26, 650b, 29er's
Comments
-
-
cooldad wrote:These darned new fangled pnuematic tyres will never catch on.
http://www.conti-online.com/generator/w ... ew_en.html0 -
0
-
When they start hitting the DH tracks and producing results i will begin to believe in them,
From my experience the bigger wheels roll well are good when at speed but just seem to lack in tight twist fun descents and when you like getting your wheels off the ground. I guess this makes it a horses for courses kinda of thing. But then i believe biking to be about challenging yourself with terrain and there i feel they hold you back when its really steep.
Before i get slagged by all the hippies
just look at the wording like I believe, and from my experience. 0 -
Thewaylander wrote:When they start hitting the DH tracks and producing results i will begin to believe in them,
From my experience the bigger wheels roll well are good when at speed but just seem to lack in tight twist fun descents and when you like getting your wheels off the ground. I guess this makes it a horses for courses kinda of thing. But then i believe biking to be about challenging yourself with terrain and there i feel they hold you back when its really steep.
Before i get slagged by all the hippies just look at the wording like I believe, and from my experience.
Spot on there I reckon. Thewaylander and I look at mtb'ing from very different perspectives. For me, it's about speed off-road both up and down and about fitness and skill in equal measure.. not just a gravity sport... but, on this topic I agree with him. With the current crop of 29ers, if you're like me and want a rocket fast aggressive hardtail for XC racing, enduros etc then I'm in no doubt that 29ers are quicker. However, for downhill and more technical riding, I just don't think they've quite got them right yet.0 -
if you're like me and want a rocket fast aggressive hardtail for XC racing, enduros etc then I'm in no doubt that 29ers are quicker.
I'm in doubt. I still prefer my 26 Zaskar for fast aggressive XC.
As has been said, it is what suits the rider. One is not better than the other overall. There are small advantages to the way 29ers handle bumps. To many this is outweighed by flexier, heavier wheels, and a generally more sluggish feel on tight, twisty courses and accelerating out of corners.
Plus we have the subjective thing called 'fun'.0 -
Another point is that other sports, the size and area of the bit that contacts the ground/water/snow has much variation. E.g. surfing, snowboarding, skiing, kitesurfing
Giving surfing as an example, board size depends on rider size and also what type of waves you're surfing. To me this is directly comparable to the wheel sizes of 26, 650b and 29 combined with bike types such as all-mountain, dh, xc, trail etc, to give bikes suited to the rider and what terrain you're riding on.
26 is the default, but why do some want to limit it just to that? Some people seem quite threatened by 29er and 650b wheels, which strikes me as odd. As for marketing hype, manufacturer's cashing in etc, I'd say put the magazine down or turn the internet off and get your bike out and get on with riding it whatever it is0 -
dmorton wrote:Another point is that other sports, the size and area of the bit that contacts the ground/water/snow has much variation. E.g. surfing, snowboarding, skiing, kitesurfing
Giving surfing as an example, board size depends on rider size and also what type of waves you're surfing. To me this is directly comparable to the wheel sizes of 26, 650b and 29 combined with bike types such as all-mountain, dh, xc, trail etc, to give bikes suited to the rider and what terrain you're riding on.
26 is the default, but why do some want to limit it just to that? Some people seem quite threatened by 29er and 650b wheels, which strikes me as odd. As for marketing hype, manufacturer's cashing in etc, I'd say put the magazine down or turn the internet off and get your bike out and get on with riding it whatever it is
Agreed. I really don't understand the hostility!0 -
supersonic wrote:
As has been said, it is what suits the rider. One is not better than the other overall. There are small advantages to the way 29ers handle bumps. To many this is outweighed by flexier, heavier wheels, and a generally more sluggish feel on tight, twisty courses and accelerating out of corners.
Plus we have the subjective thing called 'fun'.
Agree to an extent... you've got to have decent wheels on a 29er to really get the best out of it. For me, I'm 6ft 3 and come from a time trial/triathlon background, my strength is pushing a big gear over rolling terrain. A 29er consolidates this for me and just feels right.0 -
I've ridden a couple of 29ers, really impressed with how fast they were over easy terrain, but no so impressed over rough / fun stuff.
