I am looking at a Carver 96er Frame. The Carver runs a 29er wheel in front and a 26 inch wheel in the rear. I am wondering how these would ride compared to a full 29er Advantages/Disadvantages? Anyone have any experience with these? The concept seems to make some sense to me.

lots lots lots lots and LOTS of stuff about the concept in this forum. DO a search

there is an article in one of this months mountain bike mag's about the bike. It was not 100% positive. Sounded like the reviewer was not the biggest 29er fan generally. It was either MBA or DirtRag. I can't remember which.

1) You've already got a 26" suspension-corrected bike, a new 29" bike is too much investment for you right now, and you want to go fully rigid in front anyway. At least you can get an improvement in how you roll over stuff at the front, and half of the stability benefit. You won't get any improvements in climbing traction, of course, and you won't get very much improvement in rolling resistance since most of that is in the rear tire.

2) You're so hard on rear wheels that you can't build up a strong-enough 29" rear wheel, even with 36 straight gauge spokes. I actually know someone - who's been riding 29"ers longer than I have - who fits into this category, and plans to have a custom 29"er built.

I see NO other reason not to go 29" wheels, assuming you accept the benefits of big wheels in the first place. In other words, there are very, very few people for whom a NEW production 29"er would be a good investment. The grip, stability, ride and rolling resistance benefits apply to both wheels, and if you go 29" at only one end I think you're only getting half the benefit.

In other words, there are very, very few people for whom a NEW production 29"er would be a good investment.

Is there supposed to be a "not" in there somewhere, or can I just not read?

LP

This is just my opinion, but why bother. I say go full 29, and not mess with the whole 29, 26 thing. Remindes me of the Specialized Big Hit with the 26 front, 24 back. Bad Idea to me. JMO

A reason that will mean more to Europeans than to others, the UCI doesn't allow any bikes with different wheelsizes front/rear. Not even in timetrial anymore.

Intriguing how the 96'er "concept" seems to appeal to so many people who have not properly demo'd a 29"er. LIke 29" is the inevitable evil, and the 96'er the attractive half-evil.

One that doesn't thoroughly try a full 29"er before soending serious cash on the half-way evil, probably doesn't deserve much more value for investment.

Prediction : a few years from now, the resale price for a Carver frame will be surprisingly low. In 20 years, it will sell for more than original retail, as a unique fluke(sp) in MTB history. The 29" bike had already been realized in '99, but in 2005 someone thought that a golden compromize was required with under half the 29" advantages in return for 1/3lb weight savings.and that many others would feel the same. The bike industry is so silly...

This "96er" (I still think the moniker for these bikes is silly) thing has been hashed out here before. I remember reading that "if you haven't ridden one, you don't know what your talking about" line before concerning these bikes. So, to that end I have had the unique opportunity to build one of these up cheap. I got my hands on a Trek 4500 frame for free, an old Manitou 700c suspension fork for free, and with that and my vast parts bin selection it looks like I'll have myself a 29"X26" rig to test here shortly. I plan on running the same tires as my Karate Monkey and doing some roll out tests, climbing tests, and some single track time trials on both to satisfy my requirements. Then when somebody chimes in here and says "I don't know what I'm talking about",well.......they still might be right! :p At least I'll have my experiences to draw upon, and heck.......it's a bicycle, how could it not be fun! :D :p

I'm sure the Carver people had been riding full 29"ers for many years, and have eventually come to the conclusion that they just couldn't live with that super-bulky extra 1/3lb that only offered the better half of the 29" advantages, at a staggering sub-half of the weight penalty.

Hey, oversized stems, 31.8mm, have been tried over a decade ago, and the market didn't want them. 26/24 has been tried in both XC and DH, same effect. Surely this time it will work, magnifying to 29/26?

I did try the 29/26 thing before finally getting my first full 29"er. Even though the setup was rigid (which I was used to on that frame), already the rear end felt overly harsh. No thank you on a hardtail version of that!

