Video: Are 29/27.5" Mullet Bikes Faster Than 29ers?
Mullet bikes. 97.5ers. Frankenwheelers. Whatever you want to call them, bikes with mixed wheel sizes have made their mark in the racing world this season. Martin Maes took home the win at the first two stops of the Enduro World series aboard a modified GT Force, and Loic Bruni rode his way to victory at the first round of the DH World Cup on a prototype Specialized.
Now, this isn't the first time we've seen mountain bikes with two different wheel sizes. Specialized's Big Hit from the early 2000s is a memorable one, with a 26” / 24” wheel combo. Travel even further back in time and you'll find the 1987 Cannondale SM800, which was available with a 24” rear wheel that was claimed to deliver “superb traction.” Don't forget Trek's 69er, a 29” / 26” singlespeed with a dual crown Maverick fork. More recently, Liteville and Foes have both produced mixed wheel bikes. Needless to say, it's not a new idea, but the fact that they're winning races this year makes it a good time to revisit the concept.
The 1987 Cannondale SM800 was available with a 24" rear wheel.
Martin Maes' 29/27.5" GT Force.
Is there a reason we're seeing so much experimentation all of a sudden? The recent UCI rule change is one possible answer – riders no longer need to have matching wheel sizes in competition. That means shorter riders who can't quite fit on a 29" downhill bike can run a 27.5" wheel in the back, thereby preventing uncomfortable tire-to-pants contact, while still getting the rollover advantage of the bigger front wheel. What about Martin Maes? He may genuinely prefer the ride of a bike with two different sized wheels, or it could be that GT doesn't currently have a long travel 29er in their lineup, and creating a mullet bike was the next best solution until they come out with one.
The mixed-up Rocky Mountain Instinct BC Edition.
In any case, we decided to head out and put the concept to the test against the clock. A Rocky Mountain Instinct BC Edition served as the test platform. In its stock 29” configuration it has a relatively high bottom bracket height and a not-so-slack head angle, which made it a prime candidate for a smaller rear wheel. That change dropped the BB height by 12mm, and slackened the head angle by approximately 1.5-degrees.
It's worth mentioning that not all wheel swaps will be this easy – if you're starting with a 29er it's possible that running a 27.5” rear wheel will lower the bottom bracket height too much, and you'll be smacking pedals on even the tiniest pebble. The inverse is true when it comes to 27.5” bikes – the bottom bracket and front end height will get higher when a bigger wheel and fork are installed, which isn't always a good thing.
Once the test bike was ready it was time to knock out some laps. A section of trail was chosen that had a good mix of terrain – tighter turns, short, steep chutes, along with some flatter, more rolling bits. Each lap was timed with a Freelap system and recorded on a GoPro for backup. I started on the Instinct BC in its 29” form, and put down two timed laps. Next, I switched out the rear wheel and did two more laps on the mixed wheeler. To finish things off, I did one more lap on the 29er, then a final lap with the 27.5” rear wheel in place.
LAP TIMES
Lap 1: 1:41.12 (29)
Lap 2: 1:42.01 (29)
Lap 3: 1:41.06 (Mix)
Lap 4: 1:37.92 (Mix)
Lap 5: 1:37.55 (29)
Lap 6: 1:37.50 (Mix)
Lap 1: 1:41.12 (29)
Lap 2: 1:42.01 (29)
Lap 3: 1:41.06 (Mix)
Lap 4: 1:37.92 (Mix)
Lap 5: 1:37.55 (29)
Lap 6: 1:37.50 (Mix)
If you've watched the video, you'll know the result... There wasn't a definitive answer. All of my lap times were extremely close, and my two fastest laps were only separated by .05 seconds – it takes longer to blink than it does to make up that difference. To me, that reinforces the fact that it's possible to win with either wheel configuration. I do think that running a 29” wheel up front is superior to a bike sporting two 27.5” wheels, at least when it comes to racing.
