Keep your modern 26er until it wears to the point that you would be considering a new bike purchase and then switch to 27.5 inch wheels. Until that moment, I'd suggest fitting your bike with larger-volume tires in the 2.35" range, which near the performance of 27.5-inch wheels. There are benefits to 27.5, like better roll-over, less tendency to drop into bomb holes, and more consistent cornering, but the truth of the matter is that 26-inch wheels are slipping into extinction, and that there are more and better options for tires, wheels and suspension components for 27.5 and 29-inch bikes. I have a stunning long-travel 26-inch Liteville 301 trail bike that I ride occasionally to remind me of my roots. It still rocks, but I'll have to admit that larger wheels perform better, and there are no downsides now that designers have dialed in the correct geometry. - RC |
I admire the effort you've been taking to save your pads from potential contamination, but the truth is, there's no need to go through all that trouble. Simple Green and other similar products are degreasers - they shouldn't contaminate your rotors or pads. It's oil and grease that you want to watch out for - things like chain lube, or the residue from the bacon you ate for breakfast that can be absorbed by a pad's porous surface. I once had a customer come into the shop that couldn't figure out how his brand new brake pads got contaminated. We were all stumped, until he returned and sheepishly admitted that he'd figured it out - he'd leaned his bike against his barbecue grill, and the grease trap leaked its contents right onto the rotor. Regarding the use of Simple Green, I'm all for it. It's readily available, inexpensive, and effective - I usually buy a gallon jug of it and dilute it in a spray bottle for general purpose bike cleaning. There are stories floating around about people running into issues after they soaked their chains in it for extended periods of time, but those are outliers, and a quick spritz and a wipe down isn't going to cause any problems. In any case, don't worry about removing the wheels and brake pads the next time you wash your bike, and enjoy the few extra minutes that you no longer need to spend on that part of the cleaning process. - Mike Kazimer |
In the EWS series rule book, there are no compulsory items that a rider must carry (except a number board and GPS tracker for the top 180 riders), but there are heavy recommendations and rules against stashing, littering, or handing goods between team crew or friends. Riders must ride self-supported for the duration of the event, and there is often a pit-stop/lunch break at the pits, or food and water stations along the ride. Probably the most overlooked item to carry, against suggestion, is a first-aid kit and emergency blanket. The choice of whether or not to take a pack comes usually comes down to the individual EWS event and format. I raced some events in 2015 and, for example, in the backcountry wilds of Colorado packs were in favor, whereas the lift assisted event in Samoens passed through the pits after nearly every stage and packs weren't donned. The general consensus towards riding with no pack is to eat and drink as much as possible when you have chance, stuff your pockets and bike with useful bit and bobs, and hope for the best. After all, these guys are racing against tenths of seconds; all or nothing is widely adopted strategy. Plus, most of the top riders are so well trained and efficient they could probably complete a whole day racing with no food or water. I raced the Trans-Rezia pack-less earlier this year, and thanks to a bike with two bottle cage mounts and clothing with pockets, I took water, tubes, first aid kit, passport, money, tools, phone, packable jacket, chainlink, pump, co2 and 7-900 calories of dates and had no issues. Even on long 6-8 hour days there were enough places to grab food and water. - Paul Aston |
About Us
Contacts FAQ Terms of Use Privacy Policy Sign Up! SitemapAdvertise
AdvertisingCool Features
Submit a Story Product Photos Videos Privacy RequestRSS
Pinkbike RSS Pinkbike Twitter Pinkbike Facebook Pinkbike Youtube Pinkbike Instagram
I have a hard time imagining it was in the last two seasons of EWS racing, but I love the geek stats on this stuff, like when guys do a 26 vs 27.5 tally at Rampage.
Second year of the EWS Graves rode the same discontinued sb66 to podium finishes before yeti put him on 650b for the second half of the season. He went on to take the overall. Pretty safe to say he would have taken the overall on the sb66 too. Those first two years of EWS were great examples of how there doesn't seem to be an advantage one way or the other for enduro racing.
KEEP YOUR 26" folks !!!!!
(transition triple)
vote with your wallet if you want to keep 26 alive
www.pinkbike.com/photo/14020559
since upgraded to 1by. -2 degree angleset, seat slid all the way forward for a effective 74deg seat angle.
My 2010 Session has good geometry, and is riding better than it ever has, but there's no getting around the fact that my frame is coming up on being seven years old, and has always been a bit small for me. For the amount of riding I've done on the bike (especially back when I was 40 pounds heavier than I am now), I'm split on whether I should just buy a complete 27.5 bike (probably a TuEs) and swap the best bits (Sensus grips, X01DH, Straitline pedals) onto it, OR buy a great used 26" frame from two or three years back for pennies on the dollar, OR just save my money and ride the Session until I snap the thing in half. Decisions, decisions.
