[Closed] DIRT comes out in favour of 29ers!

Let me correct you there, [b]ONE[/b] rider says: "the 29er bike offers me a better feeling and faster ride in trail environment than a 26".

Again, just one person's opinion.

One thing can't be denied.... 2012 will be the year the britsh cycling press start supporting 29ers.....

That article is practically unreadable, though. They need someone fluent in English to edit that mag, the articles are invariably dreadful.

Once you get past the standard Steve Jones introductory ramble it's an interesting little article.

Still leaves a few questions to be answered; is rider size an issue? What happens when you want a longer travel bike?

He raises the idea that future bike sizing might mean changes in wheels size from S/M - L/XL it's an interesting point, and as a 5'10" distinctly average build I'd be interested to see where the major brands place me...

29ers are not going away, but I'm not sure they are the answer for all MTBing...

The argument about front centers/chainstay lengths etc doesnt make sense, you can fit a 29" wheel (just) in a 16.5" chainstay, and the trend is for longer chainstays as suspension travel increaces.

But then the argument stops making sense when you consider that the ratio of front center to chainstay is size dependant, and very few bikes offer different rear ends over the size range.

So yes I can see why 29ers are better for larger riders, but I'd like to see someone scale up a say a 17" 26er hardtail by 11.5%, including raising the BB etc on the basis that then someone 11.5% bigger would get exactly the same bike as the short guy.

If you scale a 5'10" bloke and hsi medium bike by 11.5%, he becomes 6'6". That's XL territory.

Personally I believe alot of the supposed drawbacks to 29ers can be designed around, standover/BB height, stay lengths (although with longer travel bouncers you have to avoid wheel clashes?), COG, etc are surely just a case of applying your brain to the geometry and trying to replecate an "equivalent to 26er" rider position in most cases...

The reason 29ers were seen as bikes for Giants early on is that I'm sure the earlier attempts were just scaled up 26ers which will obviously suit a 6'7" rider, the 29er converts are on the case and keen to make the big wheels work for as many people as possible, once a 4'10" female can fell comfortable on a 29er I think the argument will be over....

I think like many the first 29er I'm likely to own though will still be an SS though I've come close to dipping my toe a couple of times now but resisted on cost grounds, but I reckon by next winter I'll have one "Just to try"...

I think a 69er DH bike has alot of potential, but it comes down to execution, a bike which can reduce rider fatigue (especially in the arms) would sell, and the concept would be "Backwards compatible with current DH frames (just a new fork and front wheel right?)...

It's funny reading Bikebiz talk about 29ers, and even in that article, all saying that a big part if it is about buying new bikes. Frankly, Dirt has always annoyed me with the focus on speed as a measurement of a good bike. Unless you are a racer (which I suppose a lot of Dirt readers are tbf) it is fun not speed that I'd the critical thing. And I really think it is the maneurverability (sp?) of a bike that makes it fun. I am yet to be convinced by any test rides I've had of 29ers that they can be pushed around as easily as a 26er. I suppose I come from a bmx background, so I expect a different level of rider input than many mtbers maybe?

The for and against arguments totally contradict each other, what tard wrote that!

If you scale a 5'10" bloke and hsi medium bike by 11.5%, he becomes 6'6". That's XL territory.

Is 5ft10 medium?

Spesh's size guides put medium at 5ft5-5ft10

5ft5 x 1.115 = 5ft11(and a smidge)

Their larges start at 5ft10, so it's only 1 frame size.

Small and medium 26ers, large and XL 29ers?

Or maybe even 24" wheels on small bikes?

Depends on the riding obviously, 24" wheels are just going to be uncomfortable on a bumpy track. But larger wheels wouldnt seem to have disadvantages, they may be less manouverable than a 26" wheel, but thats the same rider on both sides, logicaly a bigger stronger taller rider should find a 29er handles the same as a smaller weaker shorter rider finds a 26" bike?

cookeaa - Member
I think a 69er DH bike has alot of potential, but it comes down to execution, a bike which can reduce rider fatigue (especially in the arms) would sell, and the concept would be "Backwards compatible with current DH frames (just a new fork and front wheel right?)...

