UKC

Ignoring the extra faff involved in getting the big wheels in a car, what size wheel is "best"? (assuming you are not short)...

Trails (Y)

Uphill (Y)

Likes going fast (Y)

Occasional black runs (Y)

Also assuming a hardtail

Also someone convince me that 1*11 is better than 3*9!

In reply to gravy:

Seriously? You need convincing 1x11 is better than 3x9?  If you are actually asking that question, then I'm not wasting my time trying to convince you.

It's 2023 not 1993.

Wrt to 29 versus 27.5.

I tick all those boxes. It has to be 29 for a hardtail (if you are tall).

In reply to gravy:

I went from 26" wheels on a large frame to 29" wheels on a very large frame and it was night and day. On my small bike getting chucked over my handlebars was a pretty regular occurrence, after switching it just stopped and hasn't happened since. I ride XC and trail centres and the bike rides so much better, rolls better and feels way more stable. I'm 6'3".

I don't do any hard downhill or big jumps though so I'm not sure if the bigger wheels are better for serious stuff.

I've always liked the 1-9 setup. For me it comes down to ease of use, up or down that's it! Messing about with all these different configurations when you're up and down like a yoyo stresses me out, too much faff.

I do find you lose some of your bottom gears though, which isn't ideal. Also you get big gaps between gears but that never bothered me. If I was buying now I'd buy a 10-50t 12 speed cassette and a 36t front ring. It's the 10 tooth ring that makes a big difference, these new 12 speed cassettes have a massive range.

In reply to gravy:

I find 29 a bit wallowy (word), maybe just the wheel build, but certainly not as precise for tighter trails. They do roll better obviously. 

Re 1x11 the world hasn't woken up yet, exposed sprockets, narrow hubs and rear mech hanging in the dirt are really quaint 20th century ideas.

Pinion gearboxes are the elegant solution.

In reply to ChrisJD:

C'mon - it's 20 years since I brought a new bike and I like swapping rings to transition quickly from up to down...

Are you telling me that for the past 40 years I've been carrying superfluous chain rings and front derailleur around for no good reason?

I look at these set ups and they look like a cheap kiddies bike without the triple front ring so I need convincing!

Anyway thanks for the advice - I was leaning to 29" but it's such a big change from the 26" wheels I using mildly reluctant to embrace the difference.  Now my problem is I (inevitably) lie on the border between large and x-large frames - it might be time to get a ruler out and measure may old frame before deciding.

In reply to gravy:

Why does it have to be one or the other? 29 up front with a 2.3 tyre for precision and roll over, 27.5 in the rear with a 2.6 tyre for comfort and chuckability. Surely this gives the best of both worlds, stronger rear wheel where it is needed smaller size so don't need a stupid 51 tooth dinner plate cassette and can run a 10-46 tooth max rear to keep the cassette weight down and not need a stupid long rear mech cage.

29 all round is probably better for resale value though if this is a consideration. It is certainly the fashion currently, this does mean some great deals on 27.5 stuff though

In reply to gravy:

lol, (but yes)

(I've been into mountain biking for 37 years and have always embraced the 'new')

In reply to gravy: good luck trying to find a 27.5  in this years bikes . I’ve been having half a look as I m jigging  the kids bikes about a bit . Seems to be 29 or mullet this year . I’m sure you can get 27.5  s but just not in the shops I’ve been browsing in . Four  different quality locals  . I see the “idea” behind mullets but imho they aren’t of any benefit for most people - one mtb that they do s bit of everything with ? Wonder what Cjd thinks ?

edit : and another thing  I think  looks silly - those third sprockets , allegedly to stop chain slap . Really ?

In reply to ChrisJD:

I'm 100% convinced that 1x11 is better than 3x9. I'm less convinced that it's better than 2x9 for some applications.

In reply to gravy:

I think besides anything else you'll just find it very hard to buy a "good bike" or a "decent bike" with triple or double chainsets in the MTB world - even getting into the cheap, not so serious end of the market there aren't many. It's gone as technology MTBs, and seems to have virtually gone on gravel and road bikes too. My road bike is 12 years old and has 105 with triple and I got it on a good sale I think because even back then people weren't buying triple chainsets even when it was a good groupset on a nice frame. Anyway, you don't want a shifter on the left on your MTB because you want to be able to operate your dropper seat post!

In reply to gravy:

Totally a 1x11.......nothing to discuss!!!!!

I have a 29'er and hate it.....looking for a 2nd had decent 27.5....I'm 5ft 11....

