FreakyFast

Hey all.

I simply want a comparison between 26ers and 29ers. I need a mountain bike for the toughness, but I grew up on bmx and really like to be able to be nimble and agile on a bike (I'm afraid that 29er would be too monster-trucky to really be nimble). However, I would like to take long, on and off road rides, and I think that the bigger tires would be more effecient than 26ers. I can only afford one bike.

pablosnazzy

have you read all the stuff and stickies posted about 29ers?

bigger tires are more efficient. smaller tires are more nimble. only you have the answer to what is best. test ride them both and decide.

if you really need advice, i say get a 26" bike and don't worry about it.

samburger

Seriously dude, click the search button, type "26 29er", print all the threads, & sell it as the world's longest comparison/contrast book about a single topic.

FreakyFast

wow... i don't know where I searched before, but I just typed "29er" into the search box and a whole lot poped up. I would delete this thread if I could.

Jim Holloman

Depends upon your age and if your riding will be mostly on widetrack and flowing singletrack or on singletrack with drops, switchbacks, and tight quarters.

Think of the 29er as a luxury car and the 26er as a sports car. The young person likes a very responsive car. The mature person likes a more comfortable car. The 29er will 'flow' and it will 'roll', but you cannot toss it around like a 26er. And, you are more likely to go over the bars on a 26er than a 29er; although it can be done easily enough on a 29er.

For rough terrain, the 26er can make good use of both front and rear suspension. The 29er is commonly a hardtail. For a new bike, the hardtail 29er is likely to be less costly than a FS 26er.

The gear ratio on a entry level 29er is often about 10 percent higher than on a 26er because the manufactures are using the 26er chainrings and cassettes (22-32-44 front and 11-34t rear) on the entry level 29ers in spite of the larger wheels .

Only you can answer your question. But, many riders have switched from a 26er to a 29er and far more of them seem to be happy with the switch than unhappy with the switch. In addition, the industry is moving to the 29er and the bike shops are promoting the 29ers. That means that the used market may see an influx of 26ers with corresponding price drops.

Take your pick; nimble and agile or smooth and graceful.

samburger

Eh typos happen to everyone...at least you tried first

But to save you some reading, the "26er vs 29er" topic can be summed up in nine words (when talking to a new rider, at least): Test ride, & get what feels best to you. Taller riders will generally go for the 29ers for obvious reasons, but if you're 5'4 & a 29er feels the best to you, there's no reason why you shouldn't get it. Same if you're 6'7 & ride a 26er, or even 24" DJ.

The point is, until you log some miles on the trail, you know very little about what kind of MTB you prefer. All you can really do is test ride everything you can in whatever conditions you can ride them in & make an educated assessment. That's why I always recommend people buy used for their first bike...that way you can sell it back for roughly the same price (maybe more!) & get what really suits your taste if your first choice isn't the best one.

LesterOfPuppets

Yeah, getting used to big wheels is gonna be a ***** coming from BMX.

Me personally, I'd probably go niner if I was doing lots of road riding and just a little trail. I spin out on my 26er with 1" rubber on it at like 33mph! On my road bike I can pedal up to 45 mph. So ya might wanna look at gearing too. Maybe look for a crankset with a 48T on there.

No matter which size I went with I'd get a second wheelset for quick change. Stick with same make/model hubs if possible. I'd get some skinny rims for the road set, 21mm outside, maybe go crazy and get some 19s.

mechBgon

My empirical finding was the other way around, although tires obviously vary. I set the course record for the Midnight Century (road & washboarded gravel) for the third time in a row this year on a 26" hardtail. Get good tires and you shouldn't have much to complain about in the rolling-resistance department. RaceKing 2.2 Supersonics are sweet XC-ish tires.

I also took another guy around that route in daylight on his carbon 29er race bike in its Leadville 100 setup (high-end tubeless tires). We tried coasting down the descents together, but I kept coasting away from him. Considering he outweighs me by probably 80-90 pounds, that's all I need to know about which wheel size has the lower rolling resistance.

Rolling resistance is just one factor in performance, so definitely try to get some riding time on each type and see what you like. But if you end up with 26", there's plenty of fast tires out there. In the road-only realm, try some folding Panaracer Paselas with lightweight tubes.

Regarding gearing, I make do with a 44 x 11 on the Midnight Century route and generally finish by heading into Spokane in my 44 x 12 at about 23mph for ~5 miles straight. If you find your bike's stock gearing isn't tall enough, you can always switch up to trekking chainrings, typically 26-36-48.

