Yesterday’s post generated a lot of discussion, and with so many various comments touching on so many subjects, I thought it would be best to address them in a “Part II”, instead of in the original post’s comments.
It Is About The Wheel: A few commented on how you already see the 29″er as “just a bicycle”, or mountain bike. While that is very true and a valid statement to make about 29″ers, it doesn’t really address specifics that matter. Yes, the way a 29″er wheel works is different, noticeable, and attractive to many riders. While the wheel/tire combination is essentially a “mountain bike” set up, it doesn’t work like the older mountain bike wheels do. Obviously, if they did, what would be the point, correct? Then if that is true, that they are different, they need to be singled out.
They were differentiated due to a visible difference and a tangible difference in performance. On that note, it would be remiss to say a bicycle fitted with wheels of this size is “just a mountain bike”. To my mind it is as if one says, “A square is “just a rectangle“”. Yes- that is correct in one sense, but it doesn’t tell the whole story, does it?
When 29″ers become “just a mountain bike” is when 26″ers are not either available, or considered for purchase as a mountain bike. I can’t say that this will happen sooner or later, but I feel it is well on its way to becoming more true than not. Many commenters bore this out in the first post’s comment section.
Horses For Courses: Some commenters touched upon how riders can now make choices dependent upon what is best for them. While this is true now, it wasn’t always this way. 😉 My feeling is, it won’t always be this way either.
Market forces, manufacturing, and retail pressure will want to re-center the market that is in flux. I see the mountain bike world right smack dab in the middle of that changing tide now. Many, dreaming of a “perfect world” of choice, would proposition the powers that be to offer three wheel sizes for off road use. 26 inch, 27.5 inch, and 29 inch. That would be awesome for those who would be for choices; however, I have always maintained that retail and manufacturing forces would be against such an arrangement on a large scale.
If the market goes for 29 inch hard tails, (and by all indications, it is in a very big way), manufacturers will cut loose the 26 incher for the models that sell. Retailers will breathe a collective sigh of relief having less skews to stock, and “most” cyclists won’t mind one iota. I believe that in as far as performance hard tails are concerned, this will happen sooner than later.
I think it gets into a gray area on longer travel bikes, full suspension with longer travel, and is a very big “if” where down hill is concerned. That said, I never thought I’d see the day when one could buy an actual down hill 29″er. 😉 Who knows…… Still, I like the “horses for courses” argument. You’d probably best choose now though, if you are one that likes a lot of choices. I don’t think we’ll see this many options in the very near future for mountain biking.
Note: This is my Black Mountain Cycles “Monster Cross” model bike.
What Is That Thing?: While a bit off topic, I thought I would chime in on this. Another reader asked what a “monster cross” bike is and another gave a decent enough answer. There are just a couple things I have to add to that.
First off, a 29″er is a 29″er by virtue of its wheel assembly, consisting of a 700c rim mounted with a big enough, wide enough tire that the overall diameter reaches 29 inches. Simple. Put the wheel assembly that fits that description in any bicycle frame that will accept that sized tire/rim, and that bicycle becomes a 29″er. Again, pretty simple. So, by that definition, my example shown above is pretty much there- a 29″er. Yes- it looks like a cross bike, but it it isn’t that either. So, I would expand the tire size range to anything from 35mm-49mm for the in between, “monster cross” category.
Secondly, I don’t like the “monster cross” name myself. It doesn’t describe at all what these various bicycles are/can be, and how these bicycles are usually used. In my view, most of these bicycles are not racing bikes, per se, nor are they full on mountain bikes, but they get used for a heck of a lot of fun. I would rather call them “Adventure Bikes”, myself, and the activity they are used for as “Adventuring”. My opinion. To my mind, it sounds a heck of a lot more fun, and closer to the mark for this category of bicycle.
Hi,
I have trashed my old 26” and am now looking for a new top notch bike to be used mainly for adventure racing. My local MTB playground is, however, a mixture of trails, steep ascents/descents and the occasional small patch of technical singletrack. So it would be nice if it can handle that as well.
Although 29ers are still just mountain bikes, they apparently do handle quite differently than 26ers. Judging from the pic of the ‘Monster Cross’ bike and the description of it in this post , I thought this could be the place to ask the following:
Is a 29er or a 26er the best choice – simply in terms of bike properties (I will of course test ride both for my own subjective opinion) – for a mountain bike for adventure racing. That is, terrain will be mostly hilly trails, then road, then singletrack. Stretches between orienteering posts will typically be a couple of kilometers.
Whole heaps of thanks in advance!
We are nowhere near 29’rs being just regular mountain bikes. Just look for rims. Most of the manufacturers on their website says MTB rims and Road rims. You have to look at the ERD to find out the real size(see Mavic and DT Swiss’s websites). When 29’rs just become regular mountain bikes, the Salsa Semi rim in 29’r version will have a machined brake track just like the 26’r version! Tires are similar, but better. How many riders have there favorite 26’r tire available in the larger size?
MonsterCross is a very different animal, please do not confuse the two…
I would define a monstercross as a 29er frame, dropbars, AND a big ring at the front
Adventure bike is a good description.
