I think this is the vid mentioned,
Bike Forum
[closed]
absoludicrous pile of nonsense
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
I can see teh argument - it's about the backwards force on the wheel when it his the 2" bar, but Shirley there's payback when the wheel goes over the other side?
May I also thank petesgaff for his stunningly witty, original and relevant post - I respond in kind.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I don't get why it's always 26" v 29" in these arguments.
Surely, if 26" is better than 29", then 24" would be even betterer.
And if 29" is better than 26", then why does no one make a 32" wheel ?Or maybe, just maybe, different bikes suit different riders and there is no "better".
Posted 2 years ago # -
i only bought a 29er as i'm tall and wanted a bike where the wheels looked in proportion to the frame - sort of a scaled up average 26er 17" but in a 21" size
d not care about the other arguments
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well, if your 26" wheel is travelling the same vertical distance over a shorter period of time, it is being accelerated quicker, hence the vertical force is greater.
And where does the energy come from that lifts the bike vertically over this bump? Well, that would be your kinetic energy you have due to your rolling speed. Therefore, you should lose less kinetic energy if your wheels are bigger, all else being equal.
except you forgot that the lower force is exerted for longer with the bigger wheel so magically the energy is the same, conservation of energy holds and perpetual motion machines still can't be made
Posted 2 years ago # -
Its still a crap explanation form me and I do apologise for that. 4 hrs sleep in 36
TJ, I understand the gist of the explanation OK.
It's just that the cycnical side of me just sees 29" wheels/tyres/forks/framesets as an added retail opportunity rather than an appreciable advance in bike ergonomics
If it was that obvious surely someoine would have 'come up with it' a bit sooner ??
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well... work done = force * distance
I'm pretty sure it ends up being more energy for the big wheeled case...
Posted 2 years ago # -
then why does no one make a 32" wheel
There's an optimum length for the wheelbase otherwise the bike would handle like a barge. Would have thought 29in wheels would be the max you could fit without having to stretch out that wheelbase.
Other problems would be toe overlap - esp. on smaller frame sizes.
Big wheels roll better - but given that people don't ride in straight lines and ride at variable speeds over different kinds of terrain it becomes a bit more complicated than bigger is better.Posted 2 years ago # -
This is a picture of my 29er. It is fast on the flat and just seems to keep going. In the snow it was 100% better than my 26 mountain bike as it just seems to grip.
Handles like a gate though.
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
