Bike Magazine - Dave Turner comments - I won't buy a Turner

[ncj01]

I just read the new Bike magazine, which had a lengthy section on 29ers, followed by a test of the 'Moth, Dos, Mono, and RX29er.

The first section was a bit more interesting, with quotes from a few industry folks (wtb, travis, dave turner, etc).I found Turners comments to be non-favorable, and dismissive, basically saying 29er's will be little more than a niche due to the heavy and weak wheels. Of course he's making one, presumably not to miss out on some bucks of this "niche."


I suppose it's possible I misunderstood his comments, but they did not read very open minded, very pro-29, nor very friendly (use of the F-word while dissmissing 29ers).I was previously looking forward to his bike, but now I have it on my "never" list...which is impressive, becuase I typically own everthing...at least once, and at least briefly.
On the bike tests, it wasn't a shootout, but the strongest positive comments came in for the RX29er. They straight loved it.That is all. Headed to the Mohegan Sun all week...yeee-haaww...

[wyatt]

I read that last night. Now I don't own a Turner and don't foresee why I would as I have all the bikes I need for a long time. However, do you think DaVinci might have been able to make a really nice set of say, reading glasses in between inventions and other things he really wanted to do, even if he believed reading glasses were unnecessary? Is there a rule that says Turner can't make a fabulous 29R even if it is no secret that he has been less than enthusiastic about them, yet his Turner lovers have been clamoring for him to build one?

[P-Funk]

I briefly read a few of those 29er reviews while standing at the magazine rack the other day, and yeah, they gave the Titus a glowing review. Now I might have to add that to my growing list of FS 29ers - Spyder, El Patron, or the Titus. Hmmm......

[Spokey-Doke]

If you don't believe in the platform, don't build it.

And even if you don't like 29ers, and you do build one, it might be wise not to bash it in a story devoted to said 29ers. Duh.

[iliketoridebikes]

oh no
what will dave turner do if you don't buy one of his bikes
what does that guy know about bikes anyway
what a noob
what a fred

[Go Kart Motzart]

We are a niche. Who cares? Not me, I would be just as happy if we stay that way.

[MtotheF]

dave's entitled to say what he thinks. if you think his bike is going to be a poor bike because of it, then you are by all means entitled to not buy one. i'd be willing to bet on that not being the case, that the turner 29er will be a good bike. but then i'm willing to be tthat ullrich takes the tour this year too.

however, his points (while harshly worded) were valid. and he was one of the only people out there who was willing to talk about those things in that article, sicne almost everyone else i talked to had some serious investment in seeing that 29" bikes succeed, and as such, are not the most likely people to point out flaws.

by that same token, i doubt you'll see chris cocalis at titus riding a titus 29er very much, even though his company makes a hell of a good one.

[shiggy]

Originally Posted by MtotheF

dave's entitled to say what he thinks. if you think his bike is going to be a poor bike because of it, then you are by all means entitled to not buy one. i'd be willing to bet on that not being the case, that the turner 29er will be a good bike. but then i'm willing to be tthat ullrich takes the tour this year too.

however, his points (while harshly worded) were valid. and he was one of the only people out there who was willing to talk about those things in that article, sicne almost everyone else i talked to had some serious investment in seeing that 29" bikes succeed, and as such, are not the most likely people to point out flaws.

by that same token, i doubt you'll see chris cocalis at titus riding a titus 29er very much, even though his company makes a hell of a good one.

Mike, I think you did an outstanding job on the 29er feature. Balanced and realistic.

I am glad we have choices. There are plenty of builders that I do not agree with. Plenty that I do. They all have their place.

BIKES! All good.

(I still think straight handlebars are stupid )

[Drevil]

Originally Posted by shiggy

Mike, I think you did an outstanding job on the 29er feature. Balanced and realistic.

I am glad we have choices. There are plenty of builders that I do not agree with. Plenty that I do. They all have their place.

BIKES! All good.

(I still think straight handlebars are stupid )

Ferrentino? Whoa!

[Thylacine]

Any links to a transcript of this article? It'll be a month+ before it arrives down here.

I have to say though, I could write a book on the internal battles you have with yourself when trying to decide what sort of bikes to sell, and how to have them reflect in your ideals. If Dave bagged 29ers in public but is still going to make one, all that illustrates to me is he has the same battles and I'm certainly not going to be one to throw stones.

As a pro bike designer, I'd probably take a 26er Turner over most of the XC/Trailbikes out there anyway, regardless of wheel size, how much carbon or Titanium the opposition has, or whatever.

Heck, at least the man clearly has an ideology which extends beyond 'sell whatever will make me rich'. How rare is that these days?

