Jump to content
IGNORED

Why did I choose 27.5" wheels this time?


TheX
 Share

Recommended Posts

My riding buddies are all asking why. Pretty simple really, I went from 26" years ago, straight to 29er. After multiple bikes with big wheels, I wanted to live on 27.5" for a while...and I like it.

Different is good.

Pros and/or cons for people here on 27.5"?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, June Bug said:

Intense has just come out with a reverse mullet bike:  29" in front and 27.5" in the rear. 

27.5 acceleration, 29 handling downhills and obstacles. Not a bad concept actually. Does "best of both worlds" translate into a good ride? Interesting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Tip said:

Found an article about sales comparisons. A year old but says 27.5 sales are declining mostly because 29er technology is advancing to solve all the previous downsides of the bigger wheel.

https://www.bicycleretailer.com/product-tech/2018/11/21/rise-shreddy-29er

Boost helped a LOT, making the bigger wheels stiffer with wider spoke spacing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ride both - 2017 Intense Primer Factory Build and 2018 Trek Remedy 9.8. Having the choice to ride either is nice but if I could only have one bike it would be a 29er for sure. It's hard for me to compare the riding characteristics of these two bikes on wheel-size alone because one is a 26lb short-travel bike with 67.5 degree HTA and the other is a 28.5lb long-travel bike with 65.5 degree HTA. I can say though that the rollover capability is indeed an advantage on the 29er and that tighter cornering seems to be an advantage on the 27.5. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Tip said:

27.5 acceleration, 29 handling downhills and obstacles. Not a bad concept actually. Does "best of both worlds" translate into a good ride? Interesting

Intense has three wheel-size iterations for the Primer: 27.5", 27.5"/29", 29". 

MTBR.com does a comparo of all three here: 2020 Intense Primer First Ride, The Tale of Three Primers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, June Bug said:

Intense has just come out with a reverse mullet bike:  29" in front and 27.5" in the rear. 

To me, having 2 different sized wheels is always a dumb idea. 2 different tubes to carry, can't swap tires to even out wear.

I believe that 27.5 brings the "bigger wheel" benefits to those people who are shorter. I have ridden 27.5 and 29 and don't really see a dramatic difference between them. But when people ask, I tend to recommend 27.5 for small bike riders and 29 for large bikes. Medium could go either way, based on whether they are a "large medium" or a "small medium". Seems to me that someone would really do the industry a great service by measuring height and inseam to figure out where the 27.5/29 crossover point happens. 

Long term in the industry I think that we will have both options, but I believe that the industry is best served to address wheel size as a function of bike fit and not a function of performance/handling. It just feels like they are creating the artificial argument today to try to sell people on owning more bikes. The 26/29 gap was pretty large but with 27.5/29 it gets a lot smaller.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, AustinBike said:

To me, having 2 different sized wheels is always a dumb idea. 2 different tubes to carry, can't swap tires to even out wear.

I believe that 27.5 brings the "bigger wheel" benefits to those people who are shorter. I have ridden 27.5 and 29 and don't really see a dramatic difference between them. But when people ask, I tend to recommend 27.5 for small bike riders and 29 for large bikes. Medium could go either way, based on whether they are a "large medium" or a "small medium". Seems to me that someone would really do the industry a great service by measuring height and inseam to figure out where the 27.5/29 crossover point happens. 

Long term in the industry I think that we will have both options, but I believe that the industry is best served to address wheel size as a function of bike fit and not a function of performance/handling. It just feels like they are creating the artificial argument today to try to sell people on owning more bikes. The 26/29 gap was pretty large but with 27.5/29 it gets a lot smaller.

 

Riders with shorter inseams that don't want the tire buzz of a 29 in the back but prefer the rollover they offer in the front. Will probably build a 160mm travel 27.5 with a 150mm 29 mullet up front next for the wife.

On 12/7/2019 at 11:46 AM, June Bug said:

Intense has just come out with a reverse mullet bike:  29" in front and 27.5" in the rear. 

I was excited to see this but intense really screwed the pooch on that one. It's just the 29 frame with a plus tire in the back with all the shock tuning issues that come with it. They should have added the rear 27.5 triangle to the 29 frame but i digress.....

On 12/7/2019 at 11:50 AM, The Tip said:

27.5 acceleration, 29 handling downhills and obstacles. Not a bad concept actually. Does "best of both worlds" translate into a good ride? Interesting

In professional Enduro and DH it seems to. Real world? Who knows. My biggest struggle going back and forth between wheel sizes was lazy line choice. The 29 plowed stuff the 27.5 would try to tomahawk me over.