You'll need to convince a DHer to accept 140mm travel up front instead of 200. He won't like it.

flow - Member
The for and against arguments totally contradict each other, what tard wrote that!

Opposing sides of an argument contradicting each other? Who'd have thought, eh?

flow - Member

The for and against arguments totally contradict each other, what tard wrote that!

They would do, wouldn't they, otherwise it'd be "for and for" (or, perhaps, "against and against")

itnava - Member

One thing can't be denied.... 2012 will be the year the britsh cycling press start supporting 29ers.....

Er, 2011 was the year they started supporting 29ers.

mansonsoul - Member
...Dirt has always annoyed me with the focus on speed as a measurement of a good bike.
... it is fun not speed that I'd the critical thing. And I really think it is the maneurverability (sp?) of a bike that makes it fun. I am yet to be convinced by any test rides I've had of 29ers that they can be pushed around as easily as a 26er. I suppose I come from a bmx background, so I expect a different level of rider input than many mtbers maybe?

You've hit the nail on the head. Fun not race.

Anyone who rides a 29gnar is a deluded idiot, can't they see they've fallen for the hype?

Epi - MTBs are slow enough, I fail to see how can going slower be [b]more[/b] fun?

You'll need to convince a DHer to accept 140mm travel up front instead of 200. He won't like it.

29er DH bikes can run 170mm upfront easily - it's already been done!

29er DH bikes can run 170mm upfront easily - it's already been done!

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Skinsuits were banned because they looked crap, I hope they do the same with 29ers in DH as a 29er DH bike would just look wrong. IMO and all that.

Well your assuming F+R travel has to match on a DH bike - there won't be many V10s about with more than 200mm up front...

And again I believe there's always a way to accomodate some changes like this if they bring some performance value... the compromise might mean less travel to gett improved grip and rolling resistance, it's not that long ago DH race bikes were sporting 6-7" of travel rather than the current mandatory 8" and they were still rideable...

[Bold Statement]Mark my words a 69er DH bike will take a WC podium within the next couple of years... [/Bold Statement]

thanks for your invaluable input on the subject ian

MBR must be getting lonely now - like the last kid to be picked at football......

I still dont get the 29er argument.
they are faster according to some on a well groomed trail centre.
and for an XC race,
But then a cross bike is faster again, so why not just forget 29ers and ride a cross bike.
with the bigger wheels and compromised geometry they are not as manouverable (fun) according to everyone I know who has one.
Basically they are fulfilling a criteria for people who want to gain an advantage on easy trails which is fine.
But I avoid them as I prefer to have fun on my bike and not get hung up on beating my mates up a hill. I prefer having fun on technical terrain and not worrying about my cart wheels breaking on technical rocky terrain with drops etc that my limited riding ability tends to have me smashing through with little skill and finesse.
They were basically invented to gain an advantage on the competition, which is fine. But Im not into racing around trail centres and XC courses.
in a year or so the industry will have a new invention for everyone to lap up and argue the toss over in forums.

Opposing sides of an argument contradicting each other? Who'd have thought, eh?

🙄

AGAINST 29ers
Flow – not possible to pump terrain, flow corners especially tighter ones

FOR 29ers
Better flow, less nervy
Cornering

Plus traction and grip (both in the for section)are the same thing, leaving not many reasons to buy one.

No contradiction there at all, unless you choose to read into it something which isn't there. "Flow corners" is not the same as "cornering" or "flow" is it? They're talking about different aspects of flow.

So "flow" and "flow" are different, just like traction and grip yeah? 😆

But then a cross bike is faster again, so why not just forget 29ers and ride a cross bike.

Because they are ostensibly the same thing. The only difference that materially changes how fast they are, are the tyres.

So basically, the reason for 29ers existing is that they make it easier to go faster. Well, why don't you just become fitter and more skilled riding what you have?

+1 Mikey

Get fitter and more skilled anyway, then get on a 29'er - and become doubly fast.

26" or 29"? who cares! Just ride what you whatever floats your boat!
Don’t knock it until you try it maybe?

26" or 29"? who cares! Just ride what you whatever floats your boat!
Don’t knock it until you try it maybe?

+1 - however not tried one yet - I don't think its would make me go out an change all my kit but I'd certainly would at least ride one?