The times may not have revealed much, but it was interesting to go back and forth between the two setups. The difference in handling is noticeable, but it didn't take long at all to get used to whatever setup I was on. It felt like I could maintain speed better in the flats and while pumping through sections of trail on the 29er, while the mixed setup felt better in the steeper sections of trail. It was also easier to place the smaller rear wheel where I wanted, whether that was in a tight turn or wiggling through a jumble of roots on a climb. Of course, the slacker head angle and lower BB undoubtedly played a role here too.
Is the 29” / 27.5” combo the future, or is it just another trend, a blip on the mountain bike radar that's going to fade away like Plus tires? It's hard to say, but I do think the concept has merit, especially for shorter riders, or riders in search of different handling characteristics. 27.5” wheels aren't dead, but their days of getting to enjoy the view from the front could be numbered.
MENTIONS: @pinkbikeoriginals
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Im sure you knew this before making your comments.
'Man, you guys take yourselves so seriously. Millimeters here, 0.5 angles there, 1psi more, carbon this, Strava that. Just have fun and ride your f**king bike.'
The mountain biker finishes his drink, gets up, pushes in his chair and looks at the barman,
'What's this guy's problem?'
There has been some renewed interest in the 24" rear wheel lately, not for racing just freeriding. Unfortunately Gazzoloddi is gone and there is only one remaining 24" DoubleWide for sale in the world.
m.pinkbike.com/buysell/2185745
Yes, because we’ve already sold everyone 27.5 and 29, behold the best of both! The UCI admitted they only changed the rules because the bike companies asked.
If you’re a cynic, it’s because they want to sell bikes. If you’re an optimist, it’s because they think it’s faster.
Or maybe cause there are 5'3" pro women XC racers or maybe it was a rule that just didn't have any scientific reason for existing.
Liteville does it. Educate yourself.
There’s certainly room for more testing / experimentation, but I’ve found that my times with 29” wheels tend to be faster than with 27.5” wheels.
In a sense, why did you make a 29er worse and not a 27.5" bike better?
I'm 5'10" but I've got short legs & a long torso & 29" rear wheel will eat me alive.
So this is a perfect illustration of how fitment on bikes & wheel sizes is so rider dependant. So the difficulty with me when I rode the Yeti SB150 was that I can't lower my body's center of gravity low enough to really have an effect on the bikes direction without flossing my colon with 3C knobbies.
My mass is in my torso & is just stuck up high several inches higher than someone like yourself. I can't make a 29" rear wheel change direction as easily. I have to throw a ton of upper body lean into every transition and turn.
You can drop your butt down more, clear the tire & push your center of mass down lower, gain a better lever on the 29" wheel & not force yourself to be top heavy in turns.
A great visual is a bowling pin. Very stable when leaned side to side and easy & quick to get it to return to center & stable. Turn it upside down & sure, you can lean it over side to side, but getting it to stay balanced & doing it quickly, let alone trying to return it to center is tough.
I'm always going to lean toward a smaller wheel in the back. Sure, if there were no steeps or switchbacks, I could drop in on a 29'er, but then I'm like a grade schooler on a set of 235 skis.
Looking at the times you posted. They look like what I'd expect even if you hadn't changed wheels. With second time being slightly up on first as you had just reminded yourself of track, then after that getting slower as you rode more and fatigue set in.
And I was expecting at least some comment regarding the arc the wheels take around a corner. A smaller rear wheel will turn on a smaller arc than a big rear wheel. Therefore turning will feel easier and 'more natural'.
I have a 27.5 Trance I'm considering putting a 29 front wheel on with the same 150mm travel..or maybe 160. For the precise reason anyone would consider doing such a thing...slack it out a bit and potentially smoother rolling up front as a bonus. I'll already drag balls on all the steeps I can find with 26 or 27.5...so not interested in 29'r rear, ever.
I think for bikes with a low BB, or the ability to throw in an angleset, then a 29er front end can make a lot of sense to try. But bikes with a high-ish BB will probably feel a little strange.