I've just started a new build to go along with my 26" wheeled enduro, the new one still has 26" wheels.
As has been said above, it's down to personal preference, some will like the bigger wheels irrelevant of terrain.
As long as everyone is having fun, I don't care whether they're on a bmx or a penny farthing, just don't try to ram your choice down everyone elses throats. (I mean people not advertising)
0 -
Ergonomics definitely is an advantage, it is good we can tailor bikes more to our bodies.
What is interesting though is that at XC races we are going to see a wide variety of machinery - HTs and FS in three wheel sizes! I don't think one will prevail - I do think that some riders will change though depending on the course. And in the end ultimately the rider will be the key.
What does bug me is that some manufacturers are pushing 650b as the next best thing, as they did with 29ers... were they wrong first time round? Of course there is a big marketing ploy here.
I'd like to see more dual wheel sizes. 29 back, 26 front hardtail. The front would have a lot of the percieved advantages of 26er handling wise, while the unsuspended rear would get a lot of the 29er stuff ie the ability to roll over stuff better.0 -
With the occasional 69er we see, normal back big front, what's the thinking behind that then?
Surely what you just said (ie opposite way round) makes sense, so why are they the other way0 -
DodgeT wrote:With the occasional 69er we see, normal back big front, what's the thinking behind that then?
Surely what you just said (ie opposite way round) makes sense, so why are they the other way
The reason I built mine up (see previous page) was.....
I was intrigued by the 29er thing and, wanting to save a bit of weight on the SS and make it even more winterproof, decided to try rigid with 29er front wheel. The thinking of this way round (as with Trek 69er) is that you get the improved angle of attack for rolling over obstructions, you get a plusher ride on the rigid set-up from the bigger wheel and the smaller rear wheel is quicker to spin-up....
It works and is a great fun bike to ride. Always surprises me what the front wheel will roll over and, when built up geared, I've won races on it.0 -
Chinley Churner wrote:The reason I built mine up (see previous page) was.....
I was intrigued by the 29er thing and, wanting to save a bit of weight on the SS and make it even more winterproof, decided to try rigid with 29er front wheel. The thinking of this way round (as with Trek 69er) is that you get the improved angle of attack for rolling over obstructions, you get a plusher ride on the rigid set-up from the bigger wheel and the smaller rear wheel is quicker to spin-up....
It works and is a great fun bike to ride. Always surprises me what the front wheel will roll over and, when built up geared, I've won races on it.
Slacker head angle? Surely not, as a slack head angle is classed as the devil in XC racing is it not??0 -
I think with a rigid it makes more sense - not with a sus fork though.0
-
DodgeT wrote:Chinley Churner wrote:The reason I built mine up (see previous page) was.....
I was intrigued by the 29er thing and, wanting to save a bit of weight on the SS and make it even more winterproof, decided to try rigid with 29er front wheel. The thinking of this way round (as with Trek 69er) is that you get the improved angle of attack for rolling over obstructions, you get a plusher ride on the rigid set-up from the bigger wheel and the smaller rear wheel is quicker to spin-up....
It works and is a great fun bike to ride. Always surprises me what the front wheel will roll over and, when built up geared, I've won races on it.
Slacker head angle? Surely not, as a slack head angle is classed as the devil in XC racing is it not??
used a 26" fork and it only slackened things off by 0.5 degree0 -
supersonic wrote:I think with a rigid it makes more sense - not with a sus fork though.
Not sure.. I still think the better angle of attack and getting the front wheel over stuff easier makes having the big hoop on the front the right way round.. anyhow, my experience of my DIY 69-er made me go the whole hog a go for a 29-er.. suits me and my riding great. That's the point though, do what works for you. If you think mags etc are ramming a certain type of bike down your throat, don't read them.. just ride. As for the reviews for ads conspiracy... nonsense.0 -
DodgeT wrote:improved angle of attack
angle of attack refers to the relationship of the tyre to the ground... bigger wheels, it'll be higher up and therefore get over obstructions easier.. you're getting you're angles muddled up0 -
I would add that rigids are a definite option on 29ers if the weight is a real issue, especially for endurance racing. 2-3lbs saved on the forks more than compensates for the extra 200g wheels, my 2.1 SB8s I'm using at the moment only came in at 570g too. I actually took my Rebas off my Scandal recently as I really got on with it rigid, very spritely feeling, you still have stacks of grip.
