Many people here are Clydes simply because they are over 6 feet tall. If you're over 6', this post is directed toward you. Some shorter riders are on 29"ers as well, but they make even more sense for taller riders. Doesn't it make sense for wheel size to increase with frame size??

Here are some 29" benefits:

Traction:
I'm 6' 4.5" and 225. When I switched, the larger volume tires allowed my rear air pressure to drop from 50 psi to 40 psi. This increases the tire contact patch allowing for better climbing and cornering. It offsets the traction disadvantage a Clyde has against a lighter rider....

Frame fit:
Most seat tube angles are around 73 degrees. The purpose of the seat tube angle is to properly position the rider over the pedals. This doesn't change whether 26" or 29". As the length of the seat tube increases, more weight is placed over the rear tire. An increase in chainstay length is required to keep the front end on the ground during climbs. Once that chainstay must change a certain amount, doesn't it make sense to stuff a bigger wheel back there?? Check out the chainstay on Shaq's custom 26" (wheel size) Cannondale for an extreme example of chainstay growth (Bicycling's last issue). They but the brace in the wrong place, but otherwise there is plenty of room for a 29" wheel.

Speed:
This is not Clyde specific, but the 29" wheels rollover objects in the trail faster because the angle of contact is less.

Stability:
29"ers have a longer wheelbase and can be made more stable, or you can increase the BB height and keep a certain level of twitchyness. Also, my longer wheelbase has not affected singletrack agility, perhaps because the bike fits right.


Weight: Yes is weighs more, my hardtail gained 2.5 pounds going to 29" bike with similar components. However, I feel the increase in weight is worth the advantages.

The downside is that if you only have $1,500 to spend, your choices are limited (Surly??). I can't recommend a Fisher for a clyde, even though their warrenty service is bulletproof. Custom builders for 29"ers are numerous, but few are options for those on a budget.

I know others will chime in here. Lets hear more on this topic.

My only concern would be wheel strength - or do they make the 29'ers stronger to counterbalance the inherant weakness of the bigger wheel? Of course if you're primarily an XC rider and not overly technical this probably wouldn't be a huge concern anyways.

My only concern would be wheel strength - or do they make the 29'ers stronger to counterbalance the inherant weakness of the bigger wheel? Of course if you're primarily an XC rider and not overly technical this probably wouldn't be a huge concern anyways.


I run a 36 spoke hub with a Mavic T520 (a touring rim). Currently the 29" concept isn't geared toward freeriding (lack of: FS designs, long travel forks, 2.3"+ tires, would be the stumbling points). A 29" DH bike actually make sense to me. The big wheels would be much better in rock gardens. As far as wheel strength, you could run a 48 spoke tandem wheel if you don't think a 36 spoke, loaded touring rim is enough.

Many people here are Clydes simply because they are over 6 feet tall. If you're over 6', this post is directed toward you. Some shorter riders are on 29"ers as well, but they make even more sense for taller riders. Doesn't it make sense for wheel size to increase with frame size??

I alternate between my 29" hardtail and my 26" full-suspension. In some slow-speed technical situations I actually feel more comfortable and competent on the hardtail. And to date, the 29"er gives me the best climbing traction I've ever had.

My next bike purchase, when the time comes, will most likely replace my 5" travel 26" dualie with a 4" travel 29"er.

29" wheel strength hasn't been an issue for me, even with a 32-spoke rear wheel. Then again, it's built around a Rohloff Speedhub, both symmetrical and wide, but I've bashed these rims awfully hard and they've always spun true.

I built some King hubs to relatively lightweight 29er rims, Salsa Delgato's, 32hole.

I raced the snot out of them as a big man, on rocky technical arkansas courses. They never once same out of true.

'nuff said.

I built some King hubs to relatively lightweight 29er rims, Salsa Delgato's, 32hole.

I raced the snot out of them as a big man, on rocky technical arkansas courses. They never once same out of true.

'nuff said.

ncjo1 - check your pm again

Do you or Naestep know anyone over 6' who has gone back to a 26"?? I hate to make height an issue, but I really believe it is.

My only concern would be wheel strength - or do they make the 29'ers stronger to counterbalance the inherant weakness of the bigger wheel? Of course if you're primarily an XC rider and not overly technical this probably wouldn't be a huge concern anyways.

245lbs riding rough. 32 hole Rynolites...trued the rear wheel once since october logging no less than 50 miles a week.

ncjo1 - check your pm again

Do you or Naestep know anyone over 6' who has gone back to a 26"?? I hate to make height an issue, but I really believe it is.

I'm 6'3" and 1/2 inches according to the latest medical check up last week. I go back and forth between my Surly Karate Monkey and 26" based Trek 8000, Cannondale MT800 off road tandem and I'm even thinking of adding a smaller front wheeled recumbent to the garage filled with bikes. Not sure about that though, but I might invest.

Now, we don't want the Clydesdale board to morph into what we already have over on the two-niner board, but I do agree with the premise of the taller the clydesdale - the more beneficial it is to be looking at the bigger hoops.