@mikekazimer: What we thought we were reading isn't what we got. Some companies aren't investing in making a new 29'r DH or EWS bike, so racers and race managers are taking that into their own hands and making frankenbikes.
The valid test would have been two of the same bikes. A 27.5 specific bike, vs. the same bike with a new fork and 29'r front wheel.
Additionally, taking an Altitude and raising the BB and reducing the reach by installing a 160mm 29 fork and wheel is backwards to what knowledgeable riders would want. You could opt for a 150mm fork and an angleset but that is still not going to get you back to a reasonable BB height, which I feel is more important for handling over a larger front wheel.
Time now too see that extreme combo can work, currently running 24" x 3.5 rear with 27.5 x 3" front but could do with more tyre choice!
I'm going to change my fork and wheel on my sb6 to a 29er
29 and 27.5 don't mix
Like two dicks
And no bitch
Find yourself in serious shit
One has a BB that's a little too high and the other is a little too low, and both have seat tube and head tube angles that are little too slack - assuming the original geometry was ideal.
If a rider's range of motion is restricted by a 29" rear wheel, then 27.5" is better - certainly safer - for that rider. If that's not the case, then I doubt there's much difference. The smaller wheel is stiffer, lighter, and has better suspension compliance for a given anti-squat, but rollover is better with the larger wheel.
I wouldn't be surprised if the difference is so small that it's almost impossible to separate from other variables - again, assuming the larger wheel doesn't restrict range of motion for a given rider.
To many variables and such a fuss to be inconclusive at the end. there are other more significant issues to address on a bike like suspension performance that atm cannot be touched as it needs to many maths and engineering that won't hit to many arguments on the comments section. So let's argue about wheel size again as it always comes to a definite result.
done here can be seen as well as, that by modifying geometey lower and slacker, the smaller wheeled rear can also keep up. Now if we modify the 29" 29" setup with slacker and lower setup and time it again, we find out which one is faster. I already know the answer ????
www.motosport.com/blog/dirt-bike-tires-wheels-explained-sizes-pressure-treads-tools
It is interesting though, MTB's have started getting very close to moto's Geo, both have 64 deg HTA's, low offset forks and stems are getting shorter.
Mountain bike development is just behind. There is more resemblance than you think. You even use similar techniques.
Reading is important. In any case, Moto GP is the highest form of motorcycle racing in the world. It would surprise me if the teams DIDN'T scrutinize every little millimeter. But motocross is vastly different from Moto GP isn't it? Like 2 different worlds. One would argue that motocross and MTB have more in common than motocross and Moto GP....
Geometry affects comfort when riding a mountain bike. Since you're more physically involved in mountain biking, you're want to look at geometry a little more closely. But on a dirtbike, you don't pedal. You're not pumping rollers. You twist the right grip to go fast and hold on for dear life.
The point I'm trying to get across is that normal non-professional people who shop for dirt bikes aren't looking at geometry the same way MTBers do. Because people are looking at the displacement of the engine for the class they're racing in. Or maybe they just want the biggest baddest dirtbike. Or the lightest dirtbike. Or maybe the most reliable engine. And dirt bikers have a lot more brand loyalty than MTBers. Someone who's been riding a Honda all his/her life is probably going to get another Honda. The moto world has settled for what works best already. There hasn't been any 'revolutionary' development in years in the dirtbike world.
I must admit though - my midish travel 29er is a god send on technical trails compared to the older school XC Hardtail it replaced. Wish I had more elevation around where I live but I can always travel.
Now, how can I add a 27.5 rear wheel to my unicycle to try out a half breed wheel combo???
Pros:
- Much better resistance to going over the bars in steep downhill terrain. This in turn is a huge confidence booster and allows me to take a more centered 'attack' position on the bike in these conditions instead of hanging off the back.
- Better front wheel 'rollover' ability (common to all 29" wheeled bikes), both climbing and descending. Also more high speed stability in the front over rough stuff, a trait all 29ers tend to share due to the gyroscopic effect of the larger wheels.
