27in or 29in?
 

which one do you prefer

For a MTB?

I have all wheel sizes, a 26" wheeled Turner 5-Spot, a 27.5 " wheeled Turner Burner, and a 29" IBIS Ripley.

The 26" 5-Spot is fun and feels fast but is slow and is not nearly as confident in the rough stuff as the 29er. The Burner feels like the spot but with heavier wheels. Nothing is different between that bike and the 26" bike. The times on my local trails are similar but I feel slower. The Ripley is another story. Fast, confidence inspiring in the rough and feels like I am barely working. And almost as fun as the 5-Spot. These new 29ers are just out of this world.

Boulevard or Lane. Which do you prefer?

Yes.

Welcome! With that said, I like wheels.

29"

27.5 fad is on it's way out...29 is here to stay...26 is going to make a comeback.

really enjoyed my 27s

Go big or go home!
 

The increase in wheel size was to take advantage of a larger wheel's ability to roll over rocks, ruts, bumps & roots. So since this is the design goal, why go only half way? Yes, lighter wheels are almost always a benefit to a bike, but if so, then just go back to 26" (not that we can these days, realisitically). Plus, today's bikes are simply heavy. I went from a 20 lb. bike to 31 lbs. That's more than a 50% increase and crazy in the traditional cyclist's eyes. But today's bikes make the weight penalty more than a worthwhile tradeoff.

Went from a 26" hard tail to the Ripley last May and it's been pretty damn amazing. The larger wheels & tires make the "gnar" a lot easier to get through. Far fewer issues with that tire getting stuck on something and threatening going over the bars. That plus slacker head angle and almost zero reach stem mean OTB is FAR less of a risk than in the old days on the old stuff. Rode Hole in the Ground at Donner Pass last fall and assumed I'd walk some of the gnarlier stuff (nursing a sore and injured shoulder and being mid 50's means you adhere to the adage, "ride smart to ride the next day!"). Turns out I walked virtually NONE of it! There were a few tech sections I simply didn't clear due to bad timing or being at my limit (almost 8,000 feet, ouch!). But ended up surprised at how much I blew through. I'll admit that I did hop off for about 20 yards of the "rock fall" at the end, but rode the other 90% of it. Again, wasn't planning on riding virtually all of it, but did when it simply "felt right."

New geometry makes a lot more "feel right."

And to the OP's question: I'd go 29" all the way if it works. Smaller riders on XS or S bikes may find 27.5" a better option. My wife's 5' tall, so a 29" wheel was out of the question. She's been totally psyched on the bike, as she too was going from a '94 hard tail. Night and day difference, even with the smaller 27.5" option.

Get one of each.

27.5" for me, on both gravel and mountain bike. I get 90% of the rollover benefits of 29", with 90% of the acceleration and flickability benefits of 26". For pure road riding I still like 700c, but I never ride pure road anymore.

a bit of apples to oranges isn't it?
27" on my vintage road bikes
29" on my modern mountain bikes
I like them both, but hard to compare

I'm all for 29" wheels. They roll over everything like a monster truck, making up for my lacklustre technical trail skills.


Mullet bike! 🤘😁🤘

27 does not equal 27.5

The three bikes that I ride (two singles and a tandem) all have 20”/406 front and 26”/559 rear wheels.

At 5'6" and 28 inseam I can't get comfortable on a 29er. I don't know why a 26 with the same seat height fits me better.

29'er for me because more comfortable and much better availability of tires. It will even fit 700c tires in there and have actually used 50mm wide 700c gravel tires in my MTB for less noise and faster rolling when riding on pavement.

27" (ETRTO 630) is a deprecated size with limited tire and rim selection. 29er (ETRTO 622) is still active and has far better tire and rim selection.

Why stop at only one? :D