20 Feckin Niners!....

cooldad

IBISMojoHDamon wrote:

So easy to judge... Just because I'm new to the forum and haven't got my head round it or been bothered to get my head round it...

How can you make a sweeping statement about someone being a moron of any kind after 6 hours and 7 post's or are you the leader of this on-line forum and like belittling people because you've been around for a while?....

The first 'original' post was a question....It wasn't a rant....

But well done you...

I didn't call you a moron, I said you come across as one. But subtlety seems to elude you.

VWsurfbum

njee20 wrote:

Those hoses are too much, doesn't work. Black, or white at a push would be better.

they will be changed at some point, but it was all just transfered from my last frame.

ValeTudoGuy wrote:

IMO if the manufacturers actually cared about the end user, the size of the wheel would directly reflect the size of the bike e.g Smaller wheels on Small frames, Medium Wheels on Medium Frames and Large Wheels on Large Frames.

I can't see from a engineering point of view how a 700c (read in an american accent 29er, "I can't believe that the bike industry literally managed to re-invent and already existing wheel".) can work on a small frame designed to be more compact to fit a smaller rider can work?

How on earth can you keep a realistic geometry on that bike without having ridiculous overhang of your toe to the front wheel (Which is bloody dangerous and downright bad engineering).

Even if they give you a bike with a steep seat post angle then they are effectively lengthening the top bar length which will most likely negate the fact you bought a small frame in the first place, unless you like having to reach way forward to steer.

For me 700c (29er's) wheels and smaller work in theory for Large Frame bikes and rider's of 6'+
650b and smaller work in theory for Medium Frame bikes and riders of 5'7"-5'11" ish.
and Small frames designed for riders 5'6" and below should in theory not work with anything bigger than 26" wheels.

BTW I have never ridden a 29er so I could be talking a load of poop, but this all makes sense in my head.

if that was the case i'd be on a 24" jump bike or something.
I'm not tall or short but average height and find that a lot of larger frames fit "me" better. wheels and frame size are linked but dont make a rule that big people need big wheels.
I have a friend who is in the process of building a 29er, he's a lot shorter than me, a lot lighter and will be flying along once he has it built. a 15-or 16" frame may look a little strange when in 29er format but he will be very quick!
Oh and what overhang? never rubbed my toes??

weeksy59

lawman wrote:

Imo it comes down to what you prefer, yes you can rip it up on a 29er, but I still say that 26" wheels are better for Am/DH/fr, if you border on the xc side of things you might benefit:)

This is it in a nutshell for me. I've personally found a 29er just under 10% quicker for riding XC... so i now own an XC 29er.

By the same account, for trailcentre and Alps, i have the Bionicon Supershuttle, which isn't quite as light/quick/racy... but does the big stuff better.

I don't forsee 29ers replacing 26ers in some circumstances, but by the same account i don't see motorbikes replacing cars.... or cake replacing bacon sarnies.... etc etc

VWsurfbum

weeksy59 wrote:

but by the same account i don't see motorbikes replacing cars.... or cake replacing bacon sarnies.... etc etc

Phewwwwwwwwwww

IBISMojoHDamon

if you really that against 29ers then don't read the said articles,, simples.... [/quote]

Go to Bikemagic.com, see the articles.... There is nothing on 26" wheels, it's all 29'ers, surely as a reader of such a site, I am entitled to read about items that interest me as much as a 29'er rider?... I don't read the articles.... Simples.... My beef is that it's all about 29'ers....

larryb

ilovedirt wrote:

ste_t wrote:

I admire your enthusiasm, but your quoting skills need a bit of work.
Edited due to shocking quoting work.

I quoted what I was responding to, don't be such a pedant.

And you essentially said that it isn't new technology, but then went on to say that there are more exciting things happening with technology... inferring that it infact is new technology, it's just not that exciting. Personally, I'm uninterested in carbon right now and don't want it anywhere near any of the major components on my bike. 29ers however, are something I could get on board with, if they were to come into my price range.

EDIT: sorry for being a pedant/hyprocrite, but when you guys say "plastic bikes", you're talking about carbon right? Carbon isn't a plastic...

