29er

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:36:39 -0800 (PST),
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 18 Feb, 06:52, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:47:14 -0800 (PST), DirtRoadie
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Feb 17, 9:08 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:59:31 -0800 (PST), DirtRoadie
>>
>> >> Dear DR,
>>
>> >> Please re-read my post--you're repeating my point.
>>
>> >I am? I asserted that a 29er is likely to have a clear benefit in
>> >avoiding endos. But you appeared to have taken just the opposite
>> >position, suggesting that it is likely the over-exuberance of a new
>> >29er owner in "feeling" such things.
>>
>> >> Briefly, if you raise nothing but the axles, then there's no effect on
>> >> braking because the center of gravity rises just as much.
>>
>> >You have created a nonsensical "strawman" by merely (in theory)
>> >putting larger (29") wheels on the same (26") frame. That hardly
>> >helps explain OR challenge what may be happening on a frame which is
>> >purposely built to accomodate the 29" wheels.
>>
>> >> So either there's no effect on braking and endos, or the bottom
>> >> bracket has to be moved, changing the center of gravity.
>>
>> >The point is that the bottom bracket is NOT likely to have been
>> >significantly "moved" relative TO THE GROUND if the bike in question
>> >has been designed for the larger wheels (as I believe most 29er's have
>> >been). As I pointed out, it is a very common misperception that ALL
>> >29er's have a higher center of gravity simply because of their larger
>> >wheels. Your disscussion seemed to be largely in line with that
>> >misperception.
>>
>> >DR
>>
>> Dear DR,
>>
>> My point is that the wheels alone are not going to cause the change.
>>
>> You have to change other things, such as the frame and gearing.
>>
>> Joseph, the original poster, seemed to be asking about the wheels and
>> wondering if the wheels alone were causing wonderful improvements,
>> looking for numbers and geometry.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>I meant the wheels and requisite changes to accomodate those wheels.
>
>Joseph

Dear Joseph,

Clear enough.

But the wheels didn't require changing from 27-speeds to single speed
or from suspension to solid frame.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Steve Gravrock]

On 2008-02-18, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:59:31 -0800 (PST), DirtRoadie
><[email protected]> wrote:
[lots]

> Dear DR,
>
> Please re-read my post--you're repeating my point.
>
> Briefly, if you raise nothing but the axles, then there's no effect on
> braking because the center of gravity rises just as much.
>
> So either there's no effect on braking and endos, or the bottom
> bracket has to be moved, changing the center of gravity.

It seems to me that everyone else in this thread is talking about the
differences riders will observe when moving to 29" wheels in the real
world. You're trying to refute those observations by arguing that they
wouldn't see those same advantages if they'd changed wheel sizes on
some hypothetical frame that was designed around 26" wheels but yet had
the clearance for 29" wheels. Your argument is correct as far as it
goes, but it's also pointless because nobody rides bikes like that.
It's been tried and found not to work particularly well.

Talking about what would happen if you change the wheel size and hold
everything else constant might be interesting, but it doesn't have very
much bearing on what real people will experience in the real world when
switching from a real 26" wheel mountain bike to a real 29" mountain
bike. In practice, wheel size influences frame design and thus nobody
ends up riding bikes that are identical except for the wheel size.

For what it's worth I moved from a rigid geared 26" bike to a hardtail
wider-geared 29er, and I observed similar benefits to those that the OP
noted.

 

[datakoll]

Forgive if my memory is incorrect. I can't bear going over the frame
data again uuunnnghghg. Like I did it once. I yam eating dinner then
I have to...
As you know, I own one as the Monodog, a Mcog converted to x speeds
and you may know the kit remains unbuilt as my supplier supplied the
wrong length spokes: ERD not what it used to be with DT 16mm/DT 2.0.
"So there should be no change in braking and endo-potential"
Not so fast. 29er (reference to digging in the ground) geometry goes
into 3 camps: tour-fire road, dirt bike, converted 26"
The Dog/Cog is on the tour/fire road end as is the Schwinn 29er with
the $400 forks.
The fIre road geometry may suit your current style or afford greatER
immediate DEVELOPMENT, a satisfying experience.
My take on it was, I don't like dirt bike geometry (no experience
beyond junk), I'm 6'4", the idea is fire road touring with load, and I
objected to spending more than $4-5000.
The Germans and cobblestone roads were an influence as the origin or
continuation for the Conti 29er tire available in Yurp only: I asked.
There's a fleet of German city riders insisting on rolling over
cobblestones, a number large enough to get Conti to supply tires with
a production then warehousing run. Schwalbe also. I bought a Big Apple
and a Halo for the front for beach sand and RR cinders with Conti
knobbies for the worser surfaces.
In this ambience, a longer frame for front end lift on the soft spots
and a larger circumference for shallow potholes was supported by the
German 29er pop.

 

[DirtRoadie]

On Feb 18, 10:15 am, [email protected] wrote:

> Dear DR,

> Or that you're turning what was originally Joseph's question about
> endos, traction, and climbing into "feel"?

