[Cornfield]

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

 

[richj8990]

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.

I'll take a picture of my 27.5" pedals (the most worn one on the right side) and then show you the 26" pedal as comparison. Keep in mind the 26" ones are more metallic and the 27.5" ones are resin, and were ridden almost daily for 3 months vs. the 26" pedal that was used the equivalent of 4 months if that makes a difference in your judgment. I obviously don't count how many times my 26" pedals scrape but it's at least 10x as much. The pictures should tell 1000 words on how much more the 26" pedals scrape compared to the 27.5". And no, this is not a marketing ploy, I don't work for a 27.5" manufacturer...

 

[chazpat]

I'll take a picture of my 27.5" pedals (the most worn one on the right side) and then show you the 26" pedal as comparison. Keep in mind the 26" ones are more metallic and the 27.5" ones are resin, and were ridden almost daily for 3 months vs. the 26" pedal that was used the equivalent of 4 months if that makes a difference in your judgment. I obviously don't count how many times my 26" pedals scrape but it's at least 10x as much. The pictures should tell 1000 words on how much more the 26" pedals scrape compared to the 27.5". And no, this is not a marketing ploy, I don't work for a 27.5" manufacturer...

They are different bikes, different geometry. BB clearance isn't specific to wheel size. Could also be different crank lengths.

And if you put a 27.5 fork/tire on a 26er, you may be putting more stress on the head tube than it was designed for.

 

[mik_git]

I'll take a picture of my 27.5" pedals (the most worn one on the right side) and then show you the 26" pedal as comparison. Keep in mind the 26" ones are more metallic and the 27.5" ones are resin, and were ridden almost daily for 3 months vs. the 26" pedal that was used the equivalent of 4 months if that makes a difference in your judgment. I obviously don't count how many times my 26" pedals scrape but it's at least 10x as much. The pictures should tell 1000 words on how much more the 26" pedals scrape compared to the 27.5". And no, this is not a marketing ploy, I don't work for a 27.5" manufacturer...

I find that i get noticeably more peddle strikes with my 27.5 bike over my 26 bike(s), so umm... everybody's experience may vary

 

[mountainbiker24]

And isn't it very common to see the 27.5" frame with a lower BB height than a 26"? Usually stated as being done for more stability due to a lower BB height? For example, the 2015 Chromag Stylus 26er has a BB height of 12.9" / 328mm while the 2017 Chromag Stylus 27.5 has a BB height of 12.6" / 319mm. 9mm lower on the 27.5 frame.

That's because geometry is gravitating towards longer, lower, and slacker. Your 27.5 is newer, hence the "updated" geometry.

 

[mountainbiker24]

It's actually closer to 2". I have a 26" wheel that measures 26.75" and a 29" wheel that is a hair over 29", both wheels have 2.4" Chunky Monkeys.

While the 29" wheel will technically roll over obstacles better than a 26" wheel, geometry plays a more important role in how the bike goes over obstacles. A 26" downhill bike should go over obstacles better than a 700c road bike, no?

More because of suspension than geometry. If you lock out the suspension on the downhill bike, put on comparable tires on both bikes, and get your weight in the right spot over the bike, the road bike will roll over obstacles better than a 26" downhill bike. You would have to get your weight back a fair bit, and the shorter wheelbase would definitely make things a bit dicey, but for rolloverability, bigger wheels will win.

 

[Steve Adams]

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!

 

[mountainbiker24]

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.

 

[Cornfield]

More because of suspension than geometry. If you lock out the suspension on the downhill bike, put on comparable tires on both bikes, and get your weight in the right spot over the bike, the road bike will roll over obstacles better than a 26" downhill bike. You would have to get your weight back a fair bit, and the shorter wheelbase would definitely make things a bit dicey, but for rolloverability, bigger wheels will win.

Yes, there's more to a bike than just wheel size, and that was the point I was trying to make. Wheel size, geometry, suspension, and even tire width all make a bike more or less capable.

 

[Steve Adams]

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!

 

[mountainbiker24]

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.

 

[chelboed]

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!

