Thoughts on my 26er and 29er

supersonic

One summer does not make her swallow, or summat like that ;-)

But it is good to see people are finding what works for them and not locked into one wheel size when everything else varies so much. Just hope prices of parts come down. Would like to see more 24 inch options too.

toasty

I'd also bear in mind that, a 30 minute demo ride may not be enough to get your head around it. Even now I spend the first 30 minutes of every ride far too aware of the huge wheels, when I relax and forget a bit it feels fantastic.

I'd actually demo'd a Niner Jet 9, Lynskey Ti 29er and Trek Paragon, on 3 separate occations, all had left me fairly underwhelmed, I actually took the Jet 9 back early as it felt so precarious cornering on Cannocks shiny rocks.

I only bought the Scandal as I seem to have some sort of mental condition, if I have money in my pocket I have to buy the next interesting XL frame I see on Ebay. Very pleased I did though!

stubs

Mmm that One One short travel Titanium frame looks a bit gorgeous.

but so does the Scandal with bolt on drop outs

So many bikes I want and a shed thats too small

Northwind

Still well tempted to pick up a 29er Scandal or, maybe the Lurcher when it comes out... But having to get nice wheels at the same time is a downer. Loving my silly rigid XC bike though and it's got 29er forks in, and I miss my old 26er Scandal sometimes- so damn fast.

toasty

Big shame On-One stopped doing those cheap wheels, I don't think I'd have made the leap without them. £99 for PlanetX Superlight hubs on big wide Reetard rims, complete with 2x Kenda Nevegals and 2x 29er innertubes. They're hefty, about 2100-2200g as far as I recall, but very solid, really nice wide rims and seem very well put together.

The tyres and tubes alone normally go for most of that.

Wonder if they'll get them in stock again soon, they seem to have vanished completely rather tragically.

Shaggy_Dog

CycloRos wrote:

For me the whole 26er vs 29er debate can be summed up like this -

and I don't want this to sound like a sweeping generalisation but...

ALL...

riders who are a wheels on the ground / XC / Marathon type should go 29er it is the fastest (non-engine powered) way to cover serious distance off-road. Everyone else should stick with 26ers.

That is a very accurate observation. I always say that if you're the kind of person who drops the saddle at every descent then you won't like a 29er. If you leave it up form most descents then a 29er will be faster. Same thing, different wording

toasty

I don't know as it's "type of person" exactly, I have a mix of both and they complement each other perfectly.

That observation more seems to compare trail/am bikes to xc racey bikes? Which most 29ers do fit into at the moment admittedly.

Shaggy_Dog

I suppose that's fair enough, maybe I should have said "If you go out on a an XC/trail ride and leave your saddle up/keep your wheels on the ground then you'll enjoy riding a 29er."

I've had a few 6+" trail/AM bikes and the saddle went down a lot as they made me sniff out the necessary terrain but if I was taking them out for a normal XC ride then the saddle stayed put, in those situations the 29er was faster (by miles) uphill and along and at least as fast on the descents.

Basically, apart from super steep and twisty downhill tracks they are well fast!

John Moore

29er bikes are skills compensators, I should know I've 5 of them and I'm a crap rider.

Tonight on my 29er Gary Fisher Rumblefish full susser I kept up with a much better rider than me on his Trek 26er full suss (same bike with the same fork and rear shock just smaller wheels). For the record it was on the Rivington descent from Winter hill down to Belmont if any one knows it, we flew passed several 26ers from the club on route.

It climbed back up it as well as any 26er.

As was said above if your a wheels on the ground rider who takes the odd drop off 29ers are for you.
If you are wheels off the ground big air time or really tight and twisty all the time technical rider then a slack angled 26er is the way to go.

John Moore

Stubs which "The flat bit of Lancashire" are you from? I might be close by so watch out

stubs

John Moore wrote:

Stubs which "The flat bit of Lancashire" are you from? I might be close by so watch out

Formby

Shaggy_Dog

John Moore wrote:

29er bikes are skills compensators, I should know I've 5 of them and I'm a crap rider.

Tonight on my 29er Gary Fisher Rumblefish full susser I kept up with a much better rider than me on his Trek 26er full suss (same bike with the same fork and rear shock just smaller wheels). For the record it was on the Rivington descent from Winter hill down to Belmont if any one knows it, we flew passed several 26ers from the club on route.

It climbed back up it as well as any 26er.

As was said above if your a wheels on the ground rider who takes the odd drop off 29ers are for you.
If you are wheels off the ground big air time or really tight and twisty all the time technical rider then a slack angled 26er is the way to go.

Any bike with long travel and slack angles are skill compensators, regardless of wheel size. The thing I like about a 29er is they don't have as much pedalling squat or brake dive as an equivalent 26er. I wouldn't compare a 120mm 26er to a 120mm 29er, I'd compare a 120mm 29er to a 150mm 26er like the Remedy

Congratulations on buying the best bike in the world BTW, I am very jealous

supersonic

As was said above if your a wheels on the ground rider who takes the odd drop off 29ers are for you.
If you are wheels off the ground big air time or really tight and twisty all the time technical rider then a slack angled 26er is the way to go.

Massive generalisations there, cannot agree. For some yes. Others, no.

To me it is like FS or HT, SPDs or flat pedals, long travel or short - get what suits you.

CycloRos

I don't think anyone is actually saying you must go 29er (except probably me in my earlier tongue-in-cheek comment), just that it should be considered as an option especially (but not exclusively) if you are a particular type of rider.

For instance if your a dirt jumper you probably wouldn't buy a 29er, if you're a downhiller you probably wouldn't buy a 29er.

Generalisation? yes; but probably true most of the time

It's easy to get caught up in all the media hype and when your advising so many people on what may be a good bike for them, surely you have to generalise to some degree?

Every bike is designed as a tool for a job, the job most 29ers do well and were designed for is to roll quickly and easily over rough terrain. If you're the type that get's lots of airtime you probably don't care how fast your wheels roll because they're not on the terra-ferma long enough!

Sounds like common sense to me and seems like a fair few others who own 29ers are of a similar opinion.

supersonic

You can generalise to an extent, and it rings more true at the extreme ends of the spectrum. But for those in the middle it is what suits you best. Saying to xc types '29ers are the way forward' is taking it too far in my opinion. Choice is a great thing, and there is many good choices for xc and general trails be it 26, 29, rigid, fs and so on.

Anonymous

Oh come on, sonic. Rigid is not a choice, it's a doctrine for the mentally ill (Or a BMX)


Anyway, I stand by my comment in another thread, you are ALL wrong. All of you.

Northwind

yeehaamcgee wrote:

Oh come on, sonic. Rigid is not a choice, it's a doctrine for the mentally ill

I concur. Course, so is most mountain biking when you take an objective look at it

Anonymous

touche