[Nine_toes]

Dunno. You brought up geo!

Fair enough. I was thinking about 26ers I used to ride compared to 29ers when I transitioned.

I've never ridden a 2014 Spec Enduro, so I don't know. Perhaps it's comparable? Except 160mm of travel would be a major difference (maybe not for slow tech).

I think a big thing I can recall is that the 26ers I used to ride were on significantly poorer tires (narrower and sh!t compounds/treads) than what I started using on 29ers. There was a big gap in tire tech there that I completely never embraced for the 26.

That is to say, currently, I'm riding DH tread patterns and soft compounds, and I never rode any 26 DH tires when I had 26in bikes. I didn't even know that kind of stuff existed, actually. DH wasn't as ubiquitous as it is now.

 

[theMISSIONARY]

Nope, even my 27.5 bikes do it better than 26", and the 29'er eats slow speed tech. as for the trails I am one of the maintainers of the local trails and the old tech trails are the same as the were twenty years ago.

 

[PhillipJ]

The most recent 26" bike I owned was 50mm shorter in reach and 80mm shorter in wheelbase than my current ride. I think that is likely more significant than the wheel size change for getting around awkward corners.

 

[Mudguard]

Fair enough. I was thinking about 26ers I used to ride compared to 29ers when I transitioned.

Yep definitely nothing personal. It's more the narrative of everything new is better. And I get it. People come off maybe an entry level hardtail with a barely functional fork onto a 150mm modern trail bike and it's, oh modern geo is a game changer.

That said, I think modern bikes are generally better, the extra weight in general is probably due to the fact we are all riding bigger frames than yesteryear and breakages seem rarer.

That said. I'd love to see a 26 stretched to modern reach and seat tube angles and see how they'd go straight up against the 29s.

 

[Nine_toes]

Yep definitely nothing personal. It's more the narrative of everything new is better. And I get it. People come off maybe an entry level hardtail with a barely functional fork onto a 150mm modern trail bike and it's, oh modern geo is a game changer.

That said, I think modern bikes are generally better, the extra weight in general is probably due to the fact we are all riding bigger frames than yesteryear and breakages seem rarer.

That said. I'd love to see a 26 stretched to modern reach and seat tube angles and see how they'd go straight up against the 29s.

I definitely don't think that, but I also know my 26 experience was highly biased toward XC (aka road) bikes. I had a couple 29ers that were very close in that regard, but still, the geo is never exactly the same between the two, so that's where I was coming from.

I didn't actually like the 29er very much at first. I could really jump the sh!t of a 26 bike, even with the old road bike geo, and I felt not that way at all on a 29er. They also felt awkward in corners.

I can't actually say if it's my riding progression or the bike progression, but I gradually got longer and slacker bikes, but always toward the XC end of the spectrum (vs Enduro) but firmly trail bikes. Every bike felt like it handled better than the last and I could go faster and feel like I was doing more and taking less risk.

Yes, my current bike is kind of an old Enduro, but it's kind of on the "downcountry" end of things these days. The trails that I'm riding that are black tech aren't all that hard in terms of what's out there in the entire world of MTB. And any double blacks I've ridden might be blues or blacks in another area. I know there's some I'd be way underbiked and underskilled for. Bike park jump trails have become closer because it's all man-made and not natural feature dependent, even though I'm sure there's still a good variation. But I know that's a hard line where I'm both underskilled and underbiked. Not sure a 160mm 2014 Enduro bike would be though, with the right rider.

But if we're talking about flat tech or climbing, I'm still firmly in the 29er is better camp.

 

[Jayem]

I think it's way more nuanced. It's hard to deny the roll-over benefits of 29er for uphill traction, downhill wheel-catchers, etc., but a 29er with heavy wheels and big tires is a massive amount of rotating weight to pedal and sluggish. I have problems popping off of small features on the 29er enduro bike...but, take my 29er XC bike out with it's cray light wheels and the "same size" tires that weigh 33% less and I'm popping off stuff like crazy and making all sorts of crazy stuff. I can climb the tech Highline climb in Sedona w/o stopping on said bike, vs. there are just too many places I stall out with the 27.5 bike on the same, even though it has more travel and I'm pretty good at said tech climbing. For going downhill...I can make it on that bike, but the 2nd feature, the exposed gnar-chunk switchback, is sketch on it, but just because of the travel and flex.

On steeper terrain, I like being on 27.5, because I can get behind the wheel better. 29 resists the wheel-catchers better, but once the terrain gets that steep I have more control with 27.5, and I like riding that kind of terrain.

IME, a light bike (wheels, tires) makes a bigger difference for climbing the tech. 29er gets you the contact patch, but when the wheels and tires are significantly heavier your engine needs to be that much better.

 

[MSU Alum]

Better than 24", unless you're a kid.

 

[Mudguard]

Better than 24", unless you're a kid.

I had 24" on the back once 😂

 

[cookieMonster]

My last 26” bike was a 2012 Spec SX Trail. I actually mulleted it with a 27.5 up front. It had a 65 degree HA and 180mm of travel at both ends. I was damn fast on that bike. I rode it all the way to 2021, and there are still DH PRs that I have not beat on my 2022 Patrol. Mainly on trails that have lots of corners. On more wide open trails I am faster on the new bikes, but not night and day.

The main advantage to the new bikes is the steep seat angles. My SX had a slack STA and really sucked on steep climbs. It always wanted to wheelie. Longer reach came along with that out of necessity.

I do not care for the super long chainstays/wheelbase that modern bikes have. It is acceptable on the bikes I own but I would never purchase a design that was longer. I don’t need a long wheelbase to have stability and traction at high speeds. I prefer to be able to manual easily and corner faster.

 

[LetsGoOutside]

I thought about this enough during the long and boring COVID days that I went out and bought a nice turn of the century hardtail just like the one I used to race in the early 00s (Easton tubed Rocky Mt with an SLX/XT mix).

On handcut steep switchback old school trails going uphill was about equivalent from a time and effort perspective, the balance points on the bikes just require some adjustment. On the flats it was absolutely slower and downhill was just silly, would have been better off on a modern gravel bike.

 

[Mudguard]

The main advantage to the new bikes is the steep seat angles. My SX had a slack STA and really sucked on steep climbs. It always wanted to wheelie. Longer reach came along with that out of necessity.

I keep thinking about this. If you took a 26"and just pulled the axles from either end, there's the reach and steeper seat tube angles. Could have been so simple 😂

I still have a couple of SXs. An 04 and 09. The 100mm ones rather than the trail. They are really fun to ride and can take a lot for a bike with not much travel.

 

[Bikedog22]

For me, 26 is more nimble and flickable. There is more body English involved but thats how i like to ride. Two frames are custom with modern geo even though theyre 15 years old. The other gets an Angleset tomorrow which will bring it down to 67. Fine for me. I havent rode the 29 in two years. I should probably wash the dust off and sell it.

 

[Jwiffle]

I did much better on tech trails as soon as I got on a 29er 18 years ago. I remember riding thrift a rock garden on my rigid 29er that my friends didn't clear on their 5" travel FS 26ers. One i made the right choice, as I'd have struggled on my previous FS 26er, too.

 

[uzurpator]

I did much better on tech trails as soon as I got on a 29er 18 years ago.

I got much better at tech once I stopped caring about what I ride. After going through all the bike biz memes of the last 15 years I roll on 2007 Banshee Rune with glorious pivot slop, tubes, 2x9 drivetrain with no clutch and no dropper.

 

[justwan naride]

26" was definitely NOT better at tech. When I first moved from a 26" ht to a 27.5" one I did plenty of back to back testing. It was immediately apparent that on anti-flow junk the bigger wheel had an advantage. More so when the trail was flat and gravity didn't help me keep momentum. This is even more prominent whan you compare 26" to 29" wheels. Yes, the bigger size may need more effort to start rolling in stop/start situations, but in practice it's better at keeping momentum so there's not much stop/starting happenning.

Where 26" was more fun was manicured flow trails with pumpable sections. But it still was slower, just felt more exciting, there was a more direct connection to the trail.

Edit: Not talking about trial-type maneuvers, just "regular" trail riding.

 

[markom]

There is one section of trail which I have never cleared on anything but small rigid 26”, there simply isn’t room for modern bikes.
It is maybe 70m section on non significant back yard trail with nearly zero users, basically trials moves between rocks and boulders.

With modern trail bikes there is option to run completely different and much bolder line with less skills.

 

[citizenlee]

I wont pretend to understand (or indeed care about) all the numbers associated with bike sizing and geo, but I went from a 2012 NukeProof Mega 26" full suss to a 2024 Trek Roscoe 9 29" ht/ and the Roscoe is better is every way. It did take a while to get use to, but now I wouldn't go back. Within reason, give me any bike and I'll ride it.

 

[Wabatuckian]

Kintionki is basically unchanged since the 1990s; it's narrow with trees on the sides, and has a lot of sharp turns:

Because of this trail, I run narrower bars than I would otherwise, and my 29er doesn't maneuver the corners near as well as my daughter's 24" or my BiL's 26".

There are a bunch of roots, and my 29" tires roll over those easier than their smaller tires.

I need to rebuild my '80s Schwinn and take it out on that trail. It has 26" wheels, sidepull brakes, no suspension, and a 2x5 drivetrain. The only things I don't have for it are the original steel rims.

 

[127.0.0.1]

26 inch is/was better at tech yes (to a point)

you don't see trials bikes with wagon wheels, they are
20 inch or 24 inch. 26 inch is better at pickin than 29 imho

 

[Sssnake]

Some say so but I wouldnt know. Back then I was only jumpin' on my Schwinn 26er. These days Im rollin' on 29' and these new 32's have my interest.