Mullet craze is back, with a vengeance...
Just curious why this trend seems to reemerge with a vengeance every few years. I get the logic around it, but it's been tested to death through the years, and the end consensus is always that it's just "meh". Now all of the sudden, once again YouTube is constantly taking about mullet bikes. People are very concerned whether or not the bike they're buying can be set up mullet, and people are claiming that mullet bikes are the end all be all setup.
Companies like Carver had tried this stuff long ago and it never took off. When 27.5 hit it came back for a minute, in hopes that the 27.5 rear would work better than the 26 people had been using. Then it fizzled out again. Now it's back.
Is this just a weird trend that newbies tend to grab on to so they can feel like they're "experimenting" with their setup?
Not hating, just generally curious why this trend comes back around every 3-4 years.
Companies like Carver had tried this stuff long ago and it never took off. When 27.5 hit it came back for a minute, in hopes that the 27.5 rear would work better than the 26 people had been using. Then it fizzled out again. Now it's back.
Is this just a weird trend that newbies tend to grab on to so they can feel like they're "experimenting" with their setup?
Not hating, just generally curious why this trend comes back around every 3-4 years.
61 - 80 of 133 Posts
I confess to not reading this entire thread but I read enough of it to come to the conclusion that there are a lot of confused riders out there.
While anyone can replace a 29" rear wheel with a 27.5" rear wheel and call it a mullet, it seems many participants to this thread don't understand that an actual mullet bike is designed as such. Simply replacing a larger wheel with a smaller one on a bike that wasn't designed around the smaller wheel will change geometry in unintended ways.
A proper mullet bike is designed as such. Period.
To illustrate this argument, consider a rider who buys a 29er - that's 29" wheels front and rear. Then they buy a second set of wheels, this time 27.5" F&R. The rider installs the smaller wheels to see if s/he likes 27.5" wheels better than 29" wheels and ends the ride claiming 27.5" wheels are a bad design because they cause too many pedal strikes.
No they don't. Think about it.
We can't just install a smaller rear wheel and claim we do or don't like a genuine mullet bike. We F up the manufacturer's geometry if we do that. Want to actually try a mullet bike? Then buy a frame designed for a small rear wheel and a larger front wheel. This is the only way to maintain intended geometry.
Tangential story (TLDRers skip this paragraph): I ride 29" wheels. I've had riders ask me, "Doesn't a 29" frame make the bottom bracket too high?" Seems there are a lot of people out there who don't understand that a frame designer can place the bottom bracket anywhere s/he wants it regardless of wheel size. Why mention this? Because the same rules apply to a bike with diverse size wheels - it's gotta be designed for diverse wheel sizes - front & rear. And it can be designed that way. But we can't just mix or match wheels in a frame not specifically designed for different size wheels simply because we we want to experiment with an oddball wheel. Not and maintain the manufacturer's intended handling, anyway.
As for why mullet bikes keep coming around, that's because it's a viable concept. Meanwhile many comments within this thread illustrate the bike buying public's lack of understanding as to why the concept is viable. If it's not accepted by the public, it won't fly - regardless how awesome it actually is.
=sParty
While anyone can replace a 29" rear wheel with a 27.5" rear wheel and call it a mullet, it seems many participants to this thread don't understand that an actual mullet bike is designed as such. Simply replacing a larger wheel with a smaller one on a bike that wasn't designed around the smaller wheel will change geometry in unintended ways.
A proper mullet bike is designed as such. Period.
To illustrate this argument, consider a rider who buys a 29er - that's 29" wheels front and rear. Then they buy a second set of wheels, this time 27.5" F&R. The rider installs the smaller wheels to see if s/he likes 27.5" wheels better than 29" wheels and ends the ride claiming 27.5" wheels are a bad design because they cause too many pedal strikes.
No they don't. Think about it.
We can't just install a smaller rear wheel and claim we do or don't like a genuine mullet bike. We F up the manufacturer's geometry if we do that. Want to actually try a mullet bike? Then buy a frame designed for a small rear wheel and a larger front wheel. This is the only way to maintain intended geometry.
Tangential story (TLDRers skip this paragraph): I ride 29" wheels. I've had riders ask me, "Doesn't a 29" frame make the bottom bracket too high?" Seems there are a lot of people out there who don't understand that a frame designer can place the bottom bracket anywhere s/he wants it regardless of wheel size. Why mention this? Because the same rules apply to a bike with diverse size wheels - it's gotta be designed for diverse wheel sizes - front & rear. And it can be designed that way. But we can't just mix or match wheels in a frame not specifically designed for different size wheels simply because we we want to experiment with an oddball wheel. Not and maintain the manufacturer's intended handling, anyway.
