[Closed] 29er. for xc racing

And you won be any faster

On a 29er or on a heavier bike?

Like for like, on most XC courses a 29er will be quicker, but you will need to spend to get a 29er down to 26er weight. If you bought a Chinese carbon 29er frame and some light wheels and tyres you would probably spend nearly £1k, then transfer all the light bits off your whippet and you could have a 9-10kg bike for around £1k.

Of course, this could go upwards rapidly!

OP - on a 29er

large418 - Member
Like for like, on most XC courses a 29er will be quicker

By how much? Your evidence?

I've still not seen a test that covers the subject with more detail. It's not flawless, but its as close to a fair test as you will likely get in an outdoor environment. This was done with bikes at equal weights.

[url= http://magazine.bikeradar.com/2012/11/15/matt-pages-wheel-size-test-the-results/ ]MBUK Wheel size test[/url].

You would imagine that if 26" was faster then everyone would be riding them, but its the opposite.

Everyone with them just seems quicker than me!

mtbmatt - Member
You would imagine that if 26" was faster then everyone would be riding them, but its the opposite

"Emporer's new clothes"

"Emporer's new clothes"

Quite possibly, but they are pretty dominant in XC racing, Nino Schurter runs 650b because he likes an incredibly aggressive position and is only small.

You can use that argument about everything too if you really want. Suspension forks? Rim brakes? Gears?

njee20 - Member
You can use that argument about everything too if you really want. Suspension forks? Rim brakes? Gears?

No.

Those markets have LONG matured, tyre size has yet to do so - and punters aren't buying bikes on tyres size because they KNOW they are faster, only on feel or what why've bought into (actually and psychologically).

I feel faster on a 29er, however that is completely un-scientific so i could also say that i'm no slower but it feels like less effort 😉

punters aren't buying bikes on tyres size because they KNOW they are faster, only on feel or what why've bought into (actually and psychologically).

Whilst I was being facetious, and do agree to an extent, you can't really argue with the dominance in men's XC racing at the top level. If 26" wheels brought any advantages surely you'd expect to still see some riding them?

you can't really argue with the dominance in men's XC racing at the top level

Yes I blinkin' well can!

They are riding what they are paid to ride, which is what each manufacturer wants to sell - the differences in speed are marginal.

And if they are't marginal, and are measurable, tests would have been done and we'd all know otherwise.

They wouldn't sell many if they kept getting beaten by 26er wheeled bikes.

There's a lot of circumstantial evidence that supports 29ers being quicker - most of the top racers use them. Also some physics - if something has less rolling resistance and more grip, it should roll faster and corner better. Larger wheels generally have less rolling resistance over rough ground, and big tyre contact patches grip better - same philosophy is used in cars.

It may all be only a few % better, but at some levels that matters (maybe not to most of us though).

For what it's worth, I have a 26" Stumpjumper hardtail - 9kg, and also a 29er hardtail that I have just built up using most of the bits off the Stumpjumper - both bikes are the same weight. The 29er just feels quicker, partly because it is smoother through rough bits. I will probably use the 29er as my bike of choice as it just feels a nicer bike to ride.

It's taken me a long time to accept the marketing splurge, and I am not one to suffer continual upgrade syndrome (both my FS and HT 26ers are 11 years old and apart from maintenance and adding lightness I have not felt the need to replace), but having just treated myself to a new frame and wheels I have been surprised at the difference.

may not b quicker but are far more comfy,therefore easier to ride longer.

love my niner air nine!

@backinireland I've a 2012 stumpy comp carbon HT that I'm looking to sell in the not too distant if you're interested. Stock save for crests on hopes, ritchey carbon s'post and Easton bars. No doubt awesome for racing...
Good condition. Let me know if it might be of interest.
OpportunisticMatt 🙂

And if they are't marginal, and are measurable, tests would have been done and we'd all know otherwise.

Like Matt's you mean?

you can't really argue with the dominance in men's XC racing at the top level

Yes I blinkin' well can!

You can argue with the reasons, but you can't argue with the fact. It's a fact. They're dominant at top level men's XC racing.

al.
Post up your test results if you disagree with Matt's findings.
It'd be good to compare the two side by side.

