Forum menu
I just figured out who I stole the athletic stance stuff from. It was @oliverdavey80
I see daveypushbikes.co.uk has disappeared which is a shame but you can still find his stuff cached if you want to look into more about his ideas on the Athletic Stance:
You mean "gravel" riding is actually XC?
RE early 90s bikes with too much weight over the front, that seemed to the the roadies/NORBA race influence in geometry once MTBs started to really take off - original ATBs (up to about 1988?) were much more upright with high-rise bars. By 1990 they were mostly low front ends and silly narrow bars, then by 97-ish we had North Shore influences, short stems and 2" rise, wide Azonic bars on XC/trail bikes again and were doing jumps on bikes you could ride 'XC' on. So the head-down XC period wasn't that long, almost a shorter period than longer front centre geometry has been evolving for?
I’m very active on the bike but when I ride a 29er it just feels like wasted effort most of the time.
What sort of 29er?
It's nice to see that the regular 'gravel bikes are 90s MTBs' thread hasn't completely disappeared. The gaps between its appearance are getting longer, but there are still occasional sightings of the thread. And this one has a bit of a bonus blast from the distant past as well - a claim that 26" is better than 29", with a hint of v-brakes are as good as discs.
It's like Xmas has come early.
Can we include 'baggies vs lycra' next week? Or 'front sus, is it any good?' Maybe 'helmet peaks, what's the point?'
I think we need to work through riser vs flat bar first don't we?
I think we need to work through riser vs flat bar first don’t we?
Oh yeah. But surely that was pre-internet, which is why I'd forgotten about it. 😀
How about starting with neon vs not-neon?
It’s nice to see that the regular ‘gravel bikes are 90s MTBs’ thread hasn’t completely disappeared.
I thought this was 'ATBs always had a place after all'? If it's a 'Gravel bikes are 90s MTBs' sneak-in, I'm out.
How about starting with neon vs not-neon?
Always neon. Goes for road bikes too.
Q should be 'Neon with or without splatter paint on top?' or 'Neon - with fades or not?'
Q should be ‘Neon with or without splatter paint on top?’ or ‘Neon – with fades or not?’
Even on the lycra?
Lycra can stay in the 90s please, neon or not
Lycra can stay in the 90s please, neon or not
But it was the best material to make cycling clothing out of back in the 90s, so if we are riding the same bikes, what's the objection? 😀
I have a very small peak on my helmet as a concession to modernity when I'm on the gravel bike.
a claim that 26″ is better than 29″
Never said that 26 is better. I said 26 was better if you like to ride your bike rather than sit on it and point it down the hill.
Go read Motorcycle Dynamics by Vottiore Cossalter and Motorcycle Handling and Chassis Design by Tony Foale and then we can have a discussion about which wheel size is better.
Only we won't because if you've read and understood these books you'll realise that what actually matters is the contact patches and how they pivot around certain points in space which is affected by numerous factors of which wheel size is just one.
with a hint of v-brakes are as good as discs.
XTR V-brakes are always going to be the best. That's just the way it is.
I had a Townsend 'pieceOshit' in 1990, then didn't have another bike until about 1998 which was a borrowed Raliegh Dyna-Tech that I used to ride to work on. So I can't really comment on 90's MTB's.
What I can say though, is that whilst my 2002 GT Avalanche with 100mm travel that I used to ride Warncliffe and Stainburn on was great, theres not a chance in hell I would pick it over ANY modern MTB/ATB/Gradventure bike!!
Never said that 26 is better. I said 26 was better if you like to ride your bike rather than sit on it and point it down the hill.
Veiled accusations of skills compensation as well. 😀
XTR V-brakes are always going to be the best. That’s just the way it is.
You could have had mine. They sold on ebay last year for peanuts. They were good. For v-brakes.
But it was the best material to make cycling clothing out of back in the 90s, so if we are riding the same bikes, what’s the objection? 😀
we're not riding the same bikes! : )
Go read Motorcycle Dynamics by Vottiore Cossalter and Motorcycle Handling and Chassis Design by Tony Foale and then we can have a discussion about which wheel size is better.
Totally different vehicles though. Esp compared to a rigid bike.
I said 26 was better if you like to ride your bike rather than sit on it and point it down the hill.
I like to ride my bike very much. I don't roll my 29er aimlessly down hill partly because it's very rocky here and one is fully rigid, and the other only has 100mm travel so I would smash wheels pretty quickly; but also because I like to pin the descents.