I'm still not sure.... 😀

Get fitter and more skilled anyway, then get on a 29'er - and become doubly fast.

Compared to what? As someone has already said, they make most sense when racing, but once everyone is racing them, then we'll be back at square one and there was no point in making the change in the first place.

Cycling press in favour of new [s]trend[/s] fad shocker!!!

Compared to what? As someone has already said, they make most sense when racing, but once everyone is racing them, then we'll be back at square one and there was no point in making the change in the first place.

You can start performance enhancing drugs and buy a road bike by the time your on the same wheel size,Dont panic some one will always be faster, better, lighter, Know more than you will. The journalists say so.

A trend they previously disliked....

Cycling press reports what their advertisers want them to say shocker.

I rather like mine, things I've noticed are:

- It does roll over roots & smaller rocks better than my 26er
- It does seem to offer great traction in loose conditions
- It certainly descends well and feels more stable then my 26er

BTW my 29er is a Chumba HX2 with 100mm Rebas, Hope hoops and my 26er was a Cove Handjob with Hope Hoops and 115mm Rebas

flow - Member

Opposing sides of an argument contradicting each other? Who'd have thought, eh?

AGAINST 29ers
Flow – not possible to pump terrain, flow corners especially tighter ones

FOR 29ers
Better flow, less nervy
Cornering

Plus traction and grip (both in the for section)are the same thing, leaving not many reasons to buy one.

Is this some flow vanity occuring, squeezing as many flows into one post as possible, maybe it was just a means of making the article flow, or a random flow of consciouness that escaped the editors eye.

AGAINST 29ers
Flow – not possible to pump terrain,

You're either teeny tiny or not doing it properly. Both of my 29ers can be pumped just fine.

Steve just a question, when you rode your hand job, were you thinkig damn, what I need is better stability and traction and the ability to roll over rocks better?

Or did you try the latest craze and then think well yes there are advantages to having the 29er, ie traction, stability and rolling over rocks.

In other words the industry created a problem, and gave you a solution and you bought the product.

Its what they do with razor blades, cars, everything.

Cycling press reports what their advertisers want them to say shocker.

I never believe that statement whenever it comes up 😳

It's not like it goes on in any other branch of journalism is it!!

Is that what the bike companies want Dirt to say? really?

When they've got shops full of 26ers to sell?

Hmmm.

But why do you need it to roll over rocks better? If you don't like rough terrain then just take up road riding. if you like riding off road (i.e. mountain biking, remember that?) learn how to cope with rough ground better.

I could probably understand 29er hardtails, but 29er full-suspension? Give me a break!!

I wouldn't mind a go on one btw, but I would be quite sceptical.

That's exactly it Chaka
The shops are full of 26'ers, but they want them to also be full of 29'ers.
more product being moved.

mikey74 +1

That's the best response I've seen all year!

Is that what the bike companies want Dirt to say? really?

When they've got shops full of 26ers to sell?

Hmmm.

Think he was on about bike manufacturers as advertisers,Who don't really give a **** if you have a shop full of 26 inch wheel bikes to sell.

Sancho - Member
Steve just a question, when you rode your hand job, were you thinkig damn, what I need is better stability and traction and the ability to roll over rocks better?

Or did you try the latest craze and then think well yes there are advantages to having the 29er, ie traction, stability and rolling over rocks.

The 2nd of your thoughts applies, I certainly didn't feel like the Handjob was limited, I had it for 3 1/2 years and loved it.

I just felt like something new and thought what the hell I'll try one of these new fangled big wheeled bikes, built it very similar to the Cove, Rebas, Hope Wheels, XT gearing, Elixir's and Thomson/Easton finishing kit (the drivetrain, brakes & finishing kit all came off the Cove).

I even enjoyed riding it (HX2) in the Peaks, which to be fair is something I didn't enjoy on the Cove, don't really know why but hey ho. Perhaps a different 26" wheeled HT would've felt different to the Cove, but I thought why get another 26" bike when I could try something else.

mikey74 - Member
But why do you need it to roll over rocks better? If you don't like rough terrain then just take up road riding. if you like riding off road (i.e. mountain biking, remember that?) learn how to cope with rough ground better.

