Confused MTBer needs help?

You can still have fun on a 26" MTB but they are becoming harder to buy and harder to find parts for. EUR1500 will get you a pretty mediocre full susser, will climb like a pig. What kind of riding do you intend to do? If it's not racing (or not mostly racing or you are grown up enough to realise its probably not your bike stopping you winning races) then I'd suggest a hard tail with a 120mm (or more) fork, a dropper seat post and slacker geometry. 27.5" or 29er doesn't matter so much. One One Rango (bit above your price range, ask them to remove 27.5"+ tyres and swap for regular 27" rubber), Kona Honzo AL/DL, Spesh Fuse (ditch the fat tyres), Trek Stache (ditto). These bikes will let you have a bit more fun on the downhill and - if you ditch the plus tyres - won't kill you on the uphill.

Having recently converted myself, I'd say go for a 29er. It just rolls better everywhere.

Is it any faster though? No, I don't think it is, its just easier... or should I say nicer. 

Now part of me thinks that I'm not fully tapping into the extra speed available on a 29er as after 20 years riding 26inch wheels, my mental limits are locked into what a 26inch wheel can do, not what is genuinely possible. Time will tell I guess. 

What I would advise is investing as much as you can on wheels. On my bike these are the last remaining limiter, and you can really feel the extra weight when trying to accelerate on the hills. 

I still have a 26er hardtail for riding in the South Downs, it's small and agile.  I only recently tried a 29er hardtail and it felt big, heavy and slow to change direction in comparison.  The only place I thought it was better was downhill, it seemed to blast over loose rocks and bumps that would knock me offline on the 26er. Trouble is, I already go downhill too fast so I don't want something that is going to make me increase my risk/speed.

Note this is for hardtails, and only my opinion/experience, maybe full sus bikes a 29er would come out better.

Heresy incoming:

Wheel size really is negligible imo. I've ridden all three. 29 might seem a bit different to start with but you'll have just as much fun on any size wheels. 

Weight is really also negligible imo. One or two kg really won't make a difference.

You'll get a pretty mediocore full sus, or a pretty good hardtail. With the riding you describe I'd probably go for the hardtail.

I found a 29er was better for climbing...it flatters you everywhere. Can't comment on 650b things...never tried one.

26" is dead, any thing €1500 will be a 29 or 650b.

For €1500 I'd look at something like an entry level carbon hardtail.

Hi trohos,

I'm not sold by the idea that a lighter bike is automatically a better climber - the geometry can play a significant part, too. Generally speaking, a 29er will have better traction in any like-for-like situation - if only because of the greater chainstay length - so that tends to outweigh (pun not intended) the potentially greater heft.

Having said that, 26" wheeled bikes can be great climbers too. I can't really tell from your post, but if you have a 26" frame, shock, stem and bars, I'd try building that up and see how it goes...

If not, your budget should get you a great bike for whatever your trail needs are ("hiking trails" covers a multitude). So, if you don't want to, or can't, build on what you've already got - test ride as many bikes as you can; try to take them over the kind of terrain that you ride; buy the one that makes you grin the most - *this* is by far the most important criteria when it comes to a bike. If it makes you smile, it gets you out riding more often and with more confidence.

Adam...