As for why mullet bikes keep coming around, that's because it's a viable concept. Meanwhile many comments within this thread illustrate the bike buying public's lack of understanding as to why the concept is viable. If it's not accepted by the public, it won't fly - regardless how awesome it actually is.
=sParty
Yeah, I was thinking about doing this with my Honzo but realized quickly it would lower the BB and "Fixing" that would require either welding skills or some kind of jiggery which I don't understand.To illustrate this argument, consider a rider who buys a 29er - that's 29" wheels front and rear. Then they buy a second set of wheels, this time 27.5" F&R. The rider installs the smaller wheels to see if s/he likes 27.5" wheels better than 29" wheels and ends the ride claiming 27.5" wheels are a bad design because they cause too many pedal strikes.
I think you might be able to get a 27.5 bike and with the correct fork put a 29" wheel up front, but even that is suspect.
I think the idea is coming around. Pros and big bike brands adopting it helps a lot.As for why mullet bikes keep coming around, that's because it's a viable concept. Meanwhile many comments within this thread illustrate the bike buying public's lack of understanding as to why the concept is viable. If it's not accepted by the public, it won't fly - regardless how awesome it actually is.
I've never cared a whole lot about whether something is accepted by the public or not. If it works well and I can get parts for it, I'll ride it. While mullet bikes geometry might be less common, the wheels and tires are all commonly available.
People don't still ask that question I hope. 29" wheels have been around awhile now.I've had riders ask me, "Doesn't a 29" frame make the bottom bracket too high?"
This smell like snake oil
Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
Or you can just not even give a fly about what the manufacturer intended and change elements of the bike that matter to you most. The Hightower V2 has been sold with two different shock stroke lengths and is approved for a range of fork lengths and wheel sizes. If you ride a lot of steep flow trail and jump lines then maybe a slack front end and rear tire clearance are way more important than pedal strikes. I haven't had a motorcycle with stock geometry in over 40 years.I confess to not reading this entire thread but I read enough of it to come to the conclusion that there are a lot of confused riders out there.
While anyone can replace a 29" rear wheel with a 27.5" rear wheel and call it a mullet, it seems many participants to this thread don't understand that an actual mullet bike is designed as such. Simply replacing a larger wheel with a smaller one on a bike that wasn't designed around the smaller wheel will change geometry in unintended ways.
A proper mullet bike is designed as such. Period.
To illustrate this argument, consider a rider who buys a 29er - that's 29" wheels front and rear. Then they buy a second set of wheels, this time 27.5" F&R. The rider installs the smaller wheels to see if s/he likes 27.5" wheels better than 29" wheels and ends the ride claiming 27.5" wheels are a bad design because they cause too many pedal strikes.
No they don't. Think about it.
We can't just install a smaller rear wheel and claim we do or don't like a genuine mullet bike. We F up the manufacturer's geometry if we do that. Want to actually try a mullet bike? Then buy a frame designed for a small rear wheel and a larger front wheel. This is the only way to maintain intended geometry.
Tangential story (TLDRers skip this paragraph): I ride 29" wheels. I've had riders ask me, "Doesn't a 29" frame make the bottom bracket too high?" Seems there are a lot of people out there who don't understand that a frame designer can place the bottom bracket anywhere s/he wants it regardless of wheel size. Why mention this? Because the same rules apply to a bike with diverse size wheels - it's gotta be designed for diverse wheel sizes - front & rear. And it can be designed that way. But we can't just mix or match wheels in a frame not specifically designed for different size wheels simply because we we want to experiment with an oddball wheel. Not and maintain the manufacturer's intended handling, anyway.
As for why mullet bikes keep coming around, that's because it's a viable concept. Meanwhile many comments within this thread illustrate the bike buying public's lack of understanding as to why the concept is viable. If it's not accepted by the public, it won't fly - regardless how awesome it actually is.
=sParty
It is your bike. Make it what you want.
I don't recall when the last time was but personally I can't believe the question was ever asked.People don't still ask that question I hope. 29" wheels have been around awhile now.
It seems people either understand frame design or they don't.
