You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Performance differences when using 26- and 29-inch-wheel bikes in Swiss National Team cross-country mountain bikers - http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02640414.2015.1119294
Based around XC racing more than trail centre but always nice to see Mountain Biking flash up on my journal updates never the less!
Interesting, thanks - does the full text say more about what the sections designed to favour 26" bikes were like?
From the paper...
To fulfil one complete trial, participants had to ride
two laps on the course. One lap (length: 615 m, ascent:
14 m) comprised two separate sections assumed to favour
either the 29“ bike (section A, 348 m) or the 26“ bike (section
B, 267 m) (Figure 1). Section A consisted of more straights,
downhills, wide turns and a rougher surface (roots, stones),
and Section B consisted of more uphills and more tight, winding
trails. In building the course, the aim was to ensure a
similar time requirement for sections A and B. I
Based around XC racing more than trail centre
Depending on what you think that means it might not mean what you think it means.
Interesting, thanks. It's good to see a study that actually shows a statistically significant difference. Of course, nobody cares about times any more, it's all about the fun, right 🙂
From a racing stand point I thought it was interesting to finally see some statistical evidence.
How are you reading this without paying for it?
How are you reading this without paying for it?
What he said...
My interest has been raised, but not to the tune of £25!
I am sooooo sceptical of any 'science' around this. You can't blind people to the bike they're riding and a trial that was effectively designed to overcome that would be prohibitively expensive. Also, I don't really care - but then I'm not racing.
Disclaimer: Obviously I've not read this paper so I may be talking tosh.
it's a no brainer for anyone who has ridden a 26" and a 29" hardtail really.
[url= http://www1.zippyshare.com/v/0ZzSTzHB/file.html ]http://www1.zippyshare.com/v/0ZzSTzHB/file.html[/url]if anyone wants a pdf of the full article.
How are you reading this without paying for it?
I guess there are a few students or employees of educational establishments that subscribe to the journal who can get it through their library.
It's not that complicated a study though. Basically a course with two sections (one they thought would favour the 29 and one the 26) ridden multiple times by a group of trained athletes (with active recovery periods). All the usual randomisations (order of tests etc), but not blinded.
The results showed statistically significant differences in overall times and in times for the two sections, with the 29er always being fastest (even on the section designed to favour the 26). The riders were told to go as hard as they could and there was no statistically significant difference in other indicators (such as heart rate).
EDIT: Not sure how happy the journal or the University of Leeds will be about the article being posted here. But I'll leave that for others to debate.
Sorry for the delay....here is a link for review and discussion purposes!