http://dirt.mpora.com/news/hands-deck-christian-29er-faster.html

Let me correct you there, ONE rider says: “the 29er bike offers me a better feeling and faster ride in trail environment than a 26”.

Again, just one person’s opinion.

One thing can’t be denied…. 2012 will be the year the britsh cycling press start supporting 29ers…..

That article is practically unreadable, though. They need someone fluent in English to edit that mag, the articles are invariably dreadful.

Once you get past the standard Steve Jones introductory ramble it’s an interesting little article.

Still leaves a few questions to be answered; is rider size an issue? What happens when you want a longer travel bike?

He raises the idea that future bike sizing might mean changes in wheels size from S/M – L/XL it’s an interesting point, and as a 5’10” distinctly average build I’d be interested to see where the major brands place me…

29ers are not going away, but I’m not sure they are the answer for all MTBing…

The argument about front centers/chainstay lengths etc doesnt make sense, you can fit a 29″ wheel (just) in a 16.5″ chainstay, and the trend is for longer chainstays as suspension travel increaces.

But then the argument stops making sense when you consider that the ratio of front center to chainstay is size dependant, and very few bikes offer different rear ends over the size range.

So yes I can see why 29ers are better for larger riders, but I’d like to see someone scale up a say a 17″ 26er hardtail by 11.5%, including raising the BB etc on the basis that then someone 11.5% bigger would get exactly the same bike as the short guy.

If you scale a 5’10” bloke and hsi medium bike by 11.5%, he becomes 6’6″. That’s XL territory.

Personally I believe alot of the supposed drawbacks to 29ers can be designed around, standover/BB height, stay lengths (although with longer travel bouncers you have to avoid wheel clashes?), COG, etc are surely just a case of applying your brain to the geometry and trying to replecate an “equivalent to 26er” rider position in most cases…

The reason 29ers were seen as bikes for Giants early on is that I’m sure the earlier attempts were just scaled up 26ers which will obviously suit a 6’7″ rider, the 29er converts are on the case and keen to make the big wheels work for as many people as possible, once a 4’10” female can fell comfortable on a 29er I think the argument will be over….

I think like many the first 29er I’m likely to own though will still be an SS though I’ve come close to dipping my toe a couple of times now but resisted on cost grounds, but I reckon by next winter I’ll have one “Just to try”…

I think a 69er DH bike has alot of potential, but it comes down to execution, a bike which can reduce rider fatigue (especially in the arms) would sell, and the concept would be “Backwards compatible with current DH frames (just a new fork and front wheel right?)…

It’s funny reading Bikebiz talk about 29ers, and even in that article, all saying that a big part if it is about buying new bikes. Frankly, Dirt has always annoyed me with the focus on speed as a measurement of a good bike. Unless you are a racer (which I suppose a lot of Dirt readers are tbf) it is fun not speed that I’d the critical thing. And I really think it is the maneurverability (sp?) of a bike that makes it fun. I am yet to be convinced by any test rides I’ve had of 29ers that they can be pushed around as easily as a 26er. I suppose I come from a bmx background, so I expect a different level of rider input than many mtbers maybe?

The for and against arguments totally contradict each other, what tard wrote that!

If you scale a 5’10” bloke and hsi medium bike by 11.5%, he becomes 6’6″. That’s XL territory.

Is 5ft10 medium?

Spesh’s size guides put medium at 5ft5-5ft10

5ft5 x 1.115 = 5ft11(and a smidge)

Their larges start at 5ft10, so it’s only 1 frame size.

Small and medium 26ers, large and XL 29ers?

Or maybe even 24″ wheels on small bikes?

Depends on the riding obviously, 24″ wheels are just going to be uncomfortable on a bumpy track. But larger wheels wouldnt seem to have disadvantages, they may be less manouverable than a 26″ wheel, but thats the same rider on both sides, logicaly a bigger stronger taller rider should find a 29er handles the same as a smaller weaker shorter rider finds a 26″ bike?

cookeaa – Member
I think a 69er DH bike has alot of potential, but it comes down to execution, a bike which can reduce rider fatigue (especially in the arms) would sell, and the concept would be “Backwards compatible with current DH frames (just a new fork and front wheel right?)…

You’ll need to convince a DHer to accept 140mm travel up front instead of 200. He won’t like it.

flow – Member
The for and against arguments totally contradict each other, what tard wrote that!

Opposing sides of an argument contradicting each other? Who’d have thought, eh?

flow – Member

The for and against arguments totally contradict each other, what tard wrote that!

They would do, wouldn’t they, otherwise it’d be “for and for” (or, perhaps, “against and against”)

itnava – Member

One thing can’t be denied…. 2012 will be the year the britsh cycling press start supporting 29ers…..

Er, 2011 was the year they started supporting 29ers.

mansonsoul – Member
…Dirt has always annoyed me with the focus on speed as a measurement of a good bike.
… it is fun not speed that I’d the critical thing. And I really think it is the maneurverability (sp?) of a bike that makes it fun. I am yet to be convinced by any test rides I’ve had of 29ers that they can be pushed around as easily as a 26er. I suppose I come from a bmx background, so I expect a different level of rider input than many mtbers maybe?

You’ve hit the nail on the head. Fun not race.

Anyone who rides a 29gnar is a deluded idiot, can’t they see they’ve fallen for the hype?

Epi – MTBs are slow enough, I fail to see how can going slower be more fun?

You’ll need to convince a DHer to accept 140mm travel up front instead of 200. He won’t like it.

Rubbish, I’d much rather my DH race bike had 170mm front and rear instead of the 200 it has, moreso for the front as I feel with 200mm you lose feel/pop I actually run my Boxxers too stiff so it limits travel.

29er DH bikes can run 170mm upfront easily – it’s already been done!

29er DH bikes can run 170mm upfront easily – it’s already been done!

Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. Skinsuits were banned because they looked crap, I hope they do the same with 29ers in DH as a 29er DH bike would just look wrong. IMO and all that.

Well your assuming F+R travel has to match on a DH bike – there won’t be many V10s about with more than 200mm up front…

And again I believe there’s always a way to accomodate some changes like this if they bring some performance value… the compromise might mean less travel to gett improved grip and rolling resistance, it’s not that long ago DH race bikes were sporting 6-7″ of travel rather than the current mandatory 8″ and they were still rideable…

[Bold Statement]Mark my words a 69er DH bike will take a WC podium within the next couple of years… [/Bold Statement]

thanks for your invaluable input on the subject ian

MBR must be getting lonely now – like the last kid to be picked at football……

I still dont get the 29er argument.
they are faster according to some on a well groomed trail centre.
and for an XC race,
But then a cross bike is faster again, so why not just forget 29ers and ride a cross bike.
with the bigger wheels and compromised geometry they are not as manouverable (fun) according to everyone I know who has one.
Basically they are fulfilling a criteria for people who want to gain an advantage on easy trails which is fine.
But I avoid them as I prefer to have fun on my bike and not get hung up on beating my mates up a hill. I prefer having fun on technical terrain and not worrying about my cart wheels breaking on technical rocky terrain with drops etc that my limited riding ability tends to have me smashing through with little skill and finesse.
They were basically invented to gain an advantage on the competition, which is fine. But Im not into racing around trail centres and XC courses.
in a year or so the industry will have a new invention for everyone to lap up and argue the toss over in forums.

Opposing sides of an argument contradicting each other? Who’d have thought, eh?

🙄

AGAINST 29ers
Flow – not possible to pump terrain, flow corners especially tighter ones

FOR 29ers
Better flow, less nervy
Cornering

Plus traction and grip (both in the for section)are the same thing, leaving not many reasons to buy one.

No contradiction there at all, unless you choose to read into it something which isn’t there. “Flow corners” is not the same as “cornering” or “flow” is it? They’re talking about different aspects of flow.

So “flow” and “flow” are different, just like traction and grip yeah? 😆

But then a cross bike is faster again, so why not just forget 29ers and ride a cross bike.

Because they are ostensibly the same thing. The only difference that materially changes how fast they are, are the tyres.

So basically, the reason for 29ers existing is that they make it easier to go faster. Well, why don’t you just become fitter and more skilled riding what you have?

+1 Mikey

Get fitter and more skilled anyway, then get on a 29’er – and become doubly fast.

26″ or 29″? who cares! Just ride what you whatever floats your boat!
Don’t knock it until you try it maybe?

26″ or 29″? who cares! Just ride what you whatever floats your boat!
Don’t knock it until you try it maybe?

+1 – however not tried one yet – I don’t think its would make me go out an change all my kit but I’d certainly would at least ride one?

I’m still not sure…. 😀

Get fitter and more skilled anyway, then get on a 29’er – and become doubly fast.

Compared to what? As someone has already said, they make most sense when racing, but once everyone is racing them, then we’ll be back at square one and there was no point in making the change in the first place.

Cycling press in favour of new trend fad shocker!!!

Compared to what? As someone has already said, they make most sense when racing, but once everyone is racing them, then we’ll be back at square one and there was no point in making the change in the first place.

You can start performance enhancing drugs and buy a road bike by the time your on the same wheel size,Dont panic some one will always be faster, better, lighter, Know more than you will. The journalists say so.

A trend they previously disliked….

Cycling press reports what their advertisers want them to say shocker.

I rather like mine, things I’ve noticed are:

– It does roll over roots & smaller rocks better than my 26er
– It does seem to offer great traction in loose conditions
– It certainly descends well and feels more stable then my 26er

BTW my 29er is a Chumba HX2 with 100mm Rebas, Hope hoops and my 26er was a Cove Handjob with Hope Hoops and 115mm Rebas

flow – Member

Opposing sides of an argument contradicting each other? Who’d have thought, eh?

AGAINST 29ers
Flow – not possible to pump terrain, flow corners especially tighter ones

FOR 29ers
Better flow, less nervy
Cornering

Plus traction and grip (both in the for section)are the same thing, leaving not many reasons to buy one.

Is this some flow vanity occuring, squeezing as many flows into one post as possible, maybe it was just a means of making the article flow, or a random flow of consciouness that escaped the editors eye.

AGAINST 29ers
Flow – not possible to pump terrain,

You’re either teeny tiny or not doing it properly. Both of my 29ers can be pumped just fine.

Steve just a question, when you rode your hand job, were you thinkig damn, what I need is better stability and traction and the ability to roll over rocks better?

Or did you try the latest craze and then think well yes there are advantages to having the 29er, ie traction, stability and rolling over rocks.

In other words the industry created a problem, and gave you a solution and you bought the product.

Its what they do with razor blades, cars, everything.