27.5 is dead
- Thread starter Scotty T
- Start date
moorey
call me Mia
Yeah, they’re fine on flat, straight ground.
slowmick
38-39"
All three Norco sights models in 29. Reign 29, Process 29, Santa Cruz 29 models, Hartails - Unit, Honzo, Torrent - 29.
They have a range to cover most price points so there are some 27.5 and smaller in the shop but the pointy end of the field (3.5k plus) was definitely 29er heavy.
FigBo0T
Puts verniers on his headtube
Looks like it would go downhill real good. Stopping is for the weak.
Scotty T
Walks the walk
First 29er experience today. Everything everyone has said is true. @T-Rex and I did a bike swap for a stock loop of Stromlo up and down the front.
The bike was L and a shade small but still bigger than my old Trek. I somehow thought T-Rex was about my size but he's about 5cm shorter, must have been the forum name giving me bias.
So shock pressure was low for me, and controls not pointing down with long throw on the brakes like I run, I have bigger hands so was cramped and T-Rex the opposite. Setup is super important and I think is more exaggerated if under sprung than over.
We both also noticed the different spec of the bikes so the Scott wasn't as stiff as the Bronson and heavier. Anyway just run what ya brung princess Scotty.
Up hills, harder work but some good rewards where you just steamroll along saving energy not bouncing on small bumps. I noticed it deflected on a tech feature and flopped a bit, it took more effort to pull back. Bronson's front end is stiffer, T-Rex said his front wheel was a bit lo spec and we speculated that would have exaggerated the flop.
Downhills it felt long and sure footed, especially on the flowy last half of Skyline. Because of the soft shock I bottomed it out hard but definitely noticed it rolling over stuff better and the weight of the rotating wheels keeping it grounded and making it feel easy to go fast.
I'm a way off a new bike anyway, and I think an angle headset will add a bit of stability, having all that wheel length out in front plus 1.8 degree slacker on the Genius made the older Bronson feel a tad twitchy. When new bike time comes I'll be looking pretty hard at 29, but also at a Bronson if it doesn't become a 29 as predicted by the op article.
The bike was L and a shade small but still bigger than my old Trek. I somehow thought T-Rex was about my size but he's about 5cm shorter, must have been the forum name giving me bias.
So shock pressure was low for me, and controls not pointing down with long throw on the brakes like I run, I have bigger hands so was cramped and T-Rex the opposite. Setup is super important and I think is more exaggerated if under sprung than over.
We both also noticed the different spec of the bikes so the Scott wasn't as stiff as the Bronson and heavier. Anyway just run what ya brung princess Scotty.
Up hills, harder work but some good rewards where you just steamroll along saving energy not bouncing on small bumps. I noticed it deflected on a tech feature and flopped a bit, it took more effort to pull back. Bronson's front end is stiffer, T-Rex said his front wheel was a bit lo spec and we speculated that would have exaggerated the flop.
Downhills it felt long and sure footed, especially on the flowy last half of Skyline. Because of the soft shock I bottomed it out hard but definitely noticed it rolling over stuff better and the weight of the rotating wheels keeping it grounded and making it feel easy to go fast.
I'm a way off a new bike anyway, and I think an angle headset will add a bit of stability, having all that wheel length out in front plus 1.8 degree slacker on the Genius made the older Bronson feel a tad twitchy. When new bike time comes I'll be looking pretty hard at 29, but also at a Bronson if it doesn't become a 29 as predicted by the op article.
As some one who only owns 26/157, I endorse this post.
Mr Crudley
Glock in your sock
Time for a 26"er no doubt
Scotty T
Walks the walk
I think i was trying to say i won't have to sell my current bike.
In the last couple of months I've ridden a 2012 26", 2015 27.5" and 2019 29er, all from the same category of mid travel trail/all mountain of their time. I rode all of them within 5-10 seconds of each other on flowing dh segments.
They were all heaps of fun. The main thing I got is I like mid travel, reasonably light weight bikes, and my current ride really serves me well. I don't like more XC oriented bikes and I don't like heavy sleds.
In the last couple of months I've ridden a 2012 26", 2015 27.5" and 2019 29er, all from the same category of mid travel trail/all mountain of their time. I rode all of them within 5-10 seconds of each other on flowing dh segments.
They were all heaps of fun. The main thing I got is I like mid travel, reasonably light weight bikes, and my current ride really serves me well. I don't like more XC oriented bikes and I don't like heavy sleds.
Mr Crudley
Glock in your sock
If you are just messing around and riding casually then anything will do fine. I do prefer a lightish bike and 120mm-140mm for generally trail faffery is about right.
29ers do roll nicer through chundery stuff and would be hard to dispute.
I'm fine with my old stuff and always come back home happier than when I left, so it is doing something right. The lure of new bikes is always there.