[Padre]

Originally Posted by shiggy

(I still think straight handlebars are stupid )

Gosh Shigg...but they work so well and don't require a custom 45x180mm stem to run one.

[ncj01]

good replies all...

to semi-set the record straight, or maybe just un-tangle it a bit: I didn't mean to imply that the quality of the bikes build or performance would be in question....I'm sure it will be top notch. I merely meant to say that I certainly wouldn't come close to buying a bike from a guy with an attitude towards 29er's like that. I'd much rather buy from Devin, Walt, etc., and/or builders with a passion for 29er's...or at the very least without a bone to grind against 29ers (your C.C. the example). Quality or not, having a builder who beleives in the idea of the bike just seems like a feel-good idea.

[shiggy]

Originally Posted by ncj01

good replies all...

to semi-set the record straight, or maybe just un-tangle it a bit: I didn't mean to imply that the quality of the bikes build or performance would be in question....I'm sure it will be top notch. I merely meant to say that I certainly wouldn't come close to buying a bike from a guy with an attitude towards 29er's like that. I'd much rather buy from Devin, Walt, etc., and/or builders with a passion for 29er's...or at the very least without a bone to grind against 29ers (your C.C. the example). Quality or not, having a builder who beleives in the idea of the bike just seems like a feel-good idea.

There are several builders I will never consider buying a bike from because of statements they have made. I will also never publicly reveal who they are.

[jncarpenter]

...I think you need to know Dave to hear what he is really saying. Personally I don't know anybody in the industry that is more passionate about designing/ building/ riding bikes. Certainly he doesn't want to lose money in the venture, but to imply that he is motivated by financially capitalizing on a current trend reveals you definitely do NOT know him at all. It is VERY important to understand that he is building the Turner 29 simply in response to the demand of current customers, as well as market trend. I think this alone says alot about who he is & what he believes with regard to this industry. I have also talked at length w/ DT about this current project & I can assure you that while he may not "get" the whole 29er "thing" (despite test riding them for himself), he is very passionate & excited about this bike. I can also assure you that when it is released, it will be a very solid, durable & awesome performing ride....period.

I can appreciate ideology, truly I can....however, in this case I think perhaps it is being taken too far. Regardless....your $$$, spend it however you wish


PEACE



PS. I also thought the article was well done. Balanced & well articulated with excellent points!

[edouble]

the man was honest. in this day and age where lying is the national pastime i applaude him. you cant reasonably expect more than an honest answer from anyone .

[Quasi]

Originally Posted by shiggy

There are several builders I will never consider buying a bike from because of statements they have made. I will also never publicly reveal who they are.

Ummm... unless bike builders you are boycotting go under phony names, we already know who they are, you just have to tell us which ones.

[Dirdir]

I think you could "read" a lot into his comments, pro or anti-29, but it seems that the bottom line point of the little itty bitty quote was that 29ers will not be replacing 26ers any time soon, particularly in the DH/FR arena, because of weight and durability issues. There are a lot of reasons to buy or not buy a bike from a certain company, but DT's quote ain't even close to helping me decide either for or against.

Well, I have already decided anyway, but you get the point.

[artnshel]

(I still think straight handlebars are stupid )

Amen!

[hamachi]

Originally Posted by shiggy

Mike, I think you did an outstanding job on the 29er feature. Balanced and realistic.

I am glad we have choices. There are plenty of builders that I do not agree with. Plenty that I do. They all have their place.

BIKES! All good.

(I still think straight handlebars are stupid )

I agree -- terrific article.

[slowrider]

Originally Posted by ncj01

I just read the new Bike magazine, which had a lengthy section on 29ers, followed by a test of the 'Moth, Dos, Mono, and RX29er.

The first section was a bit more interesting, with quotes from a few industry folks (wtb, travis, dave turner, etc).I found Turners comments to be non-favorable, and dismissive, basically saying 29er's will be little more than a niche due to the heavy and weak wheels. Of course he's making one, presumably not to miss out on some bucks of this "niche."


I suppose it's possible I misunderstood his comments, but they did not read very open minded, very pro-29, nor very friendly (use of the F-word while dissmissing 29ers).I was previously looking forward to his bike, but now I have it on my "never" list...which is impressive, becuase I typically own everthing...at least once, and at least briefly.
On the bike tests, it wasn't a shootout, but the strongest positive comments came in for the RX29er. They straight loved it.That is all. Headed to the Mohegan Sun all week...yeee-haaww...

The guy dosn't aggree with you so you're telling people to boycott him ? You make me wan't to go out and buy one of each of his frames .

[Thylacine]

Originally Posted by slowrider

The guy dosn't aggree with you so you're telling people to boycott him ? You make me wan't to go out and buy one of each of his frames .

