29ers - Any tall riders thinking of getting one?

Naveed

Let's face it, the whole 29er boom has started and many a tall rider is eyeing up a 29' ride. I'm 6'5'' tall and that's a fair old height. Thing is, I've never been happier on my Giant Trance XL - 25'tt and 32.8' standover makes it feel great.

According to all the latest marketing I'm woefully undersized and not experiencing the 'perfect fit' because of the inability of a 26' bike to fit me.

Is it just me or is the whole 29er moevement a load of tosh? Who wants to bomb downhill on road size tyres? What about tight technical riding and jumps?

I'm quite happy on a 26' mtb and think providing you get the right frame, there's no point in having to go down the 29er route.

supersonic

Simple answer is to try them, and see if it works for you.

toasty

Interesting one. I really wanted to like 29rs, being 6'6" I was repeatedly being told I should get on well with them.

At the Bikeradar demo days this year I had a demo on a Jet Niner, nice high end full sus 29r. When racing along it felt lovely, it also climbed up techy/loose stuff better than any bike I've ever ridden bizarrely, I didn't realise the climb was even vaguely challenging until I came back on a Blur LT and found it was slipping out and fighting to hold on.

The one massive killer was the front wheel slipping out sideways, no idea if this was the mud, tyres*, geometry, just me riding it wrong etc. I got back to the trail head and spoke to a few other people who said exactly the same, maybe it's just tight bendy singletrack on huge wheels, no idea, it was fairly muddy, I've never suffered that badly though, even on Racing Ralphs in thicker mud. I promptly gave up on the idea after that sadly.

http://www.wtb.com/products/tires/29er/weirwolflt29er/ <- they were the tyres, they seem to be fairly aggressive and have decent enough reviews, hmm.

Apologies for the very random inconslusive thread, I was fairly puzzled myself.

Graydawg

not right now - sticking with what I've got for the time being....

Would need to have a shot on a wagon wheeler before I decided if its for me or not....

Naveed

Hey Toasty,

I've ridden a Kona 29er and I think the ride is perfect for long trail epics, but not any kind of am riding. One thing I noticed was what I call 'front wheel dive' when attacking rutted sections of the trail the front wheel would compress for a bit instead of going straight through and this raised the back end on more than one occasion.

Strange... I did like the speed though especially on flat surfaces, the bike did fly.

toasty

Naveed wrote:

Hey Toasty,

I've ridden a Kona 29er and I think the ride is perfect for long trail epics, but not any kind of am riding. One thing I noticed was what I call 'front wheel dive' when attacking rutted sections of the trail the front wheel would compress for a bit instead of going straight through and this raised the back end on more than one occasion.

Strange... I did like the speed though especially on flat surfaces, the bike did fly.

Yeah, similar feelings really. My issue was going around quick corners or landing little jumps and drops, for some reason I'd always get the front sliding out unless it was REALLY upright, more than I'm used to with 26" bikes. It might just have been the tyres, not sure.

It's a shame trying 29" requires new frame, wheels, forks and tyres or I'd give it a try On-One were doing their 29r frames for £90 or something last week. I can certainly appreciate it has it's place, I'm still a bit skeptical of these niche things after trying single speeding and realising it was silly.

Anonymous

ive never tried one as i find the science behind them a bit sketchy, they're supposed to roll better over rough surfaces as they fill gaps easier but from what i can gather, thats what good suspension with correctly set sag and rebound does?

also, spinning a big wheel up takes more effort, slowing a giant wheel down takes more effort, turning a bigger wheel takes more effort.

everyone (including me) states that the best place to save weight on a bike is on the wheels, so why make them heavier and fit heavier tyres to them (purely as a result of them being bigger than a 26/normal/correct wheel)

im happy to be told im wrong.

Naveed

I think you're right Sheep.

Surely the increased weight negates the lower rolling resistance. Going faster on a bike is more about the rider than the wheel size anyway.

Even if they did build really nice 29ers like the new Santa Cruz one mentioned in BR you would have to spec out on some new 29er forks and wheels, tyres. Right now 29ers are in their infancy so things like head angles, travel etc are starting from scratch - they're basically at the same level mtbs were in the 80s.

mlbaker

I had a 29" GT Peace for about a year, I used it for all my riding including XC around the Peak District.

The claimed benefits are true; they do roll easier and are quicker over a the majority of terrain
I generally ride in the Peak District but at the cost of fun.

If you like plodding along for miles keeping your tyres on the earth a 29" bike is a good choice, If however you prefer hoping off stuff, trying to wheelie stuff and generally lark about whilst riding stick to a 26" bike.

cat_with_no_tail

I think when I eventually look to replace my current bike, I would be happy to try out a couple of 29ers. Don't knock it till you have tried it and all that.