Rolling weight does make fractionally more difference, the effect is very overrated though, especially for climbing. I'd rather climb a 22lb bike with 2000g wheels up a hill, than a 25lb bike with 1600g wheels. I'd argue getting the correct tyre tread for what you're riding, and tyre pressure are both far more important factors. I also love switching from metric to imperal mid conversation.0 -
DodgeT wrote:but no so impressed over rough / fun stuff.
The complete opposite of this....0 -
People do seem keen to pigeon hole 26ers too, XC bikes are obviously only for XC trails and racing, people never comment on their DH ability. People rarely moan about the crap climbing and slow turning on DH bikes. Yet for some reason people assume that your run of the mill 29er will do everything, then get disappointed when they don't.
I rode a 26" bike and it was rubbish on the downhills, the forks were too steep! Ergo all 26" wheel bikes are rubbish downhill! Right?0 -
I have a 120mm full suss 29er, it rides so much smoother and faster over the rough stuff, and with the right weight wheels it accelerates not much slower than your average 26".
I would say for all day trail centre riding and your natrual riding, it really is the way forward. The only thing i can say that i wouldnt say its suited for is Jumping. (but i'm too old and scared for that)0 -
VWsurfbum wrote:I have a 120mm full suss 29er, it rides so much smoother and faster over the rough stuff, and with the right weight wheels it accelerates not much slower than your average 26".
I would say for all day trail centre riding and your natrual riding, it really is the way forward. The only thing i can say that i wouldnt say its suited for is Jumping. (but i'm too old and scared for that)
Which is exactly what I was on about in my ealrier post, that's your opinion and thats fine. But it doesn't mean that your opinion is applicable for everyone.
I even said that I liked them for fast / smooth stuff..
RIde what you like, when you like, that's the bike for you. 0 -
-
29rs are part of a plan to make us buy stuff we don't need. I mean when was the last time you were riding along and thought 'hmm this bike needs bigger wheels' answer: never
29rs are a subtle marketing ploy to get us used to the idea we need different wheels (and tyres and forks and frames) and in comparison 650b seems pretty reasonable.
Win win for the bike industry0 -
.blitz wrote:29rs are part of a plan to make us buy stuff we don't need. I mean when was the last time you were riding along and thought 'hmm this bike needs bigger wheels' answer: never
29rs are a subtle marketing ploy to get us used to the idea we need different wheels (and tyres and forks and frames) and in comparison 650b seems pretty reasonable.
Win win for the bike industry
True, but the same can be said about pretty much anything once you get beyond your basic two wheels, pedals and gears. Even gears could be viewed as a marketing ploy and you certainly don't need suspension (at either end) to ride a bike down a hill. But lets face it, most of us like buying new bikes. So, we need bike manufacturers to keep coming up with new stuff, even if it doesn't really make much difference.
This years trend is 29ers. Do you need one? Of course you don't. But manufacturers need to sell new bikes, publishers need to sell magazines we need excuses for new toys. Everyone's a winner.
Cheers,
Andy0 -
.blitz wrote:29rs are part of a plan to make us buy stuff we don't need. I mean when was the last time you were riding along and thought 'hmm this bike needs bigger wheels' answer: never
29rs are a subtle marketing ploy to get us used to the idea we need different wheels (and tyres and forks and frames) and in comparison 650b seems pretty reasonable.
Win win for the bike industry
Have you ridden one?0 -
VWsurfbum wrote:Exactly. I agree.
Fella, your 29" wasn't thatt fast on the downs at Afan? and there pretty tame. but it was superb on the firetrack.0