Hang onnnnnn.....is this the mtbr 29er board? OMFG Houston, we seemed to have turned a corner!

[tvrbob86]

Originally Posted by ncj01

Quality or not, having a builder who beleives in the idea of the bike just seems like a feel-good idea.

Truthiness.

[Spokey-Doke]

Originally Posted by slowrider

The guy dosn't aggree with you so you're telling people to boycott him ? You make me wan't to go out and buy one of each of his frames .

If you're going to make a ridiculous comparison like that, at least spell the man's name right.

[FoShizzle]

Originally Posted by shiggy

There are several builders I will never consider buying a bike from because of statements they have made. I will also never publicly reveal who they are.

how about their initials at least

[Nat]

Originally Posted by FoShizzle

how about their initials at least

Or just say it in Pig Latin: Urnertay, Avidday.

[Hardtails Are Better]

Originally Posted by shiggy

(I still think straight handlebars are stupid )

My handlebars aren't straight. They have a bit of sweep, and a few of them have a bit of rise. I rather like them too.

[ziggurat22]

I thought it a little disconcerting at first: a frame builder making such skeptical comments about a frame he's currently designing/building. However, the guy was probably just being honest and believes that 29ers won't take over as the the defacto standard, which is fine. He probably just prefers the 26" format. I don't know the guy, but he probably doesn't pull any punches when asked about bikes.

The situation is probably no different from a builder, who personally prefers XC riding, to comment on a line of freeride bikes that he is designing. Freeride's not his cup of tea, and not convinced it's the be all end all of the future of mountain biking, but he listens to his customers that want a good, quality freeride bike and responds in kind.

That's what I ended up getting out of it.

I think this controversial because Dave Turner is such a major figure in the industry and his words hit heavy, especially when they're printed in a pub. like Bike.

Just my .02.

[Nat]

Hey, I wonder if Turner will hold a contest here to have us name the new model?!?! I'd better start thinking of names now.

Turner...Earner
Turner...Learner
Turner...Shmurner

Hmmm, what else?

[jbogner]

The Turner quote as printed (buy the magazine for the other quotes- the whole 29er package is a great read):

"29ers are slower accelerating, and they steer weird. With the bigger wheel it seems more stable or less agile, whatever, but for many riders that may be the help they need to enjoy technical riding more... I think the market will expand. How much and how long? God only knows. Like singlespeed it seems to be a niche within the MTB niche. Will it ever take over? No f****** way. Heavier, weaker wheels are never going to take over. Imagine a 29-inch double-ply tire? Right now 26-inch two-ply tires are 1300 grams. So for the freeride and DH market, it ain't gonna take over. Longer, weaker spokes? Tough sell. And for most XC guys, adding a couple hundred grams per tire plus tube plus rim is nauseating..."
-David Turner, currently developing a 29-inch dual-suspension bike to be released by Interbike


To be fair to Turner, these are obviously selected and edited quotes used by the author to present a counterpoint to the other more glowing quotes from other people. He very well could have said some positive things between those elipses that were edited out.

Having said that, Nate's question is a fair one- "why build a bike if he has so many reservations about it?" Especially since the bike he's building- a 4" travel XC machine- is squarely aimed at those XC riders who are likely to be "nauseated" by all that extra wheel weight. Turner's never been one to "follow the crowd" before, so why start now?

[mcd]

Originally Posted by MtotheF

dave's entitled to say what he thinks. if you think his bike is going to be a poor bike because of it, then you are by all means entitled to not buy one. i'd be willing to bet on that not being the case, that the turner 29er will be a good bike. but then i'm willing to be tthat ullrich takes the tour this year too.

however, his points (while harshly worded) were valid. and he was one of the only people out there who was willing to talk about those things in that article, sicne almost everyone else i talked to had some serious investment in seeing that 29" bikes succeed, and as such, are not the most likely people to point out flaws.

by that same token, i doubt you'll see chris cocalis at titus riding a titus 29er very much, even though his company makes a hell of a good one.

ah ha! I finally realized who you are. Nicely written article. it's going to give people in the market for a new bike another wrinkle...4X4 26er, 3X3 29er, hardtail 29er, oh, maybe 6X6 26er, or 4X4 29er, or maybe softail 29er... what to do... last bike i bought was chosen because it came in Orange which everyone knows makes you faster!

[shiggy]

Originally Posted by FoShizzle

how about their initials at least

The initials can be found on any western computer keyboard.

I will never name names. Every one of them has many happy customers and a few have been around for a very long time. This is part of my usual advise in picking a custom builder - you need to talk with them and see if you "click." If you do not understand each other the chance of getting a good result is much lower.
It serves no one for me to dis any one of them because of a personal bias that may or may not matter to anyone else. There are already too many pissing contests on this board. It helps no one and hurts the whole.

