How do 27.5"s feel?

Thewaylander

Wily-Quixote wrote:

Chunkers1980 wrote:

You really think trails are designed around a wheel size?

A 29er is just as arbitrary as a 26", perhaps 650b is the only researched size?

Of course trails designed for mountain bikes are designed around the 26 inch wheel size, or at least they were until recently. Do you think that tight radius turns and switchback singletrack occurs in nature? Or for motor vehicles?
The first mountain bikes were converted cruisers using the 26 inch wheel size. As MTBs evolved the trails were designed around them... It wasn't as if MTB trails were just sitting there waiting for. Bike to come along.
Have you never noticed that foot trails, animal tracks and backcountry roads are quite different to MTB trails to ride on?

Stop it, alot of trails most people ride are relatively natural. and those that aren't for example cwm carn and Whites at afan are ex sheep tracks and those tight corners are made by sheep taking the line of least resistance. naturals contours of the hills.

felix.london

the list could go on and on...like I say I think he's just being silly

Angus Young

They might as well close BPW now, then, and cut their losses. After all, all those trails designed around 26ers are going to be close to unridable once everyone's finally moved to 650b.

felix.london

I've heard the Trans-Provence organisers are scouting out 3 sets of trails for each stage this year, one 'normal' or 'old fashioned' route for 26" wheels, one with ever so slightly wider turns for 27.5 and one that doesn't have any tight switch backs for the 29er riders...entrance fee has gone up to €4K

Wily-Quixote

felix.london wrote:

I've heard the Trans-Provence organisers are scouting out 3 sets of trails for each stage this year, one 'normal' or 'old fashioned' route for 26" wheels, one with ever so slightly wider turns for 27.5 and one that doesn't have any tight switch backs for the 29er riders...entrance fee has gone up to €4K

It's difficult to believe how naive you all are. if you think that (traditional) mountain bike trails aren't built around the 26er wheell (or more likely wheelbase) than you're a special kind of buffoon, one that i've never previously encountered.

Angus Young

Wily-Quixote wrote:

felix.london wrote:

I've heard the Trans-Provence organisers are scouting out 3 sets of trails for each stage this year, one 'normal' or 'old fashioned' route for 26" wheels, one with ever so slightly wider turns for 27.5 and one that doesn't have any tight switch backs for the 29er riders...entrance fee has gone up to €4K

It's difficult to believe how naive you all are. if you think that (traditional) mountain bike trails aren't built around the 26er wheell (or more likely wheelbase) than you're a special kind of buffoon, one that i've never previously encountered.

So, did, say, BPW, not see the rise of 650b coming or, for that matter, 29ers?

Ferrals

Without wishing to encourage the crazy man , switch design for evolve and he does have a kind of point. The lines the bikes wear into a natural trail will to a certain extent be defined by an interaction between natural terrain and bike geo, over time as lines get re-ridden the trails will organically become optimised to a certain wheel size. Once trail builders start tinkering, they will tweak things to feel good for whatever they are riding and speed up the processs.

However, while the same thing happened for much of our road network which evolved for horse and cart, they seem fine for car traffic.

felix.london

Wily-Quixote wrote:

It's difficult to believe how naive you all are. if you think that (traditional) mountain bike trails aren't built around the 26er wheell (or more likely wheelbase) than you're a special kind of buffoon, one that i've never previously encountered.

Wily-Quixote wrote:

(traditional) mountain bike trails

Explain what these are please ^^

I would describe my local trails as very traditional - they are animal/walking paths that are hundreds of years old, that are now just part of the mountain and used by everyone to enjoy the mountain be that on foot or on bike - most of these are marked out and numbered, official mountain bike trails. I can tell you now, they have not been designed with wheels or even feet in mind they have just worn in to the dirt, woods and rock through centuries of human & animal use

Wily-Quixote wrote:

built around the 26er wheelbase

Again - what is this exactly? ^^

Take a Giant Anthem 29er, that has a shorter wheelbase than my 26" bike. My (26") DH bike has a longer wheelbase than that. Have you actually gone out building trails or even spoken to a trail builder?

The lifts just opened for this season here and the guys have built two new trails - I can absolutely guarantee you that when they were/are digging these trails, they are not thinking about wheel size or wheelbase in the slightest - it would be a pointless exercise anyway as every bike is different even when they have the same wheel size.

Maybe you're talking about UK trail centres? which like most of the world I have never ridden but even then and even when in a couple of years most of the bikes using the trails have 27.5" wheels - do you really think they're going to redesign the trails or that the trails over time will morph into less technical, faster routes because of this?

