Congrats to Richard F from Carbondale, Colorado, Chris E from Copperas Cove, Texas and Justin S of Northern Virginia. You three have won a Kitsbow Icon.
27.5+ in my opinion was the best thing to come along for hardtails. I have been riding my plus hardtail for almost 3 yrs with no regrets in my purchase. As you mentioned, the high volume and low pressures are what I have grown to love when riding my local trails which are a wide mix of smooth singletrack to rooty and rocky climbs and descents.
@@Moonglow1-y9x That's not true, I was not riding yet when 26ers were still around. I like 27.5 and think that it's a well balanced wheel size that does everything well. I really like how they ride and handle and they are what I've always ridden and I am used to. I don't think the tradeoffs for a 29er are worth it and I don't see a reason to switch.
Still the choice of wheel for world tourers, available anywhere, because most of the world rides round on 26” 5-8 speed v braked bikes, despite what bike manufacturers tell you.
Got to go as you want to! :) I am 6.8 Ft though, so I adapted to 29ers. It was not a choice to me, it was a chance. But I can get the smaller wheels...and downhill..it has favors to smaller people. Which is pure logics of being able to manoeuvre faster, shorter circles. So...I can imagine you like it..?!
I love the plus tires for bikepacking. Especially on a rigid. They might be "heavy" but they're lighter and more reliable than any kind of suspension. And you can go plus mullet for extra weird factor and fun!
The 26" wheel may not be right for the top end of the sport, but it does have advantages for the ordinary cyclist. Namely that it is lighter, it makes the bike smaller, easier to mount/dismount, easier to store and carry. It also allows more space for panniers and luggage. You can have bigger tyres without excessive weight, good for our potholed roads. I'm keeping my 26" hybrid as long as I can, it's great as a road and light trails bike.
I dusted off a 26er yesterday and road a newly built trail, tight, tight turns, and I picked better lines because I could change directions quicker from one spot to the next. I'm going to fix up the bike because I liked it so good, at least on that trail. It did throw me on the ground once though but it climbed great. I'm with you, long live the 26er.
Agree. 26" wheels feel mushy and don't seem to retain their inertia (even with relatively fast-rolling tires), but for rugged commuting and even off-road touring my 90s MTB rebuild is great. Now it's towing a kid trailer with aplomb.
@@ehounshell Man, I do love to hear that. I'm not the fastest on the track, but I like it when a young buck snubs it and I go around them, then they want to ask questions about it 😄. Happy Thanksgiving by the way.
@@saddleweary2777 That and $2,000+ for a mountain bike is a bit much. Specialized Bicycle Company and the rest aren't the (financially) inclusive outfit it once was.
@@sailingaeolus I talked to a fella awhile ago, he was riding the new epic or the evo, I'm not sure about the model names but it was the alloy and he said it was a boat anchor at 34#s , I thought those bikes were light, even the alloy, and I think it cost around 3 grand. I can't see spending that much for a heavy bike unless maybe if I didn't have a bike, my bike weighs 35#s and it's hard watching those 25# bikes go around me but they cost 4500 at least unless it's a hardtail, I just can't spend it. I believe I'll try to lighten up my bike and let it go. Fix up the 26er and maybe lighten up my road bike and still be money ahead. I'm not that competitive but I don't like getting passed by a light bike and not the rider, you know what I mean.
I have bikes with both QR and thru axles. Funny thing, sometimes I do have to readjust my disc brake calipers after taking off wheels with thru axles. And sometimes I do NOT have to readjust my disc brake calipers after reinserting wheels with QR axles. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't even be aware of the consistency difference if the internet didn't say so
My frustration is for larger than 26 inch wheels is that for Short legged riders, they dont have geometry and clearance for good general purpose MTB ( a category thats sadly disappeared anyway`) I have room for one bike, thats it, even then it lives in the front room, I would wreck a flipping Brompton in a few days, the classic Hybrid is dominated by 700c wheels and tall person geometry and a "crap at everything" philosophy to encourage multiple cycle ownership. The mythical 90s mountain bike with lower ride heights, bomb proof build, compact suspension, arsenal of carry options, go anywhere triple clanger gearing, It Can bash down trails, urban obstacles, do a big food shop, and trundle into the wilderness with a tent and clobber for a perpetual tour. the only things its not good at is road speed and "extreme" cycling styles. that "proper" cyclist marketing obsess about.
> good general purpose MTB ( a category thats sadly disappeared anyway`) You can still get a good cross-country hardtail in the $500 - $1000 range that is exactly that
I live in the Philippines where MTB are hugely popular. Sadly 29er is becoming the only available size. I say sadly because the average male height is only 163.5cm compared to 175.3cm in USA. The world bike industry is naturally most influenced by more affluent countries. I am only 165cm tall and find my 29er just too big for me despite having the correct frame size
Charlie, I'm confident you are correct from your experience, to this whole 26 vs 27.5 vs 29. Recent engineering studies that bring in user perceptions/racing results/etc., show that each perspective can be correct FOR THE INDIVIDUAL. For example, turning capabilities (including under-turning or turning short, or turning too slow through a tight turn, etc. etc. etc.) on either road or dirt surfaces is hugely influenced by the choice of tread, tire width, surface structure, etc. etc. etc.--you get the point. Regardless, what works best for you is important. I'm 5'9" with long legs/very short torso, and ride a 29" well enough--but for the most part, a 27.5" is best for me across all surface types & conditions. Others around the world obviously have found this general reality out for themselves as well, so don't worry about some internet hero-expert tell you only one wheel will serve everyone best. Oh BTW, my girlfriend rips a 26" like a pro (she almost was, as a National Team alternate) and never could stand riding a 29, under any circumstances--too large. Best of fortune to you out on the road/trail.