- More front end 'pop' when hitting obstacles and sharp lips. The front wheel tends to deflect upwards more rather than getting hung up or plowing straight through. This can be good (makes launching off roots and rocks easier) or it can be bad (you can't steer when your front wheel is in the air). However, this encourages you to weight the front wheel more than before, actually improving grip and cornering.
- Related to the point above, jumping just feels more natural and controlled to me. The greater front wheel 'pop' encourages launching off practically everything while the landings feel more controlled as the larger front wheel gives a greater margin for error when landing front heavy.
- A higher front end (assuming you don't reduce the amount of front fork travel that much) means a higher BB which means fewer pedal strikes. (But this is also a negative).
Cons:
- Unless you reduce your fork travel by around 30 mm when you switch to a 29er front fork and wheel, the whole front end of the bike will be significantly higher. However, the higher stack height was fine for me as I was already using a bunch of spacers under my stem and a riser bar so I just got rid of those for a similar bar height.
- The higher front end also means your stand over height will increase which may be annoying if the bike already has a fairly high stand over height.
- This will also raise your bottom bracket by around 15 to 20 mm (which is also common in long travel full 29er bikes) which might be less than ideal because of the higher center of gravity. I never noticed this as an issue and, in fact liked the fewer pedal strikes as a result.
- It will also slacken the head angle by around 1.5 degrees which to me is a net benefit but does lead to a longer wheelbase and more wheel flop on tight uphill corners. A reduced offset fork may help with this a little or you can install a negative angle set if you don't like this.
- Finally and most importantly, it will also slacken your effective seat angle by around 1.5 degrees. You can somewhat compensate for this by slamming your seat all the way forward on the rails but to me this is the biggest downside on most bikes. For this reason, the bikes that are most ideal for this swap are ones with the steepest initial seat angle. As a result, I do find myself riding the nose of my seat on steep climbs more than I would like to.
- The larger front wheel and slacker head angle means you need to take the wide, outside line going into tight slow corners. This is typical of all slack 29ers though I believe. The one thing that may not be similar to a full 29er (I'm not sure on this) is that the 27.5" rear tire takes a significantly different line through the corner than the front. This makes riding North Shore 'skinnies' a lot more challenging than a full 27.5" wheeled bike as there often is not enough room to keep both wheels on the skinny when there is a turn unless you 'hop' the back wheel ( which I suck at).
- Another 'con' that will discourage many people from trying this is that it will almost certainly void your frame warranty. Over-forking and over-wheeling the front of 27.5" bike by this much puts a lot more stress on the head tube area of the frame so you wouldn't want to try this on a bike that is known to be weak in this area. That said, I'm a really heavy guy (riding weight with pack around 230lbs) and I've never had issues with this on either of my bikes in spite of the fact I rode hard enough to crack my shock link and break the damper shaft in my DB Inline shock (at different times) .
A guide to selecting a good bike to make into a 'mixer / frankenbike / mullet bike":
- Steep seat angle
- Not too slack a head angle or the ability to install a negative head angle set if you don't like super (DH like) slack head angles on bikes. (I really don't mind the current 63.5 head angle on my Patrol with the 29er fork but many might not like it).
- A low BB and stand over height in stock configuration
- A strong head tube area; carbon bikes may be the winner here as I would be more concerned about welds breaking after some time on an aluminum bike due to the extra stress over time.
- A bike designed around a 170mm or even 180mm 27.5" fork would also be ideal for the strength and geometry reasons already listed above. I think the new 2018 SBG Transition Patrol and probably 27.5" YT Capra would be ideal bikes for this type of conversion, although the Transition Patrol at least would probably require a reverse angle set or you would end up with a 63 or even 62.5 degree head angle.
The bottom line for me is that a 29 front, 27.5 inch rear bike is best for the Pacific Northwest steep and technical up and down trails and bike park riding. Obviously this will not be for everyone, and probably would not be great for cross country but for me its perfect.
HA change is approximately = asin(19/1213) = 0.9degrees (where 19mm is reduction in wheel radius, and 1213 is wheelbase).
