700c mountain bikes rule in every way

[hogboy]

that is all.

it is not rocket science. go hammer on one that fits your body and then see for yourself.

the only reason 26'er exist is that was the common size available back in the day and easy to sell.

in every dept...my 29'er simply goes faster. uphill, downhill, cross-country, and on road. I get beat up less. tight tight singletrack is also a breeze.

there are no negatives, only positives. I am looking to unload my 2 26inch MTB's soon...

;D

[CouchingTiger]

700c wheels are weak and spindly ;)

AA was doing awesome on his 29'r this past Saturday in the super technicals. The 2" travel fork on the other hand, made for some sketchy re-entry though.

-Couch

[AA]

700c wheels are weak and spindly ;)

AA was doing awesome on his 29'r this past Saturday in the super technicals. The 2" travel fork on the other hand, made for some sketchy re-entry though.

-Couch


Hey thats a 3" fork.....

For the record that roller had a noticable hole at the bottom that even the big wheels couldnt roll out of easily, more travel (or a manual off a 45 deg slope) is the only thing to smooth out the transition. I'm liking the big wheels, they work for me for sure. YMMV.

[Tim]

Yes, it's critical to be in the forefront of every MTB fashion. 29" wheels, tubeless tires, disc brakes, 9-speed, LTXC - it's a miracle any of us were able to ride when you think about it.


Tim

[gnurider1080]

29ers have their place in mountain biking, but that place aint in my garage nor between my legs.

[Scott O]

I love the incredible lightening quick acceleration of my 29er. Almost as quick as my low-rider tandem beach cruiser.

[slapheadmofo]

I hear all the trials, park and DJ guys are switching over these days...

[Slider]

But not the BMXers. Snapping off turns is not a strength.

Slider

[hogboy]

ha it is so funny to hear the criticisms based on armchair physics vs actually honking on one for a day.

I am talking about XC racing or XC hammering...not BMX, not jumping, not DH...general purpose XC is improved by 700c. period.

don't fog up the argument with different styles of riding. I am saying...classic ordinary XC speed and flow...not jumping all day and taking pictures and stopping to chat. 35 mile hammerfest and put away wet is where it rules.

I put 145 miles on mine and so far...

the extra rotational weight makes me faster. I have not noticed any acceleration changes other than I am faster. you see, more grip outweighs the weight. it steamrolls ..., I lose less momentum, therefore, I am faster. I don't need to slow down as much and don't need to accelerate as often...get it ? I haven't noticed any bogdown or accel probs. One gear higher and one stomp harder...maybe... I am using a few more watts for that one period, but the result is way more average speed on the same section...pluis the tire conforms to the terrain better making the terrain -push me backwards even less-, which is faster still...negatives (the rotational weight...that's about it) they are outweighed a few times over....add up all the aspects of a larger tire and net result is just like the studies say...about 6% faster overall... same terrain same wattage output, using a watt-metering hub.

uphills I am way faster it grips and tracks so well. downhills ditto, it doesn't wander and I can slam the tires with much less risk of pinchflats at less pressure than 26" would need. that makes it roll faster.

sand and mud and mystery puddles...doesn't sink much. [in fact most sand feels like 1/2" sand over pavement...unreal firm...and fast...]



whatever....I am stuck on 700c now, and I'll still pull out the 26" for a change, and my SS is 26" so I will be riding that. but I am convinced big tires are the shiznat. over railroad tracks, over babyheads, over tombstones, over roots, up stuff and down stuff and across stuff....it is an improvement

[slapheadmofo]

I am talking about XC racing or XC hammering...not BMX, not jumping, not DH...general purpose XC is improved by 700c. period.

don't fog up the argument with different styles of riding. I am saying...classic ordinary XC speed and flow...not jumping all day and taking pictures and stopping to chat. 35 mile hammerfest and put away wet is where it rules.


Well, not only DID say 'in EVERY way' you also specifically mentioned downhill. And some people like their 35 mile XC rides to include some air-time, myself included. Maybe the title of the post should be "700C mountain bikes rule as long as your style is the same as my style" ;)

[ArmOnFire]

29ers SUCK!!!

Especially rigid steel single speed 29ers.