I ride a 29+ bike with QR axles and a rear 135mm hub spacing front and rear. According to the industry it should not exist, but IT WORKS. Call me a retro-grouch, but boost, and super boost for that matter, is Marketing. I have a 1 1/8 headset, rusty steel tubing and no problemo. The problem is inbetween my ears: I am a sucker for marketing. I had a susser which was a multiple Test winner in the German Bike magazine and I could not feel "at home" on the bike like with my old steel banger. IT is because of this I think Geometry is the Alpha and Omega of bikes. I am still sad tho I sold the susser, because it was such a smart bike.
Choice. Whatever makes it possible to make various choices for whatever other kinds of riding you expect to do without having to buy a whole new bike or new frame is good.
a good example of that was the 9mm thru-bolts that could fit into open dropouts. I remember buying those, they provided a more reliable fit in the dropout and better stiffness.
Oh yes, and the best part is the appreciation one gets from surrounding people after finishing a hard climb on such a steel, looking-like-pile-of-junk retro 26 inch bike with panniers, and people asking "it's an e-bike, right?" xD
I’m 6feet1 and have both configuration 29x2.8 and 27.5x2.8 Still kinda love the 27.5 when the terrain is hard, going up and down and very technical. Strangely, I feel 2.6 is just in between: I prefer to have comfy 2.8 or fast and light 2.3 with a rigid frame (timberjack ti) ✌🏻 Great work, can’t wait for the next chapter.
Through axles! I could be wrong but I think the first company to point to on through axles on bicycles would be Marzocchi back when they released their first Z1, Dirt Jumper JR T, Monster T forks with the 20mm through axles in suspension forks they were making for mountain bikes. That started back in 1996 think. Then in 1998Yeti Cycles working with Hope Bike Components came out with a 9 inch travel down hill bike that used a 12mm diameter through axle for the rear wheel. This required a new dropout design and was very involved in manufacturing. I worked for the company that assembled all the bicycle wheels for Yeti at the time. Even building the wheels was very involved. I feel any other bike wheel assembler may not have been able to do it but Geoff Winkel had experience with motorcycles and the hub was machined and built just like motorcycle hubs at that time but scaled down.
Hey thankyou so much for the amazing shirt. It's going to be a great present for my better 3/4. My Catrike Expedition and the Apollo Gravel uses a through Axle design, I love them.
Waiting for some major brand to "invent" a 26-inch bikepolo bicycle, so that I can have my 26x1.35 slicks back in stock. It's just perfect for traversing cities in ways less unsafe and more inventive than one could do on a fixie.
@@spitchgrizwald6198 This was a while ago (early 2000s) but I think I was using the same brand on 26 slicks and went from 1.5" to 1.25" to 1" and the thinner ones felt faster and required less effort but not exactly a scientific study I guess. cheers!
@Spitch Grizwald For commuting - probably. For bikepolo - definitely not. Bikepolo frames are built to spec., and will not fit bigger tires. That's like suggesting 28x2.0 to track cyclists.
I think boost 148 will become standard for gravel bikes to have more available space for larger tires. Nice to have the option that doesn't exist today.
I remember times when 27.5 wheel size made more sense. A couple of years ago, there were no 29er bikes for small people with reasonable geometry. This is how 27,5 was helpful. Nowadays you can easily find a 29er even for very short people
Of course they would. "While requiring much more skill to navigate skinny single track the 32" wheel is superior at maintaining momentum and gliding over harsh terrain." Of course to maximize control you'll have to man up to some 900mm SuperCon bars.
Through axles have been the standard for decades on motorcycles. It just makes sense to miniaturize them and employ them on bicycles. Anyone who has broken the skewer system or had other failures related to them will agree that through axles are definitely the way to go. I have two bikes with 29" wheels. The latest was spec'd for 2.8" width tires. Unfortunately, 29x2.8 are a rarity, so I opted for 3.0's. Luckily, they clear my chain stays. Heavy mud will lock up the rear wheel. I wish there were a greater selection of 29x2.8 tires. 29x2.6 can be had anywhere. 29x3.0 are fairly common as well. I already have a new set of 29x2.6 in line for when the 3.0's wear out. I did lace on wider rims to accommodate the wider tires, and according to charts, the 2.6 is the narrowest rated for my current rims. Thanks for sharing. This was a good topic you covered. Keep up the good work..............
