Ok 26 and 24 inch wheels.

nicklouse · March 2006

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by theblackmagician

OK, thinking about shopping trolleys..... How about another cryptic clue? Shopping trolleys turn at the rear usually. the cage is only supported at the rear so the front drops if you sit in one.

That still doesn't imply any angular changes.

Do you agree that if you use large enough tyres to make the wheel circumference the same as the theoretical 26in. wheels, the geometry would remain the same?

Reject the basic asumptions of civilisation, especially the importance of material posessions
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

the wheels in particular. Caster. caster angle.......

elmotheewokking · March 2006

im am completely and utterly confuse and lost now please nick what are you talking about?

Steelhead Gi streets and lots of steel hehe!

Steelhead

nicklouse · March 2006

draw a picture of a wheel and with a fork fitted. draw a line through the center of the headset bearings untill it intersects the ground. should be at whatever the head angle is. then draw a vertical line through the axel to the ground. the distance between thes to points on the ground. now drop the bike onto 24" wheels. the distance between the 2 points gets less. which makes the steering harsher.more reactive. there is a technical word for it. i think it is trail. will check.

theblackmagician · March 2006

Nick, That's not an angular change, the angles- head, vert and ground haven't changed at all. The change to the front is the same as to the rear- the rear corners faster but responds more severely to ground surface. The front does the same but it's because of the ratio of distances and arc circumference of the wheel and tyre not angular geometry.

nicklouse · March 2006

i would argue the point. correct it is not a angular change but it is a geometry change.

theblackmagician · March 2006

Sorry Nick, got to quote you here:

nope i am talking angles!

Haven't got a pair of compasses handy- I'm on a night shift! will check it out tommorow. It'll be interesting to see if there are any changes. I'm only going to check it out on the geometry of a theoretical hardtail though!

p.s. you're up late tonight ,Nick

richARDest · March 2006

All the tech reasons for 24 are above. I bought mine for stregth also it is easier to not catch yur ft while x-upin and it doesnt catch on the barspins anymore. But gettin tyres and tubes is a pain in the flaps cos thers hardly any.

YES BOSS

nicklouse · March 2006

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by theblackmagician

Sorry Nick, got to quote you here:

nope i am talking angles!

Haven't got a pair of compasses handy- I'm on a night shift! will check it out tommorow. It'll be interesting to see if there are any changes. I'm only going to check it out on the geometry of a theoretical hardtail though!

p.s. you're up late tonight ,Nick
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

yes i was! work work work.

there are angles and angles. and yes no angle changes but it has the same effect as making the head angle steeper. or in car terminology caster and kingpin inclination.

smaller wheels has the same effect as making the head angle steeper!

nick
<hr noshade size="1"><center>
"Do not follow where the path may lead, Go instead where there is no path, and Leave a Trail."
 Sheldon Brown Park Tools! Spoke Calculator
older than an old thing that is very old</center>
[?]

theblackmagician · March 2006

I know what your saying and yes, you are right about the effect. It is a very good point that a lot of people wouldn't have even considered. It threw me when you were saying angles though.

It has to be said that from what i've worked out the rate of twitchiness should increase as the fork compresses as the effect would be amplified as the geometry/ head angle changes. I think that would just mean it takes a while to get used to the bike's handling. I'm having that problem with my new rig anyway because it's full suss, centre of gavity is higher, head angle is different and the forks work differently to my old bike.

I reckon that whatever your choices for components, especially wheels and tyres, it takes a while to get used to the new feel. There seem to be as many pros as cons for any of these changes.

Don't work too hard, Nick. Thanks for making me use my brain on some boring night shifts. I'm just waiting for the the next obscure detail for you to find. How about crank length?

Neal

nicklouse · March 2006

so in really a 24" wheeled frame should have s slacker head angle than a eqivalent 26" wheeled frame.

what the problem with suspension is a lot of the things that effect it can not be seen or directly measured. Final year Project at uni was race car suspension.

nick
<hr noshade size="1"><center>
"Do not follow where the path may lead, Go instead where there is no path, and Leave a Trail."
 Sheldon Brown Park Tools! Spoke Calculator
older than an old thing that is very old</center>
[?]