[shiggy]

Originally Posted by Hardtails Are Better

My handlebars aren't straight. They have a bit of sweep, and a few of them have a bit of rise. I rather like them too.

If your hands are closer to perpendicular than parallel to the top tube your bars are "straight."

[jncarpenter]

Originally Posted by jbogner

Nate's question is a fair one- "why build a bike if he has so many reservations about it?" Especially since the bike he's building- a 4" travel XC machine- is squarely aimed at those XC riders who are likely to be "nauseated" by all that extra wheel weight. Turner's never been one to "follow the crowd" before, so why start now?

...this question is easily answered by re-stating: Dave is simply giving people what they are asking for. How this is being misconstrued as evil...I'll never know Many, many people prefer/ appreciate the build quality/ customer service/ & outright performance of a Turner produced bike. From that same pool of loyalists is a bunch of folks who may never buy another 26'r....trust me when I tell you that Dave was only reluctant to build the 29 because he prefers the 26 & there is great investment & risk involved in the design/ fabrication/ marketing of any new model...much less an altogether new concept.

Personally I appreciate DT's response to his customers, I have also seen first-hand the zeal & pursuit of perfection with which he has approached this project...again impressive considering his preferred platform. He has consulted many here with regards to the build & geometry (again....I would think this appreciated), listened & responded.

As for the bikes intended purpose, it will more closely resemble the 5 Spot in terms of application....an all mountain steed (not a racer-boy bike). Much of the tubing used will be from the Spot, some from the flux & nitrous. Regardless of Dave's personal inclination where wheelsize is concerned, I am very confident the bike will flat out rock

(I think I will have to own one)

[Quasi]

Originally Posted by jbogner

The Turner quote as printed (buy the magazine for the other quotes- the whole 29er package is a great read):

"Heavier, weaker wheels are never going to take over. Imagine a 29-inch double-ply tire? Right now 26-inch two-ply tires are 1300 grams. So for the freeride and DH market, it ain't gonna take over. Longer, weaker spokes? Tough sell. And for most XC guys, adding a couple hundred grams per tire plus tube plus rim is nauseating..."
-David Turner, currently developing a 29-inch dual-suspension bike to be released by Interbike

Strange, I didn't think weight was that big a concern for DH riders. So they must ride some wicked light bikes then right? I would venture to say that right now tire selection is the most important drawback for prospective 29er DH riders. Secondly, strength of the wheels. I don't think anybody is expecting 29ers to take over the DH market anytime soon, but IMHO, Turner's comment about wheel weight for XC riders is rather nauseating.

[Hardtails Are Better]

Originally Posted by shiggy

If your hands are closer to perpendicular than parallel to the top tube your bars are "straight."

I was joking....



So by your definiton, any bar with <45 degrees of sweep is straight?

[El Caballo]

Originally Posted by quoted from Dave Turner

Will it ever take over? No f****** way. Heavier, weaker wheels are never going to take over. [...] Longer, weaker spokes? Tough sell."

The wheel weakness issue can be completely solved by wider hubs, as has been relentlessly bumped in my thread: http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=190125

Front wheels lose nearly twice as much lateral strength (21%) going from regular hubs to disc hubs than they lose going to 29" from 26" (11%). Yet I haven't seen Dave Turner, or anyone else, mention this as a problem.

Saying 29" wheels will always be weaker than 26" wheels is like saying that a longer bridge will always be weaker than a shorter bridge. You don't build them from the same plans! Sadly, this is what we are doing now, so Dave is right and 29" wheels are weaker.

[Cloxxki]

It's awesome that Turner is doing one of these bikes to satisfy his loyal customer's demand.
However, from his (edited?) quotes, it seems he is unaware of the actual weight penalty.
So, a 26" 1300g will be 1420g, then what? Way too heavy all at once? Perhaps 29"ers can do with less thick and less wide casings. Perhaps also the opposite. If the latter, I'd like to read about it.
How many riders have given 29" the nod after realizing that their 40mm cross tires rolled just as well over bumpy trails as their 26" fatties?

If all bike manufacturers stick to one or two 29" models for their whole line-up, they'll be right, it will remain a niche. For a long time it was a tiny nieche jsut because of supply. Especially those (many) riders that are brand-loyal, will not easily adopt a new concept, if their fav brand doesn't offer it. I know, I used to know the Giant brochure by heart, and totally ignored Trek. Now, they are like the same thing to me.