I bought Jamis Dragonslayer four years ago. That's right, it had been equipped with 27,5+ wheels. I replaced them after a couple of months with regular 29 wheels... and don't really feel like going back
No matter what the 'innovation' is you'll find the most vocal support for whatever is newest, biggest or smallest, the extremes - while the silent majority thrives in the middle ground. For now 29" wheels have fans "for life" but only until some other slightly larger size comes along. Same goes for fat tires AKA +tires, super wide bars, 12-speed cassettes, huge BBs, super wide rear hubs, whatever. (Also super hilarious listening to guys go on and on and on about "29ers" and how the 'new' size has all these benefits like more stability and roll over obstacles more easily but at the same time they somehow "require more skill" - how can it be both - meanwhile it's just 700c repackaged for a new market.)
Love my 29+ trek stache. Rekon 2.8 in the rear dhr 3.0 f. Just ordered a custom waltworks fork for it. Rode it on BWR cedar with a ikon 2.6 R Rekon 2.8 F
Ah but Neil, you've forgotten the 135/150mm fork spacing for fatbikes, and the eternal 177/190/197 rear spacing as well. What about the 26" vs 27.5" fatbike debate - that one can get heated too. If you think 29+ tires are hard to come by, try 27.5 fat, there's only like 6 choices!
26" 2009 Giant XTC hardtail with Fox RLC 100mm fork, Shimano XT hubs and disc brakes, Mavic rims, XT crank and 1 x 10 Microshift Advent X. I run a Thomson Elite post and stem and Ritchey Kyote bars with Ritchey Comp bar ends. 26 x 2.2 Maxxis Ixon skinwall tubeless tyres finish things off and it's a 10kg rocketship that smokes almost everyone on bigger wheels except the competitive racers. Even then it still holds its own as it is a bullet through the technical stuff and still retains all day comfort thanks to the Ritchey handlebars. If you ride 26" you don't need viagra.
Wheels sizes are a mess. Don't trust anyone who claims they understand that mess. Even when the wheels and tires claims to be size compatible, some time they are not. At least at the level of payable parts.
Love my Ritchey Commando fat bike. I have 2 wheel sets. I can run 26x4" 45nrth Van Helgas ( or 26x4.6" Ground Controls) or I can run it with 29+ wheelset, 29x2.8" WTB Rangers. Such a versatile bike.
Yep, I had a "Superboost" rear axle and wider BB. My waist is only 31", skinny, and the wider Q-Factor bugged my right hip. Plus, the rear wheel failed (cheap hub and rim) then I found out that a Superboost rear wheel build was really expensive. Sold that bike asap. Experiments in bike tech can be expensive and painful, eg. the NailD design for quick release through axle system. That was an over engineered, poorly designed axle that could leave you stranded if you had to remove the rear wheel.
Hey Neil, you mentioned in another video (can't remember which) that you have a ghost grappler set up for commuting. Would you care to showcase it in a video, or share your long term experieces? I'd be really interested.
Just thought I'd point out the DH bikes used to use 150mm rear hubs which makes boost the biggest scam ever. All the different axle size are another bugbear of mine 9mm qr, 10mm, 12mm, 15mm and 20mm. Used to be quick release and 20mm axles rockshox introduced the 15mm axle and it is the dominant axle standard. It really should of stayed with qr and 20mm axles every other standard doesn't really do anything the original two do well
Thanks, a lot of good information in there. I have two wishes, one QR be gone, die… and next thru axles need to be standardized. I’m not so up I set about diameter but thread pitch come folks. I doubt thread pitch is proprietary. Right?
I still ride my 26" rigid Specialized Hardrock. With my neck issues and my physical therapist's recommendation to avoid low positions, it looks like that might be my winter bike (or possibly the gravel bike since it has less aggressive geometry).
Neither the skewer, nor the thru "axle" is an actual axle. That sits inside the hub. What both of these skewers do, is secure the hub in the frame. A 9mm skewer provides plenty of clamping force to secure a hub in the dropout. As these skewers became overbult, hubs became lighter and less stiff because "weight weenies". So to make a claim that a TA makes the rear end stiffer, which is what we are talking about here, please provide some scientific trials/data. Otherwise, it's just marketing. Muh sticks and bending, doe...
My 25 year old QR Chris King hub has a 20mm axle and they later made a kit that would convert it to a 15mm TA fork standard. So, I ask again: how do you know these new axles/hubs are stiffer? Did you find those hub stiffness studies? Nope. It's possible that some TA hubs are now stiffer than some QR hubs, but unless you can find those studies, as far as you're concerned, it's all marketing.
People only know and compare thru axle VS some old QR skewer from a WalMart bike. Combine that with thinking that there is any bending force on either. It's a "thru axle" it goes through the actual axle and acts as a clamp. This is like having a super thick, super strong, "thru-spindle" that would go through the center of your hollow crank spindle but would just be holding the left crank arm on. My favorite solution, from BMX, where the axles actually suffer significant risk of bending is a threaded hollow axle, held on with hardened steel bolts. The axle itself is large, short and hollow so it is very hard to bend. The bolts are mass produced so they are hardened and better made than custom thru axle bolts and unlike a thru axle they don't need to pass through the entire hub. Also weight weenies can swap the standard size bolts out for titanium or even aluminum if they are light on their bike and want to save a few grams.
