I was hoping that Tallboy - 5010 thread would take off a bit more but I think given how similar the bikes are it wasn't as compelling to everyone overall. So I'll rephrase the question to open it up all the way. Do you prefer certain wheel sizes to certain travel frames? And do you draw a line on when they apply best or possibly subtract from the builds 'intention'?
This topic definitely becomes more interesting in the wake of the death of the dual 27.5 (RIP, and no I cant afford a Pivot/Yeti)... And with the introduction of stock config MX bikes with travel as short as 125/140 (new Optic), 130/140 (new 5010), and 140/140 (Status).
There's no right or wrong answer here (believe it or not). For your riding and your average trails, what wheel size and travel do you prefer to marry together. And if you were to set a limit (of travel) where you would swap from dual 29 to MX or vice versa... What do you think that limit would be? As soon as you pass 120/130 a la the new Optic? Or only for the most overbuilt bikes in that 170/170 type range? Or just never? 29er on every bike till death.
Again this was inspired by the Tallboy vs 5010 thread. And I'm kinda mulling over my own dilemma in something like a YT Izzo vs an MX Jeffsy, which is a bit more compelling in how different the bikes are. I've been kinda (EMOTIONALLY) preparing for the death of 27.5 and planning on which route to commit to... Shorter travel 29er or longer travel mullet. Sadly I've not gotten much experience on a mullet yet. Tried the Capra (hated it, i dont warrant that much bike). Tried the new Stumpy (loved the ride feel but hate the builds/price/weight). And tried an MX ebike and that told me precisely nothing (other than that I dont want an ebike... yet).
If you had to choose a frame travel number to swap from one config to the other... What's that number?
i honestly switch to mullet for tight but fast trail networks or steep/jump bike parks.
otherwise full 29.
Travel is irrelevant(other than like 120/130mm bikes) IMO... Every bike with 'wheel size chips' Gain travel in mullet/27.5 mode... Some bikes also have quite a Leverage change aswell, Especially the Stumpy... 27.5 link that spesh sell is absolutely shit.
That's another thing that should probably be a larger topic in this thread. All these brands saying a bike can take a 275 rear wheel, make a tiny flip chip adjustment, and everything is "TOATS THE SAME BRO DONT WORRY" Canyon Spectral, all new Ibis rigs, etc. At least Spesh admits its a new link to achieve geo retention.
I'm wondering how many people will actually have these bikes and own both wheels and any necessary link or whatever. But obviously it seems more likely it will stay however it was sold. Most are 29ers, and will stay that way. And the one off stumpys sold in mullet, will stay that way similarly.
The merida One sixty is listed with both travel numbers and both leverage curves are very close.
Some bikes will retain its static geo but its leverage is quite different.
I've been testing a few bikes recently and About to be on the latest Reign then onto the new slash for which i'll be swapping between my two wheel sets(29 & mullet)
P.s alot of bikes on the market listed as 160mm are only 160mm with the 27.5 wheel....
https://www.vitalmtb.com/features/first-ride-transitions-sentinel-v3
Ah, shit... Here we go again.
So maybe, ultimately, this is the way forward for MTB? Almost every single model being "MX-capable"
And here I am being jealous of the XS frames and kids bikes that are designed for dual 275 🤦♂️
I simply ride 29" frames with 27.5 wheels.
I feel like every time I've brought that up people start spinning and projectile vomiting as if people haven't been bodging together random rigs for years but... I guess BB heights were high back then and you were almost always RAISING it... So it's def concerning when modern BB heights are practically on the floor and you drop em another 10-15mm
I'm always looking at bikes in the 'high' setting and with bikes like a Stumpy that have '3 points of adjusting' I'm wondering how practical it could run 27.5 with 170mm or shorter cranks. 🤔
This is pretty similar to my take on wheel size swaps. I've had a couple of bikes (Kona Process X and Ibis Ripley V5) now where the geo is retained with the flip chips (a few mm CS length change, but all other geo the same) and really enjoy the option to swap rear wheels. I'd say I have a preference for the MX setup based on my riding style, but sometimes it's fun to run the full 29 setup.