@rmjowett: Keep in mind the increase in axle to crown height for a 29er fork as well. As I said in my comment, the total height change at the front wheel is around 30mm.
In this article they only changed rear wheel, so I think it's 0.9deg.
By the way, great comments - very useful to help with understanding this concept.
Worth checking your BB drop. Since the chainstay is roughly 1/3rd of the wheelbase, a 30mm increase at the front would be a 10mm BB increase.
flowmountainbike.com/features/nerd-alert-wheel-size-by-the-numbers
asin(17.5/1213) = 0.8deg, so even less effect than my first calculation!
It's true the rear wheel carries more weight and rolling efficiency will benefit from a large rear wheel, but that's a separate issue from the question of whether a bike will send you over the front.
For riders who frequently hit very steep moves, a large rear wheel may be too large to move as far back as they want. These riders may need the smaller rear wheel, regardless of any other drawbacks. As an example, I don't think I've ever contacted the rear wheel on a 26" or 27.5" bike, but I contacted my 29" rear wheel twice on a ride with rock rolls that aren't the steepest I've ridden. I'm worried about what this means for really steep terrain.
If the entire mass was located at the BB and the system was rigid, then yes, BB drop would matter, but neither of these things are the case.
That said, I recognize a bike with larger wheels must have more BB drop than a bike with smaller wheels if it is to have the same BB height. The bike with more drop will have lower rolling resistance and is less prone to hanging up if everything else is equal, but that's because of the wheel size, not because of the drop.
I'll say it again: for a given BB height, placing the BB below the hubs has no effect on on roll-over properties, stability, etc. due to being below the hubs.
I just can't get over how ugly wagon wheels look on a bike. I mean, I run 26/24'' and plan to switch to 24'' completely, so I'm definitely not the norm. But if I like how it looks, I have fun riding it, and don't chase every millisecond on a trail, I couldn't care less about all the new sizes.
If people like them and enjoy riding them, I'm glad. But I hope there will always be 26/24'' option for dinosaurs like me. Seems like kid's sizes will save me, now that they make Minions in 24''
@lennskii At the same time I care and don't care about wheel sizes. I don't care about what majority of people ride, but I care whether I still have the option to go my preferred way. My rant probably wasn't worded very well.
I know why the pros do it but with most riders it is all about fun.
That doesn't I'm saying a contemporary Enduro / DH bike that has sweet geo needs it though.
The cool thing about this in my opinion is that it's not industry marketing specific telling or forcing us to buy. If you have a spare 27 stick in on and try it out. Even if you dont it isn't that expensive to buy a cheap 27 to try it out for a few months.
For sure timed testing like this is always going to be super close. Seems likes that's true every time someone does timed, multiple set course laps. BUT races are super close...?
For the rest of us who are not racing it's just gonna be feel and perception. One thing about throwing a 29er front end on a 27.5 is you get that "new bike feel" for a lot less money!!!
I only know of Liteville doing that on their latest 301 mk15. Liteville has been doing this for many years already...
Looks like wheel size still doesn't matter much.
@mikekazimer any thoughts on how you aced 4 seconds off your initial times for the last 3 runs?
Now I just want a comprehensive guide on how to build one. It's a bit tricky to decide on a 27.5" frame or 29" frame. But this article helps.
I had been thinking of getting Jamis Hardline and putting a 29" wheel on it.
What is a bike? It's a group of individual components joint together in a certain way that allow it to circulate through a trail. To get the performance of a bike-rider, we need to consider the performance of each of the individual components and the rider's also.
So, with that in mind, can a single component really be that important to the bike's performance? No, it's only as relevant as the others parts. We may build a relevancy pyramid with the components, but, i don't think a single component (the rear wheel in this case) can make a significant improvement.
It is the whole thing, the bike (group of parts) and the rider (group of skills) that make a difference. As Richard Cunynghame said, while watching Aaron Gwin rippin Val di Sole 2011, it's death by a thousand paper cuts.
I'm not a pro, just a guy enjoying his bike in the mountains who don't do timed runs.