Bigger rolls over rocks and ruts better. However, it’s less easy to toss around than smaller wheels. It’s also harder to cram big wheels into small frames without ruining the geometry. The rule (?) is to get the biggest one can comfortably control without messing up frame geometry. Since most riders spending the $$$ are in the medium to large category, the medium and large sizes have the largest audience. If most were 5’4” tall, most of the talk would be about 26”.
I think that another option that sadly didn’t ‘take’ was Cannondale’s Ai offset. That’s where the dropouts themselves were shoved 6mm to the right. It required truing a bit differently - the rim center was now 6mm left of dropout center - but improved dishing. The only practical downside was not being able to swap between random wheels.
I would be considered an antique; 26"/36h/sealed bearings/ rim brake wheels is still by far the most versatile type of wheel. 100/135 hubs still the best for a variety of reasons. Disc brakes aren't any better than a good pair of V-brakes. Steel is by far the best material to make frame out of unless you are racing. The marketing needs to be fired and innovations need to based on 30+ year durability. It's the green thing to do.
Have you checked out Peak Torque's video (ruclips.net/video/KMdsSuXGniU/видео.html) on Quick Release vs. Thru Axle? It would be better to analyze the merits of each of these Innovations via actual data and not through a reader poll. Most of us simply don't know if these offer any benefit, or enough to justify replacing a bike for the additional benefit.
I wouldn't buy a 29+ frame. Not just because I fit s-m sixe frames but also because there is so few tire selection. A hundred euro tire from surly is not going to cut it. 27,5+ it is. Unless they bring 26" back.
More to stop theft is what i remember when these first came out i raceD DH from 99 to 04 we used the skewers with no problems but i remember in town even today on the older or cheaper bikes its a snap a grab for bike thevies everythings gone but the frame and the fames are left for months even years locked to the bike stands its crazy! Thats in the Uk if its a good bike the angle grinders out and cut it off in broad daylight with people doing nothing but taking videos for fb and RUclips! These people are part of the problem but going off topic here but this was the big thing when these came out i remember was to make it harder for these wee rats
I just want the marketing names, such as "Boost" or "Super Boost" to go away and be replaced by the actual size like it used to be. What is the spacing of that hub? It's super boost doood...... or just 157mm. I really doubt the marketing names have won over any riders, but the qualities they may have do win them over.
So you ignore the connection between disc braces and thru axles, and think losing a QR's conical spring (nonessential part) is a bigger hassle than finding a replacement for that "left it behind somewhere" axle - a quest that created an entire Robert Axle Project. I'm old and judgemental, and you and your writers are clueless.
Slower and older, Thanks for the comment, I love a good judgmental human. What is clueless, the fact that thru-axles are around or the fact the QRs are still used on bikes?
Congrats to Richard F from Carbondale, Colorado, Chris E from Copperas Cove, Texas and Justin S of Northern Virginia. You three have won a Kitsbow Icon.
27.5+ in my opinion was the best thing to come along for hardtails. I have been riding my plus hardtail for almost 3 yrs with no regrets in my purchase. As you mentioned, the high volume and low pressures are what I have grown to love when riding my local trails which are a wide mix of smooth singletrack to rooty and rocky climbs and descents.
Same here, only it's been five years!
Nah 29 is the best thing to come our way
@@Moonglow1-y9x That is subjective.
@@mike-fp6lq hot to get with the times I bet your the kinda guy who moaned about the 27.5s when everyone was rocking 26ers
@@Moonglow1-y9x That's not true, I was not riding yet when 26ers were still around. I like 27.5 and think that it's a well balanced wheel size that does everything well. I really like how they ride and handle and they are what I've always ridden and I am used to. I don't think the tradeoffs for a 29er are worth it and I don't see a reason to switch.
26er forever. It will never go away. Just put on some Maxxis Ardents and loving it
As a minority option only. Despite our sentiment 26ers ride worse in the rough terrain for not short people.
Still the choice of wheel for world tourers, available anywhere, because most of the world rides round on 26” 5-8 speed v braked bikes, despite what bike manufacturers tell you.
Got to go as you want to! :) I am 6.8 Ft though, so I adapted to 29ers. It was not a choice to me, it was a chance. But I can get the smaller wheels...and downhill..it has favors to smaller people. Which is pure logics of being able to manoeuvre faster, shorter circles. So...I can imagine you like it..?!
I love the plus tires for bikepacking. Especially on a rigid. They might be "heavy" but they're lighter and more reliable than any kind of suspension. And you can go plus mullet for extra weird factor and fun!
The 26" wheel may not be right for the top end of the sport, but it does have advantages for the ordinary cyclist. Namely that it is lighter, it makes the bike smaller, easier to mount/dismount, easier to store and carry. It also allows more space for panniers and luggage. You can have bigger tyres without excessive weight, good for our potholed roads. I'm keeping my 26" hybrid as long as I can, it's great as a road and light trails bike.
I dusted off a 26er yesterday and road a newly built trail, tight, tight turns, and I picked better lines because I could change directions quicker from one spot to the next. I'm going to fix up the bike because I liked it so good, at least on that trail. It did throw me on the ground once though but it climbed great. I'm with you, long live the 26er.
Agree. 26" wheels feel mushy and don't seem to retain their inertia (even with relatively fast-rolling tires), but for rugged commuting and even off-road touring my 90s MTB rebuild is great. Now it's towing a kid trailer with aplomb.