I mean, the industry standard is a "standard" for a reason right?

So what if someone who is over 6 foot 2 has to ride a bike and look like the bear in the circus.
Oh and there is no way wheels that big could be lifted off the ground by mere mortal human beings.
http://www.nemba.org/NEMBAforum/attachments/fr030506_dc.jpg

What kind of idiot would ride these 29ers?


http://www.snemba.org/images/IM001877sm

Oh, this idiot.

Can't we all just ride along?
Besides, it aint what you ride, it is how you ride it.

-Dan
P.S. You have to be a complete moron to ride anything but straight riser bars ;D

[AA]

Can't we all just ride along?
Besides, it aint what you ride, it is how you ride it.



Now your talking crazy........

[hogboy]

Well, not only DID say 'in EVERY way' you also specifically mentioned downhill. And some people like their 35 mile XC rides to include some air-time, myself included. Maybe the title of the post should be "700C mountain bikes rule as long as your style is the same as my style" ;)


OK ya got me . my post title is inaccurate. I'ma XC rider and anyone who knows me on this board knows that. Hell I haven't even ridden the 'Bride of Mangler' nor the 'Son of' I am such a wuss

yeah XC for me

[bdee]

All I can say is I was comfortably in 2nd on Sunday (Root 66 ) until my seatpost broke. I was on the SS KM racing the geared folk in heinous conditions (sport 30-39). Are 29ers faster in all XC conditions? It probably depends on so many variables it'll take a serious investment in time/money for someone to say for sure. They definitely carry more speed in open/rolling terrain, and I have had no issues thus far racing in the woods in tight ST - smoked disc pads aside ::) The advantages in mud became more obvious to me while racing as well. At the last two races a group of riders would approach a mud puddle (bog, really) and anyone on a 29er would cruise through much easier. It's still a lot of work, don't get me wrong. The things just roll faster is all. - That and I don't hang up the rear as much in root/ rock gardens.

[slapheadmofo]

Well, not only DID say 'in EVERY way' you also specifically mentioned downhill. And some people like their 35 mile XC rides to include some air-time, myself included. Maybe the title of the post should be "700C mountain bikes rule as long as your style is the same as my style" ;)


OK ya got me . my post title is inaccurate. I'ma XC rider and anyone who knows me on this board knows that. Hell I haven't even ridden the 'Bride of Mangler' nor the 'Son of' I am such a wuss

yeah XC for me


C'mon now - the Mangler and it's spin-offs ARE XC riding. ;)
I would like to build up a 29er at some point though, mostly cuz I just like riding lots of different bikes. 1 wheel, 2 wheels, 20, 24, 26, 29, hell, why not?

;D

[kernel crash]

"in every dept...my 29'er simply goes faster. uphill, downhill, cross-country, and on road. I get beat up less. tight tight singletrack is also a breeze. "

Is that where the sport is heading? Let's design a bike that neutralizes all the challenges that riding off road presents. Well if this trend continues we'll all be back to riding on the road!

[AA]

"in every dept...my 29'er simply goes faster. uphill, downhill, cross-country, and on road. I get beat up less. tight tight singletrack is also a breeze. "

Is that where the sport is heading? Let's design a bike that neutralizes all the challenges that riding off road presents. Well if this trend continues we'll all be back to riding on the road!




I say we all ride high wheeled ordinaries to make the woods more "challenging"

[kernel crash]

Only if you put on clipless pedals and put sasparilla in my camelback.

[Jisch]

There was a thread over at MTBR not long ago from some math guy who did a comparative study between a 29'er and a 26'er. He used the same trail/loop and measured the input on the pedals as a measurement of how much work he was doing.

Honestly I didn't read it close enough to figure out if his math/physics were correct, but on the surface it seemed like he had taken the right parameters into consideration.

Assuming his measurements and method were accurate he came to the conclusion that it was too close to call. If I weren't so lazy, I'd go and do the search over there to find the study.