OP I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about it. I race a 26" Scale, and whether it's geared or SS, rigid or susp fork at the time, I generally place around the same spot in the pecking order. I'd imagine on a 29'er it'd be the same.

Train your legs to get up the hills as fast as possible and train your skills to get down as fast as possible. I think the light 26'er is still a great tool for these jobs. The 29'ers seem to suit the seated, peddley, flatish sections so expect to maybe loose a few bike lengths here. Rest up a bit and don't fret and then smash them on the climbs again.

The MBUK test is a joke without HR and power data.

You say 29ers are dominant...in the entire field? Or results alone?

al.
Do your tests show HR and power data?
Post em up.
I'd like to compare the two different test.

They are riding what they are paid to ride, which is what each manufacturer wants to sell - the differences in speed are marginal.

While that may be true to a point, those same racers need to justify their sponsorship by doing well/winning races. Racers know that 29ers are faster, so they want them. It may only be a few %, but at the highest levels, that is a huge difference.

While they are mostly dominant in XC, they are totally dominant in Marathon events.

The MBUK test is a joke without HR and power data.

I think you will find that I used both HR and a power meter. The web version is only a short version of the test, the full version is in the published magazine.

Matt, it's not a go at you, I'd like to see the magazine test.

Stu, you are saying only someone who's done their own test can challenge a similar one?

🙄

It was published approximately 16 months ago.
Issue 284 I think.

al.
No i'm saying i'd tend to go with the results of Matt's published tests over your internet armchair expert views. 🙂

If the question was about STW bighittery I'd go with your results though. 8)

There was a Swedish magazine that re-printed a UK test with power data for the three different wheel sizes done at Cwm rhaeadr.

Summary:
3.3km climb done at 227watts, (+-2)
26 - 13:54
27.5 - 13:41
29 - 13:39

My own testing showed me a 29er was 90 seconds faster per hour than my 26er over the same XC course.

Stu, not interested in scientific proof then?

Funny how you react so defensively

Stu, not interested in scientific proof then?

Yes That's why I read Matt's test.

Funny how you react so defensively

For the majority of members on here it's not so much about how fast you get there but how much fun you have on the way.

Watching with interest, I've concluded that you're telling the op that he shouldn't waste any money buying a 29er. But could perhaps invest in training or improving his 26er

However, if He gets to National A or above, maybe he should, marginal gains and all that.

That's what your all saying, right?*

*crosses fingers 'cause that's what I've done.

singlespeedstu - Member
Stu, not interested in scientific proof then?
Yes That's why I read Matt's test

Its not very scientific though, is it?

Odd double post

Its not very scientific though, is it?

Please explain why you think this?

I think the conclusion (at least mine anyway) is that on some XC courses a 29er will be faster. How much faster and whether it's worth spending money on is down to the individual.

Or train harder and keep up with those who trained less.

The choice is yours.

Eh? My post which was a subdued somethingion between the rant has been removed. Pork Wah?

Edit: and now it's back, bizarre.

mtbmatt - Member
Its not very scientific though, is it?
Please explain why you think this?

No power data.

I am quicker on a slightly heavier 29er. My local loop personal prs on strava are evidence. If anything I'm less fit at the moment than 2 years ago when the previous ones had been set. Too many prs to be chance. I am however slightly slower descending for whatever reason.

If you got the cash do it, new stuff is nice, I picked up a scale, great bike

ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE ALERT....

I ended up doing a demo on a 100mm 29r FS bike over christmas on my local trails - ie ones I know like the back of my hand. Nothing too technical with a lot of pedaling required.

The 29r definatley felt faster, but wasn't actually that much (if any) than my other rides. It was easier up hills but that's in comparison to 160mm HT's and 150mm full sus bikes so not a fair comparison. I'd like ot go back to back with a good light 26" XC bike and really see what it's like but they are mostly in museums now...

What's that Cwm Rhaeadr course like, btw?

mikewsmith. My bike she'd is not a museum, it just looks like one. 20ibs Soda rides as well now as the day I built it. 🙂

Anecdotal evidence: Took a mate out awhile back, me on 26" Trek Fuel, him on 29" Giant. On trails i was much faster but on the tarmac climb back to the car he utterly destroyed me. Was a hardtail so that might have had a wee bit to do with it but i certainly got the impression on the 29er was faster.

