Forum menu
Yeah, I think that's a throwback tbh, it used to be that bikes were mostly shorter so it was hard to squeeze 2 clownwheels in. Now a lot of bikes are getting longer anyway
Not all, o'course, my medium bmc is almost as long as an XL mojo hd3 but that's not because of wheels, BMC's new 650b bike is more or less the same length, because more longs = more enduros. I don't have many proper supertight hairpins round here tbh but I've not run into any problems yet...
(aside; for years, ChrisL has used his XL bike's epic wheelbase as an excuse for not getting round corners. Boot's on the other foot now!)
My Canfield YS and Whyte T129 are the most fun/snappy bike's I've ever ridden.
I'd say the Whyte is even easier in twisty stuff then my Stooge.
The geometry is spot on and I found it easier to maneuver around the local wood loop (very tight twisty stuff) than the 650b Five I had.
At BPW the Whyte was at it's limits though and I could have really done with more travel, either in 650b or 29er flavor. I was the only 29er there!
I think it comes down to design, rather than wheelsize.
I got the impression a few years ago that some manufacturers were hoping to standardise on 650b for adult bikes as it was the biggest you could go and still make all types of bike for all sizes of grown-up.
Now they seem to have cracked the mid-travel 29er suspension design, so that's one of the issues dealt with, but 29" is still not ideal for DH and tiddlypeeps.
Meanwhile, there are now enough bigger is better folk out there to ensure that 29" won't die, the question is will it stay in the mainstream or revert to niche beardyness? The hybrid bike will stay in bike shops of course, by another name and a few changes of kit a 29er hardtail.
Overall I would say 650b to stay in the mainstream with 29er, 26" to become niche for jumpies and shorties. There needs to be a size in the shops between 20" and 650b for kids, 24" is more in the middle than 26".
Ditto Cokie
My Whyte (SCR Flavour) Is much fun and has caught me out a couple of times with the speed. I didn't notice any difficulty on the tight climbs at Cannock but it's just a great ride.
I have mine at 130mm (going home now to lower some FOX 34 140)
Great bike
The hybrid bike will stay in bike shops of course, by another name and a few changes of kit a 29er hardtail.
I love it when people underestimate my rigid El-mariachi or the swift previously. Makes it all the sweeter riding a few inches off their tyre the whole way down the trail they bullishly asked if they could go down ahead.
I'm not even that good!
p.s. there are plenty of 26" 'hybrid' bikes
Shirley the next phase is mixed wheel size frames, meaning all sizes will remain relevant to some extent... ❓
Few people are already doing this Chum3- most notable is Liteville. They mix their tyre sizes according to frame size. It's a neat idea but I'd personally want the option of running full 29er or 650b, as well as the Liteville mix.
Been tried before, it never really takes off, despite it making quite a bit of sense.
The problem comes when no one can quite articulate what each wheel should do. Take an average hardtail, it has front suspension, so a 29ers roll-over-ability isn't needed there and we'd like a lower front end, so a 650b front wheel, then the back, you logically want shorter stays, so you put 650b there too. No, wait, you want 29er at the back as there's no suspension so it needs to roll over stuff, but we also want more control up front, best put 29" there too to stop it bouncing around so much.
Hence why we had 69ers, 96ers, 46'ers and everything inbetween.
I think the reality is that most people would be happy with FS bikes with chainstays between 43cm and 44cm. Which conveniently will fit a 29er or 650b wheel and up front it's just a case of picking a bar height and compromising between travel and wheel size. Even back in the days of 26" being the only option and we went all longer/lower/slacker, chainstays were 42cm.
I'm sure the marketeers will make some sense out of it!
I much prefer the ride of my 5 29er to that of my previous Trance 27.5.
Nothing to do with wheel size .... Never has been.
More to do with geometry and fit.
Some people fit different sizes better than others.
Mine is looooong though !!
[URL= http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y33/renton1/Mobile%20Uploads/IMAG0465_zpslrox0xnq.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y33/renton1/Mobile%20Uploads/IMAG0465_zpslrox0xnq.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
I hear about slow speed handling being a problem with 29ers. I hear it so often that it must be true, but I just can't feel it.
I'm still convinced it's all the Pink Bike kiddies who haven't actually ridden one, let alone a decent one.
Don't forget, the technical term is "flickability", I think this was introduced by the same person that also introduced words like... "stiction" "edit" and "shredding" 🙄
fibreI'm still convinced it's all the Pink Bike kiddies who haven't actually ridden one, let alone a decent one.
Don't forget, the technical term is "flickability", I think this was introduced by the same person that also introduced words like... "stiction" "edit" and "shredding"
Keep telling yourself that.
Still love riding my 29er.......but there again, I'm a 2 wheels on the ground, scardy cat mincer.
Enduro 29er the best bike I've ever owned in 30 years. Shines on steep and tight stuff.
Yes, you heard me, tight stuff.
I hear about slow speed handling being a problem with 29ers. I hear it so often that it must be true, but I just can't feel it.
If it was true there would have to be a scientific reason for it, the only thing could be increased wheel mass, or something to do with the longer footprint of the wheels on the ground (ie the increased roll over removing sensation of small bumps or something), or the larger wheels being flexible, or I think the most likely being the bike in question being ridden that gave rise to the quote having poor geometry.
Given how easily myths are propagated and persist on the internet, soundbites to this effect from earlier 29ers will persist continuously, especially places like pinkbike comments sections, stw and I think this is the main reason you'll keep hearing it, as you are seeing in this thread for example. If the first 29ers were the current breed of new long, slack, low 29ers I don't think anyone would be talking about it.