John

[hogboy]

I just got off another hammerfest...tonight

on a new section of trail never ridden...did great


now...I dunno...I lost a huge amount of weight this year...44 lbs
(I have stabilized now...friends were getting scared)
maybe I am feeling the weight loss and not bike performance..

all I can really say is I am not looking around for another
ride that's for sure. this bugger climbs teh cruddy stuff.
I am also riding rigid again but without the numb hands and forearms
which basically require me to ride a front shock. not anymore.

when it spins on a climb I have just that much more slippage-range
as my foot goes round and can input more power-to-teh-ground
in any gear...relative to my other bikes. churn through so much crap
way more than anything before.

your mileage may vary...I ain't saying anyone is missing anything or you
should run out and buy one. but I do suggest people on the fence about
it just dive in and you'll be amazed.

if 29'ers suck, they suck so much they are cool. that is all

[C.P.]

Bah! I'd rather be riding a Burrobike! ;D

http://www.burrobikes.com/images/Burro_diagram.jpg

[ArmOnFire]

More fodder, from cyclingnews.com

Seven IMX porn (one 26er and one 29er).

14" frames, and they made some comments on how the 29er felt sluggish and slow. Which I am not surprised to someone who is probably 5'2", I have nothing against vertically challenged individuals, but come on.

**LINK** (http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2006/features/29invs26inpt1)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2006/tech/features/29invs26inpt1/Seven_IMX_hardtails_back_to_back.jpg

-Dan

[jsb2dc]

Mountain Bike Action did a side by side comparison of Fisher bikes that were set up identically. The 26'er came out on top by a wide margin performance wise, especially when climbing and accelerating. Check their article for more.

[AA]

Mountain Bike Action did a side by side comparison of Fisher bikes that were set up identically. The 26'er came out on top by a wide margin performance wise, especially when climbing and accelerating. Check their article for more.


If its in mt bike action in must be true ::)

[ArmOnFire]

Mountain Bike Action did a side by side comparison of Fisher bikes that were set up identically. The 26'er came out on top by a wide margin performance wise, especially when climbing and accelerating. Check their article for more.


Already read the rubbish, I mean article.
MBA hoovers, IMHO.

-Dan

[bdee]

Long story short if you ride one and get it, you get it. If not then no big deal. It may not work for you but how will you know until you try it? If only there were enough in shops for people to test ride them for real ::)

That said there will be some at NEMBA fest on Sunday - take one for a spin on the nastiest trail you can find.

[Phresh]

the extra rotational weight makes me faster. I have not noticed any acceleration changes other than I am faster.



Faster once you get going maybe, but physics tells us that the extra rotational weight of the 29er will cause you to accelerate marginally slower than a comparable 26er. Albeit, probably unnoticably slower, but 'slower'. Aside from that and a slim universe of applicable parts, I would have to agree the 29er is a better mousetrap.

[edge]

Mountain Bike Action did a side by side comparison of Fisher bikes that were set up identically. The 26'er came out on top by a wide margin performance wise, especially when climbing and accelerating. Check their article for more.


Yeah. They're in a desert.... If you take a long enough crap to get to the end of that ol' rag you'll see where the 29er get's some stans wheels and smokes the 26er.

I want a 29er as a third bike. I was sitting on that brown surly SS at the loft today and thinking about how I could sneak it in the house..

"It's my buddys bike. I'm just working on it for him."

It's new you idiot.....

[BG]

Oh just get off the crapper and buy one.
MBA rocks.

BG

[radair]

I think if you lose 44 pounds, any bike would feel like it had higher performance.

The improvement I saw when my kids went from 20" to 24" to 26" wheels was significant. No reason 29" would be any different. I'm not sure short people like me really fit all that well on them, though. If I was 5'-16" like AOF & AA I would defiantly be on one.

[slapheadmofo]

the extra rotational weight makes me faster.



??? So putting heavier tires and rims on a bike make it faster? That's it, I'm putting my 3" Gazzis and Doublewides on the trail bike as soon as I get home! ;)

[ArmOnFire]

I think if you lose 44 pounds, any bike would feel like it had higher performance.

The improvement I saw when my kids went from 20" to 24" to 26" wheels was significant. No reason 29" would be any different. I'm not sure short people like me really fit all that well on them, though. If I was 5'-16" like AOF & AA I would defiantly be on one.


5'-16"-that's a good one!