I Fancy something with a bit more travel next though, and as already mentioned, longish travel 29ers are few and far between. I only know of the Gary Fisher Roscoe that fits the bill (although I am sure there are more)

GHill

They are seriously in fashion over here, all the bike shops tried to sell me one as their first recommendation (I'm about 6'4).

I had a quick play about on one (nothing serious) and found it too sluggish at slow speeds, great once you get a bit of momentum behind it though.

supersonic

The physics:

They 'roll' better due to the shallower angle of the contact point when it hits an objext and the difference in shape of the overall tyre contact patch. For a given wheel of the same weight, and equivalent weight distribution, they should take the same energy to accelerate and deccelerate - if the bike as a whole reaches the same constant speed (the larger wheel will be revolving more slowly). They will also take the same energy to keep rolling at that speed on a smooth surface.

But if the bigger wheel is heavier, and a larger percentage located to the perimeter, then it will take more energy to accelerate the bike to a contant speed. But even then, with smooth surfaces on the flat, no matter what the weight of the bike (within reason), the bike should require the same energy to keep moving as it has more momentum.

Naveed

Supersonic=Braniac :shock:

supersonic

Lol, I might not have summed up correctly! Just a quick of my head think. But if I get bored in spain I will work it all out, and write back in 10 days!

Naveed

GHill wrote:

They are seriously in fashion over here, all the bike shops tried to sell me one as their first recommendation (I'm about 6'4).

I had a quick play about on one (nothing serious) and found it too sluggish at slow speeds, great once you get a bit of momentum behind it though.[/quote

I'm not suprised given the dry trails of the US - UK trails are completely different, much more overhanging branches, tight singletrack, roots galore and mud. On most UK tracks you have to check your speed constantly, in the US you tend to be riding in very open trails.

If I was riding in Moab etc a 29er would be pretty useful. However if I was riding a 29er in the Surrey Hills it would be a nightmare as it's so twisty and tight with loads of sharp descents followed by supertight turns. Sometimes I think a 26' wheel is too big - lol

GHill

The local trails here are tight and twisty too - main reason that I rejected the idea of a 29er pretty quickly.

ride_whenever

I'd like to try one, i'm not really tall enough being a mere 6'.

that said, the stable will need a few more bikes before a 29er is the next one...

Need a superlight fs xc bike, a road bike and a big hit fs singlespeed.

Anonymous

ride_whenever wrote:

Need a superlight fs xc bike, a road bike and a big hit fs singlespeed.

no one in the world needs one of those surely?

toasty

They do roll very well over obstacles due to the bigger wheel, less speed lost over bumpy stuff too. The smug feeling only lasted to the next corner when I'd fall off.

I was pondering one for endurance racing, something that holds it's speed well would be a big bonus, along with very direct acceleration and climbing.

Naveed

Toasty

Just looked at your Meta 55 and your set up looks pretty similar to mine for a taller guy. I'm currently running a 50mm Hope stem on a 25'TT and it fits me perfect. Why would a 29er frame fit better than a 26'' frame? Mine seems ok and the Kona 29er I tested had similar dimensions and less standover.

toasty

I'd just assume with a 29r frame I'd need a bit less seatpost and generally be sat more where I'm supposed to. My Meta isn't so bad as I run the seatpost low, with the XC bikes though I have to run 400mm posts and run them pretty far back, sticking me right over the back wheel.

I've never really had problems with standover, it was interesting when my missus was buying bikes, some she physically couldn't stand on (like a small Meta, bah!). I usually have a good 5-6" clearance, even on big 22" Giants and things. The top tube did feel like it was getting in the way a bit though

Naveed

Toasty wrote:

I'd just assume with a 29r frame I'd need a bit less seatpost and generally be sat more where I'm supposed to. My Meta isn't so bad as I run the seatpost low, with the XC bikes though I have to run 400mm posts and run them pretty far back, sticking me right over the back wheel.

I've never really had problems with standover, it was interesting when my missus was buying bikes, some she physically couldn't stand on (like a small Meta, bah!). I usually have a good 5-6" clearance, even on big 22" Giants and things. The top tube did feel like it was getting in the way a bit though

Toasty the Kona I tested had a lower standover than my 26' giant. My seatpost was more visible on the 29er. The only improvement in terms of fit that I felt was that my position was more centered on the bike and because the 29ers BB is lower than the wheel axle you do feel more 'in' the bike as opposed to on top of it.

Still didn't feel right though. I crashed more because a 29inch wheel is a massive target for rocks, and exposed elements on the trail.