If aimed at me, I didn't "need" it to, it just does. Nothing to do with learning to cope with rocky terrain, but perhaps I'm not as good a rider as you 😉

I don't think people need to get quite so heated about it all...

It's just some wheels, the last thing MTBing needs is yet more "tribalism" and bitching because you dislike the size and aesthetics of someones bicycle wheels...

It is telling how closed off to the basic concept people can be and how keen to shoot down an idea...

What I took from Steve Jones piece was that for him (one experienced rider with plenty of time on lots of different bikes) a 100-120mm 29er can (with some getting used to) perform on a par with a certain 140mm 26" bike (I think we can all guess what bike that might be)...

He didn't really go much further than that, and certainly wasn't claiming to have a definitive roadmap for the future of all MTBs, he was simply stating he's had a positive experience and posing a few simple (Rhetorical?) questions off the back of that... In amongst the normal Dirt meandering Pseudo philosophical bollocks of course...

Perhaps we're all (Myself included) reading a bit more in to a pretty innocuous article...

Mikey74...

But why do you need it to roll over rocks better? If you don't like rough terrain then just take up road riding. if you like riding off road (i.e. mountain biking, remember that?) learn how to cope with rough ground better.

i presume you ride a rigid bike with 2" tyres at 50psi, yeah?

29ers - they're bikes. they're fun. so are 26" bikes. WGAS?

🙄

All credit to you Steve.
A considered view and I'm glad you like the 29'er.

I'm still on 26" (if you hadnt guessed)

But why do you need it to roll over rocks better? If you don't like rough terrain then just take up road riding. if you like riding off road (i.e. mountain biking, remember that?) learn how to cope with rough ground better.

Helps you win a race.

I could probably understand 29er hardtails, but 29er full-suspension? Give me a break!!

Really? You serious?? Why do you need a 26" full sus?? Why have sus at all?

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Skinsuits were banned because they looked crap, I hope they do the same with 29ers in DH as a 29er DH bike would just look wrong. IMO and all that.

Banning something because it looks crap is retarded. UCI lost a lot of credibility in my eyes when they banned skinsuits.

"UCI lost a lot of credibility in my eyes when they banned skinsuits. "

Yes but my eyes were grateful.

If aimed at me, I didn't "need" it to, it just does. Nothing to do with learning to cope with rocky terrain, but perhaps I'm not as good a rider as you

No, it wasn't aimed at you, just generally.

i presume you ride a rigid bike with 2" tyres at 50psi, yeah?

Of course not (unless you are counting ride my road bike; in which case, yes I do), but that, in a way, is my point. We already have fat, earth flattening tyres; we already have mistake flattering suspension: Why do we need something that makes things even easier?

Eventually all the fun will be sucked out of riding off road.

Helps you win a race.

Even if everyone else was riding them?

Even if everyone else was riding them?

If everyone else was you'd be at a disadvantage using 26" as you would riding rigid.

Its a very narrow minded view not to accept different. I've said it before but this arguement was said about disc brakes and suspension. Because we didn't need those either 🙄 and people that bought in to should "Learn to Ride better or stick to the road"

Disc brakes and suspension have helped progress the sport imeasurably over the years. How will 29ers help progress the sport?

The same way 80mm fork went to 100mm and 1.75" tyres went to 2.10" Variety an 80mm fork will out perform a longer travel fork in certain places as will a 26er over a 29er.

But the main reason is choice. Why do this?? Because we can. There aren't any rules to going out and riding a bike and shouldn't be. If it works for someone (which it does for a lot of people) then it should be done.

Of course not (unless you are counting ride my road bike; in which case, yes I do), but that, in a way, is my point. We already have fat, earth flattening tyres; we already have mistake flattering suspension: Why do we need something that makes things even easier?

ah, so [u]you've[/u] drawn a line in the sand as to how much travel/how wide tyres are, and anything past that is 'wrong'. cool.

how much travel do your forks have? (just so i know how much i'm allowed for my next build, you see)

Eventually all the fun will be sucked out of riding off road.

i'll let you know when i've reached this. its certainly not happened yet on any of the 3 29ers i've owned. i've also enjoyed riding the 7-8 26" bikes i've owned in the past too. currently i've a 29er, a 26" and a CX. they're all different and they're all fun. true fact.

perhaps you should try one? its really not [i]that[/i] much different to a 26"

I barely want to dip my toe in this but, by god, SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET IS WRONG!

flow - Member
The for and against arguments totally contradict each other, what tard wrote that!