I'm still not changing from 26" until the current bikes need replacing but i would consider a solaris i think.

No power data.

But there [i]is[/i] power data. That's the whole point! Sounds like it's the same test TSC saw printed in Sweden.

cynic-al - Member
No power data.

Well as I have already said above there was power data (powertap) and HR, although I controlled the power and only monitored the HR. There was no real difference in HR, as you might expect.

Each bike was the same weight and the tyre model was the same across all bikes (Hans Dampf) and 25psi across all tyres too - measured using a digital gauge.

The uphill was 3.3km, mostly fireroad with the final 800m on singletrack switchback climb.
The downhill was 3.7km, all singletrack and quite varied.

I picked the order of bikes ridden out of a hat and each bike was ridden 4 times, over 2 days.
I'm the first to admit it isn't perfect, but its the best test I've seen to date still.

Probably not good enough for you I'd suggest al. If it doesn't agree with your way of thinking, then it can't be right.

Or train harder and keep up with those who trained less.

What a completely stupid statement :roll:. A person can only train so much to negate the disadvantages of equipment, unless you take loads of drugs as well just like LA and then claim its all about you.

Why not train as hard as you can [b]and[/b] take advantage of better equipment.

Msp - that's exactly the point the "stupid" statement was making. Glad you agree

To a point MSP. Albeit I'm not a fast or powerful rider there are many i know that'll out perform me on a heavier lesser quality bike. Me running of and buying a light carbon 29er won't change that although it may close a gap.

Does the OP need to IMMEDIATELY justify a 29er? No he doesn't. When he starts outperforming other riders on his 26ers and realising that actually his equipment is holding him back in certain situations, then perhaps he'd consider it. But it's up to him, if his got the cash there's nothing stopping him doing that now as long as he doesn't get disappointed that his purchase is unlikely to launch him into the big leagues.

On balance, I think my 29er is slower than my 26er but makes me faster. Make of that what you will 😉

It's all individual. Matt's test gives the results for Matt. If I did the same test with my skills, the results might well be very different!

And there are many other variables (geometry, tyres, weight, forks etc) that can have just as big an impact on speed as wheel size.

But ultimately nobody's making 26" XC race bikes these days so the decision isn't really ours any more.

My point is that folk saying "well my 29er feels faster" or "I went faster on it on my local loop" is barely anecdotal - so many other factors.

So up to matt's post below [u]and the info available to me[/u] the MBUK test wasn't very scientific and therefore not worth much IMO. If folk want to turn that into a cynic-al-flame-fest thqt's up to you.

mtbmatt - Member
Well as I have already said above there was power data (powertap) and HR, although I controlled the power and only monitored the HR. There was no real difference in HR, as you might expect.

Each bike was the same weight and the tyre model was the same across all bikes (Hans Dampf) and 25psi across all tyres too - measured using a digital gauge.

The uphill was 3.3km, mostly fireroad with the final 800m on singletrack switchback climb.
The downhill was 3.7km, all singletrack and quite varied.

I picked the order of bikes ridden out of a hat and each bike was ridden 4 times, over 2 days.
I'm the first to admit it isn't perfect, but its the best test I've seen to date still.

Probably not good enough for you I'd suggest al. If it doesn't agree with your way of thinking, then it can't be right

I can't see the power data, as I mentioned.

That sounds pretty scientific, with the power data. I'd love to see it.

I'd also like to see it repeated on different trails. To see if some wheel sizes are better on some types of trail. Also in the mud and dry.

I don't have a 29er but what I notice when I am overtaken by them is that they deal with bumps, roots etc better. While I find the same route choppy they seem to float more - that's not all down to technique or tyre choice.

As a result on courses I ride my short travel FS they appear to be able to ride their 29er HT and get that HT pedalling efficiency.

So up to matt's post below and the info available to me the MBUK test wasn't very scientific and therefore not worth much IMO. If folk want to turn that into a cynic-al-flame-fest thqt's up to you.

You're being a bit of a [s]dick [/s]bigger hitter now, it turned into a "cynic-al-flame-fest" because you were sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "lalalala I can't hear you" when you were told there was empirical data, you chose to ignore that and carry on with your "it's all just anecdotal" tack.