I have just not got used to the size of the wheels, lack of feel, etc.....it's great rolling along on easy stuff but outside of that it's not a patch on my last 27.5!!

In reply to mike123:

I've got two (slightly shorter friends) now both riding mullet longer travel full sus - they really love them; but we are riding techy/steep trails on our FS (and they both have previously rode 27.5 & 29 FS).

One of them rode his current bike in 29 form first, then got the conversion kit to mullet it (different yoke); for him, it was night and day better for the type of trails we ride with FS (but he's 5.8).

For a hardtail, to tick all those OP boxes (and given they are tall), its 29 all the way.

(and I've not seen a mainstream mullet hardtail off-the-shelf).

In reply to DaveHK:

I wouldn't disagree with that

In reply to mike123:

Do you mean high pivot bikes?

In reply to ChrisJD:

Orange do the Crush MX which is a mullet hardtail available off the shelf. 

https://www.orangebikes.com/model/crush-mx

In reply to sxrxg:

Well I've seen one now

In reply to gravy:

Next question: size up or size down?

I sit exactly on the boundary between sizes, I can't try the bike first,

I had the same problem before and I currently ride a bike "sized up" which has worked out great (but I could try that bike).

The old and new bike geometries are quite different (26->29) and hard to compare (and my old bike seems to lie between them).

PS I understand this is the most useless question ever - I guess I'm trying to discover a hidden rule of thumb for 29ers or something...

In reply to gravy:

The geometry of bikes is so different now I would go to a store and try some out rather than basing on your existing frame size. If that's not possible I'd measure all your dimensions and base it on that but beware it might not be right. For example in any kind of bike size chart I'm always a large due to my height but I have a short reach and in longer slaker bikes often feel more comfortable on a medium.

Regarding the gears. Before I got my new bike which is 1*12 I converted my 3*9 into a 1*9 and it was way better (and I got stronger riding it that the 1*12 felt easy).

Wheels most people prefer 29 but I do have mates that like smaller wheels.

In reply to gravy:

How tall are you?

A good starting point is height-in-cm x 2.5 to 2.55 = Reach in mm (ish)

I've bought three bikes blind based around this calc (one for son) - all have fitted perfectly. 

In reply to dsh:

I'm really curious about this. How is converting to 1*9 better than just leaving it as 3*9 and not using the left shifter?

In reply to Hooo:

1*9 is three times more fun than 3*9, obviously.

In reply to gravy:

As others have said, 1x11/12 is light years better than front mech and chainrings. There's a reason that even cheaper bikes have 1x setups these days.

Re. 27.5/29: After many years of prevarication and 'suspicion of the new' (I've been riding over 30 years), a couple of years ago I jumped straight from 26" to 29", on a reasonably high-end enduro bike. I was mildly underwhelmed. Of course the bigger wheels roll better, but on tight and twisty trails (which is 90% of what I ride around home) I found the bigger wheels to be cumbersome, the whole bike felt sluggish.

Fortunately the frame I bought has a "flip-chip" which allows it be run in either 27.5 or 29. So I bought some 27.5" wheels, and a second hand fork (with an inch more travel than then original) and it has changed the feel of the whole bike - for the better. It feels nimble, the front end lifts easier, the whole thing feels more balanced and I enjoy riding it a lot more.

The interesting news is that I stuck all the 29" kit on an 'enduro-geometry' steel hardtail frame, and there the 29" stuff works really well, with the bigger wheels taking the sting out of the unsuspended back. I spend an equal amount of time on both bikes, and enjoy both!

Re sizing up or down: that's a really tricky one. Modern geometry is "long and low" so if you size up, and go from 26->29, it might feel like you're riding a tank at first. FWIW I too am on the boundary sized down on my full-sus and up on the hardtail, but I reckon I'd have been happy either way!

In reply to Hooo:

Depending on where you live, the range of a typical 32T chainring with a narrower 9spd cassette is not sufficient for steeper climbs. To fix this with a 1x9 setup you swap the large rear sprocket from 34/36T to 42T; when I did it I had to add a mech-extender to get the old mech to work. You also need to change the chainring to a modern narrow-wide style that doesn't drop off (or rarely at least).

The problem I had when converting to 1x9 is less the range, it's more than older 9spd mechs typically don't have the 'clutch' spring - which is designed to put more tension on the chain and help it from skipping off. Without that, the chain would indeed fall off my setup occasionally, even with a narrow-wide chainring. (I now have 1x12 with a modern derailleur on both my bikes, and the chain has never fallen off once).

