here we go wheel size debate

Lets look at the marketing disinformation on this site. Keep in mind one of their main rivals has not gone into 27.5 wheels yet. Note also that the wheels are NOT in the middle of 26 and 29 so are NOT 27.5, another marketing slight of hand.

"Snappier acceleration and a reduced angle of attack for a smoother, more agile ride".
Attack angle: Yes when compared to a 26r a 27.5r is better but NOT to a 29r. Is a 26r more agile than a 27.5r? But the claim conflates the agile ride, smoother ride and attack angle, typical marketing ploy combine disparate aspects in one sentence.

Rollover: Note they don't tell you how much LESS efficient a 27.5r is to a 29r. Nor do they go on to say how much energy that saves on rides. Nor do they go on to say how that effects acceleration on rough ground.

Acceleration: yes but does not use real world environment. The smaller wheel will accelerate faster. But ignores the attack angle and treats it as irrelevant, which over rough ground (qualitative statement) may not be the case. Over smooth ground the smaller wheel will accelerate faster, but does the larger wheel need accelerating as much at 'cruising speed'. So the percentage differences quoted are for smooth tracks, on rough tracks the energy required to overcome rough terrain can make the 29r quicker than the 26r and 27.5r. So on a long rough technical uphill the 29r may 'accelerate' faster and require less energy.

Better control. Yep a larger contact patch may make for better handling/control. The 27r may have a similar size patch to a 29r BUT IT IS smaller so using their argument the 29r is better.

Traction: the 29r has a larger patch therefore it has better traction. (leaving out the weight aspect)

The above section is very typical marketing BS IMO.

Frame stiffness: - the frame stiffness claim needs some objective measures, the source of their data is? Oh not stated!. The design of 29rs has come a long way with some having chain stay lengths shorter than 26rs – and comparisons need to be made between different bikes with different designs and suspension systems. This is so simplistic as to be embarrasing for Giant IMO.

Geometry: If head tube height is such an issue then what about suspension travel effect? And why is headtube height a problem – is it handlebar height? and there are many ways to reduce this (hint turn your stem over)

For me that page is pure marketing bullshit

So test ride all three sizes on the trails you want to ride and purchase the size that YOU like that suits YOUR style and suits YOU for intended use. Too much marketing BS around from all manufaturers IMO.

FWIW.

Great info from the guys above who I know both ride locally and are passionate about their sport.

All I'll advise is that you think about which area you think will make up your main type of riding & pick a bike for that purpose in mind. Of course you can race a trail bike but you can't really expect a race light 29er to survive many of our local trails without breaking stuff.

I've all three wheel sizes but wouldn't like to say which size is best, I tend to take whichever one best suits what I'm going to be doing that day.
For A to B speed on trails the 29er HT is fastest but it gets uncomfortable if the ride is over about 60km.

For chucking down stuff & general hooning about the 6" travel bike is best & being tougher takes the abuse.

The 26" Hardtail & race 26" 100mm travel duallie are great for fast smoother trails with tight single track stuff & sharp climbs where the precise steering & lightweight shine. Imho they are not the best for Kalamunda though as the extra work picking lines & lifting to avoid rocks gets tiring.

The 27.5 wheels on the 26" bikes makes them smoother & faster without a noticeable weight gain. The only negative in doing this for me is that the frames geometry wasn't designed for the larger wheels, the BB is a bit higher & steering slower. Without these traits I'd say that for me a mid travel (120 - 140) 27.5 with a sensibly tough set up would be my one bike for everything choice for Kalamunda.

Unfortunately as with all the latest stuff the price won't be great & tyre choice is still a bit limited but its improving rapidly.

All the best
T

I ride long distance XC and trail and for me the benefits of a 29er outweigh the negatives. Many people would disagree with me however and they're right too.
I don't consider myself an aggressive rider. Generally speaking more aggressive riders will favour the 650 wheel size.
Whenever I get on my 6 inch 26er I hate it and crave for my 29er but that's just me.
I've been riding 29ers for 6 years now so I'm not aware of any negatives when I ride them.
Whatever negatives they apparently have like slow steering, poor manoeuvrability, poor acceleration etc I have adjusted to and it feels normal.