Matt posted last page with:

I think you will find that I used both HR and a power meter.

And then the Swedish Chef posted the results, and you've posted 4 times since.

chrispo - Member

But ultimately nobody's making 26" XC race bikes these days so the decision isn't really ours any more.

Ahem:

http://www.trekbikes.com/uk/en/bikes/mountain/cross_country/elite_8_series/

An SLX equipped alu hardtail...? Not exactly a full on race bike!

Interestingly though Trek did do a carbon 26" hardtail last year, and they didn't do any FS bikes. Spesh did the opposite - they went 29er on the hardtail first.

I think it's a valid point, there are few (I won't say no) 26" wheeled XC race bikes now.

The top of the range is XT with the exception of the cassette, race lite, and the material has nothing to do with the pendant content of this thread.

Not exactly a race bike for who? For some it will be. FWIW my 26er probably weigh's less than than that and I've raced it - does that mean I should consign it to trails duties and slap a carbon 29er in my shopping basket just for racing? And just becuase its en-vogue?

Whereas in reality at my level it'd probably only make a huge difference to my bank balance and marital relationship, and therefore for the OP, the answer to his questions was what exactly?

One things for sure if you ride a 29er carbon race HT there's no hiding in your equipment when you look at your results. Me I only ride a 26" bike which no doubt accounts for my mid field placings!

OK, *hardly* anyone is making 26" race bikes now.

When I finally kill my Whippet, am I really likely to choose a relatively old and low-tech second-hand 26" frame over the latest all bells and whistles 29" or 650b option?

But for the time being, a second-hand 26" racer makes very good sense VFM-wise!

njee20 - Member
And then the Swedish Chef posted the results

flame-fest was a bit facetious - only sstu was trolling. But no one confirmed SC's results as the same test as matt's (and they are imcomplete). In any event, SC states "227W +/2W" - does that mean an average of 227 over every climb? (can you control your power that precisely?) If not then the 0.9% variance matches the variance between the times (a total of 1.8%).

flame-fest was a bit facetious - only sstu was trolling

Not trolling al.
Just pointing out that i'd rather believe the results of Matt's tests than you banging on about how unscientific they were.
They seem to many people on here to be about as accurate as they need to be.
If you think they're not why not do some tests of your own and prove him wrong/right?

can you control your power that precisely?

Yes, because I did.
I am sure I still have the power figures somewhere and I know for a fact that it wasn't simply a case of the climbs at 225w being slower than those at 227w... if that is what you are getting at.

If you read what The Swedish Chef wrote, he states that it was a re-print (news to me by the way).
I doubt a swedish magazine would come over to Cwm Rhaeadr to replicate a test 😉

What is it that you find so impossible to believe?

Digs magazine out of the traditional rack by the toilet.

Text by Matt Page, can we assume that is mtbmatt? I'd hazard a guess yes. You ride for Wiggle?

One Felt six pro, one KHS six fifty 609, and one Felt Nine Team.

All the same weight. Really?

All with PowerTap rear wheels.

It's not hard to ride a known segment at pretty even pace/ power output, IMO.

Again these results match my experience.

Probably not good enough for you I'd suggest al. If it doesn't agree with your way of thinking, then it can't be right.

Late comer to the topic so I apologise, but absolutely LOVING the fact that we've got one of the UK's most successful XC racers on here, having conducted proper research into this in the past, with (albeit a small quantity of) evidence and statistics to prove that like for like 29ers are faster... But that's still not good enough?!?!

Marginal gains are just that... They are marginal. The debate isn't about how marginal they are, or how relevant they are to an individual, rather that there is lots of evidence (a lot anecdotal, but some cold hard stats) to suggest that 29ers are faster cross country than 26" wheeled bikes like for like. To 99% of the public that's neither here nor there perhaps, but if you're trying to win a race, it can make all the difference.

Look at road bikes for instance. Bradley Wiggins doesn't turn up to a TT on a steel Audax bike. His bike is designed to make the most of the UCI rule book to make him as fast as possible. Running deep section aero wheels may only make him 0.5% faster over the length of a TT than running normal wheels, but that can be the difference between 1st and 10th place. Then you look at the skin suit, the aero helmet, the aero brakes etc. and all these incremental improvements may add up to a few % overall. Not to be sniffed at!

