Is 27.5" dead?
#78
Senior Member
I honestly believe 26ers are the next big thing. Most of the world rides 26ers. Most of the world are relatively shorter, smaller people. The western recreational cyclist is almost a boutique niche market for bicycles where temporary marketing fads dominate.
29ers are seriously problematic because they require 12 percent more effort to generate the same amount of torque, have higher center of gravity, enormously stretched out wheelbases that hinder maneuverability, weaker and heavier wheels and tires. It's difficult or impossible to design an effective geometry for 29 inch wheels suitable for short-to-normal-height riders. The front end is always going to be too high, the wheelbase is always going to be too long. 27.5 wheels were re-marketed to mitigate these problems while maintaining a viable but faddish business opportunity. 27.5 is the death knell for 29. Not anytime soon but eventually.
700c makes sense with skinny tires and lightweight wheels as on road bikes, but not so much as they become bulky and heavier in mtbs. I think that 26ers will eventually dominate the gravel bike market because there's no significant benefit to the skinny but heavy tubeless tires on 700c gravel bikes. 26er gravel bikes give you a wheel/tire combo that weighs about the same, has about the same size wheel/tire diameter, but gives you a lot more traction at a lot lower pressure.
There's some benefit to larger wheels on a fully rigid mountain bike but the cost/liability is significant enough to favor smaller wheels.
29ers are seriously problematic because they require 12 percent more effort to generate the same amount of torque, have higher center of gravity, enormously stretched out wheelbases that hinder maneuverability, weaker and heavier wheels and tires. It's difficult or impossible to design an effective geometry for 29 inch wheels suitable for short-to-normal-height riders. The front end is always going to be too high, the wheelbase is always going to be too long. 27.5 wheels were re-marketed to mitigate these problems while maintaining a viable but faddish business opportunity. 27.5 is the death knell for 29. Not anytime soon but eventually.
700c makes sense with skinny tires and lightweight wheels as on road bikes, but not so much as they become bulky and heavier in mtbs. I think that 26ers will eventually dominate the gravel bike market because there's no significant benefit to the skinny but heavy tubeless tires on 700c gravel bikes. 26er gravel bikes give you a wheel/tire combo that weighs about the same, has about the same size wheel/tire diameter, but gives you a lot more traction at a lot lower pressure.
There's some benefit to larger wheels on a fully rigid mountain bike but the cost/liability is significant enough to favor smaller wheels.
Last edited by Clem von Jones; 09-28-19 at 10:36 AM.
Likes For Clem von Jones:
#79
Banned.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Land of Enhancement
Posts: 426
Bikes: ...
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6591 Post(s)
Liked 383 Times
in
334 Posts
26ers can't be the next big thing. It's already been a thing! It could very well get resurrected, if the market were so inclined.
#81
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Central Wisconsin
Posts: 4,668
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3032 Post(s)
Liked 1,198 Times
in
781 Posts
I honestly believe 26ers are the next big thing. Most of the world rides 26ers. Most of the world are relatively shorter, smaller people. The western recreational cyclist is almost a boutique niche market for bicycles where temporary marketing fads dominate.
29ers are seriously problematic because they require 12 percent more effort to generate the same amount of torque, have higher center of gravity, enormously stretched out wheelbases that hinder maneuverability, weaker and heavier wheels and tires. It's difficult or impossible to design an effective geometry for 29 inch wheels suitable for short-to-normal-height riders. The front end is always going to be too high, the wheelbase is always going to be too long. 27.5 wheels were re-marketed to mitigate these problems while maintaining a viable but faddish business opportunity. 27.5 is the death knell for 29. Not anytime soon but eventually.
700c makes sense with skinny tires and lightweight wheels as on road bikes, but not so much as they become bulky and heavier in mtbs. I think that 26ers will eventually dominate the gravel bike market because there's no significant benefit to the skinny but heavy tubeless tires on 700c gravel bikes. 26er gravel bikes give you a wheel/tire combo that weighs about the same, has about the same size wheel/tire diameter, but gives you a lot more traction at a lot lower pressure.
