[OlMarin]

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.

 

[Cornfield]

One advantage to disc brakes.

Those are 26" rims, so they'd work with rim brakes if they had a flat machined sides. 26x2.8" tires have a larger outer diameter which is just a bit bigger than 27".

 

[JPL65]

Because they are the 125cc 2-Strokes of the MTB world[emoji41]
Costs keep going up up up for the newest must haves.
All things being equal, yes some of the virtues of the 27.5 & 29 platforms may help or perform bettering some situations, but at end of day when I'm out on my 26 with a group of people skill and endurance are factors WAY before the bike itself.
I do get a little nervous at times about availability of the newest designs and quality in tires more then anything.
And there is that special feeling if you do kill a section, or destroy someone on the newest high dollar machines!

125cc of the mtb world is a spot on comparison. Quick to accelerate and nimble. Huge fun factor.

 

[CS2]

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

 

[mik_git]

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...

 

[patrick2cents]

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.

 

[chelboed]

What's the point, I say?

This is the point:

 

[chelboed]

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!

 

[PoCo_guy]

My 2013 Cove G Spot

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

 

[richj8990]

Then why is everybody condemning a wheel size that will continue to exist longer than most here will be alive? If there's not much difference, why get rid of a perfectly good bike for something newer that isn't 'better'?
Racing is one thing. Having fun is a whole 'nother

Actually there is a significant difference between 26" and 27.5", if you rode both you would quickly know this on rocky trails. I'm sure you know a lot more than I do about everything else in the mountain biking world but you can't argue that 26" tires get stopped 20x as much on rocks and roots, and the 26" bike pedals get scraped up 20x more than on a 27.5". To put it another way: for every time I get hung up on a rock with my 27.5" it would have happened 20 times on my 26" bike. For every time my 27.5 pedal on one side scrapes or brushes against something on the ground, it happens 20 times as much, sometimes violently, on the 26" bike. There is a BIG difference between tire sizes. That extra 0.75 inches of ground clearance has an amazing effect, way more than I could have predicted before actually seeing the difference on the trails between the two bike sizes. Having said that, I still like 26" bikes, I just don't like them as much on rocky trails, that's all. I really like the "grab and go" utility of a 26" bike, I like their nimbleness, quick acceleration, easy to get on/off, etc.

Now my question is: some people have put on a 27.5 fork on their 26 bike frame to run fatter tires, like 26 x 2.6, etc. But how many people have simply put on a real 27.5 inch tire with a 27.5 fork on a 26 bike and left the rest stock (as in let the rear tire stay as 26 inch)? Is it doable? Is it too much of an upright seating position now? Harder to pedal up hills? But better down hills with the bigger tire?

 

[kapusta]

Actually there is a significant difference between 26" and 27.5", if you rode both you would quickly know this on rocky trails. I'm sure you know a lot more than I do about everything else in the mountain biking world but you can't argue that 26" tires get stopped 20x as much on rocks and roots, and the 26" bike pedals get scraped up 20x more than on a 27.5". To put it another way: for every time I get hung up on a rock with my 27.5" it would have happened 20 times on my 26" bike. For every time my 27.5 pedal on one side scrapes or brushes against something on the ground, it happens 20 times as much, sometimes violently, on the 26" bike. There is a BIG difference between tire sizes. That extra 0.75 inches of ground clearance has an amazing effect, way more than I could have predicted before actually seeing the difference on the trails between the two bike sizes. Having said that, I still like 26" bikes, I just don't like them as much on rocky trails, that's all. I really like the "grab and go" utility of a 26" bike, I like their nimbleness, quick acceleration, easy to get on/off, etc.

I assumed at first that this post was sarcasm, but now I am not so sure.

 

[richj8990]

I assumed at first that this post was sarcasm, but now I am not so sure.

LOL it's not sarcasm. First of all, could I ask that everyone be OBJECTIVE about the strengths and weaknesses of a 26" tire, and not have a tribal "Us vs. Them" attitude. Is it really so hard to admit that a 26" tire underperforms on rocky trails compared with larger tire sizes? Am I a counselor in some 12-step program gently trying to tell people to accept the truth? Now this sounds like sarcasm, but I'm just trying to get my point across. Having said that, I could have bought a 2nd cheap 27.5" bike as a backup to my main 27.5", but I instead chose to purchase (again) essentially the identical 26" bike I had before as a backup bike to the 27.5". If I didn't like 26" bikes I would not have bought one again. That is not sarcasm. That means I like a lot of things about the 26" bike. 90% of the time they perform just fine. It's that 10% on the tough parts of the trails that they underperform. Does that mean they should be banished forever from the mountain bike world? No. 26" tires will always have a place in the mountain bike world. But you can't turn water into wine. You can't increase the angle of rock/obstacle clearance enough with a 26" tire relative to the larger tires. It's sad but it's a simple fact.

 

[OlMarin]

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.

 

[kapusta]

LOL it's not sarcasm. First of all, could I ask that everyone be OBJECTIVE about the strengths and weaknesses of a 26" tire, and not have a tribal "Us vs. Them" attitude. Is it really so hard to admit that a 26" tire underperforms on rocky trails compared with larger tire sizes? Am I a counselor in some 12-step program gently trying to tell people to accept the truth? Now this sounds like sarcasm, but I'm just trying to get my point across. Having said that, I could have bought a 2nd cheap 27.5" bike as a backup to my main 27.5", but I instead chose to purchase (again) essentially the identical 26" bike I had before as a backup bike to the 27.5". If I didn't like 26" bikes I would not have bought one again. That is not sarcasm. That means I like a lot of things about the 26" bike. 90% of the time they perform just fine. It's that 10% on the tough parts of the trails that they underperform. Does that mean they should be banished forever from the mountain bike world? No. 26" tires will always have a place in the mountain bike world. But you can't turn water into wine. You can't increase the angle of rock/obstacle clearance enough with a 26" tire relative to the larger tires. It's sad but it's a simple fact.

If you read my previous posts on this thread you would know that I do in fact think that 27.5 is an overall improvement over 26.

My issue is that for someone as preachy as you are being, you should get your info straight.

For example, pedal strikes have nothing to do with the wheel size (unless you are talking about sticking a 27.5" wheel on a 26" frame and fork). Bottom bracket heights are just whatever the frame designer wants them to be, and there is no trend towards designing BBs higher for 27.5 than for 26.

Second, you are so ridiculously over the top with your claim of 26" tires getting stopped 20X as much as 27.5" ones, so as to make it seem to me that you were being sarcastic. I ride very rocky trails on a 26er and 29er, and even the 29er is not 20X better in this regard. It is clearly better, but not 20X better. The difference with 27.5 is there, but it is subtle. Definitely an improvement (which is why I will eventually go 27.5), but your wildly exaggerated claim, combined with your totally bogus one regarding pedal strikes, makes it hard to take what you are saying seriously.

 

[Cornfield]

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

 

[Jack Burns]

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

 

[chazpat]

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.

 

[andytiedye]

a 26" tire underperforms on rocky trails compared with larger tire sizes

Depends on how many tight switchbacks there are (really a function of wheelbase, but bigger wheels increase the wheelbase)

 

[Mr Pig]

Second, you are so ridiculously over the top with your claim of 26" tires getting stopped 20X as much as 27.5" ones, so as to make it seem to me that you were being sarcastic.

Have to say, that is a crazy number. No way such a small difference in diameter could make such a huge difference.

What we need is dropper-wheels. 26'' most of the time for fun then pop up to 29er at the press of a button for bumping over those pesky rocks.

 

[mik_git]

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.