21 hours ago, TheX said:

My Bronson has 2.5 tires, much bigger than my XC bike which is a 29er. I feel like the Bronson will roll over anything.

Yes. My commencal has a 27.5 x 2.6 on a 35mm rim that measures out around 28.3". You can add some height back with tire choice.

Edited by ATXZJ
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was watching some Enduro, and DH riders discussing 29ers. They were talking about being a few seconds faster on 29. At my age and level, I think the Bronson is light years beyond what I'll ever need. Maybe in a couple years I'll re-bike again and try whatever is hip at the time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When getting a new bike in 2018, I decided on 29er for mostly one reason: rolling persistance. Everything I read was that 29ers maintain their speed better. I'm fairly slow, but once I get moving I want to keep moving. While there might be a comparable mass between a 27.5 with a wider tire compared to a 29er with slightly narrower tires, such that the spinning mass is nearly the same, and speed might be maintained in a similar manner. Be interesting to compare the 2 sizes with close to same rolling mass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Enduro crowd sure seems to go back and forth based on the track. From what I’ve seen, it seems that riders who like to go airborne prefer the smaller wheel. I keep hearing the words “more playful”. Having ridden a few, I can feel the difference. I understand the “playful” description, but It ends up feeling like a smaller bike more similar to how my 26ers feel. I definitely prefer the 29ers. 29ers feel more like they’re made for covering more distance on the trail, 27.5 is made for playing on the trail.

As close as they are (before including 27.5+), I think it’s great for people to have the option. I also agree with Austinbike that it’s great for sizing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have both. I prefer 27 when using heavier tires. The 29 tires are heavier and farther from the axle, it's just less fun to muscle them around tech terrain. If all I rode was dirt highways like mtb yum yum the 29 would be fine.

Advantages - market saturation of lightly used 27 bikes an wheels.

Edited by Trailrider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was straight up "29er 4 eva" until I demo'd and purchased a 27.5+. Then I thought I was surely an early adopter riding what would no doubt be the wave of the future. They are still around obviously, but the plus sized movement hasn't swept the MTB world as I imagined. Now my beloved 27.5+ is closer to retirement than being new again, and if I had to buy a new bike tomorrow, I would have no idea which way I'd go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Barry said:

Have you considered sub-mid-fat? I really enjoy my 2.6x27.5 on 36mm rims. 

I'm not really at the point of considering anything at the moment. For now, I'll just try to enjoy the twilight years of my Stumpy 6fattie. (I'm not getting any younger myself.)

However, yes. I'd probably start there with option to go as wide as 2.8. I'd also like to compare it to a 29er running 2.6" rubber. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This entire discussion would make more sense with an outer diameter discussion. How different is a 27.5 w/2.8 vs. a 29 with 2.4? Not sure anyone has ever done that apples to oranges compare. Typically I see 27.5 v 29 using the same approximate tire. And that defeats the purpose of the comparison in my mind.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, AustinBike said:

This entire discussion would make more sense with an outer diameter discussion. How different is a 27.5 w/2.8 vs. a 29 with 2.4? Not sure anyone has ever done that apples to oranges compare. Typically I see 27.5 v 29 using the same approximate tire. And that defeats the purpose of the comparison in my mind.

+ tire weights.  I have a spreadsheet that calculates rotational inertia (roughly) so I wouldn't mind plugging in some newer numbers.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AustinBike is correct... Folks have just been looking at one related parameter, but there are multiple variations that come into play these days... And these other variations even put 26" wheels in play.

Here's a quote from one forum...

"...On paper these (26 x 2.75) should be around the same height as 27.5 x 2.10. The reason I think so is reviews on other websites have measured 27.5 x 3.0 tires and they are the same height as 29 x 2.3 tires. 3.0/2.3 is 30% more width = 1.5 inches higher, from 27.5 to 29.0 inches."

Not sure if the above maths is correct... But it touches on the reality of tire size coming into play.

Then of course comes the consideration of fork travel... How much more travel do you need when using 2.3 tires versus 2.6 tires? Or does the increased tire volume not make any noticeable difference to the ride? How does a frame using a 110mm travel fork with a 29 x 2.6 tire compare to a 140mm travel fork with a 27.5 x 2.3 tire?

So many variations are possible.

 

Edited by RidingAgain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...