You're missing the point, I think. Your statement is obvious, but a little short-sighted.

A crappy rider will ride a technical trail better on a 27.5+ than a 26x2.3 because of the gain in traction and ability to roll over what would cause a 26" rider to use some skill.

So yes, "Wheel size with proper geometry can absolutely make up for limited riding ability IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES."

That person wasn't comparing a beginner to an expert. He was saying that an advantage in technology will benefit a rider in general. That's an obvious statement as well though.

 

[chelboed]

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

Until you stop doing endos through rock gardens cuz 29ers roll great in the chunk. Plus @ 6'4" I don't look like I'm a clown on those tiny bikes at the circus. I'll settle for less goofy?

In my opinion, the Trek Stache is very cool. The Kona Honzo is cool. The DB Mason is cool. There are several other duallies that are equally gnarbeans 29'ers that are cool, but I don't follow duallies anymore. I'm a hardtail guy.

Anyhoo...the 6'+ riders benefit from a larger bike in chunky circumstances. I've got local trails here that my 26x2.4 falls right into and a Stache glides right across. I have to use more energy to accomplish the same feat. I mean, we're talking a difference of at least 4" on this, so terrain specific design does make sense.

26" is fun, snappy, quick, etc...but in a trail network riddled with softball-basketball sized rocks and rock formation after rock formation...large hoops will no-doubt have an advantage unless it's a more gravity oriented trail that you can hop and bounce over everything.

My local trails are very pedally. No extended climbing, no extended DH...thus I need to pedal over all that chunk. It's a real chore on a 26" hardtail. It's a real dream on a Honzo or Stache.

I used to think there was no benefit for large hoops that I couldn't overcome with some hard work, but then I moved to another region where the trails were completely different than what I was used to. My eyes were closed because of my ignorance to what else is out there. Now that I'm riding other things...I now know that my own little world has no bearing on the rest of the world and it's useless to argue the point most of the time.

26'er holdout's can be the most egocentric bikers. Puffing out their chest and saying they can annihilate all of their wagon-wheeled riding buddies. Not that they can't...but they're only using what works for them in their region. Move to another region and ride with another egocentric wagon-wheeler and they'll clean your clock.

That said...I'm still riding 26x2.4" freeride hardtail and enjoying it because I can't afford to buy a new bike.

 

[291748]

A crappy rider will ride a technical trail better on a 27.5+ than a 26x2.3 because of the gain in traction and ability to roll over what would cause a 26" rider to use some skill.."

Of course, this is less and less noticeable the bigger the obstacles get, and once you're above axle height, it's barely relevant.

 

[chelboed]

Of course, this is less and less noticeable the bigger the obstacles get, and once you're above axle height, it's barely relevant.

Absolutely! Couldn't agree with you more...but we must open our eyes to the thought that rider-"A" might have to roll over successive 4"-8" rock and structure for the majority of their trail. I've got trails like that all over my region.

Rider-"B" is rolling trails that are like 3-feet wide and full of gnarly structures to jump and hop...but no real "speed-bumps". Just flow-jump to flow-drop, rock shelf to rock shelf. Bunnyhopping over a log with momentum to clear it versus Rider-A who has to actually pedal across miles of log-high bumps the whole time.

Like I said earlier, I cut my teeth on some climby but somewhat-smooth trails that had jumps, drops, and log crossings. Then I moved to where I am now where a Stumpy FSR 29'er is probably the prime bike for the job, except for the fact that I love hardtails...so the Stache or Honzo etc...is perfect.

 

[richj8990]

You're missing the point, I think. Your statement is obvious, but a little short-sighted.

A crappy rider will ride a technical trail better on a 27.5+ than a 26x2.3 because of the gain in traction and ability to roll over what would cause a 26" rider to use some skill.

So yes, "Wheel size with proper geometry can absolutely make up for limited riding ability IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES."

That person wasn't comparing a beginner to an expert. He was saying that an advantage in technology will benefit a rider in general. That's an obvious statement as well though.