@@ehounshell Man, I do love to hear that. I'm not the fastest on the track, but I like it when a young buck snubs it and I go around them, then they want to ask questions about it 😄. Happy Thanksgiving by the way.
@@saddleweary2777 That and $2,000+ for a mountain bike is a bit much. Specialized Bicycle Company and the rest aren't the (financially) inclusive outfit it once was.
@@sailingaeolus I talked to a fella awhile ago, he was riding the new epic or the evo, I'm not sure about the model names but it was the alloy and he said it was a boat anchor at 34#s , I thought those bikes were light, even the alloy, and I think it cost around 3 grand. I can't see spending that much for a heavy bike unless maybe if I didn't have a bike, my bike weighs 35#s and it's hard watching those 25# bikes go around me but they cost 4500 at least unless it's a hardtail, I just can't spend it. I believe I'll try to lighten up my bike and let it go. Fix up the 26er and maybe lighten up my road bike and still be money ahead. I'm not that competitive but I don't like getting passed by a light bike and not the rider, you know what I mean.
I have bikes with both QR and thru axles.
Funny thing, sometimes I do have to readjust my disc brake calipers after taking off wheels with thru axles.
And sometimes I do NOT have to readjust my disc brake calipers after reinserting wheels with QR axles.
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't even be aware of the consistency difference if the internet didn't say so
My frustration is for larger than 26 inch wheels is that for Short legged riders, they dont have geometry and clearance for good general purpose MTB ( a category thats sadly disappeared anyway`) I have room for one bike, thats it, even then it lives in the front room, I would wreck a flipping Brompton in a few days, the classic Hybrid is dominated by 700c wheels and tall person geometry and a "crap at everything" philosophy to encourage multiple cycle ownership.
The mythical 90s mountain bike with lower ride heights, bomb proof build, compact suspension, arsenal of carry options, go anywhere triple clanger gearing, It Can bash down trails, urban obstacles, do a big food shop, and trundle into the wilderness with a tent and clobber for a perpetual tour. the only things its not good at is road speed and "extreme" cycling styles. that "proper" cyclist marketing obsess about.
> good general purpose MTB ( a category thats sadly disappeared anyway`)
You can still get a good cross-country hardtail in the $500 - $1000 range that is exactly that
I live in the Philippines where MTB are hugely popular. Sadly 29er is becoming the only available size. I say sadly because the average male height is only 163.5cm compared to 175.3cm in USA. The world bike industry is naturally most influenced by more affluent countries. I am only 165cm tall and find my 29er just too big for me despite having the correct frame size
This is the bike industry. Expect it to change again in 5 years. It's really a roller coaster ride and we have no idea what will be popular.
I am 170 cm and ride medium frame 29ers. You should be able to ride a small frame 29er.
Charlie, I'm confident you are correct from your experience, to this whole 26 vs 27.5 vs 29. Recent engineering studies that bring in user perceptions/racing results/etc., show that each perspective can be correct FOR THE INDIVIDUAL. For example, turning capabilities (including under-turning or turning short, or turning too slow through a tight turn, etc. etc. etc.) on either road or dirt surfaces is hugely influenced by the choice of tread, tire width, surface structure, etc. etc. etc.--you get the point. Regardless, what works best for you is important. I'm 5'9" with long legs/very short torso, and ride a 29" well enough--but for the most part, a 27.5" is best for me across all surface types & conditions. Others around the world obviously have found this general reality out for themselves as well, so don't worry about some internet hero-expert tell you only one wheel will serve everyone best. Oh BTW, my girlfriend rips a 26" like a pro (she almost was, as a National Team alternate) and never could stand riding a 29, under any circumstances--too large.
Best of fortune to you out on the road/trail.
I ride a 29+ bike with QR axles and a rear 135mm hub spacing front and rear. According to the industry it should not exist, but IT WORKS.
Call me a retro-grouch, but boost, and super boost for that matter, is Marketing. I have a 1 1/8 headset, rusty steel tubing and no problemo.
The problem is inbetween my ears: I am a sucker for marketing.
I had a susser which was a multiple Test winner in the German Bike magazine and I could not feel "at home" on the bike like with my old steel banger. IT is because of this I think Geometry is the Alpha and Omega of bikes.
I am still sad tho I sold the susser, because it was such a smart bike.
Choice. Whatever makes it possible to make various choices for whatever other kinds of riding you expect to do without having to buy a whole new bike or new frame is good.
a good example of that was the 9mm thru-bolts that could fit into open dropouts. I remember buying those, they provided a more reliable fit in the dropout and better stiffness.
Can't wait to see the rest of the results!
26 is not dead!!
Oh yes, and the best part is the appreciation one gets from surrounding people after finishing a hard climb on such a steel, looking-like-pile-of-junk retro 26 inch bike with panniers, and people asking "it's an e-bike, right?" xD
I’m 6feet1 and have both configuration 29x2.8 and 27.5x2.8 Still kinda love the 27.5 when the terrain is hard, going up and down and very technical. Strangely, I feel 2.6 is just in between: I prefer to have comfy 2.8 or fast and light 2.3 with a rigid frame (timberjack ti) ✌🏻 Great work, can’t wait for the next chapter.