Trail_Builder · March 2006

That's tech stuff nick...lol

Adam<hr noshade size="1"><center>>- Trail Builder -<</center>
<center>My Hardtail - My Big Bike
Useful Refs: Spoke Calculator - Tech Links - Maintenance FAQ - Sheldon Brown - Park Tools - Cambria - Pricepoint - CRC</center>

theblackmagician · March 2006

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by nicklouse

so in really a 24" wheeled frame should have s slacker head angle than a eqivalent 26" wheeled frame.

what the problem with suspension is a lot of the things that effect it can not be seen or directly measured. Final year Project at uni was race car suspension.

nick
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Frame manufacturers probably don't want to put in the R&D to 24" head angles. Most 24" riders just put up with the side effects of the wheel size anyway, usually finding a way to use it to their advantage. A lot wouldn't go back to 26's as the steering feels sluggish after 24's.

I presume your bike is total platform suspension heaven then?

Do you run 24's or 26's or both?

Reject the basic asumptions of civilisation, especially the importance of material posessions

nicklouse · March 2006

wheels. 20/24/26/and have been seen on 700's.

nick
<hr noshade size="1"><center>
"Do not follow where the path may lead, Go instead where there is no path, and Leave a Trail."
 Sheldon Brown Park Tools! Spoke Calculator
older than an old thing that is very old</center>
[?]

Cal647 · March 2006

what do think about 24" on the back and 26" on the front?

elmotheewokking · March 2006

thats what i run cal and in general its fine. Just depends on what forks frame your running. i have a steelhead with 100mm and i didnt like the head angle so i put a 24 on the back. i was going to put a 24" 130mm fork on the front but ran outta money. so have had it for nearly a year now, and i really really like it. a lot of peole don't but thats their problem. plus your BB isnt as low as twin 24. i know have to decide on going back to 26 or getting another 24. decisions decisions.

Steelhead Gi streets and lots of steel hehe!

Steelhead

Kong · March 2006

i run 24" on the back and a 26" on the front and love it most people i know cant stand the way i have my bike set up but it sutes me fine i find the 24" wheel gives me good acceleration off the line and out of the corners alot of people say you cant feel the differenc but i work for me and seems to work. the 26" is up front to take the hits and it will roll over most stuff in your way.

Banshee (Mythic) ->

http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/567055/

http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/567057/

i always F**King crash

dombino · March 2006

i think 24s are pretentious! sorry but that is mon opinion. and it also annoys me how dirt jumpers sometimes only have a rear brake! whats that supposed to be about again?

Anonymous · March 2006

A front brake isnt needed for trails.
I think ive ran my 24s long enough now to pass judgement on the issue.
To me the bike just feels better for my style of riding, i finally feel comfortable on it.
My frame is 24" specific so no issues of it riding like crap when some people put 24 on a 26 frame.
As for the whole problem of tyres tubes and rims.
Tubes- pretty easy to get, Nokian and Maxxis both do 24s, as do halfords, dont forget alot of kids bikes are 24.
Rims, I had problems getting the rims i want, but thats not down to the size that was down to what they were, theres plenty of 24" rims out there realy, Atomlab, Halo, Sun, Arrow, Alex, and more all make them
Tyres- For what i ride (street, trails, park) There are plenty of 24" tyres out there, for those who are more into DH etc, Im not so sure about that but my mate rode 24 on the back of his DH bike with no tyre issues.

This may just sounds like I am purely singing the praises of 24s for me, But 26 were never much of an issue for me.
But I can safely say now for me and on Park trails and street i feel 24s are better.

I

Emo Girls
Nothing says "ouch" like a punctured gut

Emo? a Girl? If yes then mail me [:D]

MTA

Myspace

theblackmagician · March 2006

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dombino

i think 24s are pretentious! sorry but that is mon opinion. and it also annoys me how dirt jumpers sometimes only have a rear brake! whats that supposed to be about again?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That's the dumbest statement I've heard in a long time. If you only need one brake why use two? and of the two, keeping the rear one is preferable.

Pretentious = pretending to be something that one is not. 24's would only be pretentious if they were labelled as 26's. It's up to the individual what they ride.