There's some benefit to larger wheels on a fully rigid mountain bike but the cost/liability is significant enough to favor smaller wheels.
29ers are seriously problematic because they require 12 percent more effort to generate the same amount of torque, have higher center of gravity, enormously stretched out wheelbases that hinder maneuverability, weaker and heavier wheels and tires. It's difficult or impossible to design an effective geometry for 29 inch wheels suitable for short-to-normal-height riders. The front end is always going to be too high, the wheelbase is always going to be too long. 27.5 wheels were re-marketed to mitigate these problems while maintaining a viable but faddish business opportunity. 27.5 is the death knell for 29. Not anytime soon but eventually.
700c makes sense with skinny tires and lightweight wheels as on road bikes, but not so much as they become bulky and heavier in mtbs. I think that 26ers will eventually dominate the gravel bike market because there's no significant benefit to the skinny but heavy tubeless tires on 700c gravel bikes. 26er gravel bikes give you a wheel/tire combo that weighs about the same, has about the same size wheel/tire diameter, but gives you a lot more traction at a lot lower pressure.
There's some benefit to larger wheels on a fully rigid mountain bike but the cost/liability is significant enough to favor smaller wheels.
This thread is about Mountain Bikes. Not gravel bikes.
#82
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,215
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2764 Post(s)
Liked 2,537 Times
in
1,433 Posts
#83
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 240
Bikes: 2020 Trek Roscoe 8, 2016 Trek 520 Disc, 2013 Trek 7.2 FX, 2010 Trek 4300 Disc
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
3 Posts
Recently picked up the 2020 Trek Roscoe 8. 27.5 plus (2.8" tires). Love this thing. This was a grind of a climb but the ride down was awesome.
Last edited by DocsDad; 10-02-19 at 08:41 PM.
#84
Let's Ride!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Triad, NC USA
Posts: 2,569
Bikes: --2010 Jamis 650b1-- 2016 Cervelo R2-- 2018 Salsa Journeyman 650B
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 327 Post(s)
Liked 37 Times
in
24 Posts
@DocsDad what bag is that ? looks like a large saddlebag or small bike packing bag.
PS I hope not I have a Jamis 650B1 and a Salsa Journeyman 650b ... I love the size!
PS I hope not I have a Jamis 650B1 and a Salsa Journeyman 650b ... I love the size!
#85
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mississauga/Toronto, Ontario canada
Posts: 8,721
Bikes: I have 3 singlespeed/fixed gear bikes
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4227 Post(s)
Liked 2,489 Times
in
1,286 Posts
I wish that 26 inch bikes with 135mm spacing would come back from the dead. There is nothing wrong with 26 inch wheels and 135mm rear spacing.
#87
Senior Member
Mine’s alive.
Likes For pickettt:
#88
Senior Member
I hope not. I just bought a dead bike...
Likes For coopman:
#89
Banned.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Land of Enhancement
Posts: 426
Bikes: ...
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6591 Post(s)
Liked 383 Times
in
334 Posts
Actually, 150mm spacing would solve a lot of problems for many bicycles, which is popular with DH bikes and old skool FR bikes. I don't think Boost offers any real advantage up front, unless you are into a fat, or mid-fat bikes. I've also been a big fan of high volume 26" wheels, but I'm 5'8" so it's just a better all round compromise for me. If I had a choice, that's what it would be, along with more modern geometry and slightly longer wheelbase than what was standard for 26. I'm a "playful" rider most of the time, and 26 offers quite a bit more control in most situations... I have to work pretty hard to throw my current bike around. As someone said, it's slightly too long and tall...
#90
Disco Infiltrator
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Folsom CA
Posts: 13,460
Bikes: Stormchaser, Paramount, Tilt, Samba tandem
Mentioned: 72 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3131 Post(s)
Liked 2,112 Times
in
1,375 Posts
Boost is all about chain clearance for plus tires. All the stiffness and triangulation stuff may be true but it's not why they did it. Before it was a "standard," Surly was making custom cranks with a wider chain line to get around their Krampus tires.