I prefer them because build for build they are stronger and lighter and easier to throw around. And for those who want to say 26" was not scientifically designated or came into being by accident, are you trying to say 27.5 is the scientifically calculated wheel size to make all your dreams and riding experiences come true? Rims and tires will be around for good while with 26". I wouldn't worry about it.
I also asked Alutech about their ICB2.0 bike. They simply said you can't run these smaller wheels, won't work well. I guess you can always try if you have something kicking around. But the whole bike has already been designed to be be low with those big wheels so it is definitely going to be more of a challenge.
Chillin with da pina-coolayda aye?
When it was just 29 vs 26 it was like:
Marketing says 29 climbs better - Physics says no
Marketing says 29 corners better - Physics says no
@StackingItSince1991 - I think you use word "physics" to describe a non existing diety. The science of physics has no mouth nor cannot hold the pen. It doesn't say anything. 26" wheels are not better than 29" wheels, they just are 26" wheels and 29" wheels. Now certain wheelsizes IN CONJUCTION with many other variables are more or less SUITABLE for certain purposes. A person who omits the compound effect of many changes that took place since last serious 26" bikes were made (revised geo, wider rims, new tyres, new shocks) and boils it down to outer rim diameter is simply unqualified to have a meaningful opinion or has a temporary blackout. No, outer rim radius increase by 12,5mm has consequences that are hard to MEASURE and PERCIEVE. The best test for it is to put 26" wheels with according rim and tyre type on a 275 bike. The only change will be BB height. Symmetrically, people who were putting 275 wheels and tyres on 26" frames and forks EXPECTING a breakthrough are imbeciles.
On another note the baby went to sleep on time tonight so I got a short night ride in on a new trail that was awesome so I am pumped. I was riding. 27.5 and my mate 26 if you want to know, which I'm guessing you don't!!
We're not talking about hardtails, because what their BB does during suspension compression is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. It's has no bearing on this argument. Shit, how high do you think the BBs are on BMX? right around 11.5" but it DOESN'T f*ckING MATTER, because they don't have suspension.
Put that 29cm BB height on a bike with 6" of travel, & tell me how good it rides.
Do you want to make much more improvements for much less money? Look at tyre set ups. The correct tyre pressure can save you a couple of watts. Switching from Small Block Eight tyres to Racing Ralph Evo saves you 10 watts per tyre. Switching from butyl tubes to tubeless saves you 5 watts per tyre (based on a +- 2 bar tyre pressure).
I also think that the larger wheels have helped bike geometry in positive ways, which is a something that's been largely ignored, in favor of talking about their rolling traits exclusively. Many/most 650b & 29" bikes have BB drop, which makes bikes feel better in corners, but most 26" don't, because it ends up giving you unusable BB heights (I've underforked a 26" due to a spec mistake from the manufacturer, & let me assure you, you've never had so many pedal strikes, in completely unwarranted sections of trail.) The other thing I would mention, which RC wrote an article about a few years back, is that there was zero experimentation on fork offset until bigger wheels showed up on the scene, & a lot of the other benefits of modern geo are made possible by those longer offset numbers.
www.pinkbike.com/photo/14020559
HA= 65 deg, SA = 74 deg, front centre 29.8", BB=13.5" Voilla!
Also, there's more angles to a bike. For instance, your 13.5" BB is likely above your resting axle height(www.bikerumor.com/2012/06/15/650b-test-project-1-the-norco-sight-gets-converted shows a 26" axle height only being 13 3/16".) A 650b bike, on the other hand, gets close to a cm of BB drop from the same BB height(www.santacruzbicycles.com/en-US/nomad doesn't actually list the BB drop number, but you can see from the geometry image that the BB center is below the axle.) Sure, it sinks below the axle height with sag on both bikes, but the 650b will be further below, & every mm makes a difference in cornering.
But you're also the one who's talking about head angle & reach like they're the only angles that matter, so I shouldn't really be surprised. Please tell us about how 650b is a scam, we've never heard that one...
Disclaimer: my stable includes 27.5, 26, and a 20" to keep me honest....my 27.5 does see the most action tho....
That, and weight. Sub 30lb enduro bikes are out there, and if that fits your riding style, hard to find a 6" travel bike sub 30lb in a 26" version.