If you think 29ers are all about sitting passively on the bike it rather sounds like you're a rubbish rider 😉
Totally different vehicles though. Esp compared to a rigid bike
I'm assuming you haven't read them.
I mean, why would you. Absolutely nothing in either one has any relevance whatsoever to push bikes. Might as well be about bowling.
If you think 29ers are all about sitting passively on the bike it rather sounds like you’re a rubbish rider
Yeah, I'm not brilliant. My DH race results were bottom to mid pack (frequent bottler of jumps and drops) and the less said about my xc race results the better.
I get pleasure from reading the trail and feeling like I've squeezed every fraction of speed out of a section that I can. That means line choice, cornering, and pumping everything I can find.
I regularly ride 24", 26", and 27.5" (and 20" if you want to count BMX). As wheel size goes up it becomes less about wringing the back side of every rock and dip for all it's worth and more about pure line choice and cornering. It takes away part of my enjoyment.
The 29ers I've tried haven't even resulted in less fatigue and more speed, just less reaction to my inputs.
Saying that, I still haven't tried mullet so I might find that good. We'll see.
Can't we just summarise this by saying.
"Bikes are ace, we all like bikes, but not all of us have the same reasons for liking bikes and thinking they are ace"
Yep, I have ridden all sorts of bike over the last 25 years on gravel and easy off road. I now ride the square tapered, rim brake bike because it is as good to ride as any bike with modern cranks, disc brakes etc. as basically they make absolutely no difference when riding on gravel.
The only thing that makes any noticeable difference is the tyres so I use modern tubeless tyres.
The only thing that makes any noticeable difference is the tyres so I use modern tubeless tyres.
Which I think was my initial point. 9 times out of 10 the best bike is the one with the best tyres.
I get pleasure from reading the trail and feeling like I’ve squeezed every fraction of speed out of a section that I can. That means line choice, cornering, and pumping everything I can find.
Me too.
You understand there are many kinds of 29er right? And there are many kids of 26er too. I'm talking specifically about early 90s MTBs which were, for me, terrible. I didn't realise it at the time but it's very obvious now I have tried many alternatives.
Also, the sharpest handling bike I have owned is a 29er, it has a 70.5 degree head angle though.
Rode my brothers Grizl the other day. What a bike. Sooooo comfortable and just feels perfect.
I’m assuming you haven’t read them.
I mean, why would you. Absolutely nothing in either one has any relevance whatsoever to push bikes. Might as well be about bowling.
Not cover to cover recently no - Motorcycle Dynamics was a flip through the content and a few discussions with a test engineer who was using it at work, he reckoned it was hard going. Foale had more interesting content for me. There's some fundamental differences still and filtering for that to apply it to bikes isn't straightforward esp when it comes to the physics - I'm not going to pretend I'd flip a few formulas about and explain the exact relevance. If you can and have done on the wheels spec point I'm all ears, a bike nerd to the end.
Staying OT, an E-FS gets closer to motorbikes in some situs and have used similar approaches to wheel sizes, DH bikes have enough travel to negate wheel OD hence mullet bikes, but rigid ATBs.. give me the largest wheel that is a reasonable weight and doesn't disrupt geo/packaging too far, and the widest tyre that doesn't plane over the local mud.
If you can and have done on the wheels spec point I’m all ears, a bike nerd to the end.
If you do read it the most important parts are the first few chapters. That was because this is where the very basics of having a body with two wheels, one of which could pivot, were explained. This part is 100% relevant to pedal bikes as it's exactly the same for both motorbikes and pedal bikes.
Basically it comes down to mechanical trail (for both the front and rear wheels) and wheel flop being the most important factors. And, of course, how these numbers change and the handlebar angle changes and the bike angle changes and etc... That's what I mean by wheel size not being important for dynamics. Wheel size affects these numbers but it's the numbers that are important from a dynamics point of view, not the size of the wheels.
What we can say about wheels is that bigger wheels are going to hook up on things less and they are going to be more stable because they are heavier.
However, what is normally ignored is that the price of this better rolling and stability is that the rider's inputs have less effect. ie, generating speed through pumping is more difficult, both because the larger wheels reduces the size of the bumps and the heavier wheels mean it accelerates less when it is pumped.
The idea that you want to fit the largest wheels you can manage without upsetting the dynamics/packaging comes from motorbikes where the rider's input is going to be minimal anyway. The rider input on a pedal bike is by far the biggest factor.