+1

IBISMojoHDamon

[/quote] I didn't call you a moron, I said you come across as one. But subtlety seems to elude you.[/quote]

Thinking you are an arguementative and opinionated **** and writing it it, is as good as saying it...

Why is it that idiots like you start arguements and personally attack people on forums? Are you that insecure that you need to turn a bike question into a name calling session?

You quite simply bore me....

IBISMojoHDamon

delcol wrote:

They / we / I am not interested as they don't suit my style of riding, i.e. The Alpes, Wales, Tight / Technical Single Track / Drops etc without riding and feeling unwieldy...

ummmmmmmmmmmm whats that saying about a wrokman and his tools.. ???????

here a few video of one of my mate on his 29er..
twisty singletrack

twisty technical drops
alpine technical tight twisty singletrack

if you really that against 29ers then don't read the said articles,, simples....

What part of any of my posts are blaming my tools?..... The bike I ride is awesome and far better than I'll ever be or warrant owning.....

I believe you have misinterpreted what my whole post is about...

mrmonkfinger

ValeTudoGuy wrote:

IMO if the manufacturers actually cared about the end user, the size of the wheel would directly reflect the size of the bike e.g Smaller wheels on Small frames, Medium Wheels on Medium Frames and Large Wheels on Large Frames.

+1

ilovedirt wrote:

And you essentially said that it isn't new technology,

Right...

but then went on to say that there are more exciting things happening with technology... inferring that it infact is new technology,

...but wrong, my friend, you misinterpret my post.

I say again, changing the wheel size a bit is not "new" technology, nor is it exciting, but if you wish to believe both those things, then feel free, the current rash of marketing hype is ready and waiting for all the crazy cats like you to buy in to.

"New technology" would be suspension forks where the existing paradyne is rigid forks, par example.

I will also say this, because you seem somewhat defensive about the concept of bigger wheels: if I was buying a brand new XC race rig, it would almost certainly be a 29er - its the right tool for the job.

Thewaylander

njee20 wrote:

I mean i don't like them to ride hugely so the lost of entire ranges of bikes to 29ers is startling.

How can you make such a sweeping statement though? The range of 29ers is as diverse (almost) as 26" bikes, it's not as straight forward as liking one and not the other. Do you like every 26" wheeled bike you've ridden? You've said many times that you'd hate riding mine :-)

Like I said the only company I am aware of who are offering them as a replacement rather than an alternative is Spesh, all the others are doing both.

And 'plastic bikes' to use your terminology, is an exciting chapter in Mountain biking, especially when World Class riders like Brian Lopes / Steve Pete use it in rims, bars and DH frames

They've made serious inroads into XC racing, following FS bikes in the last 3 years or so and carbon in the last 10, and each has been just as 'exciting' for want of a better word. It'll follow in DH I'll wager.

Easily, there cumbersome in corners and not the greatest decenders and thats what i'm interested in, there really good for covering miles.... it's like asking if i dislike all road bikes the answer is of course i don' t like riding on road

Neal_

IBISMojoHDamon wrote:

Go to Bikemagic.com, see the articles.... There is nothing on 26" wheels, it's all 29'ers, surely as a reader of such a site, I am entitled to read about items that interest me as much as a 29'er rider?... I don't read the articles.... Simples.... My beef is that it's all about 29'ers....

It's Bikemagic’s month of 29ers you plonker

FBM.BMX

My experience of 29ers is that they feel like off road hybrids.

They are excellent for being comfortable and covering ground fast, that is what an awful lot of people want. There's nothing wrong with that.

However 29ers do reduce the "play" factor, so aren't good for the riders whilst out on the trail who are looking for manual and bunny hop gaps, who like to weave around a lot. Also the people who are more "technically" inclined.

For the current trend in MTBing of everyone being more technical, the 29ers sort of go against this, so i imagine this technical phase will die out as 29ers gain popularity.

stubs

I really like riding through the woods nipping in and out of trees. When I tested a 29er in the woods I kept going straight on and into the undergrowth 29ers definitely steer a lot slower no matter what I tried I just couldnt ride at speed down some of my local tracks.