Through axles! I could be wrong but I think the first company to point to on through axles on bicycles would be Marzocchi back when they released their first Z1, Dirt Jumper JR T, Monster T forks with the 20mm through axles in suspension forks they were making for mountain bikes. That started back in 1996 think. Then in 1998Yeti Cycles working with Hope Bike Components came out with a 9 inch travel down hill bike that used a 12mm diameter through axle for the rear wheel. This required a new dropout design and was very involved in manufacturing. I worked for the company that assembled all the bicycle wheels for Yeti at the time. Even building the wheels was very involved. I feel any other bike wheel assembler may not have been able to do it but Geoff Winkel had experience with motorcycles and the hub was machined and built just like motorcycle hubs at that time but scaled down.
Hey thankyou so much for the amazing shirt. It's going to be a great present for my better 3/4. My Catrike Expedition and the Apollo Gravel uses a through Axle design, I love them.
Thanks for participating, Chris! Congrats.
Waiting for some major brand to "invent" a 26-inch bikepolo bicycle, so that I can have my 26x1.35 slicks back in stock. It's just perfect for traversing cities in ways less unsafe and more inventive than one could do on a fixie.
i commuted on a rigid 90s MTB for years, I think I was able to get down to a 1 inch slick (forget the brand) worked great!
@Spitch Grizwald short answer: geometry.
@@spitchgrizwald6198 shorter answer: speed! each 1/4 drop in size was noticeably quicker
@@spitchgrizwald6198 This was a while ago (early 2000s) but I think I was using the same brand on 26 slicks and went from 1.5" to 1.25" to 1" and the thinner ones felt faster and required less effort but not exactly a scientific study I guess. cheers!
@Spitch Grizwald For commuting - probably. For bikepolo - definitely not.
Bikepolo frames are built to spec., and will not fit bigger tires. That's like suggesting 28x2.0 to track cyclists.
I think boost 148 will become standard for gravel bikes to have more available space for larger tires. Nice to have the option that doesn't exist today.
My set-up is 29 x 3.0" front (i40 rim) and 27.5 x 3.8" rear (i45 rim) and it's all I ever want to ride for the rest of my life.
I remember times when 27.5 wheel size made more sense. A couple of years ago, there were no 29er bikes for small people with reasonable geometry. This is how 27,5 was helpful.
Nowadays you can easily find a 29er even for very short people
How about a poll to find out if riders of XL and XXL bikes would buy new bike if (good) 32" wheels existed? Make mine FullSus+
Of course they would. "While requiring much more skill to navigate skinny single track the 32" wheel is superior at maintaining momentum and gliding over harsh terrain." Of course to maximize control you'll have to man up to some 900mm SuperCon bars.
Through axles have been the standard for decades on motorcycles. It just makes sense to miniaturize them and employ them on bicycles. Anyone who has broken the skewer system or had other failures related to them will agree that through axles are definitely the way to go. I have two bikes with 29" wheels. The latest was spec'd for 2.8" width tires. Unfortunately, 29x2.8 are a rarity, so I opted for 3.0's. Luckily, they clear my chain stays. Heavy mud will lock up the rear wheel. I wish there were a greater selection of 29x2.8 tires. 29x2.6 can be had anywhere. 29x3.0 are fairly common as well. I already have a new set of 29x2.6 in line for when the 3.0's wear out. I did lace on wider rims to accommodate the wider tires, and according to charts, the 2.6 is the narrowest rated for my current rims. Thanks for sharing. This was a good topic you covered. Keep up the good work..............
I bought Jamis Dragonslayer four years ago. That's right, it had been equipped with 27,5+ wheels.
I replaced them after a couple of months with regular 29 wheels... and don't really feel like going back
No matter what the 'innovation' is you'll find the most vocal support for whatever is newest, biggest or smallest, the extremes - while the silent majority thrives in the middle ground. For now 29" wheels have fans "for life" but only until some other slightly larger size comes along. Same goes for fat tires AKA +tires, super wide bars, 12-speed cassettes, huge BBs, super wide rear hubs, whatever.
(Also super hilarious listening to guys go on and on and on about "29ers" and how the 'new' size has all these benefits like more stability and roll over obstacles more easily but at the same time they somehow "require more skill" - how can it be both - meanwhile it's just 700c repackaged for a new market.)
Love my 29+ trek stache. Rekon 2.8 in the rear dhr 3.0 f. Just ordered a custom waltworks fork for it. Rode it on BWR cedar with a ikon 2.6 R Rekon 2.8 F
27.5+ is great for smaller frames, as is 650B on gravel bikes. It is unfortunate that 29-2.6 has pretty much taken over.
I mean, for the most part, if a bike can fit 29x2.6, it can also fit 27.5x3.0
@@SnootchieBootchies27 sure, but most folk never get a chance to try 27.5
@@larrywhite8590 I guess I spoil myself. If I want to try something, I build myself a wheel and try it.
Ah but Neil, you've forgotten the 135/150mm fork spacing for fatbikes, and the eternal 177/190/197 rear spacing as well. What about the 26" vs 27.5" fatbike debate - that one can get heated too. If you think 29+ tires are hard to come by, try 27.5 fat, there's only like 6 choices!