"Yes Sir, this is our new model mini van. What we did over our existing mega-van was shortening the wheelbase by 2", while reducing the number of seat from 8 to 5. Furthermore, by cutting off it's tail we managed to keep luggage space exactly the same. Overall weight of the vehicle, thanks to these improvement has amounted to a welcome 20lb advantage, which will boost your car's performance beyond your imagination. You know how in car racing 20lb is the difference bewteen winning and losing? Amazing isn't it Sir, the advantages to be reached by downscaling things?".

or

"Yes Sir, we changed the front wheels to 19" rims with wide slick, and the back end got 14" ones with shortened travel to give a more lively rear end. You get all the back-end sliding, but with a front wheel drive car!"

Maybe, just maybe, the folks at Carver have ridden many bikes and like what they sell?


I think many of the folks here who talk **** on the 96er concept would not do the same about hardtail vs full suspension, which much of the same arguments could be made about.

Check out the Dirtrag review. Try to ride one. Don't let the din in here sway you too much, most of these folks are zealots, but that does make it interesting.

Personally I have a full rigid KM, but I plan on trying the 29/26 concept soon, as some of the very, very tight trails around here I'm not completely happy with the full 29.

I'm finishing my 96'er build this week. My intention is to get both the 96'er and my X-Cal out for a side by side this weekend. I'll post some early observations and then follow up after some miles. Talk tou you guys this weekend.

I think many of the folks here who talk **** on the 96er concept would not do the same about hardtail vs full suspension, which much of the same arguments could be made about.

Check out the Dirtrag review. Try to ride one. Don't let the din in here sway you too much, most of these folks are zealots, but that does make it interesting.

Personally I have a full rigid KM, but I plan on trying the 29/26 concept soon, as some of the very, very tight trails around here I'm not completely happy with the full 29.


I agree with you - they might work just fine. But I pose this analogy to you: What would you (or people around here) think if I went to the SS board and said "Hey guys, a 2 speed is better than a SS!"

I bet you/they'd tell me to naff off. And fair enough. That is a place to talk about SS bikes. A place for SS lovers. And this is a place for 29er riders and bikes. So yeah, you could say zealot, but then this IS the allocated space for 29er nuts. By the way, there is a reason why many folks here come across as zealots - because we believe in what we ride.

I will recommend a 29er to anyone I know in the market for a new bike. I've ridden almost every kind of mountain bike since I started MTBing in 1989, and I honestly believe that 29ers are superior to comparable bikes with 26 inch wheels. I want to help my friends, it would weigh on my conscience otherwise. The only time I'd advise gainst a 29er was if there were special circumstances, for example monetary constraints or rider size.

I honestly think 29/26 has its place - but I don't think it is in the new bike market. I think it helps if you want to use a rigid fork, or want to test the waters before you commit to a 29er purchase. It can be pretty cheap to convert your current ride. I think there are now enough options for zippy-handling 29ers that the wheel size doesn't have to let one down in tight singletrack.

Finally, I too ride a KM - got it about a month ago. I think it is just as nimble as my SC Blur (and just as much fun - and like yours, it is full rigid). A lot less money, maintenance and hassle for the same amount of fun (if not more).

Out.

I have tried one 29/26er, a perfect geometry match to the 26/26 I had ridden previously, so I think my opinion is valid. I'm not going to import a Carver frame, borrow a 26" rear wheel, just to try this specific specimen.

If your trails in your mind are too tight for a 29"er, get a 26"er. They're fine bikes, with a quarter century history. I've often seen that switchbacks not cleaned with 26" after many attempts, were cleaned first time on a 29"er.

Set up your KM with the rear wheel all the way forward, and ride it. This is mere millimeters longer a chainstaylength than on the Carver. Now add the difference, slide the rear wheel in place, bolt it down, and ride some more. Huge difference, huh? Personally, I just can't tell. We're talking millimeters on a meter+ wheelbase.

The Carver Mini accepts both 24" and 26" rear wheels. So for small kids it's fine to have chainstays half their body length, and not for grown ups? The extensive geoemtry sheet doesn't state what one owuld expect as the most important feature (short rear end) : chainstaystaylength. perhaps it's really not all that short?

Carver's XL (they also make XXL, which in itself is cool) has a 44.0" wheelbase. My favorite 29"ers I own in XL, with much longer toptubes, are SHORTER! Maybe they amde the front extra long and stable, to have the rear seem even shorter.