I dont think you can completely take America as an example of how 29er bikes are evolving. MTBiking in America from my experience is a bit different to the UK. Its very polarised into XC and AM with very little crossover. The XC mob are mostly about what I call trekking riding into the wilds on mostly fire roads and tracks and getting serious miles in. The AM mob are all baggy trousers, lift passes and rad gnarly core dude. The twain never seem to meet and never even talk to each other. In the UK probably because of geography we seem to mix it up more and do a bit of everything.

njee20

Easily, there cumbersome in corners and not the greatest decenders and thats what i'm interested in, there really good for covering miles....

This is my point though, you can't make that sort of generalisation, they don't all ride the same, you've just not found one you like. That's to do with the type of bike, not the size of the wheels.

Size specific wheels is bollocks, what if a small rider wants a 29er? Willow Koerber does just fine and she's 5'2". It's a choice, you can choose what you want, there's no right or wrong answer! Small road bikes used to come with 650c wheels, and there was a huge push to get 'full size' wheels on them, it was a big selling point for small road bikes, I really don't think small riders would be happy with 24" wheels because that's 'what suits' the bike on paper!

mrmonkfinger

njee20 wrote:

Size specific wheels is bollocks, what if a small rider wants a 29er? Willow Koerber does just fine and she's 5'2". It's a choice, you can choose what you want, there's no right or wrong answer! Small road bikes used to come with 650c wheels, and there was a huge push to get 'full size' wheels on them, it was a big selling point for small road bikes, I really don't think small riders would be happy with 24" wheels because that's 'what suits' the bike on paper!

My wife's road bike has toe overlap. The steering angle is slacked off a degree or two to try and help. The seat post is a degree or two more upright to get the top tube down to the right length. 650c wheels would suit it perfectly. The geometry would get back to where it should be.

As regards pushing "full size" wheels, I imagine bike manufacturers didn't want to have to support several different fork sizes and stock different wheel sizes. Simply economics not whatever was right for smaller riders.

If Willow Koerber wants to ride a big with really big wheels, good luck to her, whoever she is, you're right its her choice.

Mojo_666

I cant wait for the Orange 29'er thread to get started, that's gonna me some fun shit to watch.

ValeTudoGuy

Size specific wheels is bollocks, what if a small rider wants a 29er? Willow Koerber does just fine and she's 5'2". It's a choice, you can choose what you want, there's no right or wrong answer! Small road bikes used to come with 650c wheels, and there was a huge push to get 'full size' wheels on them, it was a big selling point for small road bikes, I really don't think small riders would be happy with 24" wheels because that's 'what suits' the bike on paper!

It is certainly not bollocks, i'm not saying that small riders should never have large wheels (obviously every human body is different, some people are long in the leg and others are long in the torso, long arms and short arms etc.)

OK I was being very general in my post but I think your overlooking my point, you wouldn't from an engineering point of view (or indeed a riding point of view) limit yourself to one size of frame, so why go to lengths to get a frame that fits perfectly and limit yourself to a wheel that may not be the best fit just because that's what the manufacturer wants to ship out of the factory.

Oh and what overhang? never rubbed my toes??

Good for you, I assure you its a serious issue. I ended up with a 5" protruding compound fracture and severed every nerve in my right arm, resulting in me losing the use of it for 15 month's (I have never regained 100% use) due to a badly engineered bike with an ill fitting 700 wheel on a small road bike frame.

Had I been more knowledgeable and got a properly engineered bike that had wheels that actually fit the geometry rather than just shoehorned on then my accident would most likely not have happened.

stubs

mrmonkfinger wrote:

If Willow Koerber wants to ride a big with really big wheels, good luck to her, whoever she is, you're right its her choice.

Willow Koerber is a US XC racer and she probably rides whatever her sponsors want her to ride. Using XC racers as an example of why we must all ride the same as what they do is stupid. Top racers would would be fast on anything short of a unicycle.

tarbot18

Ibis dont think you ll get an apology out of cooldad he is an all knowing mtb lord and his confrontational overbearing sarcastic manner is there to help and guide us relative newbies who may have only been mtb ing for in my case 25 years . he and other forum lords of similiar ilk we who are not worthy salute you

VWsurfbum

ValeTudoGuy, I've never really ridden a road bike so I didn't realise there was a problem with toe overlap, and what you describe sounds horrific.
But that said that's road bikes and not 29ers. Because of suspension etc the geometry is completely different and your feet go nowhere near the front wheel.

njee20

My wife's road bike has toe overlap. The steering angle is slacked off a degree or two to try and help. The seat post is a degree or two more upright to get the top tube down to the right length. 650c wheels would suit it perfectly. The geometry would get back to where it should be.