EsPeGe
Likes Bikes and Dirt
Thank you for the wise words, best post on this thread!!! What am I missing here? Why all the bitterness towards bike companies? You know, those guys/girls that have given you all years and in some cases decades of fun and joy? Am I naive, rose coloured glasses perhaps???? Possibly but I don't believe bike companies are out there literally going "right how do we fuck our customers and riders over next...."? I just don't see it and in this day and age when you can literally vote with your dollars why would they? I give them the beneift of the doubt in that I do think they try to put out the best possible product which leads to more sales anyway. I've said it before, there have definitely been fails, false starts and fuck ups in designs over the years but in my opinion this has given us the bikes we have today. I've got 2 27.5's and 2 29ers they are all really fucking good bikes. As Link said they have their strengths and weaknesses but, I LOVE them all and have had great times on all of them. Anyway just sayin.....
As for 27.5 being dead I'm curious about it. I read an article recently (which I am scouring the web trying to find so that I can link to it) from a Pinkbike guy reviewing a 29er DH bike. He mentioned in the article that in his opinion it will be a while if ever before riders shorter than 6'1'ish can safely ride 29er downhill bikes due the long travel and bigger wheels slamming you up the arse. He was 6'2" and even he copped a tyre up the arse. Now obviously there are already excpetions to this but he made a valid point and from real world eperience riding my 29er 160mm travel enduro bike I am frequently getting a freckle buzz and have had the odd occassion where the rear wheel has hit my date pretty damn hard on steeper burlier sections. If there is any truth to it, and again I feel there is a little, then it would seem silly to kill off 27.5's on DH bikes, especially for the smaller frames and riders.
Plankosaurus
Spongeplank Dalepantski
In this decade we've seen some of the most blatant cash grabbing "your bike is now obsolete because reasons". Guaranteed I've forgotten some...
Overdrive
Boost
Pressfit
29>26
275>29
29>275
Carbon (yeah, I'm arguing that's a cash grab too)
Bike companies aren't dumb. They've seen what a marketing monster like Apple could achieve, and with less actual advancements happening in bike design they've had to scrape around to find compelling reasons for us to part with our hard earned.
We've had some very real forward movement in shocks/forks/droppers, and I've managed to keep a couple of near decade old bikes very relevant with these upgrades. But as far as I'm concerned the bigger bike manufacturers have done roughly 1/2 of FA outside of marketing and making sure bikes are either broken or obsolete in a matter of a couple of seasons.
People that love carbonium and shiny new bikes full of buzzword tech each year will be fine with this though.
Sent from my G8441 using Tapatalk
Do you feel it's been the smaller companies leading the big guys over the last 5 years? Letting them take on all the risk, then coming in at the end.
Plankosaurus
Spongeplank Dalepantski
Couldn't comment, I don't have the slightest idea who's leading the charge. I have a picture in my head of all the lizard alien heads of these companies getting together around a table and brainstorming new standards that we all need
Is that a thing? How little is little?
Sent from my G8441 using Tapatalk
Calvin27
Eats Squid
I disagree. These companies make their money from sales to a limited market and the only way they can get more money is to make predominantly existing buyers spend more. If we take the hub standards for example, most average riders were pretty much saying just use the DH standard and the industry came up with all sorts of excuses as to why it couldn't happen. Then what do you know a few months later they come up with overboost, which is practically DH standard but not reverse compatible with it, or anything else - go figure.
For wheels they didn't even try to make it scientific, they just took the road size and used that as 29. Then they went mid way and did a brand new bespoke size. It's insanity to think that this is anything other than blatantly screwing the consumer for more money.
So.... Why did we start at 26inch when both 650b/b and 700b already existed? Just because breeze chose them doesn't mean we had to cling to them. We're still very much in early days. Every gadget out there comes with different wheel sizes. Scooters, cars, motors, skate boards etc.
The axle thing is a bunch of BS, 15mm wasn't needed, 12mm thru road isn't needed. 1.5 headtubes NEVER should of left-funny ebikes need to go back to this.
The axle thing is a bunch of BS, 15mm wasn't needed, 12mm thru road isn't needed. 1.5 headtubes NEVER should of left-funny ebikes need to go back to this.
Arguably where we should of started. All sorts of rumours that 26 were only used because they couldn't get 650b in time.650b was always a size.
Mr Crudley
Glock in your sock
Might be true, Geoff Apps was an early British MTB pioneer and went 650b/27.5. and 700C/29 too.
https://clelandcycles.wordpress.com/history/
I think the US had 26" for some time before the first Klunker's appeared.
T-Rex
Template denier
Good summary @Scotty T . For me on the same ride back on 27.5” wheels, but on a way higher end bike than I ever owned (your Bronson) here’s my observations:
Where I really noticed the difference was on the main climb up the front of Stromlo, I struggled on the rocky A lines where you can cut corners going up rock steps, the 29” goes up them so much easier. I think this is what I like most about 29, on my home turf of the Northern Beaches of Sydney, there’s a lot of rocky, techie climbs and the Scott gobbles them up.
@Scotty T you made the comment about how well the big wheels roll and how good it felt down Skyline, and I agree with that. However, I beat my PR on Strava on that ride on your bike down Skyline on that day. I think the combination of the frame stiffness of the Bronson, the stiff (for my weight) suspension and my favourite tyre, Minion DHFs, overcame any disadvantage of the 27.5 on that particular trail, and I went quicker than I ever have before, on a bike I’ve never previously ridden.
So, is 29” the be all and end all? Apparently not, and the stopwatch has illustrated ( at least in my mind) there are many ways to skin the wheel size cat.