Page 1 of 2

29" bikes

PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:40 pm
by Diego SahagĂșn
What do you think about them :?: I wonder how they perform in hard flat and rocky surfaces

PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 2:12 pm
by Diego SahagĂșn
Well :?:

PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:09 pm
by BeDrinkable
Diego, I haven't ridden one so can't really comment. I do know that the general understanding is that they help with negotiating tricky obstacles, such as roots and rocks but come with a weight penalty. I do know that Malibu is currently on a 29er and I believe that ferday may have some experience as well. If they don't chime in you could shoot off a pm ...

PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 7:47 pm
by Diego SahagĂșn
I'm asking about riding properties with 29" wheels compared with 26".

http://mountainbike.about.com/od/buyers ... niners.htm

PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:23 pm
by AnimalFromSpace
I'm becoming more comfortable on my DH/FR bike. It has that high front fork so when you go downhill, the front is more level. A huge, because you don't get that pitched over the handlebars feeling like a straight MTB. Get on a steep hill and commit. No brakes and chances are excellent you'll ride it out.

The downside of the bike is, of course, that high front end. I have to jump over the bike to get on it. So if it were any higher, like it had 29" wheels, I'd practically have to get on it with a step.

So my guess is, given the properties, it would be good on obstacle rich terrain but downhill, you'd be higher and less in control. So it would all come down to what you want to ride.

Like any exotic toy, it's nice if you have a lot of them and you can afford to have special kinds depending on the ride. If you can only have one bike, you'd want something more general.

Image

PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:43 am
by Malibu
AnimalFromSpace wrote:if it were any higher, like it had 29" wheels, I'd practically have to get on it with a step.

So my guess is, given the properties, it would be good on obstacle rich terrain but downhill, you'd be higher and less in control. So it would all come down to what you want to ride.


For a guy my size, I am faster and feel more in control on the 29 v my 26 on descents. The 29 has 5" of travel and slacker geo compared to my 4" travel 26. Also, just did a ride today with some technical climbing on the 29 that I previously rode on my 26 due to a temporarily broken 29. With the 29, I clean more difficult sections of rock gardens and rooty switchbacks. I also carry more speed on the climbs in general and seem to expend less energy while staying more on the middle ring v the granny.

I feel it pretty much comes down to what works for me. YMMV.


Image

Talk about toe overlap on this big wheel...

PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:58 am
by Wasatchvoyage
Here in Utah the 29'ers are getting more popular. The local bike shops seem to be getting more inventory due to higher interest. Been looking at a few and even thought about renting one for a weekend to see how it would perform on the type of terrain I usually ride before laying down the $$$.

This is the current S-works 29'er, looks pretty incredible.

Image

> Link is here <

PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:10 pm
by AnimalFromSpace
Someone - somewhere - has probably built a ski slope special. 29" front - 26" rear. I wonder what that would be like.

Malibu wrote:For a guy my size, I am faster and feel more in control on the 29 v my 26 on descents. The 29 has 5" of travel and slacker geo compared to my 4" travel 26. Also, just did a ride today with some technical climbing on the 29 that I previously rode on my 26 due to a temporarily broken 29. With the 29, I clean more difficult sections of rock gardens and rooty switchbacks. I also carry more speed on the climbs in general and seem to expend less energy while staying more on the middle ring v the granny.




Really

That good eh? Might clear curbs as well. My city bike needs a ton of work. Maybe put in a bid on this.

http://cgi.ebay.com/2010-SPECIALIZED-STUMPJUMPER-EXPERT-CARBON-29ER-BIKE-/200525679128?pt=Mountain_Bikes&hash=item2eb0430a18

at $1750, seems like a bargain

Image

PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:02 pm
by Malibu
AnimalFromSpace wrote:Someone - somewhere - has probably built a ski slope special. 29" front - 26" rear. I wonder what that would be like.


A 69er -- been done and people who have built them like them. They have the roll over capability of a 29er and the quick spool up of a 26".


AnimalFromSpace wrote:Really

That good eh? Might clear curbs as well.


One caveat to the way this bike climbs for me: The bike fits me better than any other I have owned or ridden before. I seem to stay in the power range of my pedal stroke more with the 29er. Therefore, seemingly less effort for the same climb and less fatigue for the entire ride. The same size frame with 26" wheels might give as much benefit.

The descending stability may be due to a combo of the slacker geo and the way the larger wheels roll over obstacles.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:09 pm
by RayMondo
I assume the 29s have a longer wheelbase, if due only to the extra radius of the wheels, which would create more longitudinal stability.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:16 am
by Malibu
RayMondo wrote:I assume the 29s have a longer wheelbase, if due only to the extra radius of the wheels, which would create more longitudinal stability.


Yes and... no. 29ers often have a stretched wheelbase when compared to a similar sized model in 26" form mostly to avoid toe overlap with the larger front wheel. Chainstays for 29ers are often insignificantly longer than the 26" bikes. Still slightly longer, but the frame/pivot/rear swingarm geometry tuck the larger wheel underneath to help with climbing traction and handling.

I do know that in total length, my XXL 29 is longer than my XL 26 by about 7". A pretty big difference there but "only" about 4" longer in wheelbase. The XXL is quite stretched out and that is what works for me. While the larger wheel helps with rollover and momentum, another benefit is that it adds to the visual proportionality.

Image

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:39 am
by RayMondo
29" bikes are such a great idea, and I wonder how they hadn't happened earlier. Like, didn't manufacturers realise the average height of people has increased. Take a sleeping bed - most people's toes reach the end, yet I haven't seen a longer bed.

With the extra 1.5" ground clearance, you can pedal hard on bends with less risk of grounding the pedal. Unless of course, longer cranks come to market. Now there's a thought.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:45 pm
by AnimalFromSpace
Yeah, with 1.5" additional ground clearance, you might be able to clear logs.

Image

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:08 pm
by BeDrinkable
RayMondo wrote:With the extra 1.5" ground clearance, you can pedal hard on bends with less risk of grounding the pedal.

Funny that this was almost never a problem on my hardtail, but obstacles I have no problem with are an issue on most FS. Well, not funny I guess but predictable. :)

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:21 pm
by RayMondo
That's a point - cornering and pedalling when the suspension is compressed. Though not as rough an impact as riding a road bike with fixed wheel. A couple of times I scraped the pedal on the tarmac, and another couple, it dug in and threw the back of the bike up in the air. Managed to stay on, fortunately.

I wonder what other handling characteristics 29" throw up. More gyroscopic steering resistance - easily catered for by wider bars. Though that could throw you out amongst the trees. Imagine changing to wider bars and taking your regular trail between trees, then finding it doesn't fit :shock: I figure too that the bikes take a bit more stopping, as the taller wheels have more leverage over the brake disc. So that ought to be larger diameter.

Here's a point. Remember to take a 29" spare inner tube, and not the old 26". That wouldn't stretch.