New posts

Pot stiring question

Dec. 4, 2008, 12:41 a.m.
Posts: 49
Joined: Dec. 1, 2008

The problem with 29 wheels is not so much with the wheels, but with frame construction.
If you want to build a bike with lots of travel and 29" wheels, it will end up with a ridiculous wheelbase and very high center of gravity. This might be kind of acceptable in very large frame sizes, but for M or S models, it would wreck the handling.

Dec. 4, 2008, 12:45 a.m.
Posts: 148
Joined: Nov. 26, 2005

… Look at 650B wheel sizes. That trend is as weird as 29" wheels were about 8 years ago…

I'll save someone from asking (I didn't know)

explanation of 650b

Dec. 4, 2008, 4:51 a.m.
Posts: 763
Joined: March 12, 2004

ANyone remember GT having the 700D tire size?

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Dec. 4, 2008, 8:07 a.m.
Posts: 1885
Joined: Oct. 16, 2005

650b is way weirder, and significantly stupider, than 29ers.

Really? Why is that?

If 26" is great for X and 28" (29'r) is great for Y then wouldn't 650b be great for inbetween X and Y?

Not to mention that 650b is marketing GOLD. 29ers require new frame designs and new forks (new magnesium castings for lowers are expensive, especially in a limited market) but 650b will already clear in tonnes of forks and frames on the market.

All many companies have to do to offer a 650b bike is to change the spokes (longer), rims (larger), and tires (to fit rims) on the 26" bikes they are already making and WHAM their 26" bike is now a 650b.

Essentially making a 650b bike won't cost anymore then a 26" bike and it gives marketing something to talk about.

It rolls over things better then a 26" but without the heavy weight, lower durability and slow acceleration of a 29'er

-D

Mean People SUCK! Nice People SHOVEL!

Trails For All; Trails For Weather

Dec. 4, 2008, 8:13 a.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 2, 2007

Really? Why is that?

If 26" is great for X and 28" (29'r) is great for Y then wouldn't 650b be great for inbetween X and Y?

Not to mention that 650b is marketing GOLD. 29ers require new frame designs and new forks (new magnesium castings for lowers are expensive, especially in a limited market) but 650b will already clear in tonnes of forks and frames on the market.

All many companies have to do to offer a 650b bike is to change the spokes (longer), rims (larger), and tires (to fit rims) on the 26" bikes they are already making and WHAM their 26" bike is now a 650b.

Essentially making a 650b bike won't cost anymore then a 26" bike and it gives marketing something to talk about.

It rolls over things better then a 26" but without the heavy weight, lower durability and slow acceleration of a 29'er

-D

Aww jeez. I wonder how many riders are actually at a level to make the difference between 26 and 29 important. Shit, is it gonna make a guy more likely to clean the swivel teeter on natural high? Or make the difference between holding on and bailing on the bark bridge tranny on ladies? Lol. I doubt it.

Dec. 4, 2008, 8:40 a.m.
Posts: 13953
Joined: Feb. 19, 2003

I wouldn't mind a 29er for winter commuting. But screw it on the trails. Maybe if I lived in Fruita it would make sense.

Dec. 4, 2008, 9:07 a.m.
Posts: 26382
Joined: Aug. 14, 2005

-and 29" wheels still pretty much suck for mtb aswell.

Since I can't read minds, to you how do they suck for mtb?

www.thisiswhy.co.uk

www.teamnfi.blogspot.com/

Dec. 4, 2008, 9:09 a.m.
Posts: 26382
Joined: Aug. 14, 2005

A few years ago, the guy from BCD was praticing for a race at Mammoth, or bear…I forget which one. When the split times were compared, it was found that his 29" wheeled bike was making better times through the rock gardens and rougher sections than the rest of the pros.

Remember…..racing used to be done on 24" wheels and people chose them for the qualities that were improved on over 26" wheels: acceleration and strength.

29" wheels are here to stay. They offer a larger contact patch and smaller entry angle which are huge advantages over 26" wheels, and still remain in the realm of acceptable weight and strength.

I predict that the 29" trend will evolve to be used by riders who porportionally fit bigger wheels, not entirely replace 26". 26" is a great size for the average user, but one size doesn't fit everyone. Look at 650B wheel sizes. That trend is as weird as 29" wheels were about 8 years ago.

Hell…suspension was considered weird and sucky for biking.

From what I'm hearing, the 650b size is essentially dead.

www.thisiswhy.co.uk

www.teamnfi.blogspot.com/

Dec. 4, 2008, 9:18 a.m.
Posts: 5731
Joined: June 24, 2003

A few years ago, the guy from BCD was praticing for a race at Mammoth, or bear…I forget which one. When the split times were compared, it was found that his 29" wheeled bike was making better times through the rock gardens and rougher sections than the rest of the pros.