BB

I'm 6'3" and 1/2 inches according to the latest medical check up last week. I go back and forth between my Surly Karate Monkey and 26" based Trek 8000, Cannondale MT800 off road tandem and I'm even thinking of adding a smaller front wheeled recumbent to the garage filled with bikes. Not sure about that though, but I might invest.

Now, we don't want the Clydesdale board to morph into what we already have over on the two-niner board, but I do agree with the premise of the taller the clydesdale - the more beneficial it is to be looking at the bigger hoops.

BB

I agree on not morphing the board, but I was seeing a lot of "should I by an HT or FS" and nobody is suggesting a 29"er for the taller body types. One topic partially related to 29"ers (the other part is related to Clydes...) will hardly morph the board anyway. I just wanted to put the idea out there, for those who aren't familiar with it, with a few reasons why it works.

speaking as a sub-6' clyde (just by a little), i'm thinking that 29"ers are looking pretty good - particularly for we hardtail holdouts, though i'm sure they make lovely fullies as well.

but, as there's a moratorium on bike buying in my house at the moment, it'll be 3 years before i can look at them with any seriousness. unless something breaks in the mean time (ride hard, i know).

as i've posted elsewhere, i'll be excited to see more selection evolve by then for 29"ers. i wonder if we'll see cannondale do something: the old c-dale, at least, would be pretty into any new niches - even if gary fisher beat them to it. nice bikes for bigger folk, imo (that's cannondale).

I agree on not morphing the board, but I was seeing a lot of "should I by an HT or FS" and nobody is suggesting a 29"er for the taller body types. One topic partially related to 29"ers (the other part is related to Clydes...) will hardly morph the board anyway. I just wanted to put the idea out there, for those who aren't familiar with it, with a few reasons why it works.

Hey, I'm with you there. I wasn't trying to dissuade any discussion of the big hoops. My comment stemmed more from seeing many of our "usual gang" from the two-niner board posting in this thread.

And you are correct. Taller riders should certainly consider and demo a 29" bike (both HT and FS) when comparing what's available in the smaller wheeled world before making a decision on a new purchase. I'm thankful to Cloxxki and BigWheel for posting many patient posts for over the course of about a year before I took the plunge into a Karate Monkey and the 29" off road world. I sat on a few Gary Fisher's, but went with the KM so I could build up my own "dream bike" - and I love it.

BB

My next frame (At least a year off right now) will basically amount to a long-chainstay drop-bar 29'er (setup for loaded touring). It'll be custom though, it's intended to be a go-anywhere touring bike.

My next frame (At least a year off right now) will basically amount to a long-chainstay drop-bar 29'er (setup for loaded touring). It'll be custom though, it's intended to be a go-anywhere touring bike.

My only suggestions, since you are going custom, are to make sure it is suspension corrected for later use with a suspension fork, and to make sure the rear will hold a real mtb tire.

I'm 6'0" and 225 lbs. I rode a used Fisher Mt Tam 29 around the local shop one day and I was sold! That bike is almost too much fun, not to mention that it was a good deal. I picked up some touring wheels and tires to slap on it for exercise on the road. I find myself riding my 26" FS and wishing that it had 29" wheels too. I think that it's a great concept. Nothing has broken yet or come out of true but I don't abuse it as much as my FS either.

No worries.. The plan is to fit a 2.5x29" tire with decent clearance, like I said a <u> go anywhere </u> touring bike. And I'll be getting a custom fork so it'll be designed around suspension-compatible geometry but it'll have a rigid fork, I'll have a (actually more than one) dedicated MTB as well..

Part of the reason I'm going custom is because of the bigger tires.. All the touring frames are built around like 38c max tires, and MTB's have too-short chainstays.

Ultimately I'd like to be able to leave from my house, ride to an area on high-pressure slicks fully loaded then switch to knobbies for XC touring, then back to slicks for road sections... And it'll be easily SS'able.. I'm still trying to decide between Campy-style dropouts (with set screws) or an EBB. I like EBB better for running Discs on SS but it'll be primarily a geared bike with rim brakes.

No worries.. The plan is to fit a 2.5x29" tire with decent clearance, like I said a <u> go anywhere </u> touring bike. And I'll be getting a custom fork so it'll be designed around suspension-compatible geometry but it'll have a rigid fork, I'll have a (actually more than one) dedicated MTB as well..

Part of the reason I'm going custom is because of the bigger tires.. All the touring frames are built around like 38c max tires, and MTB's have too-short chainstays.

Ultimately I'd like to be able to leave from my house, ride to an area on high-pressure slicks fully loaded then switch to knobbies for XC touring, then back to slicks for road sections... And it'll be easily SS'able.. I'm still trying to decide between Campy-style dropouts (with set screws) or an EBB. I like EBB better for running Discs on SS but it'll be primarily a geared bike with rim brakes.

For a go anywhere, loaded touring bike, I'd say use the Campy 1010s. EBBs are neat, but given the choice between a solution that requires no maintainence and no weird parts, and one that requires both, I know what I'd pick.

--Shannon