29ers

(Tom Purvis) said:

Did you ride the GF 292/293 (the fully based on the Sugar)?. I've ridden one of those, and I
wouldn't call it typical of the 29" bikes that are really leading the trend. The trend was created
by hardtails and rigid bikes. A 29-er can be set up to do tighter switchbacks and twisty stuff
well. It's a question of frame design. On some the good ones I've ridden, I didn't really notice
that the wheels were bigger than the ones on my Moots until I rolled through some rocky stuff.

The contact patch is automatically bigger, and it's more oblong than a similar width 26" tire.

Actually, the contact patch will be the same size (more or less...), since its determined by tire
pressure, not wheel size. Given tires with similar cross sections and the same pressure, the 29"
tire contact patch will be slightly longer and thinner. As you went on to say, the difference that's
most noticeable will be the way the wheels handle over rocks.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.comOpen ↗ Home of the $695 ti frame

miles todd said:

Corvus Corvax said:

[email hidden] (Tom Purvis) wrote

Quoted message said:

The contact patch is automatically bigger, and it's more oblong than a similar width 26" tire.

Say again? I don't think a larger radius tire give you a bigger contact patch -- that's
determined entirely by the tire pressure.

Of course, you are correct, Corvus. It does give a longer, but narrower contact patch (given
the same pressure). Is this better?

I regret having attempted to use language that was so technical. Clearly I'm not qualified. What I
can tell you from experience is that 29ers handle nice in loose and chunky situations. They feel
like a longer pair of skis. Or something.

Intuitively, that happens because there is more rubber actually touching fore and aft, than a
similarly wide, inflated, and treaded tire mounted on a 26" rim. But of course, it could also have
to do with the fact that the wheels tend to be heavier, or a millian other variables that I fail to
account for. Ain't no scientist.

Quoted message said:

If 29ers are so great, why not 32ers? The 29inch (700c) proponents say we should break free from
the constraints of MTB history (cruiser tire size). On the other hand, they are in favor of us
using another historical wheel size (European road bikes). This strikes me as odd.

Well that's easy. Opportunism. The 29er advocates out there can barely get manufacterers to produce
a variety of tires. Who's going to get in line with a whole new mainstream wheel size?

You think I can declare the 31" wheel the new standard and then tomorrow Mavic will sell the
31" Crossmax?
--
Tom Purvis - arkansasvalley.nettpurvisOpen ↗ Salida, CO

"Mike DeMicco" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is this all marketing hype, or will 29" wheels actually make you faster? I'm interested in A-B
comparisions over a timed course.

I don't know, but we did a night ride with Ethan the other night, he was riding his new Strong
Frames 29'er singlespeed. I gotta say, the man was rocket fast on that bike.

Momentum is your friend...

- CA-G

Can-Am Girls Kick Ass!

Pete said:

given equal materials, and equal construction, by the same competent builder.....

which is stronger?

"Yes"

"ClydedaleMTB_in_TN" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pete said:

given equal materials, and equal construction, by the same competent builder.....

which is stronger?

"Yes"

I'm not saying there is a big, even really measurable difference. Especially with a 3%
difference in size.

But material science would point to a larger assembly being 'weaker' than a smaller one. All else
being equal, of course...🙂

Pete

Tom Purvis said:

miles todd <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If 29ers are so great, why not 32ers? The 29inch (700c) proponents say we should break free from
the constraints of MTB history (cruiser tire size). On the other hand, they are in favor of us
using another historical wheel size (European road bikes). This strikes me as odd.

Well that's easy. Opportunism. The 29er advocates out there can barely get manufacterers to
produce a variety of tires. Who's going to get in line with a whole new mainstream wheel size?

You think I can declare the 31" wheel the new standard and then tomorrow Mavic will sell the 31"
Crossmax?
--
Tom Purvis - arkansasvalley.nettpurvisOpen ↗ Salida, CO

Go for it. I'd prefer a 32", but what the hell.

Opportunism is exactly my point. If the original Marin County dudes started out modifying their
cyclocross bikes to take more abuse (rather than putting shifters on clunkers)we'd all be riding
drop-barred 29ers now, rather than upright barred 26ers.

Still, I want to know why 700c mountain bikes are a good idea now, but weren't so cool back in the
late 80's when Bianchi had a full line of them, Diamond back had a couple of models, and Specialized
had a drop-bar 700c Stumpjumper (if I remember correctly). I tend to think that it wasn't such a
good idea back then because it wasn't Gary Fisher's idea... now he's really pushing it, and that's
just the sort of momentum that the big-wheel movement needs (no pun intended.

Miles

In article said:

Still, I want to know why 700c mountain bikes are a good idea now, but weren't so cool back in the
late 80's when Bianchi had a full line of them, Diamond back had a couple of models, and
Specialized had a drop-bar 700c Stumpjumper (if I remember correctly). I tend to think that it
wasn't such a good idea back then because it wasn't Gary Fisher's idea... now he's really pushing
it, and that's just the sort of momentum that the big-wheel movement needs (no pun intended.

I doubt these bikes were ever marketed as being more efficient off-road like they are claimed today.
Were there any decent tires available? Lack of low enough gears at the time was another good reason
not to buy them.

--
Mike DeMicco <blaster186REMOVETHIS@_comcast.net> (Remove the REMOVE_THIS from my email address
to reply.)

miles todd said:

Still, I want to know why 700c mountain bikes are a good idea now, but weren't so cool back in the
late 80's when Bianchi had a full line of them, Diamond back had a couple of models, and
Specialized had a drop-bar 700c Stumpjumper (if I remember correctly). I tend to think that it
wasn't such a good idea back then because it wasn't Gary Fisher's idea... now he's really pushing
it, and that's just the sort of momentum that the big-wheel movement needs (no pun intended.

Miles

I think its 'cos the mountain bike market is a lot fatter these days.

Back in the late eighties there was steel hardtails, radical new aluminum hardtails, and freakishly
exotic and expensive dual suspension bikes.

Now rather than being a barely-in-the-door fringe sport, there is a bouregeoning market for all
sorts of riders trying to find their niche. Hence Surly. Hence Kona. Hence &c.

A

Anthony Sloan <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Pete said:

"ClydesdaleMTB" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

>Well, they're heavier

Really?

Larger + same materials = more weight

Quoted message said:

>and weaker,

And what independent data do you base this presumption upon?

Larger + same materials and construction = less strong.

The actual measured diff might not be much, but extrapolate it up and down. Would a 50" wheel be
heavier, and taco easier than a 10"?

Pete

This is why wheels should be built to purpose.

I have a set of 29" whells built up for fully rigid singlespeeding. I have every confidence
in them.

Now if they were machine laced OEM [censored], then yup. I'd be skeered to ride em.

A

What might that build be, buddy?

/s

supabonbon said:

What might that build be, buddy?

/s

High flange Paul W.O.R.D. Hubs, TD 17 rims, Dt Swiss spokes.

A