He was characterising internet forum arguments... the inconsistency was deliberate.

Sancho - Member
I still dont get the 29er argument.

they are faster according to some on a well groomed trail centre.
and for an XC race,
But then a cross bike is faster again, so why not just forget 29ers and ride a cross bike.
with the bigger wheels and compromised geometry they are not as manouverable (fun) according to everyone I know who has one.

Was Steve Jones riding a well groomed trail centre? He said he was " testing on reasonably technical terrain (they hold a downhill race here quite often)"

Have you ever tested a CX bike side-to-side with a 29er? I've ridden with a friend who usually rides a 29er, and recently was on a CX bike. He was slower on the CX bike.

All the general "Why don't you get some skills/fitness/go ride on the road instead of riding a 29er" is exactly the same rubbish as could be spouted about lots of changes in bike technology.

Personally, I was a total 29er sceptic... I test-rode one on the twistiest of my local trails and it was great fun. So I bought one. I subsequently found other specific advantages like: better grip while climbing and better behaviour if you absolutely have to go down big steps one wheel at a time.

But the main reason is choice. Why do this?? Because we can. There aren't any rules to going out and riding a bike and shouldn't be. If it works for someone (which it does for a lot of people) then it should be done.

I totally agree about choice, but the argument that some people have levelled about racing suggests that eventually everyone will have to change to a 29er, purely because everyone else has. Therefore, it is no longer a choice, it is a necessity.

MBR has just done 29ers and didn't really like them.

2012 will be the year of the 29er with the Olympic course being a great course for a 29er HT but once the summer is over it will all die down. And all those cheap Suntour 29er forks that are popping up will decorate supermarket 29er bargains that will have olympic banding on them because the Olympic XC was won on a 29er.

The dont make good full sussers or DH rigs.

hungry monkey - I just remembered Adam saying he wondered what nutter was doing the Tour de Ben Nevis on a SS 29er and then recognised it was you!

😀

sorry, mikey74, how much travel can i have on my next forks? i'm on tender hooks here!

The dont make good full sussers or DH rigs.

based on what experience exactly?

All the general "Why don't you get some skills/fitness/go ride on the road instead of riding a 29er" is exactly the same rubbish as could be spouted about lots of changes in bike technology.

29ers are not new technology, they are a sideways step in an attempt by bike companies to pretend they are doing something revolutionary (geddit?) to sell more bikes at a time when they seem to be running low on ideas.

I have no problem with them per se, just don't pretend they are the way future, and the way to progress the sport to the next level.

sorry, mikey74, how much travel can i have on my next forks? i'm on tender hooks here!

As much, or as little, as you like.

hungry monkey - I just remembered Adam saying he wondered what nutter was doing the Tour de Ben Nevis on a SS 29er and then recognised it was you!

haha, the 29er bit was perfect, the SS bit not-so 😉

Bike companies don't sell more bikes because they brought out 29ers. Most people buy one or the other. People who have both would probably generally have two bikes anyway.

flow - Member

So "flow" and "flow" are different, just like traction and grip yeah?

"Flow" and "Flow corners" are different, obviously, but if you want to misquote to try and make a point then go ahead 😉

As much, or as little, as you like.

hmm, i'm confused. an 80mm 29er which [i]makes things even easier[/i] is not ok, but a 6" trail bike is ok, cos its 26"?

this [i]is[/i] confusing!

i've just ordered a 29" 120mm FS after an extended demo on one.

increased corner grip = increased corner speed = increased excitement.

increased grip on technical climbs = increased grip on technical climbs 🙂

i was vehemently sceptic until i demo'd one on the recommendation of my dealer, but totally converted having ridden my local [95% of the riding i do] loops.

i still have 26" wheels too, but the 29er for me [6' tall, 80 kg, powerful swimmer, hence improved upper body strength] is more fun, faster and more likely to be one bike to do all i need / want... which was my objective......... 🙂

It's not confusing,

First you have to ride at least one 29 er to comment on their good and bad points,oh please make it a proper ride not just around a car park,
Then if you like it buy one
Just like the baby brother they come in many shapes and sizes and not all are good for everything

On second thoUghts carry it's more fun when people just endlessly misquote things they read on some forum on tinternet

But why do you need it to roll over rocks better? If you don't like rough terrain then just take up road riding. if you like riding off road (i.e. mountain biking, remember that?) learn how to cope with rough ground better.