Anyway, if an LBS owner tells me "it ain't much, heavy but wheels, but you can buy it for the same price as the other bikes", I'm reluctant to buy it.
I would like to urge Turner to come up with a 29" bike that does NOT fit his above discription. Figure out ways to make the wheels at least stronger, if not lighter. Don't offer the bike before you believe in it yourself. Just succombing to loyal customers you think are nutty to want this type of ride...sems like the wrong way to "innovate".

I'm not slamming Turner, just hoping he'll come up with something that makes all 29"er before it seem "weird" and "weak" in comparison.

[endure26]

I would tend to agree with Turner. 29ers are not going to take over the current market. Look at the physics - you're not going to build a 29-inch wheel that is stronger than a 26-inch wheel of comparable weight. Yes you can use wider hubs, but use them with 26-inch rims and the smaller hoops are still stronger. For the hardcore big drop trail rider, jumper, 4x'er, DH'er, it makes sense to stick to the smaller hoops. Can't tell it where I ride, but that seems to be the in vogue market with the advertisers and magazines.

For an xc rider or general trail rider, the 29-inch wheel works and has advantages for some. Is this segment of the market going to carry the bike industry? Not this week. Is the singlespeed niche? No way. Should Turner build a bike for the 29er segment? Heck yeah. However, I wouldn't recommend turning around and then bad mouthing the segment you're trying to sell to.

[coma13]

Originally Posted by Quasi

Strange, I didn't think weight was that big a concern for DH riders. So they must ride some wicked light bikes then right? I would venture to say that right now tire selection is the most important drawback for prospective 29er DH riders. Secondly, strength of the wheels. I don't think anybody is expecting 29ers to take over the DH market anytime soon, but IMHO, Turner's comment about wheel weight for XC riders is rather nauseating.

Weight actually is of a good amount of concern to DH riders, DH racers in particular. It's much more of a tightrope between durability and weight than in a purely XC application but just because a DH rider is going to be hard in his equipment doesn't mean he wants to be riding a 50 lbs. pig down a trail.

[shiggy]

Originally Posted by Hardtails Are Better

I was joking....



So by your definiton, any bar with <45 degrees of sweep is straight?

I figured you were.

Personally I need more than 45 degrees of sweep. Enough that it is better called flare, degrees of outward bend from parallel to the top tube.

From a general point of view a sweep of at least 35-40 degrees stops being "straight" IMO.

[tscheezy]

I decided never to buy another Turner after I read this:

Originally Posted by DT to MBR

…if they compare an imported bike from Asia with a Turner, and they say the Turner is only a frameset for $1500 and you get this whole other bike for $2200. It’s like look, *******…

While correct, he has assaulted my sensibilities and used a naughty word.

[grifter9311]

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=107647

reference above thread and all this all seems rather lame.

[edouble]

"Front wheels lose nearly twice as much lateral strength (21%) going from regular hubs to disc hubs than they lose going to 29" from 26" (11%). Yet I haven't seen Dave Turner, or anyone else, mention this as a problem".

and i think a lot of guy's are in the same boat. 21% is almost 1/4 the lateral strength , a huge # in my mind. especially when your talking about bigger guy's (215 lbs and up) i dont use disc's myself just because i happen to like v's. i like them even more now .

[Cloxxki]

IMO there has never been a truly DH-worthy 29" bike, not by design, but by lack of true attempt.
Perhaps a 29" (I like the wording 30") DH bike needs 165mm hubs with lotsa spokes to be racable without holding back, but I believe the weight penalty will still be within reason. Under 2lb for the whole bike. And worth the speed it gives back in return.

I think the Turner will be a 4" bike? At least with some magic people seem to manage to pray up decent 29" wheels for that type of riding :-)

[wyatt]

Why don't you all try judging by the final product? What if it's one of the nicest 29R bikes you have encountered? All this speculation is for naught. Then again you have to have something to talk about.

I won't do the reseatch but I wager that history offers many examples of excellent products born of those who were no ideologically wed to them.

[Drewdane]

Originally Posted by shiggy

The initials can be found on any western computer keyboard.

I will never name names. Every one of them has many happy customers and a few have been around for a very long time. This is part of my usual advise in picking a custom builder - you need to talk with them and see if you "click." If you do not understand each other the chance of getting a good result is much lower.
It serves no one for me to dis any one of them because of a personal bias that may or may not matter to anyone else. There are already too many pissing contests on this board. It helps no one and hurts the whole.

Oh sure, fine, bring "rationality" and "maturity" into it...

Ghawd, some people!

[JAK]

the pitiful promotion of either you are with us or against us type of mentality of the weak...oh well. Insecurity creates a need to group and judge...GET (a leg) OVER (whatever) IT (is you ride and dig, lest you become a Maggot Brain!)

Can You Get to That?

