Advice on his and hers bridal path MTB £4K total budget

[Kermit power]

With these feet said:

You'll be saying V brakes are better than discs next..

Manufacturers are killing the 26" off, try getting tyres for them now...

A friend was in a bike shop watching some guy frantically cleaning the shop out of them.

CRC currently have 276 types of 26" tyres in stock compared to 118 27.5" and 110 29". For Evans, it's 219, 95 & 92. Do you think I should panic buy the entire stock from both retailers today, or am I safe to wait until after payday next week?

With these feet said:

Im not into 35ft road jumps nor entering the Red Bull Rampage. Look at the UCI XC bikes - spot anyone on 26 or indeed 650b? Even enduro is a split of the bigger sizes.

I disagree that 29 looks wrong, though some people probably thought fitting a chain and pedals on those wooden push bikes was the devil incarnate....

Yes, Schurter & Absalon use 29ers for the XC World Cup, but that's about as relevant to the real world as saying we shouldn't have electric Windows because Sebastian Ogier doesn't have them in his WRC car.

For the overwhelming majority of us, modern bike technology is such that we're comprehensively over-biked in most situations regardless of wheel size, so you might as well go on aesthetics, especially if you want to do anything more than pure XC, and I've yet to see a 29er that's not utterly gopping on anything other than an XXXXXXL frame. They always make me think of those poor, abused Kahn Rangerovers with 86" alloys shoehorned under the arches.

If there's a tyre size where you might want to start worrying about future availability, especially if you want anything other than an XC race tyre, I'd say 29" is likely to be more of a concern actually. You can get 200+ types of 26" tyres because those wheels have been around for decades, and there are plenty of people still running them, but whilst the marketeers have been pushing 29ers for a good 15 years, there are still fewer than half as many options, and the breadth of choice has already been surpassed by 27.5", even though that's only really been around for what, 4 or 5 years?

I know people with 29ers fiercely defend them in the same way that parents do Ginger children, but at the end of the day, they're a niche tool which the bike companies were trying to market beyond its niche with a goal of getting us all to spend more money on the new shiny in the way that they're actually succeeding in doing with 27.5".

[anonymous-user]

I go out with a group of 30 or 40 riders every Wednesday, pretty sure there's not a single rider amongst them with 26" wheels.

27.5" or 29" all the way, some people just don't like change.

Anyway, not to derail this thread, I really dislike somebody that can afford to buy a pair of Cruz's!

[Kermit power]

CoinSl0t said:

I go out with a group of 30 or 40 riders every Wednesday, pretty sure there's not a single rider amongst them with 26" wheels.

27.5" or 29" all the way, some people just don't like change.

Anyway, not to derail this thread, I really dislike somebody that can afford to buy a pair of Cruz's!

I've got a 26" steel hardtail which I built up specifically because people have moved on, so the second hand parts are so wonderfully cheap, and more fool the people selling the stuff at rock bottom prices, considering that the overwhelming majority can't really tell much difference.

I've also got a 27.5" full susser which I'm perfectly happy with. I would've been equally happy buying a 26" full susser as well, but they don't make them new any more.

Not buying 29" isn't about not liking change. It's about not liking fugly bikes, and as I'm 5'10" rather than 6'10", fugly would be the only option in 29".

[anonymous-user]

I'm 6ft 6" and I commute on my bikes, 29ers all the way for me.

I don't personally get the retro thing, but whatever floats your boat.

[Kermit power]

CoinSl0t said:

I'm 6ft 6" and I commute on my bikes, 29ers all the way for me.

I don't personally get the retro thing, but whatever floats your boat.

As I said above, if I was that height, then I'd also go 29, as it would make for a properly proportioned bike. It's the 5'8" people you see on 29ers that I just don't get.

I'm with you on retro though, I don't get it either.

[anonymous-user]

Kermit power said:

As I said above, if I was that height, then I'd also go 29, as it would make for a properly proportioned bike. It's the 5'8" people you see on 29ers that I just don't get.

I'm with you on retro though, I don't get it either.

Yes, there's a few midgets on the Wednesday ride with wagon wheels on a medium frame.

[richardxjr]

Me and most my mates have both 29 and 26 mtbs. It's all just messing about like overgrown kids anyway!

[Kermit power]

richardxjr said:

Me and most my mates have both 29 and 26 mtbs. It's all just messing about like overgrown kids anyway!

A day spent getting muddier than your own kids is a day well spent!

[jshell]

I'm with Kermit. At 6'5", I still ride a few 26" but would consider 27.5" in future. I have never seen a 29er that doesn't look utterly st, to be honest in anything other than comedy sized frames. Personal taste and all that, but it's completely 'Emperors new clothes'. They have a place, granted, but 99% look properly st.

[anonymous-user]

jshell said:

99% look properly st.