Companies want their paid riders to be on the top of the box. Compnaies also don't want to waste money on gimmicks or unnecessary R&D. If 26in wheels were faster, or as fast riders would would be on those. How about some cantilever brakes or short wheelbases too?
/s
F1 is at the forefront of automotive development. It is literally prototype racing. Many things engineered for the purpose of winning races in F1 has made it to consumer vehicles. It's called the trickle down effect. This is good for everyone.
DH racing is not prototype racing. You can buy a Session, and go try to qualify for a regional or local race. Now there maybe things that teams are using that are prototypes on the bikes... Like maybe a new for damper or shock. But the bikes themselves are readily available to the public. And DH racers in 29ers and 27.5s today are pushing the envelope for faster and faster times. A 26er from 10 years ago won't hold a candle to what today's bikes can do.
Are you saying that the best years of DH racing for you were when you were slower and rode a really sketchy bike that can buck you off at any second causing you to land on your head and have a concussion? It's certainly exciting waiting for a train wreck to happen.
Progression is good. I believe that the MTB world is going through a renaissance right now, so to speak. Eventually, companies will settle on what works and what doesn't. Which is why 26ers mostly found on DJ bikes nowadays. Where they belong.
You won't likely see another 29er under my bum for the same reason you don't see them at the dirt jumps, skate parks, on trials bikes, or winning at pump tracks. Once you get away from pure racerbois mentality, you'll realize that virtually every non rolling speed tradeoff is a lose on bigger wheels. The industry won't sell you on the negatives.
Yes, 29er is more capable on difficult/challenging terrain.
[PS - riding also a carbon 26 w/170mm coil sprung and the only complaint would be geometry being a bit "short", but after some pedal strokes, you easily adapt and the fun factor kicks-in]
Yes old Rize is still fun to ride, and it doesn't give that mute feeling on less difficult/challenging terrain.
Actually I prefer to ride this bike on double/single tracks that are rolling and easy - Go figure!
Rize was set years ago, as a 69er, really enjoyed, but it had only 100mm travel!
In conclusion:
It's possible to maintain speed with Big wheels (even if you're tired!) and they feel very secure/bags of confidence, problem is that it mutes a lot the terrain, and if you're not tuned to win KOMs, ou Races, I would go for the bike that it's possible to have fun - If that corresponds to 29er... so be it!
And as far as loss of handing the parts of handling..the parts I'm losing I don't really care for anyway.
I never liked twitchy ass 26er handling.
Having to work harder to go slower isn't fun to me.
It's my phucking mission to take those kom back for MTBERS who actually ride the terrain.
To have a reasonably fair test you need to remove as many variables as possible, with a 1.5 degree change in head angle and half an inch change in bottom bracket, these factors are likely swaying the outcome significantly.
Regarding your test procedure ie. number of runs and time on bike; There is no way that swapping back and forth briefly, without spending days in a clearly settled setup, that you will achieve a thoroughly developed opinion. vehicle operators need time to absorb the more nuanced variable qualities of each setup, and exploit their potential. you also need a much larger test sample size, with a variety of operators.
Surely there are other fine tuning setup attributes that should be also addressed to maximize performance; stem arrangement, handlebar roll, seat position, suspension settings, brake rotor size, tire pressure.
I thought this was the biggest mtb media business in the world, i would presume your orginization could muster a quality experiment, with a mechanic changing headset cups, spending a full day or 3, etc... this "experiment" hardly passes the quality of climate-change-deniers "science".
My bike has and is optimized for 29 front 27.5 rear wheels. i've done much of this research personally from feeling, timing my test tracks, and anazyzing data changes to parts and the dynamic geometry and position of the bike. there's now way you can take the extent of setup changes on in a day or so to reach a good conclusion.
Please try to set a good example for science and reasoning in the future. Good luck.