29ers do feel like 29ers though, it's a bigger wheel so is a wee bit heavier and things like balance point for manuals/wheelies are different than for smaller wheels, apart from other differences like the better rollover. I'd like to have a go on an XL Scout as it has very similar geometry to my smuggler, would be a good way of comparing wheel size effect.
The wheelbase on my bike is longer than many DH bikes so does need a bit more planning to get round very tight corners, but it is only slightly longer than the 27.5 Scout, so I don't think that would feel any different.
In some ways 29ers are more forgiving at slow speed - especially on techy trails where the big wheels are more likely to bridge a gap than get wedged in it.
But then in others they can feel a tad cumbersome, hard to generalise though when bikes are all so different.
That never stopped anybody trying of course.
People want different things.
People will moan.
People like different things.
People don't necessarily like better.
You can't please everyone.
People want the moon on a stick and kick up a stink when they don't get it.
People are stupid.
As if wheel size is even a debate, it's a bike, it does what you tell it to. (i own many wheel sizes, they're all bikes)
have you seen bikes like the 29er Orange-5 and the Enduro-29 in the flesh?....they're flipping massive!....like DH dimensions silly, trying to force one round hairpin uphill bends on a singletrack trail wasn't fun.
Two totally different bikes, and the E29 has shorter chainstays and a steeper head angle than most trail/enduro 26ers, so inability to corner uphill on thay bike isn't a bike issue, its a rider issue.
Short chain stays or not it was still a long bike for me....for context I ride a 26 inch wheeled HT, the Enduro-29er I demoed felt cumbersome at slow speed....i'm sure there is an element of rider error at play, it wasn't my bike after all and I'm sure i'd get used to it and learn to get it up and around switchbacks like my current bike....but it was not the revelatory 'eureka' type of intuitive ride 29er evangelists rave about, like everything there is a certain knack to riding a HT, a DH bike, a 29er, a BMX etc etc....they don't all ride the same and as much as some people hate to admit it, no bike is perfect and they all have their foibles....it tends to cloud people's judgement when they have thousands invested in 'their' bike and they won't hear a bad word said about it.
THing is though, the enduro and five are massive by design, not because of the wheels
(mine is actually 5mm longer than the Five, at 1173mm... The Enduro's not really that big for a long travel 29er, it's very similiar to the stereo and remedy frinstance. The only longer medium 29er I know of, is the Ion. (and it's damn nearly 2 inches longer than my medium Hemlock even in long travel, raked out angleset mode)
I've had no issues with it on switchbacks personally- after all, bigger peopel ride bigger bikes. But I've not tried it on any realllly tight ones yet. It's very stable and composed which balances out the size a lot, turning it harder doesn't feel troublesome. Where I find the difference really noticable, is in squiggly singletrack.... It's not so much cumbersome, it's just not where I think it is, I'm forever turning too fast or too slow or misjudging apexes etc. Not helped by probably going a wee bit faster too. It's not what I expected, I think I'm getting the hang of it but that's the only place I've felt intrusive negatives. It's kind of doubly annoying, because you feel like a fanny screwing up easy trails 😆
Different bikes....
but my Blur LTc 26" is about the same length as my Rocky Element 29", the element isn't cumbersome, lots of people waffle on about having to lean more into corners - seem like those people never pushed a 26" bike properly.
The long travel 29r is still evolving after starting with the quick wins in XC, I don't reckon it's on the way out, lots of people seem to have some fixed rules in their head about height, style ans intent. Chuck out the rules and pre-conceptions and try some stuff. Also remember that when we just had 26" bikes nobody blamed the wheels for a bad bike...
(aside; I looked it up, the bmc's only 8mm shorter than my 224 Evo was. And it's 20mm longer than my medium Herb DH was. Holy ****. DH bikes have grown too mind but still. No wonder it's not the wheels that define it.)
I don't reckon it's on the way out
Neither do I, boost hubs will go someway to solving the flexy 29er wheels issue....and then I can see designers wanting another crack at DH bikes with 29 inch wheels.
I guess I just like small bikes, this whole 'size up' and 'long and low' thing seems to be passing me by!
Low, slack and compact for me please.
I was surprised when I checked out the wheelbase of the latest Five. The large is a full 40mm longer than the equivalent 26" Five from two years ago. It's an inch longer than the XL from a couple of years back!
It also makes me wonder about those people who derided early 29ers for just being far too long. If we could go back in time and give them a modern 650B trail bike (which would be longer than most of those 29ers), would they also think it far too long?
There's a lot of talk about long wheelbases and slack angles being the cause of slow unresponsive handling on 29ers, but having just looked at the Orange website a large 5 29 has a 1189mm wheelbase and a HA of 66.5. My current Alpine 160 (2012 26 model) has a wheelbase of 1200 and a 64.5 head single and doesn't feel unresponsive or sluggish (apart from the rider).
I recently had the chance to ride a large Five 29 around the Verderers trail at FOD and loved it (although they are massive). Sure it steamrollered all the smaller bumps, but by the gods it was fast, took a little while to get the hang of it but if I was in the market for a new bike it would have been right up there(if they still made it) with the new Alpine (27.5). I just think 29ers are different and 27.5 is similar to 26 so less adjustment is needed. I have only ridden a few 27.5 bikes bug they do seem like they roll faster than my Alpine. When just rolling down a road the GF on her Capra out accelerates me and she's 25kg lighter, on her previous 26 Covert gravity and my extra mass usually had me shooting off ahead of her (note, both on similar tyres at the time).
If we could go back in time and give them a modern 650B trail bike (which would be longer than most of those 29ers), would they also think it far too long?
Yep, don't forget a few years ago people were mocking 680mm bars for being far too wide, people will always diss things they don't like whether they are right or wrong.