The mini's seat tube (top of seattube) measurement for some reason is in mm, odd. It's even not really much shorter than the "normal" XS, despite a really short toptube, odd too. I'malso pretty sure the BB drops though the sizing range aren't correct. The mini on 24/24 wheels could use a 165mm crankset+pedal as a kickstand :-) 10 or 15mm shorter cranks on the XS than the XXL, wow.

Come to think of it, it should be relatively easy to make an adapter to stick a 26" rear wheel in a KM, keeping BB drop the same. Great way to void warranty and try something "new".

Sorry folks, bad mood.

going to be a lot less happy when you drop your rear end another 1"+ while dropping the BB and slackening the HA. Rock meet pedal. Corner meet push.

Sounds like maybe you should have purchased a 96er from the get go...

Personally I have a full rigid KM, but I plan on trying the 29/26 concept soon, as some of the very, very tight trails around here I'm not completely happy with the full 29.

I honestly think 29/26 has its place - but I don't think it is in the new bike market. I think it helps if you want to use a rigid fork, or want to test the waters before you commit to a 29er purchase. It can be pretty cheap to convert your current ride. I think there are now enough options for zippy-handling 29ers that the wheel size doesn't have to let one down in tight singletrack.[/QUOTE]
Amen to that. I just don't have such kind words popping up on this topic.

Maybe I should regard the 96'er (sissies to not dare call it 69'er) much like the shotblasted jeans. They don't keep you warm as much, maybe itch a bit even, but make you look really cool in a selected type of company for a short while (fashion).

I wonder why, not even for the XXL (taller than most road bikes), Carver went for a 29" rear wheel, even as an option. If you fit a bike with a 24.5" seat tube, what's a couple mm's of chaisntays or 150g in a rear wheel?

ugly, hahaha, I'm not scared to say it

A reason that will mean more to Europeans than to others, the UCI doesn't allow any bikes with different wheelsizes front/rear. Not even in timetrial anymore.

Intriguing how the 96'er "concept" seems to appeal to so many people who have not properly demo'd a 29"er. LIke 29" is the inevitable evil, and the 96'er the attractive half-evil.

One that doesn't thoroughly try a full 29"er before soending serious cash on the half-way evil, probably doesn't deserve much more value for investment.

Prediction : a few years from now, the resale price for a Carver frame will be surprisingly low. In 20 years, it will sell for more than original retail, as a unique fluke(sp) in MTB history. The 29" bike had already been realized in '99, but in 2005 someone thought that a golden compromize was required with under half the 29" advantages in return for 1/3lb weight savings.and that many others would feel the same. The bike industry is so silly...

Intriguing how the 96'er "concept" seems to appeal to so many people who have not properly demo'd a 29"er. LIke 29" is the inevitable evil, and the 96'er the attractive half-evil.

None of my riding buddies would think of going 29’er. However they say it would be great if they made a 29” front wheel for my DH bike. :o

Maybe, just maybe, the folks at Carver have ridden many bikes and like what they sell?


I think many of the folks here who talk **** on the 96er concept would not do the same about hardtail vs full suspension, which much of the same arguments could be made about.

Check out the Dirtrag review. Try to ride one. Don't let the din in here sway you too much, most of these folks are zealots, but that does make it interesting.

Personally I have a full rigid KM, but I plan on trying the 29/26 concept soon, as some of the very, very tight trails around here I'm not completely happy with the full 29.

and the potential lack of handling in the tight stuff is my biggest fear. im building up a soma juice as we speak but in my heart of hearts its hard to imagine any 29er cutting up east coast singletrack like a 26er. for those that dont know WE HAS SOME TIGHT @SS TRAILS!!!!!!!!. plus i ride a 20in bike, which dosnt help. we'll see.

For super-tight trails, based purely on numbers, I'd advise stay away from the Carver. 70º head angle and a 29" front wheel?
The Carver is a longer bike than the average 29"er, and it's all in the front, without being in the top tube. An extra inch on the front IMO affects tight handling more than an inch in the back, and the Carver's back is ever so slightly shorter, and the front way long.

My Vulture "ninety sixer fixer" has provided many good hours of fun for me. I don't think I've ever been entertained more on any mtb I've owned. She will enjoy the 24 Hrs. at Old Pueblo in a coupla months.......

She climbs with alacrity and descends with conviction. I love this bike!

I'd post a pic, but my current Pentax Digi SLR camera just seems to make things TOO big.

I popped a 29" wheel (Salsa Delgado rim/Surly hub/WTB Exiwolf tire) in the stock fork on my Inbred and I'm enjoying it. I'm 5'4" so a production 29er isn't really an option(a 15" Rig might fit but I don't like aluminum)and I'm not currently in a position to pop for a custom, so this will hold me until I can go for the full 29er which I feel is the better way to go. I'm interested to see the Monocog 29er in the flesh, that may be a possibility if there's a small enough size.

Is there supposed to be a "not" in there somewhere, or can I just not read?

Oops, the mistake was that I wrote 29"er, not 29/26"er. Thanks for pointing it out. What I meant to stay was this: There are very, very few people for whom a NEW production 29/26"er would be a good investment. Again, it may make a lot of sense to convert an existing 26"er, but otherwise I see little reason to spend full price on a new bike for half the benefit. Among those who say they'd like to compromise on something in-between (see Jaybo's post from a few weeks ago), it sounds like the main reason they want to do so is to have quicker handling than the 29"ers they have tried.

The thing is, geometry makes more of a difference than wheelsize in that regard. 29" wheels are not inherently much slower-handling, and a well-designed 29" bike can still have zippy handling. Yes, the best of both worlds. My KM and my Vulture handle "tight-ass" singletrack like Stella trails in Longview (WA) just as well as my 26" bikes did. Not only do they turn just as tight, it is precisely in that type of terrain that you benefit most from the added stability of the big wheels.

It's easy to see how the misconception has come about though. Both of my 29"ers have wheelbases right around 41.1", while a small Fisher Rig (comparable top tube length to the others) has a 42.8" wheelbase. That's an enormous difference, and I'm betting the vast majority of those who've demo'ed 29"ers and found them sluggish were riding something on the long side. For the 334,983th time ... don't blame the wheels! And BTW, the medium Carver (again, comparable TT length) has a 42.8" wheelbase, just like the Fisher. Hmm, wonder how it handles tight-ass singletrack?

I popped a 29" wheel (Salsa Delgado rim/Surly hub/WTB Exiwolf tire) in the stock fork on my Inbred and I'm enjoying it. I'm 5'4" so a production 29er isn't really an option(a 15" Rig might fit but I don't like aluminum)and I'm not currently in a position to pop for a custom, so this will hold me until I can go for the full 29er which I feel is the better way to go. I'm interested to see the Monocog 29er in the flesh, that may be a possibility if there's a small enough size.

I bet a small KM or Soma Juice would fit you. The VooDoo Dambala is available in some pretty small sizes too.

I bet a small KM or Soma Juice would fit you. The VooDoo Dambala is available in some pretty small sizes too.

I think the small Monkey might be too big for me unfortunately. After I posted on this thread, I saw another thread about the Soma Juice which has a dropped top tube in the 16" size and the price ain't bad at all. I'd like to see and try one before I buy though.

I have tried one 29/26er, a perfect geometry match to the 26/26 I had ridden previously, so I think my opinion is valid. I'm not going to import a Carver frame, borrow a 26" rear wheel, just to try this specific specimen.

If your trails in your mind are too tight for a 29"er, get a 26"er. They're fine bikes, with a quarter century history. I've often seen that switchbacks not cleaned with 26" after many attempts, were cleaned first time on a 29"er.

Set up your KM with the rear wheel all the way forward, and ride it. This is mere millimeters longer a chainstaylength than on the Carver. Now add the difference, slide the rear wheel in place, bolt it down, and ride some more. Huge difference, huh? Personally, I just can't tell. We're talking millimeters on a meter+ wheelbase.

The Carver Mini accepts both 24" and 26" rear wheels. So for small kids it's fine to have chainstays half their body length, and not for grown ups? The extensive geoemtry sheet doesn't state what one owuld expect as the most important feature (short rear end) : chainstaystaylength. perhaps it's really not all that short?

Carver's XL (they also make XXL, which in itself is cool) has a 44.0" wheelbase. My favorite 29"ers I own in XL, with much longer toptubes, are SHORTER! Maybe they amde the front extra long and stable, to have the rear seem even shorter.

The mini's seat tube (top of seattube) measurement for some reason is in mm, odd. It's even not really much shorter than the "normal" XS, despite a really short toptube, odd too. I'malso pretty sure the BB drops though the sizing range aren't correct. The mini on 24/24 wheels could use a 165mm crankset+pedal as a kickstand :-) 10 or 15mm shorter cranks on the XS than the XXL, wow.

Come to think of it, it should be relatively easy to make an adapter to stick a 26" rear wheel in a KM, keeping BB drop the same. Great way to void warranty and try something "new".

Sorry folks, bad mood.

For some reason I really like arguing with people about this option, and I've never ridden one. (29/26, not a 29/29)

Many people seem to equate short wheelbases with fast/agile/sharp handling and while it is surely a large part of the the equation, how a bike handles in twisty, rough terrain is not solely dependent on 1 or 2 frame geometry numbers.

Look at BB drop. One of my largest complaints about my KM is it's difficulty in getting the front end up. Mind you, the front wheel doesn't have to get as high to clear stuff now, but my old 1x1 would sit up on it's rear wheel with a tug on the bars. The KM takes a very determined yank, and rewards me with much less lift. If you are in the middle of a turn and need a quick hank to clear an obstacle the 1x1 beats the KM hands down.

I'm sure the fact that the KM needs to be leaned much more to make it around a corner also has some to do with my curiosity about the 96er. On trails here with many. many closely spaced trees, leaning isn't always as much of an option as I would like. If I could get the same turn with less lean on a 96er, I'll take some of the drawbacks.

I don't think Carver is saying the 96er is better than a 29er, or 26er for all riders, in all places. It seems to be the descendant of the Cannondale Beast of the East, a bike that was poorly suited to much of the riding in the west, but ate up East Coast style trails.

Horses for Courses folks.

And really I put myself in the zealot category myself. I plan on writing a proposition to the product manager of a small, but well distributed brand that I have done some product testing for, about changing their production off-road touring bike to 29" wheels. It was originally designed to handle the Continental Divide trail, and considering the recent exploits of 29" mounted racers on this trail, a change to 29" wheels makes perfect sense.

Jonas, if it's the low BB on the KM you have troubles with, then try a stock Fisher sometime. The BB is some 18mm taller! My even lower older Fisher, together with it's loooong wheelbase had me lean way over as well, but if I threw some muscle at it, I would still not be dropped on singletrack, I even felt quite fast. Just as long as the wheels could keep rolling.
Judging from the specs, the Carver's BB doesn't seem to be any taller than the KM's. Wheelbase is way longer in the front, and ever so slightly shorter in the back. Yes the front wheel will come up seemingly telepathically, but then, it will also do so on a serious climb.
Judging from the geometry sheet, the Carver doesn't seem designed for super-tight singletrack. Looks like it wouldn't do better than a stock Fisher, which actually has decently quick steering to offset it's huge wheelbase. I'm quite sure the Carver would ask for more extreme riding style adjustments to squeeze it through tights.

I meant the relationship of the BB height to axle height. You sit lower in relation to the axle of a 29" wheel versus a 26".

I've got an older Fisher frame in the basement, ready for the 29/26 conversion. I'll be happy to report my findings here, but it seems that regardless of personal preference, this idea will be shot down on this board. Which is cool, as I need my fix of arguments every couple of weeks.

I'm glad yinz are around, I hope no one, especially Cloxxki, takes any of my arguments personally.

My 29/26 Inbred. The bars will probably be coming down a few mms.

The SM 16" Monkey has the same standover as a LG 19" Fisher, 30.8", so it probably won't fit the poster well.

Here is a thread with a 16" Soma Juice writeup and photos. The bike was built for a 5"2" rider. The post mentions that the standover is 27" at the top tube bend.

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=142099

I'm glad yinz are around, I hope no one, especially Cloxxki, takes any of my arguments personally.
Conversion are cool if you lack funds for a full 29"er. Better than a full 26"er anyway. IMO facts tell us that the Carver is a very bad compromize, and it's arguments incorrect. Great for a conversion job, wasted aluminum resources for a new frame.
How can anyone take bikes personally?

a few months ago i was very close to getting a new, hi-end 69er made for me. i had talked to several bulders, worked out the details, and even sent in the deposit. i changed my mind to make it a full 29er, however. i am very happy with that decision. 3 main things made me dump the 69er idea and not look back, which is where i stand today.

1. i rode more 29ers, at walt's urging. i rode them more in my size, and preferred set up as much as i could.

2. i was at a race on a muddy and wet ski-area course. i was hammering along as best as i can and chanced to be racing with a friend on his new 29er. he was KILLING me on the slippery climbs, ans making pay like a mofo in the slimy singletrack. i have raced this guy mant many times, he is as good as me or a little better. but, on that new 29er he was kicking my ass.

3. i built up my converted 26 in 69er. i imagined a bike suggested by somebody else here on the forum - a bike with dual droputs which would allow the use of a 26 OR a 29 rear wheel - i imagined i had such a bike. drawing on all my experience, i closed my eyes and imagined which set i would use when, and why. i concluded that if i owned such a bike, i would most likely never use the 26er rear wheel whatsoever. i would in all likelyhood put the 29er rear wheel in there and leave it there.

end of story.

I don't think Carver is saying the 96er is better than a 29er, or 26er for all riders, in all places. It seems to be the descendant of the Cannondale Beast of the East, a bike that was poorly suited to much of the riding in the west, but ate up East Coast style trails.

Horses for Courses folks.

So what is it about the Carver that would make it so well suited to East Coast style trails? As Cloxxki has pointed out, the geometry doesn't look that promising.

Finished the 96'er this morning and was able to get it out for quick loop w/ the X-Cal.

Disclaimer - I'm a recreational rider - 40 with two young kids - riding time can be inconsistent. I've owned only hardtails since the early '90's. I've been on the 29 Fisher since the spring of '05 and couldn't go back to a full 26. This is strictly my observation by how the bikes felt. I'm 5'7 with a short inseam - 29.5".

Trail conditions today were cold, hard and fast with a little ice and hard pack snow left in the shady spots. The ride was two 6 mile loops - one on each bike on relatively rolling singletrack - lots of roots w/ minimal rocks.

Fisher is geared with front suspension - Carver is geared and rigid.

I will not be stating much more than what has already been discussed from others who have done the 29/26 conversion. Here's my initial experience:

Both bikes worked very well. The Carver felt as if it accelerated a bit quicker and was a little snappier from a handling standpoint. I noticed a little less commitment on my part laying the bike over in some of the speedier turns, but the conditions were on the firm side. I was waiting to feel the bike lose some of the rotational glide that I have become used to from the Fisher, but it was nominal if at all noticable. However, I did definetely notice a bit more harshness from the smaller back wheel, but not quite as much as I expected from reading some of the post's on this subject. I'm sure my opinion may be different regarding this after some longer rides. I wouldn't rule out a suspension post for longer days on this bike.

The second loop was on the Fisher with the fork locked out to level the playing field and there was definetely a comfort level associated from my time spent on this bike. Initially I could feel a slight difference in the handling of the bike as the Fisher felt a little slower to respond, but it became less noticable as the ride went on. There was more comfort in the rear and it was fun to have ridden both back to back.

I've always felt the Fisher was a smidge large for my height and build and I have spent time tweaking my fit. At times I've felt a little light and high on the back wheel and have had a couple of good spills when the back wheel washed out over some off camber rooty or rocky sections. I didn't have that feeling on the Carver, but by no means have I had enough time on the bike, yet.

I by no means am endorsing one over the other. My initial feeling is that they both have their own unique qualities and time will tell as to which one I reach for more going out the door. I'll update after some more time on the 96'er. I hope this helps anyone considering either bike. Both are fun.

garbec: I read your post and it occured to me that when comparing any kind of bike to any other kind of bike that fit and comfort level can highly skew your perceptions. I'm not trying to disqualify your remarks, but that was my impression as I read your post. If a 29 inch bike came along that worked "fit-wise" in a better way than your current bike, wouldn't you be more apt to say that bike was in some way better? I think so. That's also true for a "69"er, or any other bike for that matter. (did I just type "69"er?.....Hmmm.)

I attended "Trek University" today, which is a seminar for all of Treks brands, focusing on all the current technologies and products. During the seminar, it was again confirmed that Trek will in fact be bringing one of these "half breed" bikes to market, just like the one Travis Brown rode at the SSWC this year. Yes, it's a single speed, and I don't know if it will be pink!

I wonder how Trek will be marketing this frankenbike. Like the "best of both worlds" or just a kick-ass be-different type of ride.
Seems to me Trek's too proud to make the ideal 29" Trek bike, which inevitably would be like a "carbon copy" (yes please) of the Fishers that have been around for half a decade. Simply hard to improve on. If you can't beat yourself, you try something different?

garbec: I read your post and it occured to me that when comparing any kind of bike to any other kind of bike that fit and comfort level can highly skew your perceptions. I'm not trying to disqualify your remarks, but that was my impression as I read your post. If a 29 inch bike came along that worked "fit-wise" in a better way than your current bike, wouldn't you be more apt to say that bike was in some way better? I think so. That's also true for a "69"er, or any other bike for that matter. (did I just type "69"er?.....Hmmm.)

I attended "Trek University" today, which is a seminar for all of Treks brands, focusing on all the current technologies and products. During the seminar, it was again confirmed that Trek will in fact be bringing one of these "half breed" bikes to market, just like the one Travis Brown rode at the SSWC this year. Yes, it's a single speed, and I don't know if it will be pink!

Ted - I completely agree. Not to skew my own comments, but I wasn't exactly comparing apples to apples. The bikes have different geometries, the Carver is quite a bit lighter without a suspension fork, with V-Brakes and I believe the frame may also be a bit lighter. All of which should make the bikes feel different. Add to that I was riding in about 27F degrees, my legs were a little fresher on the first loop and a brand new bike always should feel good from the psychological standpoint. After sleeping on it I think the best comment I can make is that 96'er has ride characteristics similar to a 29/26 conversion many have built, just more refined do to the frame specific geometry for this set up. The way I look at it, the Carver or the new Trek is just another option for the consumer to have. My feeling is that choices are a good thing when buying a bike off the rack that is not custom built. I'll keep you posted. thanks.

Oops, the mistake was that I wrote 29"er, not 29/26"er. Thanks for pointing it out. What I meant to stay was this: There are very, very few people for whom a NEW production 29/26"er would be a good investment. Again, it may make a lot of sense to convert an existing 26"er, but otherwise I see little reason to spend full price on a new bike for half the benefit. Among those who say they'd like to compromise on something in-between (see Jaybo's post from a few weeks ago), it sounds like the main reason they want to do so is to have quicker handling than the 29"ers they have tried.

The thing is, geometry makes more of a difference than wheelsize in that regard. 29" wheels are not inherently much slower-handling, and a well-designed 29" bike can still have zippy handling. Yes, the best of both worlds. My KM and my Vulture handle "tight-ass" singletrack like Stella trails in Longview (WA) just as well as my 26" bikes did. Not only do they turn just as tight, it is precisely in that type of terrain that you benefit most from the added stability of the big wheels.

It's easy to see how the misconception has come about though. Both of my 29"ers have wheelbases right around 41.1", while a small Fisher Rig (comparable top tube length to the others) has a 42.8" wheelbase. That's an enormous difference, and I'm betting the vast majority of those who've demo'ed 29"ers and found them sluggish were riding something on the long side. For the 334,983th time ... don't blame the wheels! And BTW, the medium Carver (again, comparable TT length) has a 42.8" wheelbase, just like the Fisher. Hmm, wonder how it handles tight-ass singletrack?


I totally think wheelbase is a very important ride characteristic that is way too often overlooked. I had a 26er with a 40.5 inch wheelbase that rocked the east coast, then i moved to the front range and the thing was too unstable for my liking and i ended up with a bike with a 44 inch wheelbase. major difference in handling, but optimal for the location, so i had walt build me a 29er that matched the long wheelbase front range bike and it was exactly what i wanted...of course now i live in the northeast and do at times find myself wishing for that shorter wheelbase, but not enough to ever go back to 26er wheels, i think the advantages even in the tight twisties are worth it.