__________________
Genesis 49:16-17
Genesis 49:16-17
#91
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mississauga/Toronto, Ontario canada
Posts: 8,721
Bikes: I have 3 singlespeed/fixed gear bikes
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4227 Post(s)
Liked 2,489 Times
in
1,286 Posts
Is it possible to use a wheel set with 135mm rear spacing in a frame with 142mm or 148mm spacing ??...Are there any adapters that make this possible ??
#93
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,215
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2764 Post(s)
Liked 2,537 Times
in
1,433 Posts
#95
Disco Infiltrator
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Folsom CA
Posts: 13,460
Bikes: Stormchaser, Paramount, Tilt, Samba tandem
Mentioned: 72 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3131 Post(s)
Liked 2,112 Times
in
1,375 Posts
__________________
Genesis 49:16-17
Genesis 49:16-17
#96
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,215
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2764 Post(s)
Liked 2,537 Times
in
1,433 Posts
If so, those are not for that purpose. As I am reading it, those are for converting 142x12 to 148x12 (Boost).
#97
Disco Infiltrator
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Folsom CA
Posts: 13,460
Bikes: Stormchaser, Paramount, Tilt, Samba tandem
Mentioned: 72 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3131 Post(s)
Liked 2,112 Times
in
1,375 Posts
#98
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,215
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2764 Post(s)
Liked 2,537 Times
in
1,433 Posts
What? Those adapters don’t work on 135 QR hubs.
Maybe we are answering different questions here. Someone asked if it was possible to convert 135mm hub to Boost (148x12).
The answer is yes.... IF the hub itself is convertible (and many mid-high end hubs are).
However, if not (such as with many shimano hubs), there are no aftermarket end cap adapters (that I know of) that will let you stick a 135 QR hub in a boost frame spacing. The ones you linked to do not do that.
Maybe we are answering different questions here. Someone asked if it was possible to convert 135mm hub to Boost (148x12).
The answer is yes.... IF the hub itself is convertible (and many mid-high end hubs are).
However, if not (such as with many shimano hubs), there are no aftermarket end cap adapters (that I know of) that will let you stick a 135 QR hub in a boost frame spacing. The ones you linked to do not do that.
#99
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I have a 27.5" mtb which is starting to show its age, and I have started looking for a replacement. (without a hurry)
It might be just me, but it looks like 27.5" is going to have same fate as 26"? All the new mountainbikes seem 29"...
I'm a bit hesitant of switching to a 29'er, because of the slight loss of manoeuvrability (perhaps nothing to be worried about?)
It might be just me, but it looks like 27.5" is going to have same fate as 26"? All the new mountainbikes seem 29"...
I'm a bit hesitant of switching to a 29'er, because of the slight loss of manoeuvrability (perhaps nothing to be worried about?)
#100
Banned.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Land of Enhancement
Posts: 426
Bikes: ...
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6591 Post(s)
Liked 383 Times
in
334 Posts
What? Those adapters don’t work on 135 QR hubs.
Maybe we are answering different questions here. Someone asked if it was possible to convert 135mm hub to Boost (148x12).
The answer is yes.... IF the hub itself is convertible (and many mid-high end hubs are).
However, if not (such as with many shimano hubs), there are no aftermarket end cap adapters (that I know of) that will let you stick a 135 QR hub in a boost frame spacing. The ones you linked to do not do that.
Maybe we are answering different questions here. Someone asked if it was possible to convert 135mm hub to Boost (148x12).
The answer is yes.... IF the hub itself is convertible (and many mid-high end hubs are).
However, if not (such as with many shimano hubs), there are no aftermarket end cap adapters (that I know of) that will let you stick a 135 QR hub in a boost frame spacing. The ones you linked to do not do that.