FWIW I ride a V1 Megatower with 27.5 wheels and 160mm cranks in the high setting. It's fine.
lol i'm still on a 27.5" frame with 26" wheels. my 160 front and 140mm rear trance 2650b is a trail shredder.
Uh oh. Spomer is feeding into my MTB degeneracy again. Because the title is very poorly worded. I will just clarify what the original question was since people are gonna miss it.
The idea was more so what TRAVEL and what GEOMETRY do you prefer with certain wheel sizes. So for the folk (sorry, tall folk) who just prefer dual 29 for every single bike it's not as compelling.
But more so for the average height rider. Which frame designs match up to what wheel combos for you? Do you swap from 29 to MX around the mid travel mark up to enduro? Are you a mullet fan that would ride a 120/130 mullet? Do you prefer dual 27 for everything but XC/trail? etc etc
(The original inspiration for this was a Tallboy vs 5010 thread that never took off and I REALLY wanted it to take off... Particularly because I've been looking at Izzo vs Jeffsy MX recently, and felt the same way ultimately.)
It is possible to use a flip chip and maintain mostly the same geo and leverage ratio. All you really need to do is alter the bb drop at the rear maybe 10mm, which is possible. I would expect that the gyroscopic difference between the 29 and the 27.5 wheel would have a bigger effect in the way the bike rides than the geo and LR. That smaller lighter wheel would be able to tip a fair amount faster than the front, and the path that the rear axle would take to get the same lean angle is shorter. I would love to see an analysis of that.
I suppose the entire community has ultimately decided the difference is 'negligible' more or less, given 90% of any trailhead is 29er now and that last 10% seems to be MX. I'm the only one throwing off the statistics with my dual 27. But that's for the 'average' type of riding I suppose. I do feel that Vital skewing more enthusiast and arguably all mountain/enduro may yield more interesting results.
Don't reckon I'd learn anything by finding out average trail riders on short travel bikes prefer dual 29. But I've definitely been wondering with the industry changes where people would swap to MX (or even dual 27, i guess in so far as you can chuck a 27 front on an MX bike and call it a day). Especially in regards to the Norco Optic and the Santa Cruz 5010. Are those bikes designed in such a way you'd 'rather just have a dual 29er version'... And if so, at what point does a bikes design compel you to go smaller wheels.
I think that's the issue. It's not so much the design of the bike, but the use case and rider preferences. A mix of industry push and "dude, trust me you need this" peer pressure got us all on 29ers. Smoother is faster and faster is fun right? Well, that really depends on the rider. If smoother and faster was always more fun, there wouldn't be the hardcore hardtail crowd. Sure, if you are building a bike for a specific purpose, like dual Slalom or dirt jumping, then a specific wheel size would be more appropriate. But since 85% of bikes that we ride fall into the "trail" catagory, there is no real way to say what is best from a design side. I would love a short travel full 27.5 bike, because I would love to ride a smallish, light bike that I can pop and throw around. When I'm racing (enduro and DH) though? I want full 29, longer stays, like a 495 reach and 650 stack so I can have grip and confidence in rough and steep terrain. Same user, no size that is objectively better for what I want.
At the very least the industry is starting to be (slightly) more honest with us and say... Look we're going to sell you a 29er for larger sizes, and in smaller sizes it will come stock MX... BUT with the flip of a chip or potentially a linkage/etc, you can set it to the other way and it's effectively the same bike with diff wheels. Though I'm not sure which bike is tall enough and adjustable enough to go from dual 29 to dual 27. Part of me thinks the Stumpys could do it. Maybe with some reassurance from short cranks and larger volume tires like 2.5/2.6, dunno
So that's cool in and of itself, but then I'm also iffy on the 'every bike needs to be slacker than 65' mentality, from downcountry up seemingly. It is interesting to see shot chainstays kinda make a come back while so many other aspects of bikes are going longer... AND while brands are figuring out how to actually add stack to these long ass bikes which actually makes short rear center not as necessary. Ultimately a high rise bar can give me some better leverage to achieve the 'sensation' and short CS gives... Without making the bike unbalanced for faster riders. Meh. Weird priorities in the industry, imo
Interesting that you think 90% is 29er.
Down here in Tassie I'd say it's close to even. Lots of steep tight twisty trails so MX bikes just make so much sense. We don't really have open high speed trails as everything is cut into rainforest often by hand.
I'd say for me I'll always be a MX rider. I'm 177cm but long torso short legs, a 29 rear really limits my ability to move back on the bike, and I've never felt like I need more rear grip, if you've got front grip, your good imo.
As awkward as it would be I'd love to do a mini survey at my local trailhead. Unfortunately for the Vital Survey the wheel size portion is... multiple choice. So we cant play the zero sum game. 29ers are 72.5%. Mixed wheel is 24.3%. And dual 27 is surprisingly 38.2%. Obviously its a global survey but man I just DON'T see that represented in SoCal. Basically mid travel or lower people are running 29, and we are likely over representing MX bikes in the long travel category, as you'd expect, but still most people have just trail bikes.
I mean the survey says 31.7% own 26ers which is ALSO very surprising and I'm wondering how much of that is like DJers, fat bikes, or even commuter bikes or something... As opposed to an actual trail/DH bike that is 26. Also how much it gets ridden compared to the others. Aka, what is your daily driver? Not your entire quiver.
And then of course, we do get a nice metric in prospective purchases. Which shows EXACTLY whats gonna happen. 53.3% are 29ers. 31.8 % are MX. And only 11.3% dual 27 so in terms of daily drivers, not only would the numbers be lower for sure but going forward it's definitely just gonna get 'worse'. Although with all these MX bikes floating around you have to assume quite a few of them can take a 27 up front without ruining the bike.
I am surprised, however, at the 'travel' number people say they are gonna buy at. It PEAKS around the 160s and there are more 'over 180s' than 170 (ironically the survey accidentally excluded 180mm bikes by saying 170-179 and then over 180). That's another thing I don't really see represented in the real world, aside from the fact that the survey implies what would you purchase... Considering you already have a daily driver. So I get that. (Since only 40% implied they are looking to purchase within the year.)
But yeah Vital skews enthusiast doing enduro (as per survey) so that's why I was extra interested in Vital communitys take on when to MX and when to 29 (or when to 27 even).
Frankly my '90%' number was a classic '90% of statistics are made up' in terms of it just being what I see out in the wild and not hard data. And while I doubt the hard data would show 90 I honestly don't see it being lower than 75%. I reckon it's between 80-90. At average trail system like Santiago Oaks. I do think Dog Park would lean MX for obvious reasons and something like Fullerton Loop would lean 29er or even old 26 inch XC bikes. Given the trails.
All I know is I demo'd the Capra in MX... Hated it. I don't warrant a mini DH bike. Demo'd the Izzo, loved it but still saw elements of it I didn't prefer in between lower stack feel and dual 29. Demo'd a mullet bike similar to JeffsyMX and loved it, but it wasn't exactly the same... So now I'm quite conflicted on future bikes unless I commit to being the guy who never rides/buys new bikes. I currently ride a dual 27 at 150/160 travel and 64.5 HTA and I would say it's the limit of what I care to ride. In terms of wheel base and overall handling. Still a great bike but I've ridden similar travel with steeper HTA and shorter travel with similar HTA and preferred both. They were just older/shittier builds.
Wouldn't do that to a stumpy evo, I have 165mm cranks on mine, dual 29er and bang pedals and cranks on that more than any other bike I own or have ridden. Probably the worst platform to try it on, when you get the sag set to the right position even with the high BB setting and a 170mm fork, the BB dynamically sits really low. My problem with the bike is that it rides way better with the BB in the low position, longer CS's, but I can only really set it up that way for shuttling or bike park days and when I am riding either of those im taking the Madonna instead.
Why wouldn't you just take a mullet bike and run a 27.5 wheel up front with a fork spacer to preserve the geo?
Personally, I think bike size, overall WB/CS/Reach and HT angle will have more of an impact on how maneuverable a bike is vs the size of the wheels. My last dedicated 27.5 bike was an XXL slash. I worked for a shop at the time that sold SC, Trek, had access to Spec among others and TBH they all were pretty similar at the time geo wise. My current L Madonna has 65mm of more stack, a 50mm longer WB and 15mm longer CS with a 6mm longer reach. Thats comparing an XXL to a L, 2016 vs 2024... Yeah, the slash, which I still have and ride from time to time is nimbler and more playful, and way, way lighter, the handling attributes are predominantly due to the short CS's, WB and overall size being smaller, and less so from the wheel size difference, my 2 cents.