Reject the basic asumptions of civilisation, especially the importance of material posessions

elmotheewokking · March 2006

that was beautiful theblackmagician, nearly bought a tear to my eye!
admitedly tires are a difficult area. I run Tioga Factory DH 2.3's, they are not the best tires by a long way but i like to slide. The only reason i have no front brake is that the mount snapped clean of, and i just learnt barspins. but also the front brake is more exposed to being struck, the rear is protected somewhat by the frame. Before you say its your opinion, yes i realise that butyou made a right hash of expressing it TBH. Besides i blame Jon Cowan for the anti 24" talk.
"if it doesnt have 26 inch wheels, gears and suspension forks then its not a mountain bike."
Has he forgotten about how it all started then? Idiot...

<center>Trailpimps in 26"
or
Gi Streets in 24"</center>
<center>Steelhead</center>

theblackmagician · March 2006

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by elmotheewokking

that was beautiful theblackmagician, nearly bought a tear to my eye!
admitedly tires are a difficult area. I run Tioga Factory DH 2.3's, they are not the best tires by a long way but i like to slide. The only reason i have no front brake is that the mount snapped clean of, and i just learnt barspins. but also the front brake is more exposed to being struck, the rear is protected somewhat by the frame. Before you say its your opinion, yes i realise that butyou made a right hash of expressing it TBH. Besides i blame Jon Cowan for the anti 24" talk.
"if it doesnt have 26 inch wheels, gears and suspension forks then its not a mountain bike."
Has he forgotten about how it all started then? Idiot...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

spot on dude, I remember reading an article in a bmx mag around 1983 about guys chucking 26in frames off mountains to test the frame strength and then using the full rigid bikes to ride full on mountains.
The article was called "Is this the future of bmx?"

Reject the basic asumptions of civilisation, especially the importance of material posessions

nicklouse · March 2006

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by theblackmagician

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by elmotheewokking

that was beautiful theblackmagician, nearly bought a tear to my eye!
admitedly tires are a difficult area. I run Tioga Factory DH 2.3's, they are not the best tires by a long way but i like to slide. The only reason i have no front brake is that the mount snapped clean of, and i just learnt barspins. but also the front brake is more exposed to being struck, the rear is protected somewhat by the frame. Before you say its your opinion, yes i realise that butyou made a right hash of expressing it TBH. Besides i blame Jon Cowan for the anti 24" talk.
"if it doesnt have 26 inch wheels, gears and suspension forks then its not a mountain bike."
Has he forgotten about how it all started then? Idiot...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

spot on dude, I remember reading an article in a bmx mag around 1983 about guys chucking 26in frames off mountains to test the frame strength and then using the full rigid bikes to ride full on mountains.
The article was called "Is this the future of bmx?"

Reject the basic asumptions of civilisation, especially the importance of material posessions
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

that was a year before i got my first ATB! but had been doing that with a road frame for a few years allredy!

nick
<hr noshade size="1"><center>
"Do not follow where the path may lead, Go instead where there is no path, and Leave a Trail."
 Sheldon Brown Park Tools! Spoke Calculator
older than an old thing that is very old</center>
[?]

elmotheewokking · March 2006

compared to all you guys im a noob to this anyways, i just like to know how the things i love doing start! 1983 that was 5 years before i was born!

Is there anything in the 4x rules about wheel size? I want to get another 24 for the front but i want to race a little 4x, i have a pair of 26 atomlabs sitting around, so just wondering whether they will actually get used this year.

<center>Trailpimps in 26"
or
Gi Streets in 24"</center>
<center>Steelhead</center>

dillinjer · March 2006

just read through all of this discussion, but no-one has mentioned the relationship between wheel size, frame size and rider size.

considering i ride a 20" frame, with 26" wheels, a bike with 24" wheels and a proportionally smaller frame (ie, ~17") would feel to a rider smaller than me (by a similar proportion) much like my bike feels to me, wouldn't it? vice versa: for me, 26's on my larger frame should feel the same as 24's feel to an average person on their average-size bike.

similarly, if 26" wheels are standard for all the "average" riders (my estimate: 5ft10, 11st, 17" frame), then perhaps i (me: 6ft4, 18st, 20" frame) should put 28" wheels on my bike, so my whole bike is scaled like the medium size frame the designers built around 26" wheels.

i'm sure if i thought about it more then i'd probably find that there is more to it than that, and i can only hope that the pedant-filled internet will make the reasons clear.

it seems obvious to me that there is far more variability in rider size and frame size than the 2" difference in wheel size, so only the average few will be able to gain any significant benefit from this change.

cheers.

*has a nice new GT Avalanche 1.0 Disc 2006*

nicklouse · March 2006

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dillinjer

just read through all of this discussion, but no-one has mentioned the relationship between wheel size, frame size and rider size.

considering i ride a 20" frame, with 26" wheels, a bike with 24" wheels and a proportionally smaller frame (ie, ~17") would feel to a rider smaller than me (by a similar proportion) much like my bike feels to me, wouldn't it? vice versa: for me, 26's on my larger frame should feel the same as 24's feel to an average person on their average-size bike.

similarly, if 26" wheels are standard for all the "average" riders (my estimate: 5ft10, 11st, 17" frame), then perhaps i (me: 6ft4, 18st, 20" frame) should put 28" wheels on my bike, so my whole bike is scaled like the medium size frame the designers built around 26" wheels.

i'm sure if i thought about it more then i'd probably find that there is more to it than that, and i can only hope that the pedant-filled internet will make the reasons clear.

it seems obvious to me that there is far more variability in rider size and frame size than the 2" difference in wheel size, so only the average few will be able to gain any significant benefit from this change.

cheers.

*has a nice new GT Avalanche 1.0 Disc 2006*
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

sorry i have to disagree with what you are saying here.
yes a kids bike with 24" could feel similar to a adults 26"

but we are discusing adults 26" and adults 24" where the frame size (length), forget size as in frame height as that went out ages ago when ball clearance was needed due to suspension.

eg i have a 14" fram with 26" and a 14" frame with 24" they both have very similar geo and a similar length fork but both ride very differently.

nick
<hr noshade size="1"><center>
"Do not follow where the path may lead, Go instead where there is no path, and Leave a Trail."
 Sheldon Brown Park Tools! Spoke Calculator
older than an old thing that is very old</center>
[?]

Jimmyhardtail · March 2006

I've just changed from 24" to 26"!

Bought my Santa Cruz Bullit (5th with boxxers) 2nd hand about a year & a half ago, it came with 24" Halo Combats. I had only ridden 26" wheels on my mountain bikes prior to this & assumed I would buy myself a new 26" wheelset when I had the money...but I began to love the feel of the bike! It just felt great in the turns (especially berms), stable & flickable in the air...plus I had total confidence in the strenth of them as they withstood every bad landing I could give them.

I did feel a few of the disadvantages though when I spent my summer riding abroad. They rolled significantly slower than my friends 26" wheels...I would lose ground on open fast sections...even when I would land smoothly off jumps/drops & pump out of landings & corners I would have to get a couple of pedal strokes in to keep with my friend who would freewheel (we're pretty similar riding abilities). Plus the 24s tended to hook up more on obstacles & in divets/craters...had to make more of an effort to get through tech sections smoothly!

As I said, I have just changed back to 26". First ride last weekend & I found it very strange. Could definately feel the bike rolling with more ease...seemed faster! But turning in the berms didn't feel as stable & manoeuvring the bike around in the air took a bit more effort. Turning was a little less responsive also I think. Can't tell you much more as my ride was cut short when my bb snapped in half!

To conclude...I decided to change back to 26" because I mainly ride dh/fr & wanted a smoother faster ride (plus I'm a bit of a traditionalist). But I would definately have no problems riding 24" again...I think for this country they suit the trails very well.

Hope that was of some help/insight...sorry it's a bit long winded.

"...Hulk Hogan eat your heart out!" - RAD (1986)

Alex · March 2006

Firstly lets clear up a few terms that have been badly used in this thread.

Acceleration: What you mean is how much the wheel resists when you go from a standing start. Big/heavy wheels are more resistant to changes in speed. Small ones therefore are less resistant. As such, 24" wheels accelerate quicker not because of the ratio change but because they have less rotational momentum.

Stability: This is rotational momentum again. Big/heavy wheels are more resistant to a change in axis of spin. They are a gyroscope. Hence, big wheels are more stable both in the air and on the ground. They're less likely to get knocked off the line and less likely to move in the wrong way in the air should you do something wrong.

