"Sluggish" 29" Mountain Bike Wheels

BretCahill said:

A full service bike shop had a some mountain bikes on sale with 29" wheels for rolling over rocks.
I'm not a mountain bike rider but I thought 29" wheels were pretty dumb for a couple of reasons.

1. the higher rotational inertia. The salesman admitted some riders complained about the bikes
being "sluggish."

2. the limited availability of nonstandard 29" rims, spokes, tubes and tires.

Yesterday I took my hybrid bike -- no shocks, no good on OR off road -- down a mountain bike
trail for the first time and found myself laughing at my attempts to dodge rocks. (So THAT'S
the appeal.) Returning I discovered it was easier to just ride over the rocks. My 27" wheels
didn't seem to get sluggish even after I was pretty much beat to death. I wondered if 29" could
be much worse.

Now I'm starting to think I misunderstood the salesman. Maybe the 29" wheels only seem sluggish on
pavement at intersections.

Are my original concerns well founded?

Bigger wheels result in less up-and-down motion over bumpy surfaces. Therefore you'd see the
advantages off-road more than on-road (although the roads here in the UK are so rough these days
that the off-road condition is probably more applicable!)

[email hidden] (BretCahill) wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

A full service bike shop had a some mountain bikes on sale with 29" wheels for rolling over rocks.
I'm not a mountain bike rider but I thought 29" wheels were pretty dumb for a couple of reasons.

1. the higher rotational inertia. The salesman admitted some riders complained about the bikes
being "sluggish."

The difference in weight is slight and I doubt it is noticable, certainly miniscule as compared to
the overall weight of the bike and rider combination.

Quoted message said:

2. the limited availability of nonstandard 29" rims, spokes, tubes and tires.

Err... Did you know that a 29" rim is actually a 700c rim?

Quoted message said:

Yesterday I took my hybrid bike -- no shocks, no good on OR off road -- down a mountain bike
trail for the first time and found myself laughing at my attempts to dodge rocks. (So THAT'S
the appeal.) Returning I discovered it was easier to just ride over the rocks. My 27" wheels
didn't seem to get sluggish even after I was pretty much beat to death. I wondered if 29" could
be much worse.

A 27" wheel is just a tad bigger than a 700c wheel which is the same as a 29" wheel.

Gary Fisher recently got the nod from the racing officionados that the 29er is not an "unfair
advantage".. Now that says to me that the concerns were not for lack of performance.. I had a 29
inch Oryx Raid 250 and found on the first ride like I was riding behind a wheelbarrow.. You get over
it as you blast past the cross country guys on washboard.. Great bikes... Not my choice as the "only
bike", but a great addition to the stable.. Mine got stolen, but they are easy to spot...Murray

(BretCahill) said:

A full service bike shop had a some mountain bikes on sale with 29" wheels for rolling over rocks.
I'm not a mountain bike rider but I thought 29" wheels were pretty dumb for a couple of reasons.

1. the higher rotational inertia. The salesman admitted some riders complained about the bikes
being "sluggish."

2. the limited availability of nonstandard 29" rims, spokes, tubes and tires.

Yesterday I took my hybrid bike -- no shocks, no good on OR off road -- down a mountain bike trail
for the first time and found myself laughing at my attempts to dodge rocks. (So THAT'S the appeal.)
Returning I discovered it was easier to just ride over the rocks. My 27" wheels didn't seem to get
sluggish even after I was pretty much beat to death. I wondered if 29" could be much worse.

Now I'm starting to think I misunderstood the salesman. Maybe the 29" wheels only seem sluggish on
pavement at intersections.

Are my original concerns well founded?

Bret Cahill

I'd love to try to understand your math, from my calcuations...

700c wheel = 27.55 inches approximately. 27" wheel < 27.55" yes? 29" is 1.5" larger than 700c yes?

your math:

29" rim = 700c 27" wheel is larger than 27.55 in wheel and there is 1.45 inches to a "tad"

--

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM! Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
mail.giantcompany.commail.giantcompany.comOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (BretCahill) wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

A full service bike shop had a some mountain bikes on sale with 29" wheels for rolling over
rocks. I'm not a mountain bike rider but I thought 29" wheels were pretty dumb for a couple of
reasons.

