Lead Article On MTB-Tyre Size Scientific Study

mikeyj28

Hi all

What do you make of the scientific study reported on bike radar about the 26/27.5 & 29er tyre sizes and the 27.5" being found the worst overall? I'm interested to hear from racers on how they do find these results and whether they think the 26" was as good as found in the test?

rockmonkeysc

I race downhill on 26". I have tried 27.5" and it didnt really feel any different. The main diffeeence I noticed was the longer chain stays on the 27.5" bike made it more difficult to manual.
I havent seen a 27.5" bike win a race at regional level yet. I saw a lad win a race on an ancient Intense M3 not long ago which proves its much more about the rider than the bike anyway.

kajjal

It depends what type of racing you are doing and the course. You are unlikely to see a 29er xc hardtail in a proper downhill race but will see loads of them in xc races. Just get the bike to suit you and the riding you do.

mikeyj28

Kajjal wrote:

It depends what type of racing you are doing and the course. You are unlikely to see a 29er xc hardtail in a proper downhill race but will see loads of them in xc races. Just get the bike to suit you and the riding you do.

No I am not suggesting for my own purchase. I have an anthem 26er and a Canyon HT 29er. I am just intrigued by what racers find and what the article has reported/found.
Would be looking more at XC than a pure downhill race and racers who do the same as conditions found in the test.

Angus Young

Jesus, are we still talking about this, too?

cooldad

27.5+ is the only way to go.

poah

If I was doing the work I'd have used a wider range of people and recorded data over a wide range of tracks. That says to me is on that track, with that rider, the bike that was quickest was the 29er with that spec.

The Rookie

I watched both videos, so the 29er is fastest and the 26er second fastest and the 27er slowest, but watch all the way through and he said the 27 was 10 seconds slower than either the other two up a climb, this shouts a massive quality of data issue to me, so while 'interesting' I think I'm going to take the results under advisement....and ignore them, they tried to be very scientific, but the results weren't explained in a way that made sense (scientifically there was no difference but the 29er was faster?) and that difference on the climb is enough for me to think it's flawed.

hiswitsend

The Rookie wrote:

I watched both videos, so the 29er is fastest and the 26er second fastest and the 27er slowest, but watch all the way through and he said the 27 was 10 seconds slower than either the other two up a climb, this shouts a massive quality of data issue to me, so while 'interesting' I think I'm going to take the results under advisement....and ignore them, they tried to be very scientific, but the results weren't explained in a way that made sense (scientifically there was no difference but the 29er was faster?) and that difference on the climb is enough for me to think it's flawed.

+1

Second video is a joke - no statistical differences, yet they are quoting that the 29er is faster and 27.5 10 seconds slower, clearly the statistics they were using had nothing to do with performance then!!

A 'scientific' study would show all the workings, or did they forget to put batteries in the equipment, or will it be shown in full in a magazine article?

Littlebigmatt

I stopped watching at the point where he said none of the riders had ridden a 650b, If the testers are unfamiliar with the bikes then it wont be a fair test, so what was the point?

WindyG

These tests will always be flawed as there always be something that throws the data out from one rider or bike to another. It all comes down to what suits the rider and where they ride, I have both 26 and 27.5 bikes and I do notice the difference between the wheel sizes but then the bikes are also different they maybe all XC bikes but they are not identical. I am actually faster on the 27.5 but it also the better bike :-)

robertpb

As most of us are out just having some fun or exercise does it make any difference.

Going by my experience back in the Eighties on some rides we had 24" 26" 650B and 29", no wheel size seemed to be slower and we had a lot of fun that's all that matters.

Angus Young

WindyG wrote:

These tests will always be flawed...

Not if the experiment is designed properly.

Lewis A

I find that some rides I'm much slower than others anyway, regardless of what wheelsize I'm riding, what if they took slightly slower lines on one lap, there's just too many variables on a lap of that length.