See definition #4
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feel

I think "feel" fills the bill quite admirably as a single word that
can be used to descibe the overalll combination of characteristics
one experiences when riding a particular bicycle.
.
DR.

 

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:58:35 +0000 (UTC), Steve Gravrock
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2008-02-18, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

>For what it's worth I moved from a rigid geared 26" bike to a hardtail
>wider-geared 29er, and I observed similar benefits to those that the OP
>noted.

Dear Steve,

Just to keep things clear, Joseph says that he switched from a
27-speed 26" suspension MTB (with lockouts, I think) to a rigid
single-speed 29" . . .

And was able to do trackstands to watch horses in the middle of a
climb that he normally was barely able to conquer.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[DirtRoadie]

On Feb 18, 4:59 pm, DirtRoadie <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 10:15 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Dear DR,
> > Or that you're turning what was originally Joseph's question about
> > endos, traction, and climbing into "feel"?
>
> See definition #4
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feel

typo correction
See # 14

> I think "feel" fills the bill quite admirably as a single word that
> can  be used to descibe the overalll combination of characteristics
> one experiences when riding a particular bicycle.
> .
> DR.

 

[[email protected]]

On 18 Feb, 18:16, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:36:39 -0800 (PST),
>
>
>
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 18 Feb, 06:52, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:47:14 -0800 (PST), DirtRoadie
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 17, 9:08 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:59:31 -0800 (PST), DirtRoadie
>
> >> >> Dear DR,
>
> >> >> Please re-read my post--you're repeating my point.
>
> >> >I am? I asserted that a 29er is likely to have a clear benefit in
> >> >avoiding endos. But you appeared to have taken just the opposite
> >> >position, suggesting that it is likely the over-exuberance of a new
> >> >29er owner in "feeling" such things.
>
> >> >> Briefly, if you raise nothing but the axles, then there's no effect on
> >> >> braking because the center of gravity rises just as much.
>
> >> >You have created a nonsensical "strawman" by merely (in theory)
> >> >putting larger (29") wheels on the same (26") frame. That hardly
> >> >helps explain OR challenge what may be happening on a frame which is
> >> >purposely built to accomodate the 29" wheels.
>
> >> >> So either there's no effect on braking and endos, or the bottom
> >> >> bracket has to be moved, changing the center of gravity.
>
> >> >The point is that the bottom bracket is NOT likely to have been
> >> >significantly "moved" relative TO THE GROUND if the bike in question
> >> >has been designed for the larger wheels (as I believe most 29er's have
> >> >been). As I pointed out, it is a very common misperception that ALL
> >> >29er's have a higher center of gravity simply because of their larger
> >> >wheels. Your disscussion seemed to be largely in line with that
> >> >misperception.
>
> >> >DR
>
> >> Dear DR,
>
> >> My point is that the wheels alone are not going to cause the change.
>
> >> You have to change other things, such as the frame and gearing.
>
> >> Joseph, the original poster, seemed to be asking about the wheels and
> >> wondering if the wheels alone were causing wonderful improvements,
> >> looking for numbers and geometry.
>
> >> Cheers,
>
> >> Carl Fogel
>
> >I meant the wheels and requisite changes to accomodate those wheels.
>
> >Joseph
>
> Dear Joseph,
>
> Clear enough.
>
> But the wheels didn't require changing from 27-speeds to single speed
> or from suspension to solid frame.
>

Indeed. This is certainly comparing pineapples to pinecones.

Joseph

 

[[email protected]]

On 19 Feb, 03:53, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:58:35 +0000 (UTC), Steve Gravrock
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 2008-02-18, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> >For what it's worth I moved from a rigid geared 26" bike to a hardtail
> >wider-geared 29er, and I observed similar benefits to those that the OP
> >noted.
>
> Dear Steve,
>
> Just to keep things clear, Joseph says that he switched from a
> 27-speed 26" suspension MTB (with lockouts, I think) to a rigid
> single-speed 29" . . .
>
> And was able to do trackstands to watch horses in the middle of a
> climb that he normally was barely able to conquer.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

Correct. But one difference I had failed to notice was that it was
below freezing and the ground was frozen. Yesterday it was very soft
and this reduced traction enough that I wouldn't think a track-stand
would be possible there again.

Yesterday I also found a 29" hole!

I went for a ride with a guy much stronger than me on a carbon fiber
FS specialized. He was kind enough to wiat for me as needed. My helmet
mounted light doesn't give the relief his bar mounted light give
(that's the line I'm sticking to!) so I didn't see the way the roots
were in a technical section, and I went over the bars onto some rocks.
Oops!

My battery then died so I had to ride super close behind my friend to
use his lights. At one point we came across a mud-feild where the only
option is to just pedal away. He wiped out and I rode past into the
darkness. I had to use The Force (and it sure wasn't Electro-
Magnetic!) to keep going. I stayed up. Big fun!

I had to walk down a techncal descent which was too scary to try
following him with no lights, but otherwise the bike managed with
aplomb.

Joseph