Wily-Quixote wrote:

a special kind of buffoon

...erm, no comment

Thewaylander

I think we have found our latest bit of crazy, move the post to the crudcatcher quick!

felix.london

Thewaylander wrote:

I think we have found our latest bit of crazy, move the post to the crudcatcher quick!

We all know a Rubez when we see one!

Angus Young

Ferrals wrote:

Without wishing to encourage the crazy man , switch design for evolve and he does have a kind of point. The lines the bikes wear into a natural trail will to a certain extent be defined by an interaction between natural terrain and bike geo, over time as lines get re-ridden the trails will organically become optimised to a certain wheel size. Once trail builders start tinkering, they will tweak things to feel good for whatever they are riding and speed up the processs.

However, while the same thing happened for much of our road network which evolved for horse and cart, they seem fine for car traffic.

If we are to accept his reasoning that leads to his conclusions that "The 26 inch wheel feels 'perfect' because it is perfect for trails designed around it." and your follow up that "The lines the bikes wear into a natural trail will to a certain extent be defined by an interaction between natural terrain and bike geo..." then 27.5 must be the perfect size today because all trails will be built for this wheel size from now on, given that the industry have moved wholesale to 650b, and all existing trails will become worn to suit. He's engaging in a a self-defeating argument.

Ferrals

My point is that, for natural trails, it is reasonable to argue that whatever gets ridden over them will influence their evolution to some extent, assuming that there is sufficient bike traffic to erode and evolve a trail. However I don't think in reality it makes one jot of difference as backed up on my road analogy (although buses do struggle on some of the lanes by me!)

Angus Young

Ferrals wrote:

My point is that, for natural trails, it is reasonable to argue that whatever gets ridden over them will influence their evolution to some extent, assuming that there is sufficient bike traffic to erode and evolve a trail. However I don't think in reality it makes one jot of difference as backed up on my road analogy (although buses do struggle on some of the lanes by me!)

And my response answers that.

Chunkers1980

A trail doesn't know how big your wheels are. It only knows about the contact patch. Wheelbase doesn't even really matter to it.

felix.london

Wily-Quixote wrote:

That's an interesting point: 26ers evolved purely arbitrarily and, consequently, formed mountain bike trails evolved around the 26 inch wheel. it's no accident that a 29er feels unwieldy around a bike park designed around the 26inch wheel and wheelbase. had the 29er wheel been the original standard then mountain bike trails would have been designed with more flow, less tight radius turns and so forth. The 26 inch wheel feels 'perfect' because it is perfect for trails designed around it.

None of these things occur in nature they are purely designed around the attributes of the wheel, the bike geometry and wheelbase. Of course, as bike design evolved in capability (suspension geometry etc) the trails became more difficult to suit, which prompted more aggressive bike design. an arms race, if you will, between the capabilities of the bike and the design of the trail. The older readers here would remember that DH trails in the 80s were pretty much the same as x-country courses now.

I can't stop reading this!..it's brilliant! The way that it's all said, like this is fact yet there isn't a single true statement in there.

"an arms race, if you will.." Most excellent, obviously complete b@llocks but a good read that's for sure

Northwind

Wily-Quixote wrote:

It's difficult to believe how naive you all are. if you think that (traditional) mountain bike trails aren't built around the 26er wheell (or more likely wheelbase) than you're a special kind of buffoon, one that i've never previously encountered.

I build mountain bike trails. They're not designed around a wheel size. You know nothing.

BloggingFit

felix.london wrote:

Wily-Quixote wrote:

That's an interesting point: 26ers evolved purely arbitrarily and, consequently, formed mountain bike trails evolved around the 26 inch wheel. it's no accident that a 29er feels unwieldy around a bike park designed around the 26inch wheel and wheelbase. had the 29er wheel been the original standard then mountain bike trails would have been designed with more flow, less tight radius turns and so forth. The 26 inch wheel feels 'perfect' because it is perfect for trails designed around it.

None of these things occur in nature they are purely designed around the attributes of the wheel, the bike geometry and wheelbase. Of course, as bike design evolved in capability (suspension geometry etc) the trails became more difficult to suit, which prompted more aggressive bike design. an arms race, if you will, between the capabilities of the bike and the design of the trail. The older readers here would remember that DH trails in the 80s were pretty much the same as x-country courses now.

I can't stop reading this!..it's brilliant! The way that it's all said, like this is fact yet there isn't a single true statement in there.

"an arms race, if you will.." Most excellent, obviously complete b@llocks but a good read that's for sure

So God rides a 26"?

Chunkers1980

Yeah, I think rockmonkey has one.

felix.london

that is a t-shirt right there!