1. the higher rotational inertia. The salesman admitted some riders complained about the bikes
being "sluggish."

The difference in weight is slight and I doubt it is noticable, certainly miniscule as compared to
the overall weight of the bike and rider combination.

Quoted message said:

2. the limited availability of nonstandard 29" rims, spokes, tubes and tires.

Err... Did you know that a 29" rim is actually a 700c rim?

Quoted message said:

Yesterday I took my hybrid bike -- no shocks, no good on OR off road -- down a mountain bike
trail for the first time and found myself laughing at my attempts to dodge rocks. (So THAT'S the
appeal.) Returning I discovered it was easier to just ride over the rocks. My 27" wheels didn't
seem to get sluggish even after I was pretty much beat to death. I wondered if 29" could be much
worse.

A 27" wheel is just a tad bigger than a 700c wheel which is the same as a 29" wheel.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.comOpen ↗).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 10/11/2003

Mike DeMicco said:

A 27" wheel is just a tad bigger than a 700c wheel which is the same as a 29" wheel.

Hang on, my first bike when I was a kid had 28" wheels, which were a pain because they were pretty
much obsolete and I had a hard job getting tyres (yes, I was a tall kid - and also I didn't get a
bike of my own until I was about twelve, and when I did it was a second hand ex-army job). They were
definitely bigger than 27" wheels. Are you saying that 29" wheels are _smaller_ than 27" wheels? I
mean, I know the world's gone mad, but...

If they're 700c, why not call them 700c?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

do not sail on uphill water
- Bill Lee

JayofMontreal said:

I'd love to try to understand your math, from my calcuations...

700c wheel = 27.55 inches approximately. 27" wheel < 27.55" yes? 29" is 1.5" larger than 700c yes?

your math:

29" rim = 700c 27" wheel is larger than 27.55 in wheel and there is 1.45 inches to a "tad"

No math just marketing. Sheldom Brown has some info that may be convincing.
sheldonbrown.comtire sizing.htmlOpen ↗

Bigger tires make bigger wheels even though the wheels may be smaller, confused yet?

In article <[email hidden]>, "JayofMontreal"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A 27" wheel is just a tad bigger than a 700c wheel which is the same as a 29" wheel.

Quoted message said:

I'd love to try to understand your math, from my calcuations...

700c wheel = 27.55 inches approximately. 27" wheel < 27.55" yes? 29" is 1.5" larger than 700c yes?

your math:

29" rim = 700c 27" wheel is larger than 27.55 in wheel and there is 1.45 inches to a "tad"

The secret is to not believe the bicycle industry. 29ers have a 29" effective diameter from edge to
edge of the _tread_ (assumes a nominal "average" tire).

The bead seat diameter of 29ers and 700c wheels is the same (by design, so that 29ers could use some
crossover parts to simplify adoption).

27" wheels are another "tread diameter" spec, though one that has been badly abused by the
variations in wheel size.

The newest, most tidy rim and tire measurement system is the ISO standard, which specifies tire or
rim width (depending on which you are selling) followed by the rim's bead-seat diameter. In other
words, if the second numbers are the same and the first numbers are within a fairly broad range, the
wheel-tire combo will work.

Some examples:

700c: ISO 622 (standard road wheels; a typical wheel would be a 25-622 tire mounted on a 15-622 rim)

29er: ISO 622 (that looks familiar...)

27": ISO 630 (the old road-bike standard)

26": ISO 559 (mountain bikes)

24": ISO 507 (24" MTB wheels for dirt jumpers and huckers)

This is greatly simplified; there are old wheel standards that I could bring up, but they would only
confuse the issue. For more, see Sheldon's excellent article, from which I pulled all this info:

sheldonbrown.comtire sizing.htmlOpen ↗

It is left as an exercise for the reader to calculate the bead seat diameters in inches,
--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] sfu.ca~rcousineOpen ↗ President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

Simon Brooke said:

Mike DeMicco said:

A 27" wheel is just a tad bigger than a 700c wheel which is the same as a 29" wheel.

Hang on, my first bike when I was a kid had 28" wheels,

snip.

Quoted message said:

They were definitely bigger than 27" wheels. Are you saying that 29" wheels are _smaller_ than
27" wheels?