FreakyFast

Thanks for the advice. I ride a single speed road bike now with 16-48 gears. It's nice to hear you can go fast and maintain speed on a 26er. I think I just need to experiment at my LBS.

Singlespeed92

All I own now are 29ers (OK,the CX is still 700c ),So I'm a bit biased when I say yes to your question ....of course,if I weren't happy with that first taste of the koolaid a few years ago,and hadn't been served well by 29" wheels,I wouldn't only own em now,would I?

scyclops

mechBgon pretty much nailed it. Tire weight and tread design is a MUCH bigger factor than wheel size. A 26" with fast-rolling tires makes a fine distance bike, OTOH a 29er with aggressive treads would be a miserable pavement bike.

FreakyFast

Just the info I was looking for (yes, I am a newb). Thanks.

bobbycorno

??? You mean like an suv with street tires makes a good sports car?

SP
Bend, OR

LesterOfPuppets

Some sports cars don't make good "distance" cars.

In fact the more "race ready" a car is the less likely you'll want to drive from Bend to SF in it.

msu2001la

I rode a 26" hard tail for years, recently bought a 29" HT. I've had the bike for a few months and haven't touched my 26" bike since and will probably sell it.

I think people make too big of a deal about the differences, to be honest. I'm sure the 29er is a bit less "nimble" than my 26" bike, but it flies over obstacles and is a fast bike. I still feel like I can toss it around enough to suit my needs. I test rode a few 29" and 26" bikes and the 29ers felt great.

I don't race, or time myself on loops or care about my average speed. So, "seat of the pants" is mostly what I consider and my 29er feels faster and smoother than my old 26". It might just be in my head though, but I like it either way.

5'-9"/160lbs, by the way. I went with a 17.5" frame.

samburger

I totally agree, the vice versa option would make a much better sports car.

Svr

Sounds like "new bike stoke" to me. Was your older 26" bike equipped with new well maintained components, a modern suspension fork and tires?

junkyard

Way I see it, 29ers are a fad. Come to think of it, so is mountain biking. It's all just the latest excuse to hang in the woods and smoke dope. Just buy a road bike. You'll wind up with one in the end, anyway.

Svr

A really good comparison of the true performance metrics from an engineering standpoint: https://www.bump.org/forum?tid=1000005319

scyclops

SUVs typically have larger diameter tires than sports cars, so by your logic 29er=SUV and 26er=sports car.......oooookay...


What a waste of a perfectly good monster truck undercarriage.

Lawrence08648

29er is bigger and heavier, 26 is lighter and nimble, 29er will roll over objects easier and will get over bigger logs easier. Slower going up hills because of the weight but because of this has more traction. If you are planning to go over logs, you may want to get a 29.

msu2001la

29" bikes aren't really any heavier than 26" bikes. If you are the kind of rider that would notice a hundred extra grams in a wheelset, you already know if a 29" bike is something you want or not.

msu2001la

You might be right but, more to the point of this thread, I have no regrets about switching to a 29" bike. It will likely become my only off-road bike.

My 26" bike has LX/XT components and an 80mm fork. My 29er has Sram X7 components and a 100mm fork.
They're pretty similarly equipped and weigh about the same, though the 29er has better brakes and wheels.

Someone considering buying just one bike should just go ride a few (both 26" and 29") and see what feels better. I don't see anything inherent about a 29er that would make it a bad choice as someone's only bike. It does everything I need as good or better than my 26" bike.

mechBgon

The "29er tax" is about 2.5 to 3 pounds at the high end of the lineup we sell (e.g. comparing a SuperFly hardtail to an Elite 9.9 in the same size). That would be a significant difference even if it were just static weight, but when a lot of it's unsprung and rotating wheel weight... I'll pass. As one of my riding buddies said recently, "I forgot what it's like to ride with you... just constant accelerations." Well duh, what's my avatar? Yeah

samburger

^The words I don't know that explain a concept I only fully understand when laid out in front of me

I'm not picky about weight..as long as I'm under ~34lbs I'm good to go. My decision not to go with a 29er was based purely on personal preference & riding style. On the uphill I always go for the techy stuff, on the downhill I generally just sort of plow through obstacles rather than negotiating around them. 29er is too big a wheel for the uphill, & it felt too tall on everything but flatland. If 29ers feel better to you, go for it...but they aren't any better or worse than 26", just different.