"God rides 26-inch"

cooldad

felix.london wrote:

that is a t-shirt right there!

"God rides 26-inch"

That's like my obvious

paul.skibum

cooldad wrote:

felix.london wrote:

that is a t-shirt right there!

"God rides 26-inch"

That's like my obvious

Bold, black and blasphemous?

supersonic

With a slight curve to one side.

Wily-Quixote

felix.london wrote:

Wily-Quixote wrote:

That's an interesting point: 26ers evolved purely arbitrarily and, consequently, formed mountain bike trails evolved around the 26 inch wheel. it's no accident that a 29er feels unwieldy around a bike park designed around the 26inch wheel and wheelbase. had the 29er wheel been the original standard then mountain bike trails would have been designed with more flow, less tight radius turns and so forth. The 26 inch wheel feels 'perfect' because it is perfect for trails designed around it.

None of these things occur in nature they are purely designed around the attributes of the wheel, the bike geometry and wheelbase. Of course, as bike design evolved in capability (suspension geometry etc) the trails became more difficult to suit, which prompted more aggressive bike design. an arms race, if you will, between the capabilities of the bike and the design of the trail. The older readers here would remember that DH trails in the 80s were pretty much the same as x-country courses now.

I can't stop reading this!..it's brilliant! The way that it's all said, like this is fact yet there isn't a single true statement in there.

"an arms race, if you will.." Most excellent, obviously complete b@llocks but a good read that's for sure

There's nothing in this that is wrong. as a designer of rails back in the 90s i saw them change to suit advancements in bike design its completely obvious to any user and designer that MTB trails are completely different to walking trails and horse trails and road access tracks. That you can't see this is a function of you presumably never riding on anything not specifically designed for MTbs. There is a vast difference between groomed MTb trails, naturally formed animal tracks and fire access roads (tracks). The last two can be barely rideable. MTB trails are completely designed around the bike. trail designs evolve around bike technology and design.

These clips illustrate my point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTk9Yg3hgQ4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-32KVUU3OU
contrast with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HD8T9hnY2w

Now think about: what if 29ers were the first MTB, how might trails have evolved differently? have you wondered why riders thought that 29ers were unwieldy? because the tight radius turns were designed for... oh, nevermind, it;'s like describing the ocean to goldfish....

paul.skibum

First off, those three videos are horrible choices to try to demonstrate your argument.

Second, I cant be bothered but those are horrible videos.

cooldad

Wily-Quixote wrote:

as a designer of rails back in the 90s

Choo choo?

Angus Young

Wily-Quixote wrote:

MTB trails are completely designed around the bike. trail designs evolve around bike technology and design.

So, you agree then, 650b is the 'perfect' wheel size?

felix.london

Wily-Quixote wrote:

have you wondered why riders thought that 29ers were unwieldy?

No I haven't (and I've never heard anyone say that tbh) but probably because they came from 26" bikes and the bigger, heavier wheels, tyres and forks seemed 'unwieldily' compared to what they were used to?

Northwind

Wily-Quixote wrote:

trail designs evolve around bike technology and design.

Yes they do- not wheel size. (just to state the incredibly obvious, trails have been evolving for as long as there's been purpose built mtb trails, whereas it's only recently that big wheels have become a popular option- if you're riding a trail built more than a year or two ago it was designed when 26 inch wheels were dominant)

The current trend in purpose built mtb trails is towards machine building, which generally means very manmade feeling trails- jumps and berms. Which generally suit 26ers best, but it's nothing to do with wheel size and everything to do with cost effectiveness.

Did I mention you know nothing?

Oh- people thought 29ers were cumbersome because early ones mostly were. But they got better and now they operate in the same performance envelope as 26ers.

Wily-Quixote

Northwind wrote:

Wily-Quixote wrote:

trail designs evolve around bike technology and design.

Yes they do- not wheel size. (just to state the incredibly obvious, trails have been evolving for as long as there's been purpose built mtb trails, whereas it's only recently that big wheels have become a popular option- if you're riding a trail built more than a year or two ago it was designed when 26 inch wheels were dominant)

The current trend in purpose built mtb trails is towards machine building, which generally means very manmade feeling trails- jumps and berms. Which generally suit 26ers best, but it's nothing to do with wheel size and everything to do with cost effectiveness.

Did I mention you know nothing?

Oh- people thought 29ers were cumbersome because early ones mostly were. But they got better and now they operate in the same performance envelope as 26ers.

It's just a pity that you didn't think about what you wrote before you wrote it.

supersonic

Trail design has nothing to do with wheel sizes - absolutely nothing at all. I don't know of any designers who thinks that it does.