think I want the ride characteristic's of wider tires so I'm in the process of doing just that.
As long as I keep the 26'r bikes and maintain them in good ride fashion, I'll be happy to rotate what I ride depending on plans or the areas I get to. Also, these bike are well worth keeping considering they can be back-up or spare bikes for visiting friends or family.
Here's the commuter look,

the front wheel cleaned up and a 2.2 put on

and the Kona with new Schwalbe 2.4 's

 

If the hoops are obsolete, I guess you ride what you have or can get because they'd not reasonably or cost effectively replaceable or serviceable (the 26 wheels).
Yet who says the fun and joy or adventure and challenges of riding a bike are lost? They just changed spec slightly and just like any change or one who has went on to other (newer or different) bikes whence they began, minor adjustments or a tiny learning curve aligned you with the small variations.

My new bike has done a few things. It fits me better, it feels more forgiving in ride, handling and technical prowess and it serves up more confidence. Better or correct fit shouldn't imply my old bikes are less in any way or 'at fault'. The way the new bike rides and handle is related to some changes and some of that can be brought to the older bikes. Simpler drive train, wider tires, stem changes and wider bars etc...

Changes I incorporate won't be an attempt to modernize or change character of the earlier trends but more to benefit me in some things I've learned along the way. Improved fit = improved control and handling, some of that with the bigger rubber (adjacent to + size tires) provides hardtail comfort I need 20 or 30 years later.... and any technical prowess the bike has or even just that confidence inspiring attitude makes me feel like a better rider and allows me to stretch my comfort zone some.

This is why I'll keep my older 2 bikes and use them as creative variations of something different than my newer bike.

As for the naysayers of 26, they don't really have dog in the fight or could not care less but some of us that keep 26 rolling and well maintained may someday find our wheels and tire collection well worth more than the bikes themselves.

 

If the hoops are obsolete, I guess you ride what you have or can get because they'd not reasonably or cost effectively replaceable or serviceable (the 26 wheels).
As for the naysayers of 26, they don't really have dog in the fight or could not care less but some of us that keep 26 rolling and well maintained may someday find our wheels and tire collection well worth more than the bikes themselves.

Maybe that's what some people fear? Look, the old 27" road bike size is still out there. Still find wheels, too. But rim and tire selection has gone way down. I'm not even sure if you can get a 27X1 that's reasonably light anymore. I don't think we'll see that any time soon with 26. Just too many out there.

 

I keep thinking about rebuilding my 26" hardtail. It needs pretty much a new everything lol but it is still mostly functional. I took it for a ride the other day and one thing I noticed that I don't hear mentioned often is that roots don't seem to knock it around as much as my 650b and not nearly as much as my friends 29er. The bike seemed more prone to hop over just about anything rather then trying to roll over. Even when I purposely hit a root sideways the wheels didn't want to kick out as bad.

Even if I don't rebuild mine, I still think a freshly built 26er will be in my near future... Thinking about an old discounted Lynsky or something...

 

If you find that magic frame, rebuild it fo sho, yo!

I've built mine 7 different ways since 2008...and each rendition has been fun!!

Versatile hardtail equally adept at XC, Freeride, all mountain, rigid, 160mm squish, and everything in between.

Worth the build!

 

My 10 year old daughter rides my old BMX bike and she rides it OK but has outgrown it somewhat. I am in no hurry but plan to get her a new bike soon. I will most likely get her a 29er or 27.5'' that she can grow into but I am not against a 26'' because of her being a girl and small. Used 26'' bikes sell fairly cheap for high end bikes a few years old.
I have not come across a 26'' I like yet mostly because they have been a bit older than I want but I have no problem with one for my daughter.

 

I ride 26 because there aren't any vintage 650B or 700C MTBs.

 

Thats because you're not looking hard enough...

GT Tachyon, Diamondback Overdrive...

 

There may not be many new frames coming into the market yet (though there are more that are 26+), but there are certainly new components being produced. My wheels are flow mk3's, that weren't available before this past summer. My tires are DHF 26x2.8's, which were just released a few weeks ago.

I still love the size because of the feel of it and the geo I can create on a bike with it. It's just enough different to make it worthwhile to ride it over a 650b bike. I have built a new bike since 2015 (which was late enough to make it obvious the industry was going 650b). a buddy of mine and I were trading bikes back and forth last week (he rides a nice, modern, vpp 150mm 650b trail bike), and he really enjoyed the pure fun of my 26" hardtail with big, meaty tires. He didn't end up giving it back until we were at the trailhead. I don't anticipate changing wheelsize anytime soon, especially since the rim and tire support is very much still alive.

 

What's the point, I say?

This is the point:

 

My 2013 Cove G Spot

Ride it on the shore,take it to the bike park...

 

Rich, I have no doubt you're correct. However many are perfectly happy with 26". I'm one. If/when new bike time comes 27.5 will not be ruled out, specially with the veritable plethora of tires available for this size. It may even become a priority when I shop.

 

Geometry and frame design have way more influence on how a bike handles/rolls over things than wheel size.