Flickability/whippyness: The opposite of stability. This is how easily you can influence the axis of spin of the wheels, it is easier to change the axis of spin on a small wheel. A backflip is NOT a change in axis, a 360 or table or whip is a change in axis.

Tyre choice: Two companies providing tyres in limited widths is not tyre choice. Especialy when one of those tyres is undisputably poor.

As far as i can see it, there are zero benefits to downhill or XC from running 24" wheels. Lower rotational momentum means that they're quicker to lose speed than the equivilent weight 26" wheel, they don't bridge gaps as well as a 26" wheel and the tyre choice for DH is dire. They might be quicker to accelerate, but that's nothing dropping a gear won't solve and DH is more to do with holding speed than gaining it anyway.

XC racers should probably move up to 29ers, on most race courses they've been proven to be faster. Not least when a Norba was won in 04 by a guy on a CX bike.

4X, Jump, street and trials are a different story all together. With the exception of trials they're derived from BMX, a field where 20-24" wheels have already proven thier worth.

If 4X remains BMX on big bikes then wheelsize remains just another choice, the wheels aren't subjected to massive stress, acceleration can be given in the gear ratios and with a lighter tyre on a 26. 26" wheels are more stable in the air and on the ground, but that stability brings with it a resistance to change in direction. 4x will remain a place where downhill meets jump, both wheel types offer useful advantages, both offer problems.

Jump and street are both heavily derived from BMX. 20" wheels DOMINATE. There is no argument here.

The jump community, especialy the american riders that lead the way, are going to have to make thier minds up, is MTB jumping about having fun, jumping with your mates, pulling the best tricks or is it about using bikes that are technicaly unsuitable and proving to the BMX community that "we can do it too" alibi not as well.

24" wheels are quicker to change direction, easier to move in the air. In short, better for pulling tricks with. However, if you're hitting the sort of jumps that John Cowan films for NWD then i can definitly see the advantage of the 26" wheel.

Street sits reasonably well here too, if you're looking at it on your mountain bike, a BMX rider with have done it a week ago. A 24" wheel of the same mass as a 26" is tougher. There's nothing to slow you down on the streets and 24" offers a lot of advantages to you. Shorter run-ups, whippier bike. Tyre choice for street is good too.

If you're riding a skatepark, take 24s, they're already huge, 26" wheels just take up space.

Trials riders are thier own little world. 20" bikes lead the sport, but 26" isn't too shabby either. 24" is just an opportunity for more crossover. More 24" trials tyres please Mr Maxxis.

So, there you have it. Alex's opinions on the 24/26 thing.

Now if i can just get some 22" rims...

<hr noshade size="1">Crappy Secondhand rat bike...

<center>No, a good way to go is to live a life of endless summers and rolling singletrack,
 abrupty cut short by a combineharvester</center>

Avi. Mike. Whyamihere. Jon. Me_groovy. Mattie. Phil.

trek_liam · March 2006

and (if no one has mentioned it) your wheel base will be longer (the distance from the back of the front tyre to the front of the back )is longer

<hr noshade size="1"> "STP is STuPid."
msn ;lcarcher@bluebell22.fslife.co.uk
email;liam_666@fsmail.net
http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/?op=list& ... erid=96813

nicklouse · March 2006

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by trek_liam

and (if no one has mentioned it) your wheel base will be longer (the distance from the back of the front tyre to the front of the back )is longer

<hr noshade size="1"> "STP is STuPid."
msn ;lcarcher@bluebell22.fslife.co.uk
email;liam_666@fsmail.net
http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/?op=list& ... erid=96813
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That is not Wheel base! that is length. wheel base is the distance between axels!

nick
<hr noshade size="1"><center>
"Do not follow where the path may lead, Go instead where there is no path, and Leave a Trail."
 Sheldon Brown Park Tools! Spoke Calculator
older than an old thing that is very old</center>
[?]

trek_liam · March 2006

sorry i stand corrected (i know what i meant even if noone else did)

<hr noshade size="1"> "STP is STuPid."
msn ;lcarcher@bluebell22.fslife.co.uk
email;liam_666@fsmail.net
http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/?op=list& ... erid=96813

Ok 26 and 24 inch wheels.

Comments

Categories