The rims are pretty much the same(exactly the same?) diameter as 700c road wheels, but they are a
little bit wider to allow the fitment of wider MTB style tyres. The 29" refers, roughly, to the size
from top to bottom with tyre fitted, so a 28" old style wheel is still bigger than a 'new' 29"
wheel. This subject has been done to death on r.b.t over the last year, if you need more info, just
search the archive. Alan.
--
Change the 'minus' to 'plus' to reply by mail. dvatc.co.ukdvatc.co.ukOpen ↗ off-road cycling in the
North Midlands.

Simon Brooke said:

Hang on, my first bike when I was a kid had 28" wheels, which were a pain because they were pretty
much obsolete and I had a hard job getting tyres (yes, I was a tall kid - and also I didn't get a
bike of my own until I was about twelve, and when I did it was a second hand ex-army job). They
were definitely bigger than 27" wheels. Are you saying that 29" wheels are _smaller_ than 27"
wheels? I mean, I know the world's gone mad, but...

If they're 700c, why not call them 700c?

What's in a name? 27" wheels are not 27" in diameter, except for the rare coincidence if the tire is
just the right size. 700c wheels are not 700 anything in any dimension. '28" wheels' can mean many
different things. Sometimes that term referrred to tubular wheels, which were actually the same
diameter as 700c. '29"' does seem to refer to 700c diameter wheels specifically intended as large
mountain-bike wheels.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Deserves death! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve _`\(,_ | death. And some that die
deserve life. Can you give it to (_)/ (_) | them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in
judgement. -- J. R. R. Tolkien

BretCahill said:

A full service bike shop had a some mountain bikes on sale with 29" wheels for rolling over rocks.
I'm not a mountain bike rider but I thought 29" wheels were pretty dumb for a couple of reasons.

1. the higher rotational inertia. The salesman admitted some riders complained about the bikes
being "sluggish."

2. the limited availability of nonstandard 29" rims, spokes, tubes and tires.

Yesterday I took my hybrid bike -- no shocks, no good on OR off road -- down a mountain bike
trail for the first time and found myself laughing at my attempts to dodge rocks. (So THAT'S
the appeal.) Returning I discovered it was easier to just ride over the rocks. My 27" wheels
didn't seem to get sluggish even after I was pretty much beat to death. I wondered if 29" could
be much worse.

Now I'm starting to think I misunderstood the salesman. Maybe the 29" wheels only seem sluggish on
pavement at intersections.

Are my original concerns well founded?

I don't know from "sluggish" but your 27" wheels are bigger than the "29"" wheels ( 630mm vs 622mm).

--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971

JayofMontreal said:

I'd love to try to understand your math, from my calcuations...

700c wheel = 27.55 inches approximately. 27" wheel < 27.55" yes? 29" is 1.5" larger than 700c yes?

your math:

29" rim = 700c 27" wheel is larger than 27.55 in wheel and there is 1.45 inches to a "tad"

I do not understand what you're getting at, or from whence your numbers are derived, but 29" wheels
are 622mm and 27" wheels are 630mm

--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Quoted message said:

Mike DeMicco said:

A 27" wheel is just a tad bigger than a 700c wheel which is the same as a 29" wheel.

Simon Brooke said:

Hang on, my first bike when I was a kid had 28" wheels, which were a pain because they were pretty
much obsolete and I had a hard job getting tyres (yes, I was a tall kid - and also I didn't get a
bike of my own until I was about twelve, and when I did it was a second hand ex-army job). They
were definitely bigger than 27" wheels. Are you saying that 29" wheels are _smaller_ than 27"
wheels? I mean, I know the world's gone mad, but...

If they're 700c, why not call them 700c?

No percentage in honesty. You can't charge extra for "standard" wheels. But make 'em "special" and
convince the rider the "old" wheels are "sluggish" and . .

See also:Colnago "rigid, yet flexible" and so forth

--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by A Muzi

BJayofMontreal said:

I'd love to try to understand your math, from my calcuations...