=sParty
Agreed. I do likewise. All I'm suggesting is that people know what they're doing before they start modifying.Or you can just not even give a fly about what the manufacturer intended and change elements of the bike that matter to you most. The Hightower V2 has been sold with two different shock stroke lengths and is approved for a range of fork lengths and wheel sizes. If you ride a lot of steep flow trail and jump lines then maybe a slack front end and rear tire clearance are way more important than pedal strikes. I haven't had a motorcycle with stock geometry in over 40 years.
It is your bike. Make it what you want.
=sParty
I was watching a Santa Cruz Bronson review video and heard them reference the new mullet bike as their MX design. That makes sense to me as most modern dirt bikes have a 21" front wheel and either a 18 or 19" in the rear. There has to be something to that. I have never ridden a mullet but I have had the haircut and it was a good time. I hope I get a chance to demo one.
The new Insurgent can run both a 27.5 and 29 on the front. You just need a 10mm longer 27.5 fork to run the 27.5 wheel...which still has a lower front end than running a 29r fork and 29r wheel.
My 27.5 bike already came with mulleted suspension (160 f/ 140 r). I think my summer project will be to find a cheap, used 29 140 fork and 29 wheel.
My theory is changing from a 160 fork 27.5 wheel to a 140 fork 29 wheel will preserve the original geometry.
My theory is changing from a 160 fork 27.5 wheel to a 140 fork 29 wheel will preserve the original geometry.
I was actually thinking about just getting new fork lowers. I already have the shorter air spring.My 27.5 bike already came with mulleted suspension (160 f/ 140 r). I think my summer project will be to find a cheap, used 29 140 fork and 29 wheel.
My theory is changing from a 160 fork 27.5 wheel to a 140 fork 29 wheel will preserve the original geometry.
MX = this year's "downcountry"
A bit of a thread revive, but I agree.I confess to not reading this entire thread but I read enough of it to come to the conclusion that there are a lot of confused riders out there.
While anyone can replace a 29" rear wheel with a 27.5" rear wheel and call it a mullet, it seems many participants to this thread don't understand that an actual mullet bike is designed as such. Simply replacing a larger wheel with a smaller one on a bike that wasn't designed around the smaller wheel will change geometry in unintended ways.
A proper mullet bike is designed as such. Period.
To illustrate this argument, consider a rider who buys a 29er - that's 29" wheels front and rear. Then they buy a second set of wheels, this time 27.5" F&R. The rider installs the smaller wheels to see if s/he likes 27.5" wheels better than 29" wheels and ends the ride claiming 27.5" wheels are a bad design because they cause too many pedal strikes.
No they don't. Think about it.
We can't just install a smaller rear wheel and claim we do or don't like a genuine mullet bike. We F up the manufacturer's geometry if we do that. Want to actually try a mullet bike? Then buy a frame designed for a small rear wheel and a larger front wheel. This is the only way to maintain intended geometry.
Tangential story (TLDRers skip this paragraph): I ride 29" wheels. I've had riders ask me, "Doesn't a 29" frame make the bottom bracket too high?" Seems there are a lot of people out there who don't understand that a frame designer can place the bottom bracket anywhere s/he wants it regardless of wheel size. Why mention this? Because the same rules apply to a bike with diverse size wheels - it's gotta be designed for diverse wheel sizes - front & rear. And it can be designed that way. But we can't just mix or match wheels in a frame not specifically designed for different size wheels simply because we we want to experiment with an oddball wheel. Not and maintain the manufacturer's intended handling, anyway.
As for why mullet bikes keep coming around, that's because it's a viable concept. Meanwhile many comments within this thread illustrate the bike buying public's lack of understanding as to why the concept is viable. If it's not accepted by the public, it won't fly - regardless how awesome it actually is.
=sParty
It seems a little shocking to me at least that many posters appear to be unaware that when moving to a mullet setup, different options exist to retain the bike's original intended geo, more or less, which is the desired objective for most. Merely replacing a 29 rear wheel with a 27.5 wheel is going to lead to some pretty crazy $hit in most cases, including a ridiculous amount of pedal strikes. Some manufacturers offer replacement linkages, others offer mullet models OEM with the desired geo, and some, like Forbidden, give you both options. I don't think this is some kind of industry conspiracy. As crazy as it may sound, for some, for a variety of possible reasons, a mullet may simply be the optimal setup. At minimum, it's another option that's available. Not sure why some seem to find this irritating or undesirable.
Right on.A bit of a thread revive, but I agree.
It seems a little shocking to me at least that many posters appear to be unaware that when moving to a mullet setup, different options exist to retain the bike's original intended geo, more or less, which is the desired objective for most. Merely replacing a 29 rear wheel with a 27.5 wheel is going to lead to some pretty crazy $hit in most cases, including a ridiculous amount of pedal strikes. Some manufacturers offer replacement linkages, others offer mullet models OEM with the desired geo, and some, like Forbidden, give you both options. I don't think this is some kind of industry conspiracy. As crazy as it may sound, for some, for a variety of possible reasons, a mullet may simply be the optimal setup. At minimum, it's another option that's available. Not sure why some seem to find this irritating or undesirable.
In order to maintain BB height, STA & HA when swapping out a 29" rear wheel and swapping in a 27.5", seatstays would need to be lengthened. Also, the frame manufacturer may or may not choose to take advantage of the opportunity to shorten the chainstays when employing the smaller rear wheel.
Without doing at least the former, the bike won't handle optimally. Look at Guerrilla Gravity's modular frame platform. All their bikes, regardless of wheel size or amount of travel, employ the same front triangle. It's the seatstays & chainstays that change. And GG will sell you a mullet if you want one -- designed as such, not merely an afterthought.
I believe one reason mullets are gaining favor with frame manufacturers is that it's a relatively easy to get more frame travel. It's harder to design a long travel frame with 29" rear wheel; easier to design one with a 27.5" wheel. This, plus the rollover benefits of the larger wheel are greater at the front of the bike. Get the front wheel over a challenging obstacle and the rear will follow regardless of wheel size there. Mullets just make sense.
=sParty
My mx setup has proven to be a ton of fun. I tried this because i wanted a stiffer fork (went from35 to 36 mm stanchion fork), slacker hta and higher bb. I went from 650b up to 29 front and maintained the same travel to achieve geo changes but dropped steerer spacers 10mm to keep reach and stack close to original. Love it.
They make sense until you try to pedal one uphillRight on.
I believe one reason mullets are gaining favor with frame manufacturers is that it's a relatively easy to get more frame travel. It's harder to design a long travel frame with 29" rear wheel; easier to design one with a 27.5" wheel. This, plus the rollover benefits of the larger wheel are greater at the front of the bike. Get the front wheel over a challenging obstacle and the rear will follow regardless of wheel size there. Mullets just make sense.
=sParty
That would be very true with a frame that was not designed around two differing wheel sizes. Early Cannondale was designed for the purpose of 26/24 back in its heyday, for instance. Early 80's iirc.They make sense until you try to pedal one uphill
An alternative to a manufacturer offering modified seatstays and, possibly, chain stays, is to offer a modified linkage. The Ziggy Link offered by Forbidden very easily and inexpensively converts the Druid or Dreadnought from full 29 to mullet, while only dropping the BB 6 mm and HTA .5 of a degree.Right on.
In order to maintain BB height, STA & HA when swapping out a 29" rear wheel and swapping in a 27.5", seatstays would need to be lengthened. Also, the frame manufacturer may or may not choose to take advantage of the opportunity to shorten the chainstays when employing the smaller rear wheel.
Without doing at least the former, the bike won't handle optimally. Look at Guerrilla Gravity's modular frame platform. All their bikes, regardless of wheel size or amount of travel, employ the same front triangle. It's the seatstays & chainstays that change. And GG will sell you a mullet if you want one -- designed as such, not merely an afterthought.
I believe one reason mullets are gaining favor with frame manufacturers is that it's a relatively easy to get more frame travel. It's harder to design a long travel frame with 29" rear wheel; easier to design one with a 27.5" wheel. This, plus the rollover benefits of the larger wheel are greater at the front of the bike. Get the front wheel over a challenging obstacle and the rear will follow regardless of wheel size there. Mullets just make sense.
=sParty
Here is a decent summary of the changes (in another post, he stated that climbing was NOT affected):
Edit: here is another interesting comment from the same poster:
Pfffft!...even as an old man pedaling a 27.5/26 SC Bullit, SC Nomad, and Spec Stumpjumper up hills for years, this so called problem is highly overrated. I've never heard so much hand wringing and whining over geometry, handling, and climbing over an issue involving anything close to even serious recreational riders. I think there are very few "world cuppers" here to be concerned over this issue.They make sense until you try to pedal one uphill
Bicyclists have become a really disappointing lot, where every idea, component, bike, and design that aren't within their narrow wheelhouse of preference are complete rubbish.
61 - 80 of 133 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Mountain Bike Reviews Forum
A forum community dedicated to Mountain Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, trails, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