 

Unless the wheels are 3" bigger. Math and such ya know.

 

16.068883707497264
25.999999999999996<<<
42.068883707497264

These numbers, above correspond. 16" is my frame size. 26" are the wheels. 42" is the wheelbase.

These numbers are close to exact in the Fibonacci sequence.

It just happens I feel good on these hard tail frames with these numbers.

42 and 26 are very close to the Golden Mean, in ratio.

I just looked into this because I have been hanging pictures on the wall, and decided to try using a little sacred geometry on the projects.

It occurred to me to see what is going on with the hard tail rigid single speed mountain bikes I love to ride in terms of Phi.

I'm blown away by the coincidence.

Sure, it can be debunked.

But now I am going to think a bit more about stems, handle bar length and sweep in these terms, and see what comes of this.

I used to have a 29er, but I can't measure it anymore. I have a full suspension bike I can measure too. I would probably have to take the sagged geometry measurements to get a good number.

26 x 1.61 = 41.86

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

 

btw, despite the math, the difference in the radius of a 27.5 and a 26 wheel is actually only 1/2", not 3/4". Check the actual metric dims of the wheel itself, subtract the difference and divide by two. It's mostly marketing.

 

hmmm, I own both 27.5 and 26 and don't find it 20x better at anything, in fact I'd say Zero X better, only thing it is better at is that i could actually buy it as I didn't want to go 29er.

 

Because...F you! that's why! ha ha. I have 26'rs because I rode them when I was "younger". When I got into mountain bikes, they were all that were available. My my "heros" were on 26's. Now, I am older, and I am starting to collect old school SPECIALIZED bikes, I have my 96 hopper, and I am starting to gather older stuff...2000 and before. Kleins, Old yeti arc, giant carbons etc are on my hunting list as well. Whatever cool old stuff and parts I can find from the golden years of MTB bikes!

 

I don't think 29er bikes will ever be cool. No matter what. Ever.

 

You just haven't ridden a good one yet. On mine I forget about the wagon wheels once I'm in the saddle, yee-haw!

 

All bikes are cool.....that's the cool thing about them!

 

I have just ridden 18 miles at Freedom Park in Williamsburg VA. I am still using my massively upgraded 1999 GT I-Drive. Not only was it a ton of fun but the 2 friends I was with who have a 29er and 27.5er were thoroughly impressed with my old 26er's capabilities.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

I have just ridden 18 miles at Freedom Park in Williamsburg VA. I am still using my massively upgraded 1999 GT I-Drive. Not only was it a ton of fun but the 2 friends I was with who have a 29er and 27.5er were thoroughly impressed with my old 26er's capabilities.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

Wheel size does not make up for rider ability....That has been proven time and time again!

 

Wheel size with proper geometry can absolutely make up for limited riding ability in certain circumstances.

I'm sorry, but a shitty rider on 29's will still be far behind me on my 26r. Sorry! 29's does not make you jesus on bike. Just masks your inabilities a tiny amount!

 

I'm sorry, but a shitty rider on 29's will still be far behind me on my 26r. Sorry! 29's does not make you jesus on bike. Just masks your inabilities a tiny amount!

But a rider with slightly less ability than you will gain time on a rough trail with bigger wheels. For the top riders in the world, wheel size could mean the difference between winning and being off the podium. For the average rider, it could mean the difference between clearing a section and walking it.

 

It will would work, if all the parts involved jibe together.

 

you're still joking right? "old gearing"doesn't mean you can't ride stuff. There's nothing I can ride on my new bike that I can't ride on my old bike due to gearing, in fact my old bike has a wider range. The only thing stopping me from riding stuff is fitness and skill, it sure as hell isnt gearing...or tyre size (or even suspension)

 

Well, why not get a 29er then, should get something like 40x less stoppage due to rockage.

I don't find my 26er less capable than my 29er.

 

Maybe the front chainrings are irrelevant because most of them are 22, 32, 42t; it's the cogs on the back that make the difference for climbing, correct? Do I really have the same range on a 7-speed 14-28t that someone has on an 11-speed 10-46t? Again, you can argue math all day, but I notice a huge difference even between 14-28t and 11-30t. 14-28t is so bad that I like to double-upshift just to get anything meaningful out of the gears, so I often use 1, 3, 5, 7 in the middle gear and forget 2, 4, 6. Top speed on a 14t back, and high front ring is a pathetic 15 mph, it's more like 25 mph on an 11t. Is any of this news to you guys?

 

Maybe the front chainrings are irrelevant because most of them are 22, 32, 42t; it's the cogs on the back that make the difference for climbing, correct?

No, it's the COMBINATION of the gear in the front and the gear in the back.

I'm completely baffled as to how or why you feel compelled to completely ignore the front chainrings on a "3x" system. Have you never tried using your front derailleur?

If you really can't seem to wrap your head around the math and physics of how gears work and more specifically what the front rings do, grab your bike and shift the rear to a middle-ish gear, like 3 or 4 down. Now go ride the bike up the same hill in the small front ring, then the middle one, then the big one, all the while never shifting the rear. Report back with your findings.