Obviously, once the trail gets sufficiently gnarly, it gets to the point where you're just hanging on and rider input is pretty much limited to not crashing. Once you're at that point then it's time to look for some bigger wheels so that you can smooth out the trail and get back to searching out features that you can use to generate speed.
I always said if I moved to Northern Italy I was going to get a mullet Geometron set up with 200mm travel at both ends because when I ride their I'm spending 90% of my time not crashing rather than 'riding'. It's big, steep, chunky, and just generally ****ing gnarly.
My home trails just aren't on the same level. Even when I travel somewhere like Nesbyen or Åre the need for something that big just isn't there. I can still 'ride' most stuff and I'm probably only spending 10% of the time 'not crashing'.
It’s nice to see that the regular ‘gravel bikes are 90s MTBs’ thread hasn’t completely disappeared.
It's only a matter of time before bike designers see the light and start fitting 26" wheels to modern gravel bikes along with flat bars making the circle complete and allowing proper, skilled riders to enjoy gravel bikes instead of merely hanging on as they plough mindlessly across rock gardens... I think I've got that right? 😉
Isn't jameso the professional bike designer?
Re bigger wheels, on rough ground there is a stark difference between 26 and 29 particularly when climbing. After I rode my rigid 29er for a while then went back to my bling lightweight 26er I realised how much of a problem it was and I never rode it again.
My 29 XC bike is a fair bit heavier and the wheels are heavier too of course, but this is well worth the downsides for me. The increase in capability on rough ground and the better handling makes the bike much faster and more satisfying all round despite the extra couple of kg in weight. I can descend on it in a way that was not remotely possible on its predecessor.
There's a fairly long and well used descent near me on which I did a run scoring in the top 15 on Strava (out of a few thousand) which is unheard of for me. One day in the dry I hit the first 90 degree corner extra fast, leaned over and drifted the bike into the lump on the outside and carried loads of speed, so I kept going. If I'd tried that on any of the 26ers I'd owned before that I'd have been on my face because the front wheel would have just washed out immediately.
Said 29er is also the sharpest and most responsive handling bike I've had. I really don't care about an extra 300g on the wheels any more.
When I ride the bit of gravel to the gym, or ride to the pub, I take this (posted a few times, so apologies if it's getting boring). Was the dogs danglies in the 90's, but does feel a bit odd getting on it now.
Can lock the back up and endo with 1 finger braking on the Avid V brakes though
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52054566010_bb3b980104_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52054566010_bb3b980104_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://www.flickr.com/gp/85252658@N05/0h0iJ4Fe5i ]DSC00400[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr
Isn’t jameso the professional bike designer?
Yes, I often see that appeal to authority whenever we start discussing something (admittedly not normally from him, normally it's someone else doing it on his behalf).
If I’d tried that on any of the 26ers I’d owned before that I’d have been on my face because the front wheel would have just washed out immediately.
As I said earlier, when I switched from late-90s bikes to mid-00s bikes I had the same problem. I was used to descending in an Athletic Stance (see the blog I linked to earlier) and found this meant if I crashed, 9 times out of 10 it was a front wheel washout.
I had to change my stance so my back was a lot more horizontal which made it easier to load the front wheel.
Now I just descend in that position even though my modern geometry bike would probably allow me to return to the athletic stance which would have a lot of advantages. It's just habit now.
Yes, I often see that appeal to authority whenever we start discussing something
More like appeal to experience - which is valid, isn't it? Are you saying he doesn't know what he's talking about and you do?
Back in the day I used to try and put my weight over the front wheel to avoid washout, but this never worked very well, because then the front wheel simply has to do more work. Also, since the bike is pivoting around the rear wheel, you're effectively creating a much larger moment of inertia around that pivot by moving your weight forward. On long sweeping turns on fire road this wasn't an issue, but it doesn't work at all on tight windy corners. This was demonstrated to me riding the trail I think it's called Seagull or maybe Tank Traps at Swinley, which is a very tight slalom. Moving your weight forwards makes it really hard to ride fast, the only way to do it is with your weight over the back wheel. Then the front can swing to the left and right easily.
In my experience the solution to having to weight the front wheel is to have it further away from your centre of mass so it has more leverage on the system and therefore needs less weight on it. As I said earlier I have an old 26er (2007 Patriot) with adjustable geometry that can be set with a 64.5 degree HA. It corners what I would consider 'properly' in that it is well balanced and drifts in a useful way - but only when the saddle is down. With the saddle raised, it's shit because my weight's far too high up. Despite the bike having small wheels, it really works in cornering. The only issue there is that the seat angle ends up being about 72 degrees and whilst the cockpit length is ok, the BB is just too far forward. In the steeper setting the HA is I think about 66 or 67 degrees and whilst it's better for climbing and general handling you just cannot get low behind the front wheel and smash through stuff as well.