There’s a whole other marketing push that is probably a year or two out in adventure bikes. When the folks that bought in on road bikes with the post-Lance love affair become jaded or tired with their road loops, they will start looking for more challenging rides such as the D2R2 that basically demand an ‘adventure bike’ or a ‘monster cross’ machine. Bikes like the Salsa Vaya or Fargo will become the next big thing as weekend warriors realize they can no longer keep up with the ever ascending prices for ‘race’ bikes or will finally come to terms that riding hunched over is not all that comfortable. Given the economic demographic of endurance athletes (I recently read the per capita income of Ironman competitors is over $161,000), it’s only a matter of time before they start collecting more toys.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that what you’re saying is that the market will only support so many options, due to the additional cost of manufacturing multiple types/sizes of components.
If that’s the case, then I agree with that statement wholeheartedly. At some point, the manufacturers will look at their bottom line, discover that they only sold 25 26″ hardtails last year and cut the model from their line. I learned about this process the hard way when Honda discontinued the Element, even though I consider it to be the superior vehicle on the market for what I need.
That being said, I don’t think that 26″ wheels are going anywhere for DH riders. Similarly, I think that loaded touring will retain a love for 700cc wheels (even though I ride a Salsa Fargo regularly and believe it to be a superior product for that style of riding).
The point here is one of basic economics… scarcity. Manufacturers have limited resources and they will make hard decisions about how to use those resources so that they will realize the greatest profits. Sad but true, they are in the business of making money and that means they’re going to make bikes and parts that people buy, not the other way around.
Look to the developing world markets on this point. The downsizing of the middle class in the United States means that more of what we see here will be determined by market forces in China, India, Brazil, and Europe. If a 700cc wheeled adventure bike grows in popularity there, that’s what we’ll see here.
I think we have to start to realize as Americans that we actually have very little say in what is produced and that it’s a pretty complicated process of what sells around the world that is drving production.
@Bob: You got it….
@Thomas Ravkilde: My thought would be that if your terrain isn’t to technical, a fatter tire capable cross type bike/Adventure Bike would be faster. That said, a 29″er would cover all your bases. The wider open and more smooth the terrain gets, the bigger diameter wheel will shine better. The technically tougher, tighter, steeper terrain makes 26″ers shine more. Most stuff in between can be simply what feels best to the rider. My simplest advice would be to use the biggest diameter wheel you can ride comfortably on your chosen trails/tracks/roads.
For what it’s worth, I saw some dude rolling a shiny new 29er out of Walmart today … I never thought I would see that.
Pardon me…
But what this fuss is all about?
Less time at front of PC, more time in the saddle 🙂
Doesn’t matter what wheels size…
Cheers!
I.
@ GT you have obviously missed a 36er part from previous article comments. What about them? Any foreseeable progress predicted?
Don’t worry folks, 26″ wheels will simply become the boutique bike that you get custom built. Years ago, everything was steel and aluminum was for the folks with money. Now aluminum bikes are at the local Mart and steel is used on custom bikes. 29ers started as boutique custom bikes and look where they are now. Role-reversal will be happening soon. Go figure.
Thomas Ravkilde,
Ditto what GT said. Also, you may be artificially limiting you options without you taking a look at 650B bikes. I’d never go back to 26 inch wheels, but the 650B platform makes a compelling case for the criteria you listed.
Just a thought.
As far as extinction is concerned; 26in hardtails – maybe. 26in FS, i doubt. I know that there are smaller riders on 29ers, but I suspect many are more likely to gravitate towards smaller wheels. Then again what do I know. I thought front suspension was a fad. Then FS. Then 29ers. SS – why go back to the past?
BMac-Monstercross is defined as a cross between a 29er and a cross……key feature being 38c-45c tires with drop bars, typical dirt drops. Anything else is just…well…a mountain bike 🙂
More on monstercross here: Facebook.com/monstercrosser
GT-Monstercross got it’s name from being a bit bigger than a cross bike tire wise and wider bars (typically not allowed in cross racing by the all knowing UCI)
I think Monstercross may not be an ideal name, but in a way it is…..tough for companies like TREK and Specialized to push a “monstercross” line. Which, i think we should be thankful for. Personally I’d prefer “allroad” like the Audi car of the same namesake, it’s what I drive and it’s a great mix of sports car and off road worthy car.
Adventure bikes are a whole different category and I’d put bikes like the Fargo or the Pugley in that category more appropriately than a monstercross rig, but no reason it coudln’t get lumped in with them either. Adventure bikes are more of an off shoot of touring bikes. Loaded up with racks and bags being the real definition of an adventure bike vs tire size, wheel size, or handlebar choice.
I see a great advantage in the 29er wheel size in that, in a pinch, one can throw any old 700C tire on and as we all know, tires make the bike to a great degree. With the round trip cost of air travel for our bikes now topping $400, having one bike that can both fly down babyheads and fly down the road with a simple switch of universally available tires makes sense.
Adventure bikes are a big part of the expansion in bike set-ups. I do think that wheel size is simply an option to suit terrain and rider, even if the options are limited by the manufacturers. 29ers are booming in this adventure / ATB area.