[loco-gringo]

I likely won't be buying a 29er, but that doesn't make them a bad idea. The premise makes tons of sense, but product availability will keep me skeptical. I will say in DT's defense, it takes balls to speak with candor knowing people will misinterpret or criticize it. It's foolish to ignore the desire people have for these big wheeled bikes. I am sure many manufacturers don't always agree, but business kind of dictates how they react. It's foolish to speak out against one thing and do another, as it eludes to hypocrisy, but the reality is, people will buy these because they are Turners. Nothing wrong with capitalizing on that. Without question they will be sought after and well built rides. I don't know the guy so I can't say what he was thinking.

[Dirdir]

1. 29ers are slower accelerating, and they steer weird - I agree.
2. With the bigger wheel it seems more stable or less agile, whatever, but for many riders that may be the help they need to enjoy technical riding more - I agree.
3. I think the market will expand. How much and how long? God only knows. Like singlespeed it seems to be a niche within the MTB niche. I agree.
4. Will it ever take over? No f****** way. - I agree.
5. Heavier, weaker wheels are never going to take over. I agree.
6. Imagine a 29-inch double-ply tire? Right now 26-inch two-ply tires are 1300 grams. So for the freeride and DH market, it ain't gonna take over. I agree.
7. Longer, weaker spokes? Tough sell. I agree.
8. And for most XC guys, adding a couple hundred grams per tire plus tube plus rim is nauseating... - I agree.

I agree with all of his comments.

[Dirdir]

"29ers are slower accelerating, and they steer weird. With the bigger wheel it seems more stable or less agile, whatever, but for many riders that may be the help they need to enjoy technical riding more... I think the market will expand. How much and how long? God only knows. Like singlespeed it seems to be a niche within the MTB niche. Will it ever take over? No f****** way. Heavier, weaker wheels are never going to take over. Imagine a 29-inch double-ply tire? Right now 26-inch two-ply tires are 1300 grams. So for the freeride and DH market, it ain't gonna take over. Longer, weaker spokes? Tough sell. And for most XC guys, adding a couple hundred grams per tire plus tube plus rim is nauseating..."

[turnerbikes]

...in great riding, long lasting bikes.
...that my 29" design will ride great, regardless of what I believe will be the total market size of the product.
...that long bridges are heavier than short ones.
...that the 29'r is truly a great wheel size for some people, but not ALL people.
...that it is not my opinion that should dictate what a person should ride, everyone don't have to ride what I ride to have fun.
...mountain biking may be a religous experience for some, but it is not a religon so ride whatever wheels you want. Or ONE wheel, just ride.

I confused things a bit with my XC/DH statement. When I say XC it usually means those that are closer to XC racers than trail riders. Same with DH, a downhiller to me is not a free rider, but a racer who races downhill. Those 2 groups are both very concerned with weight, somtimes to the point of obsession which may or may not have a great impact on their results but it is a concern to them none the less. 29'r bikes will always weight more when comparing all things equal.

It is great to see a whole new group of MTBR members, and a couple old faces ripping up a new subject. For the record, I don't like a straight bar I really prefer about a 9* bend.

DT

[tscheezy]

What happens when you build a disc 29er wheel? Do you add or multiply the 11% and 21% reductions in strength?

[turnerbikes]

...in great riding, long lasting bikes.
...that my 29" design will ride great, regardless of what I believe will be the total market size of the product.
...that long bridges are heavier than short ones.
...that the 29'r is truly a great wheel size for some people, but not ALL people.
...that it is not my opinion that should dictate what a person should ride, everyone don't have to ride what I ride to have fun.
...mountain biking may be a religous experience for some, but it is not a religon so ride whatever wheels you want. Or ONE wheel, just ride.

I confused things a bit with my XC/DH statement. When I say XC it usually means those that are closer to XC racers than trail riders. Same with DH, a downhiller to me is not a free rider, but a racer who races downhill. Those 2 groups are both very concerned with weight, somtimes to the point of obsession which may or may not have a great impact on their results but it is a concern to them none the less. 29'r bikes will always weight more when comparing all things equal.

It is great to see a whole new group of MTBR members, and a couple old faces ripping up a new subject. For the record, I don't like a straight bar I really prefer about a 9* bend.

DT

Sorry for the dupe post, but I put the first on a side track other than the bar discussion.

[GlowBoy]

I read the Bike article over the weekend and overall I thought the publicity for big wheels was great. Overall the tone seemed as positive as one might expect from an industry-funded publication, and the few negative comments (which raised good points) didn't seem out of line.

What does seem out of line is ending a thread title with "don't buy a Turner" just because you disagree with someone's statement. That's the kind of dogmatic attitude that has wrongly given this board a bad name. A bad rap really, because the attitude seems to be mostly confined to a very small number of regulars. People see a few comments like this and generalize it out to be the tone of the whole board, which it isn't.