Of course, purists might well say this is lazy and boring and yes, if you are going at the same speed then such a riding position would be boring. But the point about getting low and smashing through is that it enables you to go much more quickly. I've done plenty of picking my way down rocks on a carefully chosen line - in fact I do this a lot today, on my rigid bike - but with 170mm of travel you still have to do that to ride well, you just need to be going much faster.
There's a very rocky washed out trail not far from me that zig-zags down the mountain. On a rigid bike I'm picking my way through rocks, but on a long travel bike I'm launching off rocks and hitting berms about 3x as fast. Same trail, different bikes, different ways to get the most out of it.
Incidentally, I'm 5'11. If you're 5'6 then 26 inch wheels are equivalent to about 28 inch for me, tyre size variations notwithstanding. It is quite possible that those old bikes fit you far better than they did me and you never experienced the perilous feeling of being perched over the front wheel like I did.
More like appeal to experience – which is valid, isn’t it?
No, it's a logical fallacy people use. It adds nothing to the discussion and the only reason to do so is to devalue someone's contribution based on nothing.
Are you saying he doesn’t know what he’s talking about and you do?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Obviously.
Back in the day I used to try and put my weight over the front wheel to avoid washout, but this never worked very well, because then the front wheel simply has to do more work.
I read that, then I read everything that follows. I think all I can really say is OK.
We have very different body shapes (think you said you were 6ft whereas I'm 5'5") and it sounds like very different riding styles (which is to be expected given the difference in body shapes) so any discussion we have about bikes and technique is most likely going to be like comparing apples to combine harvesters.
Getting low isn't really an issue for me. I'm already pretty low to begin with and I have an extremely string posterior chain which means I can hold my upper body horizontally for as long as it needs to stay there.
It could simply be that in the late 90s bikes were being built for people my shape and now they're being built for people your shape?
I found in the mid-00s I had to move away from the athletic stance and go to a more crouched position with a much more aggressive lean forward, which did affect how quickly I could shift my position but it was the only way to avoid front wheel wash out.
I've tried to divine the reason from your comments, but I must have missed it - What do you think was the cause of this change?
......... and endo with 1 finger braking on the Avid V brakes though
That's cos the HA is nearly as steep as my CX bike with an 8 mile long stem 😉
While we're on it, WTF is an athletic stance?
It could simply be that in the late 90s bikes were being built for people my shape and now they’re being built for people your shape?
Well I alluded to this but not directly - they still made XL bikes in those days (I usually bought L) but I think that they simply made them taller which is clearly not great. I think that if you're shorter those old bikes work better for you so you might well be wondering wtf other people are talking about.
Also I think I just got your username.
endo with 1 finger braking on the Avid V brakes though
Much easier to endo when you're perched over the front wheel, mind.
I'm not saying V brakes weren't powerful at times, but they were heavily affected by conditions, wore inconsistently and trashed your rims.
I’ve tried to divine the reason from your comments, but I must have missed it – What do you think was the cause of this change?
I suspect it was because they were starting to get if you slackened the head angle and lengthened the front end it was better. Unfortunately they wanted to keep the wheelbase similar so they did their best to tuck the back wheel as directly under your arse as they could. Suddenly all the weight was on the back wheel if you used the same posture you had when front wheel was also closer. Cue front wheel washout hilarity.
While we’re on it, WTF is an athletic stance?
I linked further up the page:
I just figured out who I stole the athletic stance stuff from. It was @oliverdavey80
I see daveypushbikes.co.uk has disappeared which is a shame but you can still find his stuff cached if you want to look into more about his ideas on the Athletic Stance:
Basically it comes down to mechanical trail (for both the front and rear wheels) and wheel flop being the most important factors. And, of course, how these numbers change and the handlebar angle changes and the bike angle changes and etc… That’s what I mean by wheel size not being important for dynamics. Wheel size affects these numbers but it’s the numbers that are important from a dynamics point of view, not the size of the wheels.
Yeah I'm fairly comfortable with all those relationships within the limits of my maths, I have questions on how various combos that give the same trail or steering feedback might vary in some other respects in cornering, Qs that I can't answer yet but all in all I think I get it. I appreciate that trail and flop can be the same across 2 quite different steering geometries and different wheel sizes and trail + flop is a significant part of handling feel. But I'd say wheelsize is an important part of the steering system because though you can have the same trail or flop numbers across 2 different OD wheels you can't do it without adjusting offset and/or HTA, thf changing weight distribution between fork/bars and contact patch. For a bike ime/imo the starting point is weight distribution vs the wheels and range of rider movement or C of G, where small changes can be important in balancing it all up. We're heavier than our bikes and can influence handling with our weight hugely.
Although you can have the same trail and wheel flop on 2 different wheel sizes, the radius of the wheel and the 'cone' it forms when cornering (assuming both tyres are same width) will be different, so there should be some change in handling influence there - one of the Qs that's past limits of my mental model or maths though but I'd like to get the right model set up in CAD to look at it.
I'm not a motorbike chassis engineer (I'm not sure I'd describe myself as a bike designer as such, I work with a range of bike stuff inc frame designs) and I don't know just how different the considerations there are. 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing' etc.. But while I appreciate how trail and flop is important in bike handling and it can be balanced independently of wheel size, I don't see how wheel spec can be separated out from steering, weight distribution, rolling efficiency, packaging and rider fit and so on when it comes to a bike design overall. It's like the mistakes of focusing on head angle, or reach last year, or chainstay length a few years ago to sum up a bike - it's all linked.
It could simply be that in the late 90s bikes were being built for people my shape and now they’re being built for people your shape?
Having said what I did about weight distribution, yes I think this is key. There will be a terrain chunkiness, bike + wheel dims and rider size balancing point for you that's different for you than it is for someone well over 6'.
One one hand I'd say the wheels don't care how tall you are, all that matters is mass and momentum and in that respect a bigger wheel can roll with less resistance - but where your C of G is and how (where) you can move about on the bike is also part of whether you feel like you're flowing or not. Plough through Vs cut n paste sort of thing.
Don't think I'd disagree with anything you're saying, although I remember having the discussion with you about the contact patch cone shape for different wheel sizes before. I'm still a bit skeptical about whether the difference would be noticeable, tbh, but I'm prepared to be proven wrong 🙂
My main point is that there isn't a 'good' wheel size or a 'bad' wheel size, even for use on the same terrain. If you wanted to keep the mechanical trail and flop numbers the same for a 26" and a 29" bike (through all bike and steering angles) I'm not even sure if that would be possible. I suspect not.
There are almost certainly some set ups that might not be possible on a 26" setup but that goes both ways.
So yeah, wheel size is important but it's just one factor in the main numbers we're interested in.
We’re heavier than our bikes and can influence handling with our weight hugely.
Definitely. Also, as the wheelbase increases and the wheel size increases our ability to affect the handling with our weight shifts is reduced.
Again, there are positives and negatives to this. It's going to come down the rider's shape and weight and to personal preference.
It’s like the mistakes of focusing on head angle, or reach last year, or chainstay length a few years ago to sum up a bike – it’s all linked.
Again, definitely. Which is why I get annoyed when people say 26" wheels make bikes bad. It's impossible to reduce everything to a single factor, and some of us just tend towards a preference for smaller wheels and bikes that react more to our weight shifts.
Some of us real perverts even like 24" 🙂
One one hand I’d say the wheels don’t care how tall you are
Indeed, I know people the same height as BruceWee on 29ers who're happy. They may me making a trade-off between roll-over efficiency and handling, but that is simply one of many trade-offs we all make with our bikes.
My main point is that there isn’t a ‘good’ wheel size or a ‘bad’ wheel size, even for use on the same terrain.
Hmm.. I think that in some areas the negatives of small light wheels are so significant that they easily outweigh any benefits. For me, my 26er was slightly quicker on some steep smooth climbs than my first 29er, but I couldn't actually get up some of the rocky climbs that characterise this area. It took me three goes to clean it, where I'd been doing it every time on the 29er. That's a major downside. And even when I did clean it, it was a thrutchy mess rather than a good challenge.
In any case, my assertion wasn't that 26 is bad, it's that early 90s MTBs were bad. For people around my height I'll stand by that! I think that the move to larger wheels forced geometry changes that were also beneficial for other reasons.
I think that the move to larger wheels forced geometry changes that were also beneficial for other reasons.
Definitely.
But I also think many people are mistaking correlation with causation and attributing improved dynamics solely to the wheel size change.