The Mullet concept
 

curious about the bigger font wheel idea.
is there any advantage to going 27.5 or 29 up front 26 rear.
as i begin to change out the 1996 gary fisher i am curious about the idea..i recall trek tried it a while back.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...ec7b4b9df9.jpg

For casually enjoying the trails, no advantage at all.

Without also changing the fork (and then changing the steerer angle) you wind up with a larger rim taking up valuable tire space, limiting you to 1.5-1.75” of tire vs. the stock 2-2.5” available.

There is some advantage to go and fit the largest tires your frame and fork can fit.

———

that is a sweet machine you’ve got there.

If you’re seldom/never in sloppy mud, you can go with smaller knobs and a larger carcass tire for greater squish over rocks & roots.

Best to run the widest tire you can fit in the current fork. Height doesn't matter much.

Just an updated bike will be a big enough change

Never in my life... other than a week or so ago on BF have I heard the term Mullet referred to a bigger front wheel. A Mullet haircut is short (smaller) in front and longer (bigger) in back. Doesn't make sense to me. Maybe coined by the same people that call plugs 'bacon strips'......

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...2c0454dcb9.jpg
bigger tires...

https://alchemybicycles.com/product/nine7five/

https://www.mulletcycles.com/

It seems the mullet idea (according to the last link) doesn't make such a big jump (26-29). More like 26-27.5 or 27.5-29. I get that a bit as you can use the same fork (probably) and a reasonable tire size. From the look of your pic the brake pads might adjust to the larger rim too (27.5).

Theoretically (I doubt it would really apply) you might get marginally better roll over ability with a larger diameter front tire but as someone else said, without changing forks, running a 29 up front will limit the tire size. Maybe ok for gravel riding but not so much for mtb.again, once you reduce tire size to accomodate you lose the cushioning that a rigid fork wants. 6 of 1 half dozen of the other.

Having said all that. I am a great believer in experimenting, especially with the old rigid 26" platform. It is pretty cheap to play with. Try it out. All it will cost is a front 27.5 wheel and tire, which you can buy used or borrow for a proof of concept trial. Try it out and post back with the results. Take pics of the brake pad alignment.

Cannondale did this very early with 24/26...it didn't prove special then and never came commonplace so... I think the industry is just rehashing previous ideas for sales...drop bar offroad? Think Early Bridge stone and Specialized... See my point?

Another note... you can get a lot out of front and rear tires that are not the same. Typically more control in the front and more roll in the rear. My bike presently has a Rocket Ron hard compound rear and Nobby Nic soft front. That is not a specific recommendation, but just an example. DHF/DHR and Assegai/Dissector for Maxxis examples. Even back to WTB Velociraptor tires this was a familiar idea.

IN the early days of 29ers there were some 69 bikes with a 29" front wheel and a 26" rear wheel but reviews were mediocre so they disappeared. The 27.5" wheel size is a better compromise then the 26/29 setup.
That just applies to diameter, Asymmetric tire widths are common with a wider more aggressive tire in front for steering authority and a narrower less aggressive rear for faster rolling and better stability since the rear will lose traction before the front.

The mullet name is also used for the new gen”downcountry” bikes that sport longer travel in the front - 100 rear 120 front, etc even with the same size wheels. Usually 29 - 27.5 seems to be about to circle the drain

but Specialized also made a dissimilar wheel bike in the late 90’s early ‘00s - the original Enduro model, but it was 24/26 like the old Beast from the East Cannondale