Reply to comment

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.

Post your comment

Please log in to leave a comment.