All that being said I am going to build up a new rear 27.5 wheel for the madonna this winter. Wanted to do with the St Evo but the kinematics turn to crap unless you buy the WRP link I didn't want to stomach.
Ah yeah I just checked it and the new one is arguably even lower. Though less travel might mean it bottoms out around the same area. I was hoping with the Flip chip, mullet link, and angled headset it would be in the neighborhood but... It seems just getting from MX to 29er is hard enough. And getting to a place where a dual 29er could also do dual 27 (which practically nobody wants tbh)... Would require the 29er to be offensively high by modern standards. Meh.
I guess the narrative would more so be a bike that is therefore MX but could take a 27 inch front. But again, not sure how that works being front wheel instead of rear. Since the methods to change seem to 'focus' on the rear wheel. So again it would maybe run into the same issue of MX config needs to be offensively high to make the 27 front work. Outside of just upforking? I dunno...
Ya that's what I've learned since I only started in MTB 5 years ago (from BMX) and didn't experience much 29er action until later, and only recently have I tried mullets. Part of me thought I would like the Capra 'because its MX'... Nope not even close, it's just way too much bike for how I ride. Despite being a BMXer who jumps I rode a lot of street and love more trials type riding.
Tried the Izzo as like a "i guess i will be open minded" moment and it just felt like a DJer with 29 inch wheels to me. Sure, not optimal, but the travel and geometry just said 'go slow and play and enjoy it'. And I'm sure it's more than capable to ride beyond that level if I cared to.
So that's cool, but then stuff like the Jeffsy MX and Status models and Stumpy MX exist. And part of me thinks the Jeffsy MX would be the best of both worlds. (As the Status is too slack/long, and the Stumpy builds are eye rolling to me.)
Here is my thinking: 29er wheels have better rollability but don't turn as well as 27'5. A short-travel bike (trail/downcountry) is more focused on riding fast, mellower terrain, and bigger wheels might help achieve that. The 29er wheels also help mitigate the lack of comfort of a short-travel bike. Conversely, more travel can be mitigated for a less rollable wheel, like with an MX downhill.
I think it really depends on the terrain, I prefer the speed and stability of a full 29er even on my DH bike, but I could imagine having an MX setup for DH or Enduro if I was riding all year steep loamy trail like the Pleney or some twisty trail system. I fail to see where I would enjoy an MX short travel but maybe somewhere smooth and tight or maybe some kind of tech jumplines... To be honest, 29er are pretty good and versatile and so the MX factor feels like a marginal gain or a highly specialized feature.
Ultimately, I feel like lots of people gravitate towards some setup like MX and coil setup because it sounds moto and badass even if it's not the ultimate setup for their use
Interesting question. Not something I've thought much about, as I have a typically owned an enduro bike (which I prefer MX) and an XC bike (which are all full 29). I don't know if there is a precise 'inflection point' in the travel numbers where I'd want to switch over to MX, but its probably around 150mm of rear travel. That said, it's going to have more to do with how I plan on riding that bike, rather than the travel number. Steeper, more aggressive terrain I'd run the mullet, flatter more XC terrain I'd run the 29er. I think it would map onto tire choice pretty well also - if I plan on running Double Down-style casing (or thicker) on the bike, I'd go mullet, otherwise I'd go for the full 29er.
I say commit to being the guy who never buys new bikes. I think it's more fun modifying and upgrading older frames. But I am curious about Zink's new trail bike.
Ya my hand feels forced even though I'm open minded to just trying things. But generally being on a budget and wanting to be a 'single bike household', I wish I could just buy a bike that fits my needs whenever I want. Transition discontinued the Scout, which was pretty predictable but it lasted longer than many thought. Marin switched to the size specific wheels similar to Polygon, so I can technically get their trail bike with a marginal sacrifice on sizing. And the Pivot Shadowcat would probably be an amazing option but I can barely even find secondhand listings of it within my price range.