A very sweeping generalisation,

[jshell]

CoinSl0t said:

A very sweeping generalisation,

It is, of course a generalisation. But, look at the size of the wheels on that compared to the primary frame triangle. Proportions are pure comedy. It's a nice bike, but it's not 'right'.

[Kermit power]

jshell said:

CoinSl0t said:

A very sweeping generalisation,

It is, of course a generalisation. But, look at the size of the wheels on that compared to the primary frame triangle. Proportions are pure comedy. It's a nice bike, but it's not 'right'.

Also, those photos will be of the very largest frame available. A medium frame with the big wheels would look even more clown-bikeish.

[yellowjack]

CoinSl0t said:

Kermit power said:

As I said above, if I was that height, then I'd also go 29, as it would make for a properly proportioned bike. It's the 5'8" people you see on 29ers that I just don't get.

I'm with you on retro though, I don't get it either.

Yes, there's a few midgets on the Wednesday ride with wagon wheels on a medium frame.

This is the main reason why I didn't throw my money at a Trek Superfly when I was buying a new MTB earlier this year. 'Smart' wheel sizing from Trek claims that they match the wheel size to the frame size. Personally speaking I feel it's just an admission that even they couldn't push the 29er wheel on a 15" frame (which gets a 650B wheel set). I would have been on a 17" frame with 29er wheels at 5'6" tall, and although when I was on the bike for a test ride it felt great, I wasn't convinced by the aesthetics.

I ended up with a 650B Giant Anthem at a bargain price. Probably for some of the same reasons as mentioned previously. Apart from 'boutique' stuff it's hard to find an off-the-peg 26" MTB new these days. There are plenty of 26" wheels though, mainly on cheaper brands, and the BSOs that get sold in bulk by the likes of Tesco and Sports Direct, which is why I think there'll be a strong supply of 26" tyres for a while yet. I'm about to repair my 26" GT anthem which has been sat with a snapped mech hanger and chewed up rear mech for over a year, but only as a commute tool for my youngest son. Sadly, because I can only afford to run one MTB these days I'm turning my back on 26" hard tails and sticking to a 'one-for-all' 650B full suspension bike.

[jshell]

Kermit power said:

jshell said:

CoinSl0t said:

A very sweeping generalisation,

It is, of course a generalisation. But, look at the size of the wheels on that compared to the primary frame triangle. Proportions are pure comedy. It's a nice bike, but it's not 'right'.

Also, those photos will be of the very largest frame available. A medium frame with the big wheels would look even more clown-bikeish.

I thought that too, that's gotta be an xxxxl-ish! And it still looks 'wrong'!

[Watchman]

Whilst I prefer 26" wheels, I am only 5'6" so anything bigger makes me look even smaller. In fact, I prefer the aesthetics of 1980s BMX bikes over modern MTBs however I've seen a few 29ers recently and they don't all look odd. I think the worst ones are those with quite tight head angles. Those with slacker angles look better.

[BaronVonVaderham]

With these feet said:

You'll be saying V brakes are better than discs next..

Manufacturers are killing the 26" off, try getting tyres for them now...

A friend was in a bike shop watching some guy frantically cleaning the shop out of them.

Im not into 35ft road jumps nor entering the Red Bull Rampage. Look at the UCI XC bikes - spot anyone on 26 or indeed 650b? Even enduro is a split of the bigger sizes.

I disagree that 29 looks wrong, though some people probably thought fitting a chain and pedals on those wooden push bikes was the devil incarnate....

Edited by With these feet on Thursday 28th April 22:18

Edited by With these feet on Thursday 28th April 22:20

Don't be silly, some things have been genuine game changers like disc brakes, lightweight long travel single crown forks and decent rear shocks. Bigger wheels are not - it's marketing and sales led. As the next poster said, most of us are so overbiked in most situations that bike choice should probably made on aesthetics alone. I like shiny stuff as much as the next man though and kudos to the OP for getting his and hers Santa Cruz steeds - they are wonderful bikes.

FWIW I have bikes with 13' wheels, 20' wheels, 26' wheels and only have a 27.5 bike because by beloved 26' P7 Pro was stolen and the nearest equivalent from orange was no longer available in that size so had to go for 27.5 or clown size 29'. Also I'm 6'3 and generally ride a L or M for more gravity-based riding.

Also don't get the retro thing - I've always though of those folk not as riders, but as bicycle fetishists

[jshell]

Watchman said:

Whilst I prefer 26" wheels, I am only 5'6" so anything bigger makes me look even smaller. In fact, I prefer the aesthetics of 1980s BMX bikes over modern MTBs however I've seen a few 29ers recently and they don't all look odd. I think the worst ones are those with quite tight head angles. Those with slacker angles look better.

Eye of the beholder, I don't think they look right when comparing the triangle to the wheels.

Look, of course people have different views, I don't like 29ers, even with my height and weight. I drive an ugly Cayenne and love it, so each to their own...