Ha-ha, very true. I know this all too well. Maybe for another conversation/video.
26" 2009 Giant XTC hardtail with Fox RLC 100mm fork, Shimano XT hubs and disc brakes, Mavic rims, XT crank and 1 x 10 Microshift Advent X. I run a Thomson Elite post and stem and Ritchey Kyote bars with Ritchey Comp bar ends. 26 x 2.2 Maxxis Ixon skinwall tubeless tyres finish things off and it's a 10kg rocketship that smokes almost everyone on bigger wheels except the competitive racers. Even then it still holds its own as it is a bullet through the technical stuff and still retains all day comfort thanks to the Ritchey handlebars.
If you ride 26" you don't need viagra.
I'm waiting for a pair of 27.5x2.8 g-ones. Wondering how it will feel, and how the clearance will look on the bike.
Wait, I don’t get it. Aren’t 700C wheels marketed in Europe as 28”? Why are they described as 29” in the US?
Wheels sizes are a mess. Don't trust anyone who claims they understand that mess. Even when the wheels and tires claims to be size compatible, some time they are not. At least at the level of payable parts.
I’m a shorter guy, 5’7” and prefer 29ers in general. I don’t mind 27.5, I just seem to lean towards 29ers
Great review 👍27.5+ will live forever. 29+ not so much.
650b/27.5 all day.
Love my Ritchey Commando fat bike. I have 2 wheel sets.
I can run 26x4" 45nrth Van Helgas ( or 26x4.6" Ground Controls) or I can run it with 29+ wheelset, 29x2.8" WTB Rangers.
Such a versatile bike.
Through axels are required because of the high local forces caused by disc brakes. QR's cannot guarantee to secure the wheel to the fork.
Big lawsuit against Trek forced the industry to move away from QR in combination with disc brakes.
Exactly. I run rim brakes so QR's are fine on my '97 26er Gary Fisher. Still love riding it with modernized cockpit.
Yep, I had a "Superboost" rear axle and wider BB. My waist is only 31", skinny, and the wider Q-Factor bugged my right hip. Plus, the rear wheel failed (cheap hub and rim) then I found out that a Superboost rear wheel build was really expensive. Sold that bike asap. Experiments in bike tech can be expensive and painful, eg. the NailD design for quick release through axle system. That was an over engineered, poorly designed axle that could leave you stranded if you had to remove the rear wheel.
Hey Neil, you mentioned in another video (can't remember which) that you have a ghost grappler set up for commuting. Would you care to showcase it in a video, or share your long term experieces? I'd be really interested.
Just thought I'd point out the DH bikes used to use 150mm rear hubs which makes boost the biggest scam ever. All the different axle size are another bugbear of mine 9mm qr, 10mm, 12mm, 15mm and 20mm. Used to be quick release and 20mm axles rockshox introduced the 15mm axle and it is the dominant axle standard. It really should of stayed with qr and 20mm axles every other standard doesn't really do anything the original two do well
Very informative, thank you 😊
Thanks, a lot of good information in there. I have two wishes, one QR be gone, die… and next thru axles need to be standardized. I’m not so up I set about diameter but thread pitch come folks. I doubt thread pitch is proprietary. Right?
I’m curious how the results of the survey would look if you gave it to a more xc/trail/enduro oriented crowd.
I’m thinking Pinkbike has you covered in that regard
26 in is not dead !
I still ride my 26" rigid Specialized Hardrock. With my neck issues and my physical therapist's recommendation to avoid low positions, it looks like that might be my winter bike (or possibly the gravel bike since it has less aggressive geometry).
@@davidadamus177 I added a stem riser and solved these issues on my Rockhopper
@@ZenoLee0 good suggestion, though this is a threaded fork, so there are no risers.
Great video! Many thanks! Can’t wait to ride the great divide in 2025
my impression is that I feel something is hype until I understand its usefulness, and that only comes with trying it. not always cheep or easy to do.
great vid bro
Superboost makes a ton of sense on long travel/enduro bikes, the Q factor is not distinguishable to me v. regular boost.
Thru axles are stiffer? Because? The manufacturers say so?
How about this. Try to bend the same type of stick that is 15mm vs 9mm. Report back to me with your results.
Neither the skewer, nor the thru "axle" is an actual axle. That sits inside the hub. What both of these skewers do, is secure the hub in the frame. A 9mm skewer provides plenty of clamping force to secure a hub in the dropout. As these skewers became overbult, hubs became lighter and less stiff because "weight weenies". So to make a claim that a TA makes the rear end stiffer, which is what we are talking about here, please provide some scientific trials/data. Otherwise, it's just marketing. Muh sticks and bending, doe...
My 25 year old QR Chris King hub has a 20mm axle and they later made a kit that would convert it to a 15mm TA fork standard. So, I ask again: how do you know these new axles/hubs are stiffer? Did you find those hub stiffness studies? Nope. It's possible that some TA hubs are now stiffer than some QR hubs, but unless you can find those studies, as far as you're concerned, it's all marketing.