In reply to Alun:

I made the change because the front derailleur broke and didn't want to have to replace the entire drive train.

This is pretty much what I did, I only changed the large cog and got narrow wide chain ring. Had no issues with the chain dropping and there's way less bashing on rocks, better range than just not using left shifter etc.

In reply to gravy:

If you are wee and like tearing about trail centres and/or doing slow technical stuff then 27.5 might be for you. Otherwise 29 every time. The geometry of the frame and fork have as significant an effect on the handling of the bike as the wheel size. I had a Stanton Sherpa 29 that reminded me of quick handling 26" trail bikes, which was one of the reasons I sold it. 

FWIW my main thing now is long rides in the hills and 29 wheels are so much more long-legged. They roll faster and go over drainage ditches with ease whereas I'd be bunny hopping smaller wheels. It all adds up to a less tiring experience. Maybe your interests differ.

Asking for 3x9 is like asking for round pin plugs. If you're an xc endurance racer then 2x10/11 might be good, otherwise just go with 1x11, it's lighter and simpler. I probably get off and push more than I used to, but then I used to pedal up steep hills slower than I could have walked, just on principle.

In reply to gravy:

I have a 27.5 2019 Trek Remedy but if I replaced it I would buy a 29 Trek Slash. I hired a 29er Gt Enduro bike when I was in the alps last year and it was fantastic. The suspension was not as good as my trek but the bike was so fast and really stable. I had no problems chucking it around tight berms at all. As for 1 x 11 or 12 - never would I go back to a front changer.

In reply to gravy:

I totally agree with all the others - 1x is streets ahead of 3x or 2x. The only thing you lose is top end speed as I can't pedal over 30 mph anymore, but that's not a major issue off road. 

For wheel size, I'm still not fully convinced by 29ers. I have one that is great for covering distance and is capable in the rough, but if I'm doing anything technical, I go for my 27.5. I am only 5'7" though, and I am interested in mullet bikes next time I buy. I'm pretty sure that a 29er is the right bike for bigger people. One thing I find with a 29er is that tight turns are a nightmare, but they are harder on most modern geometry bikes. 

As for sizing, unless you are going for a bike to do jumps and tricks, I'd size up. Just be aware of standover height - I have a bike that is great to ride, but I can only just get my feet on the ground over the top tube! 

If you've not bought a bike since a 26 inch, I think modern bikes are going to blow your mind

Thanks folks, I've gone big. 

Now all I have to do is break the news to my beloved old bike...

In reply to gravy:

What bike did you end up getting ?

In reply to Monk:

If you are 5.7, then a Mullet set up will be perfecto.

In reply to 65:

… Asking for 3x9 is like asking for round pin plugs…

Readily available at screwfix, tool station, bnq, Amazon and many others if you need some!!!!

In reply to ChrisJD:

how are you defining tall?  like 5"7 is that tall? 

In reply to mike123:

Picked up a 27 very cheaply last winter - there was a reason for this.   No front derailleur, the Devil's component, either. Very happy.  (also quite tall)

In reply to gravy:

I've just bought a Cube Reaction Pro to replace my 30 year old Marin hardtail.

29 inch wheels. 1X12.

Ax you would expect a totally different riding experience. I can get up things where I would have had to walk and more confident downhill. Much easier to keep straight through loose ground. Liking the 1x12. Not quite as agile through the trees, bigger wheels seem to make starting turns slower and wider bars too.

I'm liking it though more into off road touring than technical these days.

In reply to BelleVedere:

See my post four posts above if you are 5.7.  ... Consider mullet.

In reply to gravy:

I would agree with most on here that 1:11/12 or even the recent 1:13 set up is nice and for me is enough ratios but what no one has mentioned is the increasing narrowness of the chain.

I have 1:11 on an Emtb, which puts more strain on the chain than an analog bike, but friends with 1:12 setups are reporting chains lasting around 300 miles with proper maintenance. One has resorted to a titanium chain costing £60+. God knows what the 1:13 chain will be like. 

In reply to PaulW: That's a really nice bike, and you get a lot for your money.  That's the Al version , yes? It would be considered to have an outdated geometry from the hardcore gnar lovers, but for what a lot of people ride it's just great.

I'm 5'7 and ride 29 just fine.

In reply to wbo2:

Thank you. Yes, the aluminium frame.

Interesting bike, mix of slightly outdated bits with good quality chainset and brakes. As you say not the best for hardcore gnar but just done the South Downs Way on it and it felt perfect for that.