Fwiw this bike is #2 in the EWS overall. Team Rocky has done well.
www.pinkbike.com/news/foes-mixer-trail-review-2016.html super oldskool XC geometry but yah
www.mtb-news.de/news/2013/05/11/liteville-scaled-sizing-ganz-eigene-empfehlung-zum-thema-laufraddurchmesser
oh yeah and I was running a 29er front wheel 26 rear on my demo 8ii in 2013, I took the fork off my high pivot idler driven 29er DH bike from earlier that year. Obviously.
Personally, when run more travel I prefer a shorter wheel because the bigger wheels jack up the bike height.
I'd love a test of those two bikes against each other despite it being ebikes.
To flatter you a bit and too be very transparent, all the ebikes websites I can find do tests that are too simple and the writing is poor. You do better words and content.
Even if you won't do a complete back to back review I would still love to understand why they chose to go with 29"/27.5" on the two eMTBs that are mostly meant for downhill. It seems in line with what you are writing about here.
Maybe with an angle set the added stack height and shortened reach wouldnt be a problem! I think not so tall riders just take the next bigger frame size to convert this and then have nearly the same geometry then with the normal 27.5 bike only with the higher stack and so it will work better in really steep sections.
Don't get me wrong i'm tempted to try this on my capra 29 set to the high position but I don't have a 650b wheel right now. Any benefits to a plus wheel on the rear?
But, as you are "pushing" the front wheel, and "pulling" the rear wheel, the front wheel will be hit harder than the rear wheel.
I don't know if you'll benefit for a plus wheel at the rear, but you'll suffer less from the cons of a "plus" format in the rear than in the back.
If you want to be 95% confident an observed difference as small as 1 second is real, then you'd need to do more like 25 runs on each wheel size. Realistically you'd need to use multiple bikes and riders, or do it over a week.
It does make me wonder how the pros do timed testing of components. As the benefit from each change gets smaller, the number of runs you need to reliably spot an improvement becomes gigantic.
If you ride each lap at the same pace, why would you expect any difference in times?
Should have done a no pedal-coast only run to eliminate differences in effort...
and then runs at max effort to see if there's any real handling advantage while 'on the edge'
can you try this again?
Is the 29” / 27.5” combo the future, or is it just another trend, a blip on the mountain bike radar that's going to fade away like Plus tires? It's hard to say, but I do think the concept has merit, especially for shorter riders, or riders in search of different handling characteristics. 27.5” wheels aren't dead, but their days of getting to enjoy the view from the front could be numbered.
quote/
Today in EWS -> 27.5 is alive and kicking. Dailly, Maes and Eddie in front ... get your facts straigt
Now I ride an Altitude and I love it. However, I do miss the bigger wheels for rolling over stuff and smoothing out the ride a bit.
This seems to me it would benefit me. Not time, not geometry. Just back tire clearance. (although, I would, inadvertently gain other benefits)...
- you can't make any relevant conclusion on any topic with 6 events. That's not how works statistics, or just sciences.
- When is scheduled a proper REAL test including zombie 26" ?...
Newb.
Lol.
Or are the two rocky Mountains the very same frame with different paint?
The Instinct is stock 140/140. The BC Edition is 155/160. All use the same frame. The BC Edition is long shocked and in the steepest ride9 position (not adjustable for that version). Due to this the BB is somewhat high thus allowing for a smaller wheel outback without compromising the BB height.
I think the rocky was a good pick. But using the BC instinct may not give you the all tuning options, as the long shocked BC gets rid of the ride9 the standard instinct has. The Biggie-smalls will allow some of the settings to be used that otherwise would result in the tire hitting the seat tube.
2nd my personal unsubstantiated opinion of 29 is the rear wheel rolling/pedaling over things is a bigger advantage thing than the front. Front comes down to good line choice rear is the brute that has to deal with the whatever it’s being lead into.
19th Century for the win!
Never a good thing.
bike industry is doing it just to boost sales with "look at what you're missing out on' marketing
That is the answer.
27.5" wheels fit just fine in all generations of Fox Forks. If you have a Talas, you can get the best of both worlds by dropping your front for climbs. Does bring your BB a little closer to terra firm though...