The marketing guys must've done a good job on me as i have 3 bikes with all 3 wheel sizes... Latest bike being a 650B...

TBH I enjoy riding all of the bikes i have & as already said by above guys it depends on what i'm wanting from my ride that day, what i end up riding.
I just did my 1st 100k down in Dwellingup this w/e & did on the 650B, & found it to be more than capable for the ride / distance, it was comfortable on all parts of the trails that were thrown at it, fire road / single track / hells gate etc, I'm sure the 29er probably would've been the same TBH, (well maybe not hells gate) though probably not as comfortable as the 650B because my 29er is an HT, I've done a few other events on the 29er D40, 50/50 etc & reckon in all honesty i wouldn't have been any quicker on the 29er over the 100k (but then that's me I realise that wouldn't be the case for others)

I tend to use the 29er more for commuting these days as it's quick on the road once up to speed & rolls well, likewise when on open trails up in the hills, maybe not in some of the tighter more technical sections.

I also enjoy riding my 26er, & have done for the last 4 - 5yrs, though it's took a bit of a back seat at the mo to the 650B as thats still new. I should add i'll def be keeping the 26er though as I've always found to be a fun ride... & will be riding in the future i'm sure.

I've found the 650B to be a bit of cross between the 2 really (maybe stating the obvious there) but it is, it has the good traits of both the 26er & 29er, & I don't even think about the wheelsize on it when I'm riding it... but then again do I on the other bikes PROBABLY NOT... At the end of the day try the bike & see what suits you regardless of marketing I reckon...

It's not the tiny size but the big shoes that give the 29ers the clown tag.

I find it interesting that the very people who leapt at the 29er marketing malacky now so thoroughly dismiss the 650B marketing baloney.

As with any bike purchase forget the hype take a few for a test ride and get the one that appeals to you the most. Everything else is just massaging your guilty conscious over spending so much money on a push bike.

Just buy the damn bike and be free

I'm with jeronimo on this one. After spending 8 weeks on an Ellworth Evolve 29er that just seemed to fit like a glove when I first jumped on it, going back to the Rize 26er with nominally much slacker geometry felt like I was on a twitchy little road bike with no grip as I was trying (unsuccessfully) to chase jacojoco down the Heath Track water bars at Cascades.

While there's some truth in what Giant has to say - bigger wheels do roll better - the "One Ring to Rule Them All" claim just strikes me as them trying to engineer the marketplace (again).

I think they're probably right about 26" shrinking dramatically over the next few years, and there's definitely an internal business case for them dropping it and leaving it to the niche players.

As to whether 27.5" is better than 29" for XC endurance racing we'll see. For the kind of stuff I like, I don't think so. For XCO events maybe, since the courses seem to be getting more technical and risky in the pursuit of making it more exciting for TV audiences. But then, they're all (with rare exceptions) on hardtails with steep and twitchy geometry and my lower back is no good on those things off-road for more than an hour. There's a reason duallies are more popular among recreational punters like us.

Their claims to be getting most of the rolling efficiency of 29ers is very dependent on how big the bumps and ruts are. In their marketing material, they've obviously chosen the bump size that works best for their presentation material. The bigger the bumps the more it favours 29ers.

They seem to have forgotten that the 29er thing was a grassroots affair that suddenly caught fire. I don't see the same pent-up demand for 27.5, but then I was never a 29er sceptic or clownshoes hater

But you never know, maybe there are more of them than I realised, and they might be onto something

Choosing a wheel size comes down to:

-WHAT DO YOUR MATES RIDE!!!!!! It's a starting point. Anyone on this forum would ride regularly with at least one or two others. Ride similar equipment to your mates to keep the competitions healthy.

-trail objective (uphill or XC /jumps/twisty turney technical/ flowing single track)

-Rider size (6'4" chap will have a different view to a 5'4" chap)

All of the above in consideration, pick the tool for the job.

So for single track:
-100-130mm 29er dually for 80% of the trails in WA. (Unless you like to whip your tail at every opportunity, then say 60% of the WA trails).
-130-180mm 26er for most trails in places such as Rortorua or Central Otago or even Whistler or Chamonix.

For a jack of all trades and anything in between, I reckon the SC Bronson would be shit hot. Out of any 650b's thats the one I would get.