Part of me has given up on my dream bike (Kona 167). Which is ok cuz I've owned 2 Konas and I'm kinda sick of the press fit BB and overall fit n finish of the builds. I'd be open minded to one of the OG carbon 153s tho. Might just look out for the last alloy 5010s now or that first lower VPP carbon model. Actually starting to see some good listings for those, as low as 1500 for alloy and nearly 2k for newer carbon. Only thing is I would like more modernized seat tube angle and stack numbers. Otherwise I'm ok with small/short bikes. I've officially started shopping mediums for brand new bikes. Whether I like it or not lol
As for new stuff, looking at Jeffsy MX for sure. And wish I could build an alloy Optic MX but... No idea what that bike feels like. Haven't even gotten to try high pivot yet tbh :/
Sounds like we've got similar priorities. I need XL though which only accentuates the seat tube angle issue on the older bikes. I thought I'd have heaps of new options to choose from but can't find much at all. Airdrop Edit, Banshee Rune and Jeffsy my picks so far.
I'd probably commit to the Jeffsy right now if I could get the Kona sold. But also I haven't actually demo'd it and not sure if I can actually, as they only demo the normal 29ers. 2500 for that LTD build right now is so sick. I wish I could shop more of the EU brands that still value 275 but I just never see them anywhere and I imagine they could incur extra costs if I tried to actually buy from overseas.
Commencal Clash is another dedicated 27.5" bike. It's relatively affordable and seems to want to rip.
Give it a look!
Lots uh, lots going on in your question. I think I read it a couple times, and still not entirely sure what youre trying to get at.
Heres my take on things
Dont get so wrapped up in the numbers, and curves, and stats, and nonsense. Its adults playing with toys in the woods, theres absolutely nothing serious about it (unless youre trying to feed your family by going fast). I'm curious about all things mountain bike, and I like a little weird. Currently running a short travel Knolly Fugitive 120/140, as an MX rig. basically a mildly complicated Optic, with a higher quality alu frame... Its a tonne of fun, great play bike, that you can still pedal all day. Its my gateway to a new Endorphin.
I also just came off a Spire (29, 170mm bike) and swapped it for a Dreadnaught (29, 160 bike) but got the -10mm 275 dropouts to give them a go as well. Bikes are rad, dont make it weird
All in all, theres no right, no wrong, just fun to be had. Toss a 29 fork on your current bike, and see how it goes
Also Knollys are incredible bikes, fit and finish, and to ride......and they are a great deal right now. You could dual 275 an Endorphin as well
Well the initial question is confusing because its about like... A theory where wheel size is tied to travel and also geometry.
But the long and short of it, aside from reminding me bikes are fun (what have I been doing on BMX bikes for 30 years!?), is that my style of riding is not very supported in the current market of bikes and I've been struggling on shopping for new bikes (or outright saying screw it and just ride old bikes and become an ebay goblin for the rest of my riding).
I already have an idea of which bikes are 'too much' for me. And I have a general idea of bikes that are too 'trail XC' for me as a single bike type guy. Though I do love a good XC rip from time to time.
Whenever I mention playful type riding and BMX/trials stuff I feel like I'm speaking in tongues. And then people will say like 'Lenosky and Kendall Weed can do trials on 29ers, so you can too'. And I have to go to sleep at night knowing I'm not one of the Jeffs and have to be mentally strong and ok with that (as much as it hurts).
I want to try the 'shortest' mullet I can, but I'm still getting mixed results. I was iffy on the Status 140, and wondering if I could make adjustments to get it where I want. Similar to how I felt on the YT Izzo. The new Stumpy in MX felt quite amazing, and is similar to the Jeffsy MX so I'm wondering if I should go that route. Or think more long term and look out for like an SC 5010 MX or Norco Optic MX but that might be secondhand anyway so... May as well just find a 275 5010 instead at that point. It's ok to get caught up in the numbers. And it's ok to not like the majority of modern bike builds (I think... Not sure lemme ask the Pinkbike comments section)
I'm already on a Kona 153 that is a bit more bike than I care for. The Clash is even bigger with a longer rear center as well so... I've definitely written it off. Plus I'm kinda iffy on Commencal's reputation but I'm sure they're fine. I wonder how long that model will last as well. I know it's the same one from like eons ago and all their inventory looks like old stock.
It will be interesting to see when like the last true dual 27 size large major brand bike disappears.
