#!markdown
You know what I think the real reason is? Unless there are more mountain
bikers who read Bicycle Quarterly than I thought, it's the same desire for
tyre choice flexibility that worried people about 24″ back in the day and then
29″ later. The most underrepresented argument is that 29″ is still clearly
wrong for frames designed for humans of average height or less. I don't think
there's any arguing that, with headtubes that are too short for the length of
fork, fiddly shit to get the driveside chainstay past both a tyre and
chainring, and toe overlap on a mountain bike(!!!!) it's an evolutionary
crescent if not cul de sac only really suited to those looking to shave
seconds.
Nov. 4, 2015, 11:21 a.m. - DominicBruysPorter
#!markdown You know what I think the real reason is? Unless there are more mountain bikers who read Bicycle Quarterly than I thought, it's the same desire for tyre choice flexibility that worried people about 24″ back in the day and then 29″ later. The most underrepresented argument is that 29″ is still clearly wrong for frames designed for humans of average height or less. I don't think there's any arguing that, with headtubes that are too short for the length of fork, fiddly shit to get the driveside chainstay past both a tyre and chainring, and toe overlap on a mountain bike(!!!!) it's an evolutionary crescent if not cul de sac only really suited to those looking to shave seconds.