[With these feet]

BaronVonVaderham said:

Don't be silly, some things have been genuine game changers like disc brakes, lightweight long travel single crown forks and decent rear shocks. Bigger wheels are not - it's marketing and sales led. As the next poster said, most of us are so overbiked in most situations that bike choice should probably made on aesthetics alone. I like shiny stuff as much as the next man though and kudos to the OP for getting his and hers Santa Cruz steeds - they are wonderful bikes.

FWIW I have bikes with 13' wheels, 20' wheels, 26' wheels and only have a 27.5 bike because by beloved 26' P7 Pro was stolen and the nearest equivalent from orange was no longer available in that size so had to go for 27.5 or clown size 29'. Also I'm 6'3 and generally ride a L or M for more gravity-based riding.

Also don't get the retro thing - I've always though of those folk not as riders, but as bicycle fetishists

Ive got a 20", 24", 26" and 2 29" bikes. The 29ers hit the spot. This is one of my bikes, medium frame 29er. And there was a smilie at the end of my post...

[With these feet]

Kermit power said:

With these feet said:

You'll be saying V brakes are better than discs next..

Manufacturers are killing the 26" off, try getting tyres for them now...

A friend was in a bike shop watching some guy frantically cleaning the shop out of them.

CRC currently have 276 types of 26" tyres in stock compared to 118 27.5" and 110 29". For Evans, it's 219, 95 & 92. Do you think I should panic buy the entire stock from both retailers today, or am I safe to wait until after payday next week?

With these feet said:

Im not into 35ft road jumps nor entering the Red Bull Rampage. Look at the UCI XC bikes - spot anyone on 26 or indeed 650b? Even enduro is a split of the bigger sizes.

I disagree that 29 looks wrong, though some people probably thought fitting a chain and pedals on those wooden push bikes was the devil incarnate....

Yes, Schurter & Absalon use 29ers for the XC World Cup, but that's about as relevant to the real world as saying we shouldn't have electric Windows because Sebastian Ogier doesn't have them in his WRC car.

For the overwhelming majority of us, modern bike technology is such that we're comprehensively over-biked in most situations regardless of wheel size, so you might as well go on aesthetics, especially if you want to do anything more than pure XC, and I've yet to see a 29er that's not utterly gopping on anything other than an XXXXXXL frame. They always make me think of those poor, abused Kahn Rangerovers with 86" alloys shoehorned under the arches.

If there's a tyre size where you might want to start worrying about future availability, especially if you want anything other than an XC race tyre, I'd say 29" is likely to be more of a concern actually. You can get 200+ types of 26" tyres because those wheels have been around for decades, and there are plenty of people still running them, but whilst the marketeers have been pushing 29ers for a good 15 years, there are still fewer than half as many options, and the breadth of choice has already been surpassed by 27.5", even though that's only really been around for what, 4 or 5 years?

I know people with 29ers fiercely defend them in the same way that parents do Ginger children, but at the end of the day, they're a niche tool which the bike companies were trying to market beyond its niche with a goal of getting us all to spend more money on the new shiny in the way that they're actually succeeding in doing with 27.5".

Your analogy for electric windows is a bit off - I can go out and buy off the shelf a high end XC bike that could ( if I had the legs - which I don't!) go and compete with in a World Cup race that would be just at home on a pootle round my local trail.
Youre right that the majority of people don't need carbon, tubeless or 1x12 drivetrains. But because we like technology we buy into it. Just like road riding, the majority of riders are massively over-biked. Whether you see 29 as a marketing ploy is neither here nor there, mainstream choices are between the big 2 sizes (and some inbetween!).

I could also say those that refuse to accept 26" is dying off are likewise defending the ginger. You say its all marketing, but its only been recently where manufacturers have stopped using spacers to offset geometry and started making specific frames designed for bigger wheels. Sure there will be 1000's of 26" tyres available online - theyve been in production since Noah was a kid, but I would hazard a guess that their production is either nearing end or will be reduced massively resulting in big chains stocking popular lines only. As for the number of 29er tyres, and lets add here 27.5 plus and 29 plus, more are being added almost daily. 26 will end up special build with low volume. I bet theres only a handful of manufacturers - the ones still hand building frames - that still offer 26 for die-hard fans.

Why would I want more than an XC tyre on my 29ers? Thats what the bike is pretty much designed for, I'll not get into the pro's and con's but having moved from a 26" Enduro Comp (stolen unfortunately) to my 29 Stumpy, it would be 29 all day long.

Add in more manufacturers are making longer travel 29ers as, take the Jeffsy released last week for example, rave reviews for a 140mm travel FS.

If you indeed are correct about the fad that is 29ers and they die out, then hell, I'll just convert to 27.5 Plus...... If theres any of those left....

[anonymous-user]

CoinSl0t said:

jshell said:

99% look properly st.

A very sweeping generalisation,

I think those look really ugly and those aren't smal, frames. The proportions are all wrong. In a sport where most people are buying on looks, I'm amazed so many people buy 29ers. Unless it's the largest frames, they look awful.