Remember…..racing used to be done on 24" wheels and people chose them for the qualities that were improved on over 26" wheels: acceleration and strength.

29" wheels are here to stay. They offer a larger contact patch and smaller entry angle which are huge advantages over 26" wheels, and still remain in the realm of acceptable weight and strength.

I predict that the 29" trend will evolve to be used by riders who porportionally fit bigger wheels, not entirely replace 26". 26" is a great size for the average user, but one size doesn't fit everyone. Look at 650B wheel sizes. That trend is as weird as 29" wheels were about 8 years ago.

Hell…suspension was considered weird and sucky for biking.

Racing was rarely done on 24 inch wheels and then only on the rear. I think there were some experiments with dual 24 but then the bike would get pretty low.

29ers do not have a larger contact patch. If one compares the same diameter and construction tire say a 2.1 Nevegal single wall 26 and 2.1 Nevegal in a 29 at the same psi the contact patch is exactly the same size. It is a different shape though. The 29 er will be narrower, but longer. It's simple physiscs.

There is no questioning that a larger diameter wheel will roll more easily over obstacles. It's a fact. Moto's do use larger diametre wheels than a road moto. Road racers will actually change front wheel size to suit certain courses. I think road race motos use 14 to 16 inch front wheels. I don't follow GP racing closely but I do watch it on Speed now and again the commentators talk about these things.

I'm too short to realistically ride a 29er. I'd probably have to run a track stem and upside riser bar to get the bar where I need it and frickin' orthopeadic SPD.s to reach the ground.

Does anyone who knows the history of motocross know if they ever did wheel size experiments? I suspect that they probably did. I recall reading that suspension travel kept increasing until they increased too much and went back on what seems to be the current norm.

Debate? Bikes are made for riding not pushing.

Dec. 4, 2008, 9:41 a.m.
Posts: 14584
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

back in the day we had 18rear/21front and only 5 inches of suspension front [HTML_REMOVED] rear ,no disc brakes and none of it worked as good as the brakes [HTML_REMOVED] suspension on mtn bikes we have today

on the front a 21 just rolls over stuff easier and you got lots of room to impliment ,it folks would even retro fit them to bike that were not designed for it

But physicaly getting any bigger of a wheel than 18 in the rear of a moto cross bike would be impossible ,also don't forget the weight and the fact you need 4 or 5 inches of cross section to harness all that HP whereas on a DH bike you are essentialy coasting or will have [HTML_REMOVED] 1hp on a good day

Dec. 4, 2008, 11:29 a.m.
Posts: 1143
Joined: Nov. 13, 2004

if mx bike wheels were any bigger the bikes would be crazy tall and goofy.. most mx bikes have 12-13" of suspension front and rear

i'll measure the wheel hight on my mx later, but i know my 21" front tire is taller than my 26" mtb tire

bikes:
04 norco 4by w/ 05 sherman firefly :(
07 KTM 144sx :)

I like to throw up prior to dropping into a-line. I find it makes jumping easier.

Dec. 4, 2008, 11:32 a.m.
Posts: 26382
Joined: Aug. 14, 2005

I wouldn't mind a 29er for winter commuting. But screw it on the trails. Maybe if I lived in Fruita it would make sense.

Had a 29er since May. At last here in Ontarrible for me it makes the trails more challenging. Keep in mind mtb trails in Ontario are for the majority tame compared to BC trails that I learned ride on.

Circlip and I have discussed whether a 29er would be feasible in BC. If the build was correct for the terrain- especially the wheels using Rhyno's, the bike would hold up. One could ride a 29er over most of BC's trails.

Now keep in mind we are talking BC XC trails not DH runs. Though at least twice guy's have raced a 29er in a DH and placed respectably this year.

Some good examples of what a 29er can do is found in MTBr.com. have a look at the video posted by Mike Curiak aka mikesee.

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=467999

www.thisiswhy.co.uk

www.teamnfi.blogspot.com/

Dec. 4, 2008, 11:51 a.m.
Posts: 13953
Joined: Feb. 19, 2003

Had a 29er since May. At last here in Ontarrible for me it makes the trails more challenging. Keep in mind mtb trails in Ontario are for the majority tame compared to BC trails that I learned ride on.

More challenging?

I've spent a lot of money to make them less challenging. If I want more challenging, I'll go back to my 1.5inch elastomer front fork on a hardtail with the seat up.

Dec. 4, 2008, 11:56 a.m.
Posts: 1426
Joined: Feb. 18, 2005

650 makes sense for small men and ladies who want a road bike to fit properly ;)

Mythic / Da Kine / Esher Shore / Freeborn

http://hampsteadbandit.blogspot.com/

Dec. 4, 2008, 12:03 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 2, 2007

650 makes sense for small men and ladies who want a road bike to fit properly ;)

Yah, and it's a big compromise even then.

Forum jump: