- This topic has 73 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by padansk.
-
So, why doesn't anyone ride 24" wheels then ?
-
KahurangiFull Member
If that was the case, there wouldn’t be so many 26 v 29 threads.
What, like this one? Started by a 29er convert attempting to foist his opinion on the rest? 😉
I am amused by how many 29er/singlespeed/fatbike riders harp on about how amazeballs their steed is and how stupid they are for not having abandones their old bikes for one. Mostly I’m too busy riding my bikes to listen. 🙂
martinxyzFree MemberIf other people are doing the sort of riding where they feel that smaller is better, why are they so attached to 26″ ?
I’m so attatched to 26 for the sort of riding I do because after buying 29ers and 26ers I’ve come to the conclusion that the majority of each of my rides benefits from the acceleration of the 26 inch wheeled bikes throughout many sections of the rides I do. Long slow drags of climbs to rougher steep climbs and everything else inbetween just doesn’t work as well for me having to accelerate the 29 inch wheel (both light set-ups with flows,pro2’s and tubelessed non-tubeless tyres and a few other wheel types I’ve had on other bikes over the past 5 years) but none of them enhance the MAJORITY of the rides enough for me to stick with 29.
I do love the feel of the 29inch wheel when up to speed as far as stability goes. It’s definately better for me than 26. Problems in ‘switchbacks’ has never and will never be a problem with a 29 inch wheel so no problems with 26 or 29 there.. but when I mention ‘majority’ I look at the big picture of the reality of each of my rides and it turns out that its such a small percentage of the ride where I would want/need/benefit from the 29inch wheel as I can continue to accelerate the 26 and keep it spinning up far easier than the 29 on most climbs. Any extra footprint of a 29er tyre for climbing is neither here nor there as I’ve always been happy with my ability to find traction where most others bail out. So that leaves the small portion of my rides being the downhills. I’d rather a bigger wheel for most downhill stuff but when the descents last 15-20 mins over a 4 hour ride, a bigger wheel is something I won’t be fitting for all I’ll be needing it for.
Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition
Latest Singletrack VideosFresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...TiRedFull MemberThat Cannondale is lovely. And in the spirit of balance here’s a FS 20″
I cut my MTB teeth on this. It was fun (if a little heavy). Nichetastic – come on how many other Alfine hubbed 20″ FS bikes can you name 😉 . Sadly it’s days are over, as it was stolen. I suspect it might turn up again one day, as they only sell about 10-20 per year!
MidlandTrailquestsGrahamFree MemberWhat, like this one? Started by a 29er convert attempting to foist his opinion on the rest?
I thought I made it clear at the start that a 29er suits my type of riding.
I’m all for different people doing different things, but as I’m not in to DH and I keep hearing from people who are that 26″ is better than 29″ because it’s smaller, I can’t help wondering why 24″ wouldn’t be even betterer.martinxyz, good explanation of why you’re attached to 26ers, except that you only compare it with 29ers and make no mention of 24ers, which is kind of my point. Why do most riders completely overlook them as an option ?
Those 20″ mountain bikes are exactly what I had in mind. I’ve never seen one before.
Why did they never catch on ?
Moultons were banned from road racing because they are too good.
Are there any trails where a 20er is definitely an advantage ?stumpy01Full Membermartinxyz, good explanation of why you’re attached to 26ers, except that you only compare it with 29ers and make no mention of 24ers, which is kind of my point. Why do most riders completely overlook them as an option ?
How much of an option are they?
How many shops stock/sell 24″ wheel mountain bikes? I just did a quick search and could only find kids bikes.
I can’t think of one bike shop I have been in that sells mountain bikes with a 24″ wheel.It’s like asking ‘why do people overlook cars with wankel rotary engines?’…….
Or ‘why do people overlook 3-slot toasters?’ocriderFull MemberTHIS came to my atttention when I was looking at the link on the Banshee frames thread earlier. Proper niche-breaker, that one.
grumFree MemberWhat Northwind said.
I’m all for different people doing different things, but as I’m not in to DH and I keep hearing from people who are that 26″ is better than 29″ because it’s smaller, I can’t help wondering why 24″ wouldn’t be even betterer.
The argument works just the same the other way. If 29 is better than 26, then why not 32? The reasons you have in the OP are nothing that couldn’t be overcome if there was a great advantage to even bigger wheels.
MidlandTrailquestsGrahamFree Member29″ is a realistic maximum, taking in to account fork travel, handlebar height, wheelbase, toe overlap and so on.
Followed by
If 29 is better than 26, then why not 32?
MidlandTrailquestsGrahamFree MemberHow much of an option are they?…
Good point, if the bikes aren’t being made, no one’s going to buy them. If no one’s buying them, the manufacturers aren’t going to make them.
If, as so many 26er riders think, 29ers are just a gimmick to sell more bikes, then aren’t the manufacturers missing a trick here by not pushing 24ers as the next big thing ?
cookeaaFull MemberI used to use 24″ wheels on a DJ bike for quite some time, they were great for that particular application, the bike was more flickable and easier to chuck about I got my X-ups nicely clicked (Bar spins and all the clever stuff was always beyond me though). The bike was great fun to ride on a fair few “Normal” trails too although it did beat you up after a while…
But TBH, ultimately 26″ wheels made more sense as I moved back towards a more all round HT riding and needed a jump bike less and less.
I’ve just built myself up a cheap Jump bike up again, using 26″ wheels (cos I had some spare) but I’d not discount the idea of fitting 24″ to it later on…
TBH Wheel sizes only really a dividing issue for the hard of thinking, for the rest of the planet it’s a mildly interesting topic of discussion…
grumFree Member29″ is a realistic maximum, taking in to account fork travel, handlebar height, wheelbase, toe overlap and so on.
Followed by
If 29 is better than 26, then why not 32?
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/forum-etiquette-people-who-obviously-havent-read-the-questionI like the way you missed out this bit, where I already dealt with your (spurious) initial premise:
‘The reasons you have in the OP are nothing that couldn’t be overcome if there was a great advantage to even bigger wheels.’
You’ve decided 29″ is a realistic maximum to support your argument/opinion – that doesn’t mean it is.
stumpy01Full MemberIf, as so many 26er riders think, 29ers are just a gimmick to sell more bikes, then aren’t the manufacturers missing a trick here by not pushing 24ers as the next big thing ?
Do they think it’s JUST (as in the sole reason) a gimmick to sell more bikes??
The way I see it; for some 29er bikes make sense. They work.
Until recently though, 26er bikes were selling OK, so there was no point in pushing something ‘new’. People were happy with buying the ‘standard’. Easier to churn out the same old stuff if people are lapping it up…why spend thousands on R&D, marketing etc. on the ‘new’ thing, when the ‘old’ thing is selling well enough??Then sales start to drop off. People for whatever reason aren’t buying as many ‘standard’ bikes anymore.
So, the 29er takes up the slack…..it’s been sat on the side lines for a while. Time to polish it up, start heralding it as the ‘new bestest thing’ and market the nuts off it. People start looking at the little wheel bikes sat in the garage & those that are curious enough/can afford it/want the latest thing etc. go and buy new bikes.Might be garbage, but that’s the way it seems to me…
brantFree MemberIs the On-One 24″ the Geoff Apps design?
no.
I looked long and hard at the highpath/cleland thing and aside from BB height (which is quite a big “aside” I’ll grant you) the geometry actually isn’t that odd, and the position comes about from the bar/stem position rather than anything odd about the frame. Top tube lengths are contemporary.
cookeaaFull MemberThe only Real reason for the bike industry settling on the 29er wheel size for MTBs rather than 32″ or 31.657″ is that it uses a pretty well supported extant rim size (622mm) as used on Road/Touring/Hybrid/CX bikes already. if anything it’s a harmonization of standards.
So it wasn’t a massive leap to get rim and tyre manufacturers looking at wider knobbly tyres for a wheel size they were already familiar with and tooled up for, the 29er isn’t so much a technological leap as an exercise in logic and experimentation I’m sure Eureka moment as a bit like:
“Hey we’ve got these slightly bigger diameter rims that we already use all over the place with skinnier tyres and everything we know about the physics of bicycles tells us larger wheels roll better, why not try the idea out with a chunkier tyre on am MTB?”
And hey presto it worked!
I don’t think the 29er “conspiracies” really started until the likes of Specialized cottoned on. Once those Evil corporations get hold of a good idea the buggers only go and try selling it to consumers like some sort of product or something! Disgusting!
24″ wheels have their established MTB Niches anyway on DJ and Street bikes because there are benefits for those applications, and of course there’s Cruiser-BMXes…
Just because MBR haven’t gotten all frothy about something doesn’t mean that somene somewhere isn’t trying it out already.
650b is the devils work though!
ampthillFull MemberI thought I made it clear at the start that a 29er suits my type of riding.
I’m all for different people doing different things, but as I’m not in to DH and I keep hearing from people who are that 26″ is better than 29″ because it’s smaller, I can’t help wondering why 24″ wouldn’t be even betterer.I think that’s just being obtuse. Know one is saying the smaller the wheel the better, they are saying of 26 and 29 they prefer the smaller. I know that you said you though we couldn’t go larger than 29 but that’s not true we could build 30 inch bikes perhaps 31 or 32. Its just diminishing returns. Presumably the same is true in the other direction
Perhaps what’s amazing is that the debate has honed in such a small range of sizes, a roughly 10% difference
I’ve only ridden one 29 er the rest of my life has been on 26 inch wheels. From All I’ve read my conclusion is that mainly we are splitting hairs. We know roughly what size the wheels should be. The rest is fine tuning for personal preference
edoverheelsFree MemberI use a 24″ rigid jump bike as a as winter bike. Just adjusted the gearing so that I can get it uphill. Just walk the dog with it but good fun coming down.Really good off little lips etc but rubbish brakes mean that you are often in a panic.
Stevet1Free MemberP’ah 20″ wheels You guys are so out of touch.
(From retrobike thread here DMR Display)
mudriderFree MemberA Geoff Apps designed Cleland Dingbat circa 1987.
Originally intended for competing in Trials events but the Dingbat also made a reasonable off-road tourer when fitted with wide range gears.
Not a true 24″ wheeled bike but the very fat rear tyre and the slim front one have outside diameters of about 24″.
mudriderFree MemberWhilst I love the innovative nature of the “LoopWheel” concept I do have concerns regarding the lateral and rotational rigidity of the wheels. Especially the rear wheel where the “LoopWheels” do not appear to form a rotationally rigid structure between the hub and the rim. There are also issues relating to braking as the rim would move relative to the frame/forks, making rim brakes problematic. Whilst disk or hub brakes would cause the leaf-springs to flex so that the rims to rotate relative to the hubs. The fact that the suspension is not constrained to a particular suspension travel direction is interesting and should provide good shock absolution for a wide variety of different impact angles.
Not a bike for riding up and down hills and hard braking I suspect?
kimbersFull Memberyou say that 29 inch is the maximum and optimal wheel size because of fork/bar height etc, but have you tried 30 inch 31.5?
nah you’re just talking bobbins
and as fabien barel has stated 29ers are slower than 26ers
epicycloFull MemberThere’s a great argument in “The Hub” cycling magazine about the merits of smaller wheels.
Only in this case it’s about whether 28″ wheels are as good as 30″ wheels, and it’s 1899. 🙂
MrAgreeableFull MemberThere’s some great stuff in that Cleland Cycles photostream – makes you wonder where the sport would have gone if not for the Klunker influence winning out.
Also shows some of the pitfalls of being an early adopter.
mudriderFree MemberMr Agreeable – Member
There’s some great stuff in that Cleland Cycles photostream – makes you wonder where the sport would have gone if not for the Klunker influence winning out.
Also shows some of the pitfalls of being an early adopter.
In British school/Cleland circles the wheel-size debate was effectively over by 1990. We had 650b x 54mm wide bikes from 1979. 700c x 47mm bikes from 1981 and 24″ wheeled Dingbats from 1987. There was even a prototype known as the Rat with a 26″ front wheel and a 20″ rear. We also tried Alex Moulton’s 1988′ 20″ full suspension ATB model and developed front suspension for 650b. We knew that the effectiveness of a wheel size is totally dependent on the terrain being ridden. That on smooth hard terrain all wheel sizes worked fine but smaller wheel bikes were more maneuverable. Also that thin tyre clad large wheels cut efficiently through mud and snow and that fat large low pressure tyres worked best on soft soils, sand and also rocky terrain. The big no-no was small wheels on soft terrain because the rolling resistance was horrendous and left a rut deep enough for BT to lay their phone cables.
The Cleland Dingbat demonstrates a high degree of understanding, with its thin front tyre for slicing through the mud to find grip and its fatBike style very wide/low pressure rear tyre to gain maximum traction.
In Cleland, Highpath and English Cycles circles it was the 650b size that predominated for general purpose use. But this was because at 54mm wide it offered better flotation effect than the larger 700c x 47 tyres. Geoff Apps says that he really wanted tyres at least 700c x 2.5″ wide. This is the size his modern Cleland TT uses, a size that was completely unavailable of back then.
The topic ‘So, why doesn't anyone ride 24" wheels then ?’ is closed to new replies.