I see a ton of new Clash completes show up on some Commencal groups I'm in. So I don't think they're just sitting on old stock because they seem to be moving (from what I can tell from the very specific windows through which I see that part of the mtb world). I think they have a 434mm chainstay so I guess I don't see them as a long bike. The reach numbers are long but I'd just size down in that case. Maybe you need a 26" bike?
There's a company called Fairdale that makes a bike called the Elevator. It's 29" but it has a super short chainstay (406mm). It might be just lively enough for you to be able to try it as a 29" or as a mullet.
Knolly has the Endorphin. Commencal has the Clash. Revel made a Rail27 (available on buycycle.com), evo.com has the 2023 Yeti SB140 (which is a 27.5" bike) available for sale. The Raaw has the JibbV2 which has a mixed wheel link available. You could stick a little longer fork on it and swap to a 27.5" front and/or ride it mullet. Jenson USA has a few bikes in the 27.5" category. Propain has the Tyee available in 27.5". Surly makes the Karate Monkey which is 27.5"+ and has shorter-than-average reach and 423mm chainstays. NS has the Define 160 and Define 170 as well as their DH-leaning Fuzz at 27.5". Devinci makes a Marshall 27.5. Cube makes a Two15 if you're looking more SuperEnduro/DH. Canyon's website says the Torque Park is always 27.5" while the Neuron and Spectral are both 27.5" in the small and extra-small sizes. Starling makes a Swoop in 27.5" as a rare release.
If you're looking for a niche product - and a dual 27.5" bike is a niche product now - you also can't sit back and wait for someone to make exactly the perfect bike. A lot of people said they'd never like the new 5010 because it's mixed wheel and the only good 5010 is a dual 27.5" bike...but then they ride the new one and many independent reviewers seem to agree the new mixed wheel bike is as good or better than the previous model. No one at a big, popular company makes a dual 27.5"...except Pivot's Shadowcat. ...and Yeti's SB135. But they're too expensive. (I agree they're too expensive. That said I just purchased a Yeti SB120 on a steep sale. Was it the perfect bike for me? Nope. Was it almost my perfect bike and did the price work? Not quite but it was the closest I found to hitting all my imagined marks and I didn't see prices magically coming down further or someone else magically making the exact bike I want. So I compromised). Point of all that is to say: I think there are bikes for you out there. I hope you can find one you love.
I REALLY want to try the Elevator. I actually have bought a hardtail to ride for this year just to experiment with some things and get away from the big ol Kona. Sadly I can't see myself building a Fairdale frame up or affording the sole stock build, outside of a great sale. I'd much rather try the Elevator than like the Kona ESD or whatever. Would love an Elevator just rocking a bare bones CUES and Bomber Z2 build.
I'm definitely not waiting for a brand to make a dual 27. I've fully accepted they're gone. And they are being replaced by mullets en masse. And I'm not anti-mullet per se. Again, I like playful but it's not as though I'm doing tailwhips and barspins at Rampage. What's really given me pause is how various bikes have felt in various wheel configs. I'd def be open minded to the 5010 in the future, even though I'd hate to barely afford some kind of NX build brand new. So secondhand I'd probly just snag the dual 27 regardless.
And similar to the amazing Shadowcat (and new 5010s), I'd struggle to justify building an MX alloy Optic. I'd absolutely need to demo one and I'm not sure if I'll be able to get that done.Very unique, strange, interesting bike. Even in 29er. MX config makes it even weirder.
I'd LOVE a 26er. As I'm notorious for bringing up in any thread possible, Kona 167 is my dream bike. But I've just accepted I'm not gonna find one, or make a road trip to Canada to try to grab one from a Pinker.
Currently I'm leaning MX Jeffsy. Heck, I'd even commit to it right now on its current sale if I could sell my Kona. That said I've not even seen/touched one yet. I'm just assuming the numbers are similar enough to the Stumpy I demo'd. Which given my experiences with predicting bike feel I'd rather not do lol. I tried the Status 140, really thought it would be a front runner for me, and I didn't quite gel with it. Somehow felt like an Izzo. Think the stack bothered me or something. Maybe a riser bar would help. Not sure :/
Post a reply to: Where do you mix and match wheel size? How do you feel different configs compare?