I see a return to the original ATB idea. All-Terrain bikes, rather than Mountain bikes. MTB seems to focussed on suspension, gnar and DH-inspired terrain handling, or is very XC. But the XC market is seeing 29ers as valids now, and big-day-out or adventure riders see 29ers as the no1 option. ATBs to me are rigid ss 29ers, bike-packing set-ups, monster-x, all these variations on MTBs with a focus on distance covered rather than speed through a technical section.
The point about market forces is very valid. I expect the market will cotinue to be better served by smaller brands that find viable ‘niches’ opened up to them, while bigger brands continune to (generally) offer the mainstream. I say generally because trek made the 69er and full-sus 29ers in carbon are mainly big-brand R+D money projects – so big brands do interesting stuff too.
Gted,
I haven’t ridden a 26er since I bought my Fargo. Now I have 4 29ers of various configurations and the only time the 26er will come out is on a trip to Asia as it is a breakaway Dahon Flo and wheel parts are tough to find for a 29er in Laos or Cambodia.
It is remarkable to me that the 29er scooted up trails I was struggling with on the Dahon or Ala Carte.
Thanks to Gted for introducing me to the 29ers and making me aware of the roads less traveled.
I remember when MTB’s with 700c rims were called “supercross bikes” back in the early 90’s, but they were doomed by a lack of tires (the Panaracer 700×45 being the only option) and forks. I rode one of these bikes (a ’93 Diamondback Overdrive) and absolutely loved it, but opted for a 26″ bike as my first MTB, due to the aforementioned issues of tires and forks. .When they re-emerged as 29ers, I was skeptical, until I rode one of the first truly sorted out Fishers in 2005 (an ’06 Paragon). Now that we’ve come full circle, and there are two 29″ bikes in my garage (my own ’11 Orbea Alma, and my wife’s ’10 Specialized Stumjumper FSR), I still find myself riding – and enjoying – my 26″ bikes from time to time. But, at end of the day, they are all mountain bikes – when I decide I am going for a mountain bike ride (as opposed to a road ride, or a towpath ride), the 26″ and 29″ bikes are both considered as feasible options for a ride. I might prefer one over another on a given day, but realistically, I could ride any one of the four bikes in my quiver on any trail or race course I might chose to go to. And really, isn’t that what it’s all about?
“That would be awesome for those who would be for choices; however, I have always maintained that retail and manufacturing forces would be against such an arrangement on a large scale.
If the market goes for 29 inch hard tails, (and by all indications, it is in a very big way), manufacturers will cut loose the 26 incher for the models that sell.”
Historically, products tend to diverge rather than converge or replace. So it’s unlikely that the 26er is going the way of the Dodo. Manufacturers may be against choices, but manufacturers don’t determine markets, they respond to them.
29ers have cut into the market share of 26ers, but that will slow down. Have e-books completely replaced paper books? Have laptops completely replaced desktops? Have tablets completely replaced laptops?
Have 175 mm cranks completely replaced 170 mm cranks? If there are choices for crank/stem/seatpost lengths, why not choices for wheel sizes? What makes that any different. Are there advantages to having a smaller, quicker, lighter, and stronger wheelset? As long as there are tradeoffs involved, choices will remain.
@Pete: However unlikely it may seem to you, the 26″er hardtail, (at least as far as performance XC hardtails go), is on the ropes. We know from a very reliable source that at least one or more brands is phasing them out in the next two years. Doesn’t sound like divergence to me, but your mileage may vary. 😉
Your comment about manufacturers “responding” to markets is in complete agreement with my statement that you quoted, by the way, so I don’t really see what your point is. The market is going for 29 inchers and in the hard tail segment, almost exclusively. I know the shop I work in, (I know- Sample of one, and all, but this is supported by industry data), has been selling 29 inch hardtails almost exclusively over the $500.00 price point. If the manufacturers start providing us with sub $500.00 hard tails, the nails are in the coffin for 26 inch mtb hard tails at the shop where I work. I suspect many other shops are seeing similar results.
If 26″ers become “dead weight” on our shop floor, I would surmise the “market has spoken”. Wouldn’t you agree that the manufacturers would/will react in kind? This is happening right now. This is why I make the statements I am making.
Thomas Ravkilde,
I second what Moondoggy said about checking out the 650B sized wheels. I recently converted my SS to 650B and am loving it. 650B seems to have much of the 29er’s momentum carrying and rollover abilities but feels more flickable, like a 26er.
I really wish the 650B size could gain more traction (no pun) in the market and media. IMHO, I think a lot of folks making the switch to 29ers would go the 650B route if they were given the option or had a chance to try it.
Thanks for all the advice. I will look into the 650B models as well, but availability of spare parts may also be an issue. I fear the over here across the Atlantic (live in Denmark) 29ers and definitely 650B are still far from mainstream.
Pete, you’re right from a classical economics perspective, but cycling has a fashion / trendiness element because of the very personal and emotional relationship people have with the bikes.
It’s not that 26ers will disappear, but there’s a possibility they’ll become as relevant to the mainstream as, oh, time trial bikes with 650b front wheels. Or mixte frames. They’ll always be around, but shunted off to boutique makers and whatnot.