I think I agree with John Stevenson view on the 26er versus 29er debate. (Editor-in-chief of Future Publishing's cycling titles) “The 29er craze is a load of fuss over not much at all. Yes, in theory, a bigger wheel rolls faster. But the difference is lost in the noise of all the other things that effect how a bike runs. The other claimed benefits are either imaginary or could be emulated on 26in bikes. For example, 29ers work for tall riders because the big wheel forces long chainstays and a long wheelbase, so weight distribution is more like that of an average rider on a 26er. Just lengthen the stays on a 26er. “The claim that 29ers have a bigger contact patch and better grip is based on a misunderstanding of physics. If you and your bike weigh 180lb and you have 30psi in your tyres, then to distribute your weight on the ground you’ll have six square inches of tyre on the ground, regardless of tyre size. Bigger wheels are said to be more stable because of their greater angular momentum. But tests have shown that angular momentum makes little difference to stability. What matters most is trail, a function of head angle and fork offset. "Diversity of choice is great, so if you love your 29er, ride it and be happy. But don’t try to say that it’s technically superior – race results and physics say otherwise.”