[Clyde S Dale]

The June '06 issue of Decline asked Dave Turner, John Tomac, Gary Fisher and eleven others the following question: "In the future, do you think 29-inch wheels will be used for downhill?"

Albeit, the question is specific to one facet of mtbing but in light of some of the comments in this thread it might be instructive to read the very last sentence of DT's response beginning with, "I like..."

[the_dude]

Originally Posted by GlowBoy

A bad rap really, because the attitude seems to be mostly confined to a very small number of regulars. People see a few comments like this and generalize it out to be the tone of the whole board, which it isn't.

i wholeheartedly agree.

[Quasi]

Originally Posted by Dirdir

1. 29ers are slower accelerating, and they steer weird - I agree.
2. With the bigger wheel it seems more stable or less agile, whatever, but for many riders that may be the help they need to enjoy technical riding more - I agree.
3. I think the market will expand. How much and how long? God only knows. Like singlespeed it seems to be a niche within the MTB niche. I agree.
4. Will it ever take over? No f****** way. - I agree.
5. Heavier, weaker wheels are never going to take over. I agree.
6. Imagine a 29-inch double-ply tire? Right now 26-inch two-ply tires are 1300 grams. So for the freeride and DH market, it ain't gonna take over. I agree.
7. Longer, weaker spokes? Tough sell. I agree.
8. And for most XC guys, adding a couple hundred grams per tire plus tube plus rim is nauseating... - I agree.

I agree with all of his comments.

But then you could say the same things for a 20" wheel over your 26" wheel too. You gonna switch?

[Cloxxki]

So 1300g is both the minimum AND the maximum for a proper DH tire nowadays, is that it? No spare room for a 10% heavier one, no-matter what it offers?
The statement is totally unfunded, and the conclusion empty.

Do flexy 29" XC wheels hold their lines badly in XC? How does that translate to 29" DH wheels in DH?
Like on tight XC singletrack, there's less accelerating required if you simply go faster through corners (decellerate less), because you can. If it works for me to drop 26" riders on start-stop singletrack, why not for a DH pro with thick thighs?

If you're going to dismiss things you've obviously haven't been able to verify, why in advance say it will never work? Okay okay, it say's "won't take over". But then, would DH never have happened if it had been started in the 70's with converted CX bikes rather than converted kid's bikes?

[jbogner]

Originally Posted by Cloxxki

So 1300g is both the minimum AND the maximum for a proper DH tire nowadays, is that it?

What I don't understand is all this focus on weight-weenie DH racers, period. DH racing is a niche of a niche of a niche- as far as gravity-oriented riding goes, freeriding is WAY bigger than DH racing, in the same way that XC trail riders outnumber XC racers by huge margins. If all decisions about XC trail bikes were made based on appealing to the small number of weight weenie XC racers, then the whole industry would suck right now. Why should we then base all decisions about DH and Freeride on this small niche of weight weenie DH racers?

That story in Decline was great. While there were naysayers like DT, there were a couple others with clout (Intense, etc) at least interested in exploring the idea... so there's hope, and the future of 29er DH/FR bikes does not hinge on DT. His holding a contrary opinion is NOT the end of the world...

[MtotheF]

Originally Posted by Cloxxki

So 1300g is both the minimum AND the maximum for a proper DH tire nowadays, is that it? No spare room for a 10% heavier one, no-matter what it offers?
The statement is totally unfunded, and the conclusion empty.

Do flexy 29" XC wheels hold their lines badly in XC? How does that translate to 29" DH wheels in DH?
Like on tight XC singletrack, there's less accelerating required if you simply go faster through corners (decellerate less), because you can. If it works for me to drop 26" riders on start-stop singletrack, why not for a DH pro with thick thighs?

If you're going to dismiss things you've obviously haven't been able to verify, why in advance say it will never work? Okay okay, it say's "won't take over". But then, would DH never have happened if it had been started in the 70's with converted CX bikes rather than converted kid's bikes?

statement unfounded? no, your defensiveness is unfounded. larger wheels are heavier. period. is the weight difference unacceptable? that depends entirely on the individual. you might find it acceptable, regardless of venue, but that is your personal opinion. just as david was speaking his opinion. for my two cents, i side with him on this.

i think the larger wheels are heavier, and generally flexier. you may not be bothered by wheel flex, but i am. i don't like flexy race wheels, and i don't like flexy big-hit wheels. for example, i think my american classic wheels, while wonderfully light, are too flexy for my tastes. my bike(s) handle noticeably better when i slap on my handbuilt wheels that weigh 400 grams a set more. that is a weight penalty that i must reluctantly suck up to get the handling traits i desire...

turner's not "dismissing" the concept of the wheels, but is voicing his viewpoint. your contradictory viewpoint, based entirely on x-c experiences in holland (not exactly a hotbed of rough, or even moderately hilly terrain), could also be viewed with a great degree of skepticism.

