JeffWills wrote:

DougC wrote:

I was told at the time that they used a 26 on the front because it was
more stable-steering than a 24 would be, and they used a 24 on the rear
because people thought that long chainstays wasted energy somehow, and a
24's contact patch could be set closer to the seat tube than a 26.

IIRC (becoming more of an issue as time goes by), the 26/24 Cannondale
MTB was called the "Beast of the East", supposedly because the
"eastern" riders demanded a more manuverable bike with a lighter rear
end and higher bottom bracket, as opposed to "western" riders who were
all about bombing down fire roads and could care less about hopping
over roots. Cliques are nothing new.

The "Beast of the East" term was coined after the introduction of
level top tube, low BB California-style frames. At the same time, the
sloping top tube frame had its chainstays bobbed to a fashionably
short sub-17" length and its seat angle steepened a bit.

Before there was a silly name for the Beast of the East frame, and
before there was a me-too style Cannondale MTB, all the mountain bikes
Cannondale made had 18" chainstays. So it's pretty clear that the
small rear wheel was not intended to shorten up the rear end. 16" and
18" frames had 24" rear wheels, while 20" and 22" frames had 26" rear
wheels. Why? No idea.

Behold the acres of room between the seat tube and tire on this 1985
24" wheeled bike:

http://www.firstflightbikes.com/85Cdale.htm

In the mid-'80s when the mixed wheel diameter bikes were being
manufactured, MTB tires were pretty lame all the way around, and the
selection in 24" was not categorically worse than that in the 26"
size.

Chalo