Results 1 to 25 of 125
-
04-28-2017, 08:17 AM #1
I called it - 27.5" is going to DIE.
Check out the comments here:
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/greg-m...ike-check.html
If 29ers take off for downhill and enduro, that means there really isn't a spot for 27.5 anymore.
26" will always be the best for dirt jumping, bike park riding, freeride, all mountain and fun trail riding. Now that 27.5+ and 29+ plus bikes are really struggling in the market, with most REAL feedback being poor, 26" plus bikes will the next logical push by the industry - a return to 26". But in reality 26+ will just be a 30mm internal sub 500g rim, with a 800g 2.6" tire on it - that's pretty much what "all mountain" bikes have been running for the last 15 years, because it ACTUALLY WORKS.
29er = Competition
26" = FUN
27.5 = DEAD.
-
04-28-2017, 09:19 AM #2
27.5 has already replaced 26. Face reality. Move on.
-
04-28-2017, 09:21 AM #3
Seriously, Don Quixote. That ship has sailed.
-
04-28-2017, 09:32 AM #4
-
04-28-2017, 09:41 AM #5
Who cares. I have never thought about my wheel size while actually riding.
All the tires/rims/tubes are available.I rip the groomed on tele gear
-
04-28-2017, 09:50 AM #6
-
04-28-2017, 09:51 AM #7
-
04-28-2017, 09:52 AM #8
-
04-28-2017, 09:52 AM #9yelgatgab
- Join Date
- Oct 2002
- Location
- Shadynasty's Jazz Club
- Posts
- 10,249
-
04-28-2017, 09:52 AM #10
-
04-28-2017, 02:35 PM #11
-
04-28-2017, 02:43 PM #12Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2011
- Posts
- 472
-
04-28-2017, 02:49 PM #13
Damian, perhaps you would be so good as to elucidate -- at length -- on each and every one of the other wheel sizes:
Fractional ISO Applications
36 inch 787 mm Unicycles, some novelty bicycles
32 inch 686 mm Unicycles, some novelty bicycles
29 inch 622 mm This is a marketing term for wide 622 mm ("700C") tires.
28 x 1 1/2 635 mm English, Dutch, Chinese, Indian Rod-brake roadsters
(Also marked F10, F25, 700 B)
622 mm (F.13) Rare Canadian designation
28 x 1 5/8 x
1 1/4 Northern European designation for the 622 mm (700 C) size
27 x anything except "27 five" and 609 mm Dutch 630 mm Older road bikes.
26 x 1 (650 C)
571 mm Triathlon, time trial, small road bikes. Old Schwinn S-4
26 x 1 1/4 597 mm Older British sport & club bikes
26 x 1 3/8
(S-6) Schwinn "lightweights"
26 x 1 3/8 (E.A.3) 590 mm Most English 3-speeds, department-store or juvenile 10 speeds
26 x 1 1/2 (650B) 584 mm French utility, tandem and loaded-touring bikes,
a very few Raleigh (U.S.) & Schwinn mountain bikes.
26 x 1 3/4
(S-7) 571 mm Schwinn cruisers
26 x 1, 1 1/8 High performance wheels for smaller riders, common on Cannondale bicycles
24 x 1 520 mm High performance wheels for smaller riders; Terry front
24 x 1 1/8 520 mm or
540 mm! Caveat emptor
24 x 1 1/4 547 mm British or Schwinn Juvenile
24 x 1 3/8
(S-5) Schwinn Juvenile lightweights
24 x 1 3/8
(E-5) 540 mm British Juvenile, most wheelchairs; common on women's utility bicycles in Japan.
20 x 1 1/8
20 x 1 1/4
20 x 1 3/8 451 mm Juvenile lightweights, BMX for light riders, some recumbents, some folding bicycles
20 x 1 3/4 419 mm Schwinn juvenile
18 x 1 3/8 400 mm British juvenile
17 x 1 1/4 369 mm Alex Moulton AM series
16 x 1 3/8 349 mm Older Moulton; Brompton & other folders, recumbent front, juvenile
16 x 1 3/8 337 mm Mystery tire
16 x 1 3/8 335 mm Polish juvenile
16 x 1 3/4 317 mm Schwinn Juvenile
12 1/2 x anything 203 mm Juvenile, scooters
10 x 2 152 mm Wheelchair caster
8 x 1 1/4 137 mm Wheelchair caster
-
04-28-2017, 02:54 PM #14
Its funny, After a year on my 6" travel 29er trail bike, I can't think of a single application where I would rather be on 26 or 27.5. The 29 climbs better, descends better, is faster on every trail and rolls over more shit then then any of my other bikes. I don't even ride my DH rig on the shuttle trails here anymore either, the 29er is just way more fun even on the super steep gnarly stuff.
-
04-28-2017, 04:55 PM #15Registered User
- Join Date
- Apr 2004
- Location
- Southeast New York
- Posts
- 11,825
I'll tell you when 29 sucks - when you need to ride a small frame and don't fit on the thing right. At the moment I have two small 27.5 bikes and they both fit and feel just the way I want them to. I truly hope that 29 doesn't become the primary option in the future...
-
04-28-2017, 07:33 PM #16
-
04-28-2017, 10:53 PM #17
-
04-29-2017, 12:26 AM #18
-
05-01-2017, 11:39 PM #19
29 will take over for many trail riders.
27.5 will stick around in several tire styles because they ride well and Damian needs it.
26x2.6 will be on a handful of unique bikes.
It's like dumb ass Damian can't think that perhaps people like options. I'd be willing to bet the market can support multiple wheels and tire sizes.
-
05-02-2017, 07:55 AM #20
The main problem I have is that the mainstream of the bike industry literally denounced 26" as inferior in a coordinated media campaign and refuses to support it. There are few 26" forks being offered and fewer frames. Wheels and tires are OK at the moment. Funny thing is, what 26" that is available is selling no problem, while overall sales of mountain bikes are in freefall.
-
05-02-2017, 09:20 AM #21
-
05-02-2017, 10:18 AM #22Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2011
- Posts
- 472
-
05-02-2017, 10:58 AM #23
Hey Damian-
I need new wheels and tires for my car, but there are so many options. What are your thoughts on the following wheel sizes?
13"
14"
15"
16"
17"
18"
19"
20"
22"
Personally, I'm leaning towards 16.5" split rims, because those were the best, back in their day. What do you think? I figure "why mess with a proven thing?"
-
05-02-2017, 11:06 AM #24Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
- Location
- NorCal
- Posts
- 106
I bet Damian is still going to recommend 26"
-
05-02-2017, 11:20 AM #25
Bookmarks