27.5 is dead

[Mr Crudley]

The mountain bike industry is looking like it's starting to be led by the roadie types that just upgrade for the sake of upgrading.

Atleast road bikes don't seem to have the multiple standards that MTB's have seen in the past 5-10 years.

The UCI rules with an iron fist

 

[wkkie]

If you’re like me, and happy with older frames, you don’t need to know...other than to avoid it.

There was still nothing wrong with 135x12...

 

[Nambra]

Quote from article:

Chainstays were too long, seatstays were too slack, head angles were too steep, reach was too short, stems were too long, fork offset numbers were too high.

Didn’t know seat stay angle was important on a bike...

 

[link1896]

Hurry up everyone, sell your 27.5” bikes. Those 27.5” carbon bikes are particularly worthless, I’ll give you $250 for it.

 

[hifiandmtb]

Quote from article:

Chainstays were too long, seatstays were too slack, head angles were too steep, reach was too short, stems were too long, fork offset numbers were too high.

Didn’t know seat stay angle was important on a bike...

I think they mean underperforming, like on a Yeti.

 

[link1896]

I think they mean underperforming, like on a Yeti.

If they are cracked, isn’t that over performing?

 

[gillyske]

if 27.5 is dead then what of mullet bikes?

 

[moorey]

There was still nothing wrong with 135x12...

Hell no. Running numerous. Flange is same as 142 anyway, just no channels in frame.

 

[moorey]

If all this was anything other than a marketing wank and cash grab, they’d have stuck with 110x20f and 150x12r across the board, all those years ago.
I hear many ‘reasons’ why they couldn’t,,,I’m yet to hear any that make sense in the real world.

 

[teK--]

Quote from article:

Chainstays were too long, seatstays were too slack, head angles were too steep, reach was too short, stems were too long, fork offset numbers were too high.

Didn’t know seat stay angle was important on a bike...

Seatstay angles matter... When there are none

 

[Calvin27]

they’d have stuck with 110x20f and 150x12r across the board, all those years ago.
I hear many ‘reasons’ why they couldn’t,,,I’m yet to hear any that make sense in the real world

+1. I remember they went really hard telling us the qfactor would be too wide for anything more tan boost spacing and then a year later they start giving ultra super boost a try which is whisker off the old DH standard.

I half clicked this thread to see if we had finally arrived at the goldilocks 28.25 standard though....

 

[safreek]

Hurry up everyone, sell your 27.5” bikes. Those 27.5” carbon bikes are particularly worthless, I’ll give you $250 for it.

Well, you will need to move on those shitty 26 inch bikes and forks. I will come and pick them up if you pay for my fuel

 

[mtb101]

magazines with dopey opinions even more dead

 

[Mattyp]

if 27.5 is dead then what of mullet bikes?

Mullet bikes, just like the haircut, should have never existed. But because they did exist there will always be a select few who still run them with pride and try to convince everyone else about how good the are.

 

[Scotty T]

For mountain biking in general (like just riding up and down a variety of terrain, no cunning stunts) it now feels like 26" was wrong the whole time.

My 27.5 bike does roll over bumps better than my 26ers', and a 29er will roll better than my 27.5, that's just the laws of physics. But forget how it rolls on the trail, 27.5er and 650b'er don't roll off the tongue nicely, and I think that is the main reason for the imminent death

 

[Spike-X]

The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence.

How many anecdotes before it's evidence?

I took my 29er duallie to Lysterfield one time, when the Sight (27.5) was in the shop. Got 11 PRs that day that still haven't been beaten. That's a pretty convincing argument re: speed, for me.

Sight's still more fun, though!

 

[moorey]

How many anecdotes before it's evidence?

I took my 29er duallie to Lysterfield one time, when the Sight (27.5) was in the shop. Got 11 PRs that day that still haven't been beaten. That's a pretty convincing argument re: speed, for me.

Sight's still more fun, though!

Infinite.
It’s not exactly comparing same for same.
Run a 27.5 and a 29 Sight side by side, on various tracks, numerous times, with different riders, while blindfolded.....then we are closer to a comparison.

 

[Spike-X]

Infinite.
It’s not exactly comparing same for same.
Run a 27.5 and a 29 Sight side by side, on various tracks, numerous times, with different riders, while blindfolded.....then we are closer to a comparison.

Yeah, good point. It's not allowing for difference in frame geometry and suspension travel, individual performance on the day, etc.

 

[Coopz]

I'm 6'4 and 29ers are a godsend, feel like I'm riding a bmx with 26 wheelers..

 

[Plankosaurus]

How many anecdotes before it's evidence?

I took my 29er duallie to Lysterfield one time, when the Sight (27.5) was in the shop. Got 11 PRs that day that still haven't been beaten. That's a pretty convincing argument re: speed, for me.

Sight's still more fun, though!

I had a different result. Went from a 29 100mm bike to a 275 130mm bike and instantly beat almost all of my PRs that weren't flat firetrail.

I'm sure wheelsize has a bearing on things, but it's much less than the industry would have you believe. Advances in suspension, and to a lesser degree geometry, have had more impact IMHO. We can pedal more efficiently, chattery trail slows us down less, and climbing technical trails is able to be done easier and with more traction.

Wheelsize is a thing, but I'd put money on not being able to tell whether I had a 275, 26, or 29 if I was riding the same bike and wasn't able to look at the wheel.



Sent from my G8441 using Tapatalk