People only know and compare thru axle VS some old QR skewer from a WalMart bike. Combine that with thinking that there is any bending force on either. It's a "thru axle" it goes through the actual axle and acts as a clamp. This is like having a super thick, super strong, "thru-spindle" that would go through the center of your hollow crank spindle but would just be holding the left crank arm on.
My favorite solution, from BMX, where the axles actually suffer significant risk of bending is a threaded hollow axle, held on with hardened steel bolts. The axle itself is large, short and hollow so it is very hard to bend. The bolts are mass produced so they are hardened and better made than custom thru axle bolts and unlike a thru axle they don't need to pass through the entire hub. Also weight weenies can swap the standard size bolts out for titanium or even aluminum if they are light on their bike and want to save a few grams.
Can somebody please explain to me why 29 and 27.5 inch is a good idea, but 26ers are not good for anything? I am genuinely interested.
Bigger rolls over rocks and ruts better. However, it’s less easy to toss around than smaller wheels. It’s also harder to cram big wheels into small frames without ruining the geometry. The rule (?) is to get the biggest one can comfortably control without messing up frame geometry. Since most riders spending the $$$ are in the medium to large category, the medium and large sizes have the largest audience. If most were 5’4” tall, most of the talk would be about 26”.
@@ericpmoss So 26 is only good for kids and short people and those who put their bikes in the trunk, so screw them :))) Nice explanation btw.
@@ericpmoss anyways..I still love riding my 26ers AND my 29ers.
Marketing.
If 145mm spacing makes a stronger wheel for tandems by eliminating the dish, then 157mm makes sense for MTB too I think
I think that another option that sadly didn’t ‘take’ was Cannondale’s Ai offset. That’s where the dropouts themselves were shoved 6mm to the right. It required truing a bit differently - the rim center was now 6mm left of dropout center - but improved dishing. The only practical downside was not being able to swap between random wheels.
Whats that segmented fork you were riding around 11:50?
Its from this bike: bikepacking.com/bikes/moots-routt-esc-review/
Titanium Bearclaw Fork.
What is the bike in the thumbnail?
I've been in the BMX bubble for about 15 years and it seems like the bike industry has been taken over by Apple (to clarify, not a complement, lol!)
Don't need boost if you're running 26" or 27.5". All the studies show that 29" is no faster and less nimble, so why bother!
I'm no so secretly looking for a 52cm Bridgstone MB-1, because I think it would make a great bikepacking bike.
I love my 29x3.0 rigid bike, but I agree, 2.6 is kinda the sweet spot.
I would be considered an antique; 26"/36h/sealed bearings/ rim brake wheels is still by far the most versatile type of wheel. 100/135 hubs still the best for a variety of reasons. Disc brakes aren't any better than a good pair of V-brakes. Steel is by far the best material to make frame out of unless you are racing. The marketing needs to be fired and innovations need to based on 30+ year durability. It's the green thing to do.
Have you checked out Peak Torque's video (ruclips.net/video/KMdsSuXGniU/видео.html) on Quick Release vs. Thru Axle? It would be better to analyze the merits of each of these Innovations via actual data and not through a reader poll. Most of us simply don't know if these offer any benefit, or enough to justify replacing a bike for the additional benefit.
I wouldn't buy a 29+ frame. Not just because I fit s-m sixe frames but also because there is so few tire selection. A hundred euro tire from surly is not going to cut it. 27,5+ it is. Unless they bring 26" back.
Everything is marketing hype if it's out out there to profit from. Otherwise it's just a good idea that works......or something like that..
Cheers
Isnt 29" just 28" with fatter tyres? Same 622 dimension?
26 Kona :)
More to stop theft is what i remember when these first came out i raceD DH from 99 to 04 we used the skewers with no problems but i remember in town even today on the older or cheaper bikes its a snap a grab for bike thevies everythings gone but the frame and the fames are left for months even years locked to the bike stands its crazy! Thats in the Uk if its a good bike the angle grinders out and cut it off in broad daylight with people doing nothing but taking videos for fb and RUclips! These people are part of the problem but going off topic here but this was the big thing when these came out i remember was to make it harder for these wee rats
I just want the marketing names, such as "Boost" or "Super Boost" to go away and be replaced by the actual size like it used to be. What is the spacing of that hub? It's super boost doood...... or just 157mm. I really doubt the marketing names have won over any riders, but the qualities they may have do win them over.
At what point is a tire a Plus size? I thought 3 inch.
I thought I've read Plus begins at 2.8... and up to 3.5? After that you're in fattie territory.
I would say 29x 2.8 and up.
🚴🏼🚴🏼🚴🏼🧙🏽♀️
So you ignore the connection between disc braces and thru axles, and think losing a QR's conical spring (nonessential part) is a bigger hassle than finding a replacement for that "left it behind somewhere" axle - a quest that created an entire Robert Axle Project. I'm old and judgemental, and you and your writers are clueless.
Slower and older,
Thanks for the comment, I love a good judgmental human. What is clueless, the fact that thru-axles are around or the fact the QRs are still used on bikes?
fk boost and super boost. pure industry bs.
What kind of hat are you wearing?
Current bicycle industry is out of imagination,they keep making this cheap plastic bikes that's all
The amazing about the bike industry is the abundance of frame builder ready to make anything you want.