As a beginner and so-called "crappy rider" you can use me for (or against) your arguments: how the heck would a beginner like me know quickly that a 27.5" is better over obstacles and 1/2 of you guys don't know this!?! I didn't learn it from some advertisement or other info. online, I learned it by riding both wheel sizes. And I've had two pretty different 27.5"s and they both cleared obstacles better. One was a bare-bones $150 Walmart with a lot of other problems but clearing obstacles was not one of them. After I threw that bike in the trash (broken derailleur, no hanger), I preferred the $350 26" for riding but still wanted to get another 27.5". It was only after I went from a (cheap) 27.5" BACK to a 26" that I really noticed a difference in clearing rocks, etc. You can argue bike improvements, geometry, etc. but all I know is that the two 27.5"s I've had are good for clearance, and the several 26"s I've had were not.

Here is the 2nd (gearing) issue: in one of my favorite areas in the county to go mountain biking, I have a Facebook blog about all of the different dirt roads and trails in the area. When I have time I'm going to categorize the trails according to beginner, cross-country, and all-mountain. Why? Because it's not just the experience and talent level of the mountain biker, it's what kind of bike they are actually bringing to this specific area that counts a lot for where they should go.

I've noticed that gearing can be even more important on the all-mountain trails; my 3x8 cassette simply cannot handle the up and down rollercoaster all-mountain trails. I could have a 29" tire and still not be able to do those trails without the right gearing, as in I have 11-30t and I would need at least a 42t for the lowest gear. A talented person on an all-mountain trail with a 29" bike still may be hampered by older gearing. So if a rider sees my Facebook trail list and they have a 3x7 or 3x8 drivetrain, they can do the beginner and XC but they know that the all-mountain trails are going to be more of a chore than they are worth. For the XC (intermediate) trails, I recommend a larger tire but it's still doable with a 26". Rocks on the XC trails can be annoying on a 26" and can slow you down, but it's still doable without getting off the bike a bunch of times. Again, for all-mountain it's gearing first, everything else 2nd, including tire size (at least in this area). You could have the best shocks and the best 29" tires but if you don't have modern gearing you are going to need to get off the bike several times on the trail (like I have to do with the 27.5" and a 3x8 drivetrain). Bottom line: this is just from a beginner, but it appears to me that beginner and XC trails favor the experienced, talented biker no matter what they ride, but the tougher the trail, the more bike you are going to need regardless of your skill level. It's a curve where tougher, all-mountain trails on the far end is proportional to the level (cost and quality) of bike needed.

 

[mik_git]

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)

 

[kapusta]

I'll take a picture of my 27.5" pedals (the most worn one on the right side) and then show you the 26" pedal as comparison. Keep in mind the 26" ones are more metallic and the 27.5" ones are resin, and were ridden almost daily for 3 months vs. the 26" pedal that was used the equivalent of 4 months if that makes a difference in your judgment. I obviously don't count how many times my 26" pedals scrape but it's at least 10x as much. The pictures should tell 1000 words on how much more the 26" pedals scrape compared to the 27.5". And no, this is not a marketing ploy, I don't work for a 27.5" manufacturer...

Have you also concluded from this that 26ers are more red than 27.5?

I mean, your pictures clearly prove it.

 

[kapusta]

I find that i get noticeably more peddle strikes with my 27.5 bike over my 26 bike(s), so umm... everybody's experience may vary

Experiences vary because the bikes do.

You have extrapolated a sample of 1 27.5 bike to all 27.5 bikes.

This is like me claiming that 29ers have narrower handlebars than 26ers, because MY 29er has a narrower bar than my 26er.

Edit: Sorry, I got confused and thought you were the other poster, and therefore misses your point. Please disregard this.

 

[mik_git]

Experiences vary because the bikes do.

You have extrapolated a sample of 1 27.5 bike to all 27.5 bikes.

This is like me claiming that 29ers have narrower handlebars than 26ers, because MY 29er has a narrower bar than my 26er.

No, your point is exactly the point I was trying to make compared to this other guy who says that 26 pedal strike 20x more than 27.5. Im not extrapolating to anything.