I'd say looking at Matt's data and times, 29ers seem to be anything up to 2% or more faster than the equivalent 26" bike. I'm sorry but in the worlds of high performance competition, a 2% performance increase is an enormous difference! If you could put bigger wheels on an F1 car and make it 2% faster, you can guarantee that the entire of the rest of the F1 field would do the same by the next race.

Of course, if you're just riding down your local woods with mates, it matters not in the slightest, but that's not the point being argued here...

What about marathon events, someone states total dominance
Why?
Comfort factor?

Good post mboy.

I'd still like to know how tight and twisty a course has to be before the extra rotational mass of bigger wheels becomes a factor. Possibly within the range of XC courses actually, as a lot more energy goes into accelerating than it does rolling over bumps.

Marathon events are even more suited to the advantages that 29ers have, they have loads of high speed rolling on fire/gravel roads, with reduced technical sections.

Absolutely LOVING the fact that we've got one of the UK's most successful XC racers on here, having conducted proper research into this in the past, with (albeit a small quantity of) evidence and statistics to prove that like for like 29ers are faster... But that's still not good enough?!?!

Having seen Matt's articles and posts in the past there doesn't seem to be any doubting racing credentials or attention to detail in putting a race bike together (loved the pair of Rocky Mountains on Weightweenies a while ago!).

However, as Matt as acknowledged himself it isn't a perfect test. It is a good test but hard to draw any real conclusions besides the small amount of data providing some evidence for one user that the 29er appears to be the faster bike and certainly not any slower than the 26er or 650B on the one course tested. To say it is scientific though isn't really too accurate though IMO. I don't claim that a "scientific" test is easy though so I am certainly not intending to criticize and couldn't do better myself!

The small number of observations is an issue. Day to day variability usually requires repeat tests across 3-5 different days for most applications. Inter-subject variability? Again, 10 people would be the absolute bare minimum for anything like this to be published usually but some quick calculations based on the data might require a far higher number of testers are required. An interesting question is do 29ers yield advantages for all? Are 29ers advantages across all courses? You can keep the mean power output the same between repeat tests but is the total power delivered equally in the same magnitudes and at the same times between repeat tests throughout the duration of a lap? Are the lines taken each lap and the energy used descending (almost impossible to measure!) consistent? You'd imagine a skilled racer can control this pretty well but something like Principal Component Analysis could identify areas of highest variance between power and HR waveforms of multiple laps then use PC scores to determine if there is statistically significant differences in how the mean power (or HR) is applied across the lap. The tester was also not blind to the bike being used so may bias the results. A placebo 29er would be an interesting test too 😀 If the bikes were of equal weight overall then the rotational masses and distribution of weight would presumably be different between the bikes. How do you go about making the bikes "identical"??? You could go on and on!

The test may not be scientific but the reality I think is that there are too many variables to control or account for to actually conduct a "proper" scientific test. Anyone who tried would leave themselves open to criticism one way or another and lets be honest it isn't in the interest of manufacturers when the easiest solution is to just make all bike in one wheel size and force the change 😉 Experienced racers certainly don't seem hindered by 29ers. All I know is Matt could ride a BMX and beat me on the pimpest whatever bike on any course 😆

I don't have a 29er but what I notice when I am overtaken by them is that they deal with bumps, roots etc better. While I find the same route choppy they seem to float more - that's not all down to technique or tyre choice.

Just to throw this in to the mix.... is a softail 26er faster than a 26, 650B or 29er hardtail? On a rougher, hilly course it would be interesting! Full sus vs hardtail more generally? Too many variables but at the end of the day I suck too much to ever need to worry so can be content with a rubbish 26 bike 😆

is a softail 26er faster than a 26, 650B or 29er hardtail

Do you mean a soft tail, or do you mean a full suspension bike?

Where do 29er FS fit into the equation? The Olympic champion rode one after all...

Do you mean a soft tail, or do you mean a full suspension bike?

Either really I guess. I'm using a 26 flex pivot Scalpel which is closer to an old school soft tail in feel than a full sus which got me thinking. The frame is 1526g with shock which with a light set of wheels can't be far off an equivalent top end 29er hardtail frame and equivalent light 29er set of wheels/ tyres/ etc in terms of overall weight. Less rotational mass but perhaps less rolling ability compared to the 29er hardtail? The Swedish Chef was on the same frame previously I believe and feels the 29er is still faster but it just throws up even more variables in selecting the fastest bike which I find very interesting.