So she specifically feels that the bike is compromised to get 700c wheels in? Or is this a theoretical on paper it's all wrong? Has she ridden smaller wheels, and preferred them?

Good for you, I assure you its a serious issue. I ended up with a 5" protruding compound fracture and severed every nerve in my right arm, resulting in me losing the use of it for 15 month's (I have never regained 100% use) due to a badly engineered bike with an ill fitting 700 wheel on a small road bike frame.

How the hell did you manage that? I have toe overlap on both my 56cm road bikes, but it's only an issue below 3mph, you never turn the bars enough otherwise!

Willow Koerber is a US XC racer and she probably rides whatever her sponsors want her to ride.

She has a choice of 26 or 29" wheels, and chose 29 (team mates stuck with 26), and the point is they make a bike that small, so they obviously think people will buy them. They have the choice.

pilch

I agree with the OP there is FAR too much hype about 29ers - I think the less people that know about them the better, after all who needs a lower centre of gravity, more stable, better cornering, better climbing, faster rolling platform, its clearly ridiculous!

ValeTudoGuy

VWsurfbum wrote:

ValeTudoGuy, I've never really ridden a road bike so I didn't realise there was a problem with toe overlap, and what you describe sounds horrific.
But that said that's road bikes and not 29ers. Because of suspension etc the geometry is completely different and your feet go nowhere near the front wheel.

Sorry if i'm misinterpreting what your saying but if my 2010 Trek 6500 17.5" had 29er wheels then I would most certainly have toe overhang.

How the hell did you manage that? I have toe overlap on both my 56cm road bikes, but it's only an issue below 3mph, you never turn the bars enough otherwise!

Inexperienced and riding in a pack, someone cut in front unexpectedly so I tried to move to sharply. Clipped toes doing about 25mph wheel jerks to 90 degrees, bike flips forward throwing me over the bars. I automatically stuck my arm out to "save" myself and land with whole body weight on right arm, picked my tattered remains of an arm up (hanging on by a couple inches of skin and muscle fiber). Spend the next year with phantom limb disorder and being told by doctors I may never use the arm again. Recover........... Buy a Meta 5.5 ride off road, realize you like it more = win.

Still the moral of the story is get a BIKE that fits you and not a FRAME that fits you.

mrmonkfinger

njee20 wrote:

So she specifically feels that the bike is compromised to get 700c wheels in?

yes; heavy steering (slacker head angle) and the significant toe overlap, specifically.

Or is this a theoretical on paper it's all wrong?

no

Has she ridden smaller wheels, and preferred them?

yes, albeit on a TT bike not on a drop bar road bike

VWsurfbum

Pilch, has it arrived yet?

Valetudoguy, your bike wouldn't have overlap because the geometry would of have to of been changed for the wheels to fit etc, longer stays, longer forks etc

njee20

Depends on the size, smaller ones may have some toe overlap, but again I personally think that's a bit of a red herring. I'm interested in the circumstances of that crash, as it does sound particularly nasty, but I can only imagine it being a very low speed thing, unless something very odd was going on!

ValeTudoGuy

VWsurfbum wrote:

Valetudoguy, your bike wouldn't have overlap because the geometry would have have to of been changed for the wheels to fit etc, longer stays, longer forks etc

OK perhaps I am just talking poop! :oops:

njee20

So how did toe overlap cause you to snap your arm off?

ValeTudoGuy

Did you read my post?

IBISMojoHDamon

Neal_ wrote:

IBISMojoHDamon wrote:

Go to Bikemagic.com, see the articles.... There is nothing on 26" wheels, it's all 29'ers, surely as a reader of such a site, I am entitled to read about items that interest me as much as a 29'er rider?... I don't read the articles.... Simples.... My beef is that it's all about 29'ers....

It's Bikemagic’s month of 29ers you plonker

I know, I have eyes, I can read.... Does that mean that there should be no content other than 29'ers?

It was an example... Try Dirt, MBR, What MTB etc... They are all the same...