700c wheel = 27.55 inches approximately. 27" wheel < 27.55" yes? 29" is 1.5" larger than 700c yes?

your math:

29" rim = 700c 27" wheel is larger than 27.55 in wheel and there is 1.45 inches to a "tad"

I do not understand what you're getting at, or from whence your numbers are derived, but 29" wheels
are 622mm and 27" wheels are 630mm

--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971 [/B]

Jay’s numbers are derived from direct English-metric conversions premised upon the misperception that truth in old bicycle tire sizing means 27” wheels are 27” and 700c wheels are 700cm in diameter.

Jay –see http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tire_sizing.html

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Mike DeMicco said:

A 27" wheel is just a tad bigger than a 700c wheel which is the same as a 29" wheel.

Hang on, my first bike when I was a kid had 28" wheels, which were a pain because they were pretty
much obsolete and I had a hard job getting tyres (yes, I was a tall kid - and also I didn't get a
bike of my own until I was about twelve, and when I did it was a second hand ex-army job). They
were definitely bigger than 27" wheels. Are you saying that 29" wheels are _smaller_ than 27"
wheels? I mean, I know the world's gone mad, but...

If they're 700c, why not call them 700c?

622-54". That's marketing, babe.

BTW: your old 28" tires were ISO 635-37 or so. The *rim* was larger than the 29er's, but the *tire*
ends up being smaller in outside diameter.

Jeff "don't get me started about 26" tires" Wills

Simon Brooke said:

If they're 700c, why not call them 700c?

Because "that's a roadie thing", and MTBers instinctively avoid doing things roadies do (well, not
really, but they think they do...). ;-)

The main reason is probably that as long as MTB wheels built with 22" rims are called 26", there's
no way they're going to call 700c (24.5"😉 rims anything other than 29". It WOULD be funny if they
DID start calling the 700c wheels 24.5's though. It IS the bike industry, and we DO do our best to
discourage any standards.

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

Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

[snip]

Quoted message said:

24": ISO 507 (24" MTB wheels for dirt jumpers and huckers)

Dear Ryan,

I googled cautiously, but my results were ambiguous.

It seems as if "huckers" may be a brand of tire, but there were a lot of other mysterious results
that involved "mother huckers" in what (swear to God) seemed to be not pornography sites, but feisty
female sporting teams of some sort.

Please, tell me all.

The end.

Yours truly,

Huck Finn

bret-<< A full service bike shop had a some mountain bikes on sale with 29" wheels for rolling over
rocks. I'm not a mountain bike rider but I thought 29" wheels were pretty dumb for a couple of
reasons. >><BR><BR> << 1. the higher rotational inertia. The salesman admitted some riders
complained about the bikes being "sluggish." >><BR><BR>

Yahhhhh, the goats are loose again!!! The saleman needs to go to school..

Bret<< My 27" wheels didn't seem to get sluggish even after I was pretty much beat to death. I
wondered if 29" could be much worse.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<BR><BR>

Errrr, your hybrid is probably 700c...which is ....'29 inch'......Same sized tire in diameter,...

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 vecchios.comvecchios.comOpen ↗ "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Mike DeMicco said:

[email hidden] (BretCahill) wrote in

Quoted message said:

1. the higher rotational inertia. The salesman admitted some riders complained about the bikes
being "sluggish."

The difference in weight is slight and I doubt it is noticable, certainly miniscule as compared to
the overall weight of the bike and rider combination.

I think he meant that the larger rim resulted in said weight being farther from the hub -- certainly
a factor in such calculations. I don't know how much effect that has, however.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2. the limited availability of nonstandard 29" rims, spokes, tubes and tires.

Err... Did you know that a 29" rim is actually a 700c rim?

I didn't. Cool!

Quoted message said:

A 27" wheel is just a tad bigger than a 700c wheel which is the same as a 29" wheel.

That's so incredibly crackheaded. A 27" wheel is a tad _bigger_ than a 29" wheel. Hooray for
standards!!!
--
Rick "And 1.25 doesn't equal 1 1/4, either!" Onanian

Simon Brooke said:

Are you saying that 29" wheels are _smaller_ than 27" wheels? I mean, I know the world's gone
mad, but...

Quoted message said:

If they're 700c, why not call them 700c?

29" is not a rim diameter, it's a kind of bike. If all frames for 700c wheels could accept 700x60
tires, there would be no need to distinguish the category. Since most 700c bikes are crippled when
it comes to tire clearance, however, the 29" designation serves to identify those that are not.

Chalo Colina