2. No you don't want the degreaser on your pads. Degreaser may be the wrong term. It isn't some kind of anti-matter for grease, making it disappear. Instead it dissolves grease and takes it along. So if you have clogged up grease around the fork seals and it meets the solvent, it dissolves and drips down (and part of it also back into the fork lowers, taking the dirt along with it). It could indeed introduce the grease to your pads and rotor. The solution? Don't bother with degreaser/solvent all over your bike. You could use it sparingly on your drivetrain (using one of those devices like Muc-Off and Park Tools offer) to trick the clogged up dirt out of there. But for the rest really, don't. Overzealous cleaning is bad. Kona says so, Santa Cruz says so, I say so too.
3. Some enduro racers have their water bladder integrated in their body armour. Anneke Beerten has been working with Alpine Stars to develop theirs back when she was still riding for Specialized. I noticed current team mate Martin Maes uses that one too. Many other brands also allow you to store a water bladder in their body armour.
For the rest of us, you want to keep that grease in there as long as possible, as it's better than any lube we can put on afterward, & does a lot to increase longevity. All you want to do on modern chains is wipe them off, & treat them with a bit of chain lube to help shifting & prevent rust.
& again, all those places like Velonews test for is efficiency(they even say in some of their articles that they saw accelerated wear.) f*ck efficiency, I ride an MTB. I want my chain to not need replacement every few months because i stripped the stock grease out of the rollers. slap it on, drop some purple extreme on it, wipe it off after a few rides, relube, ignore for months at a time. I used to degrease my chains. they lasted far less time than they do with what I just outlined.
We need someone to do some comparative testing. Identical conditions, similar riding frequency, differently maintained chains. Who could be bothered to do that?
As for mechanics, it depends. the ones that live & breathe racing generally do everything they can to make their chain more efficient, & ignore the durability aspect, this caries on to their advice to customers as well. & some just want to sell you a chain cleaner. But the ones I know that don't fall into either of those slots generally don't degrease.
Shimano is cagey about the matter: I looked it up last night, & their current chain manual says to clean the chain with detergent cleaner, & goes into no detail on whether that means soaking it or just scrubbing it. "detergent cleaner" is also not really that descriptive, though it doesn't sound like degreaser to me, more like a typical bike wash product. What lube you use makes a difference too, one of the big reasons I use Purple Extreme is because it doesn't leave heavy residue on the chain, I used White Lightning at some point in the past, & that stuff required scrubbing to get all the waxy residue off.
Finally, yes, personal experience has informed me on the subject as well. I've used a lot of different lubes over the last 20 years of riding bikes, & gone to various extremes with cleaning, including soaking chains in Golden Degreaser for multiple days. That was generally what I did in the 9speed days, & I replaced chains quite frequently. These days, with my current minimalist regime, I have to remind myself to lube the chain, because it just works, & I can't remember the last time I noticed a really worn out chain. Usually make some change to the drivetrain that requires a new chain before I wear them out these days. That's not all lubrication, though, modern chains are far more durable than they were in the past. Part of the reason they're so much more expensive.
As for the cassette/chainring, I don't advocate obsessively cleaning those either: The residue on there is chain lube, & leaving it there means the cog/chain interaction is lubricated rather than dry. Dry interaction is one of the biggest causes of wear.
Back to the old ways then. It sure was easier, didn't expect it to be better.
Interestingly, Shimano discovered you could extend the life of a chain by about 10% by flipping it over now and then.
Now we're at it. Until recently I used wet chain lube exclusively. I wasn't bothered that it got slightly more messy in dry conditions as I thought it just took best care of my drivetrain. Worked fine actually, just like the rest of my maintenance regime. But I changed that recently and started using the dry lube this summer. What's your take on that? I wouldn't mind going back to wet lube exclusively if that is better.
Not sure what that has to do with my comment but last time I checked Enduro is basically "the peoples" mountain bike race.
Ride up and ride down as fast as you can.
Once the new 27.5 and 29 bikes saturate the market and there are plenty of great used options for both, i dont know what the bike companies will do for slowing sales. Probably a 28.25 is my guess.
Also, just to show how small the difference between both wheel sizes is, you can make more difference by changing tyre size. 26x2.5 has a bigger outer circle than 27x2.0 has. And if you'd compare these 2 set ups (which I know you shouldn't, but for the sake of it I will anyways) the 26x2.5 set up will roll easier over objects as 27x2.0 as well as has less rolling resistance than 27x2.0 has on off-road trails.
26" should die. Everything else is just better
I have ridden lots of them & some suck less than others but they ALL suck!
29'ers should have never been born!
I had a friend who rides 29 and 27.5, got on a 26" for a ride and said, "I forgot how nice these things turn. They turn on a dime compared to what I am used to now."