This is also an argument against disk brakes, suspension, gears, 26" wheels, fatter tyres, wider bars, two wheels...

20" unicycle FTW

First you have to ride at least one 29 er to comment on their good and bad points,oh please make it a proper ride not just around a car park,
Then if you like it buy one
Just like the baby brother they come in many shapes and sizes and not all are good for everything

amen

sorry, mikey74, how much travel can i have on my next forks? i'm on tender hooks here!

The dont make good full sussers or DH rigs.
based on what experience exactly?

Maybe getting 8" of travel and decent geometry is a stretch at the moment ,most of what I'm seeing ,though I don't follow it that closely has usually been packaged in a way that has an inch less travel,though I'm sure there will be cases were that's not the norm

With respect to the 26er vs 29er debate...

They're both bikes, they're just different, not necessarily better or worse than each other - just like two 26ers are different.

To make an analogy, us older folks can remember the days before foreign food came to the UK.
I don't recall anybody saying "Hey, this curry stuff is really great, we'll never eat fish & chips again."

New things come along and you can either try them, or remain uninformed.
You don't have to try them or even like them, but everybody is different so just accept this and get on with riding your bike!

For the record I have both 26" & 29" hardtails and enjoy them both - in different ways.

"Flow" and "Flow corners" are different, obviously, but if you want to misquote to try and make a point then go ahead

Read it again

AGAINST 29ers
Flow – not possible to pump terrain, flow corners. especially tighter ones.

FOR 29ers
Better flow, less nervy

I think you is wrong

ade ward - exactly.

I in no way intend to this to sound anti 29er, but surely they are faster for some riders, not a universal ticket to extra speed? I am sure some riders will go faster on bigger wheels but if they are universally faster as some people seem to imply, then surely every world cup racer would be riding one(I think about 80% have access to one and a lot have tried them in smaller races)? They couldn't afford not to. Where as the reality is yes some riders have switched to bigger wheels and seemingly love them, some have stuck to 26 and some like Ralph Naef, Florian Vogel switched back to 26 half way through the season, did they decide they were going to fast?!?! Even Manuel Fumic, who reportedly loves his flash 29er switched back to 26 for the world championships, it seems unlikely at the biggest race of the season that he would decide that he would give up some time!

I am in on way suggesting that what works for world cup racers works for everyone and speed is the be all and end all but to me this "they are faster" doesn't ring true; Faster for some but surely not universal?

It's a good article written by someone with more testing and riding ability / experience than most of us. It's also an opinion not a fact.

This is a good line or 2 -

The only thing sluggish of the 29 bike is the indolence of those that are quick to put down these bikes, taking jabs at a subject for who most have absolutely no idea – the 29 is all about speed, efficiency and in my opinion fun. The slow uptake might simply be down to riders getting riding time and the fact that there are still some bad examples.

I've been as sceptical as anyone over 29ers, but if you're prepared to unlearn all you know about MTBs based on 26" experience it becomes quite exciting. I don't believe there's a 'better' wheel size, but it's certainly better to be open minded when it comes to something that can be so much fun.
I'm enjoying riding more than ever at the moment and it happens to be on a 29" bike. It's not all because of the wheels, but they are a part of a great overall package.

Faster for some but surely not universal

Agreed, simply not faster for all, all the time. Can't possibly be. The energy going into the wheel is the same, so it's about efficiency of rolling and acceleration, and a big chunk of psychology too I think, for the WC XC guys.

But I don't think WC XC has much relation to what we all ride day to day, hence it's fading support in the UK. A general sweeping comment I know, but how many of us buy what the Pro XC guys ride? We probably buy something closer to what the Dirt and STW testers ride.