Where do 29er FS fit into the equation? The Olympic champion rode one after all...

Even more variables and even more interesting. Do we know if it was actually used as a full sus or did it have the shock pumped up rediculouly hard to function pretty much like a 29er hardtail? From the few races I saw it seemed to be pumped up super hard which my cynical mind couldn't help thinking might be a good advert for the full sus range but function pretty much like a 29er hardtail (albeit with a touch more frame weight). It is all interesting!

Specialized's pros ride a variety of bikes. I don't they'd force their top rider to use something he didn't want to.

I agree. I don't think anyone racing at that level would use anything that was detrimental to their performance. It did seem to be set up very firm though but it might have just been for those few races I watched.

can't be far off an equivalent top end 29er hardtail frame

You're giving away 600 grams in the frame over a light 29er hardtail, yes the wheels will be slightly heavier (<100g), tyres likewise, but it's still heavier.

It did seem to be set up very firm though but it might have just been for those few races I watched.

Guess it'll still move on the big hits - a course like Hadleigh doesn't really have many small hits. Had a look through my pics, but not got any decent ones where you can see Kulhavy's shock whilst descending.

Specialized's pros ride a variety of bikes. I don't they'd force their top rider to use something he didn't want to.

Specialized pros were told they're only allowed to ride 29ers 2/3 years ago, whilst the 26ers were still on the market.

Trek Factory Racing and their predecessors did the same, I mean look at Emily Batty's setup on that 29er, looks a compromise to me.

Giant riders also have to ride 27.5" this year. It appears that Scott are the only big brand to actually offer their riders choice, well Schurter and Vogel at least.

Nope, being pro means you ride what the marketing department want you to do. Specialized have been really good at this - new bike, bring in the best rider in the world to use, win world champs/olympics. Sauser and the Epic 26er (world champs), Cav + the venge(green jersey/worlds) and then Kulhavy with the Epic 29er(world champs/olympics).

I guess you could call that last bit conjecture though!

Hey Al - just remind me what you rode the last time you did the IoM E2E. The one where you knocked 30+mins off your time from the year before and went from about 110th to around 58th? 😉

To be fair though, I reckon that the kind of event like the IoM E2E, which is a mixture of road, gravel track and bridleway is where a 29er really excels over a 26er. From a personal point of view, I could live with the comparatively small 'losses' on the more technical sections because I reckon that the gains on the fast, open pedally sections will be pretty significant. It's a question of playing the percentages.
I suspect that the differences between 26er/29er will be much closer on a 'proper' technical XC race course that challenges handling ability and isn't just purely a test of who can pedal the hardest.

If you've ever entered a CX race on your 26" mtb then you'll know just how much harder it is to be competitive against the 700c opposition.

So do I want to make my pimp build 26 Ti HT and 96mm FS redundant/sell at massive loss for a 29er HT to pick up a max of 5 places midfield. Not worth it. If I threaten top 10 in supervets with my new training programme and increased age bracket (bet they're just as competitive as vets :() I probably would.

Can anyone ride a 29er HT for 12hour events?

Whilst not 12 hours, I rode a Niner Air 9 Carbon with Niner front fork at 10UTB and was fine. Also rode it at 24hr Relentless (along with an Orbea Occam) and was ditto fine.

At 10UTB I rode over 100 miles (just) on her and whilst I was cream crackered I rode Enduro Enduro the next day...

You will never be able to tell which is faster as even lap in lap out (on the Relentless) conditions changed and whilst the Niner always felt faster, the lap times were pretty consistent.

Adsh +1. You said it better than I could.

But like I said if the op were awash with cash there's nothing stopping him right? But he shouldnt expect a leap like the Sanity Assassin describes which is total BS - there's no way his story is on every single factor like for like between the two years with the exception of the fact his mate rode a 29er on year two. Talk about a blatantly pointless post.

Can anyone ride a 29er HT for 12hour events?

Seriously? Ant White uses one for solo 24s, as do plenty of riders. Ant does it particularly successfully.