[Padre]

Originally Posted by turnerbikes

For the record, I don't like a straight bar I really prefer about a 9* bend.

DT

hehehe

[shiggy]

Originally Posted by turnerbikes

...in great riding, long lasting bikes.
...that my 29" design will ride great, regardless of what I believe will be the total market size of the product.
...that long bridges are heavier than short ones.
...that the 29'r is truly a great wheel size for some people, but not ALL people.
...that it is not my opinion that should dictate what a person should ride, everyone don't have to ride what I ride to have fun.
...mountain biking may be a religous experience for some, but it is not a religon so ride whatever wheels you want. Or ONE wheel, just ride.

I confused things a bit with my XC/DH statement. When I say XC it usually means those that are closer to XC racers than trail riders. Same with DH, a downhiller to me is not a free rider, but a racer who races downhill. Those 2 groups are both very concerned with weight, somtimes to the point of obsession which may or may not have a great impact on their results but it is a concern to them none the less. 29'r bikes will always weight more when comparing all things equal.

It is great to see a whole new group of MTBR members, and a couple old faces ripping up a new subject. For the record, I don't like a straight bar I really prefer about a 9* bend.

DT

Thanks for posting, Dave.

It all about the ride! May we all do more of it.

[turnerbikes]

Uhhh, I don't know what to say. I guess my statements are worthless without a spread sheet, I will be more carefull when stating that a 29" 2 ply tire will weight more than a 26er.

Yes 2 ply tires vary in weight, and I can promise you they vary within the same brand and model as well. My bad.

Come on C, lets not forget that the bicycle is human powered and controlled, the better the person the faster the bike goes.You are a fitter and better rider than those you are refering to dropping on stop and start single track.

Kids bikes? Statements like that are exactly what inflames others that ride those kids bikes. Am I less of a man because I ride 26 labeled wheels? What if I said that the new Maxxis 2.4 ADvantage were actually 27" in diameter, would you think more of me? Just a little.

DT

[Bob the Wheelbuilder]

DT - I agree with your reservations, but I still want your 29er. Working with top riders like Geoff Kabush might give you a little insight into what XC racers want, weight wise.

MF - Thanks for your well written article. It's neat to see you contribute here.

I know it'll be painful, but I feel that it's time for a new rear width standard for mountain bikes, especially 29ers. When I had my cyclocross bike built (canti's), I ordered 135 mm rear spacing for strength. If I ever order a custom 29er, I'll probably go with whatever is the widest rear disc hub available at the time.

As tires, rims and hubs, forks and geometry are dialed further, I think a 29er downhiller could perform very well in certain situations. Riders change tires, shock settings, travel and geometry for different courses, why not wheel size?

[djcrb9]

Originally Posted by turnerbikes

Uhhh, I don't know what to say. I guess my statements are worthless without a spread sheet, I will be more carefull when stating that a 29" 2 ply tire will weight more than a 26er.

Yes 2 ply tires vary in weight, and I can promise you they vary within the same brand and model as well. My bad.

Come on C, lets not forget that the bicycle is human powered and controlled, the better the person the faster the bike goes.You are a fitter and better rider than those you are refering to dropping on stop and start single track.

Kids bikes? Statements like that are exactly what inflames others that ride those kids bikes. Am I less of a man because I ride 26 labeled wheels? What if I said that the new Maxxis 2.4 ADvantage were actually 27" in diameter, would you think more of me? Just a little.

DT

Dave,
Thanks for posting. It's cool to see someone that has done so much for and in the industry playing in our little sandbox here.

Maybe you don't hang out in the 29'er forum much, so i'll give you a pointer. For the most part, ignore Cloxx. He's kinda like the crazy guy on the street corner waving a sign about the end of the world. He has his opinion, it is RIGHT, and he is NOT INTERESTED in hearing what you have to say. Saying the 29'er might be good for some people, but not all? BLASPHEMY!!! Sheer and utter blashphemy.

So, with that knowledge, please continue to play in the 29'er forum, there are definitely some people on here that have some cool ideas, and a lot of them even listen to other people's ideas!

Oh, and please keep making the cool bikes you have for a long, long time.
Thanks!

[shiggy]

Originally Posted by MtotheF

statement unfounded? no, your defensiveness is unfounded. larger wheels are heavier. period. is the weight difference unacceptable? that depends entirely on the individual. you might find it acceptable, regardless of venue, but that is your personal opinion. just as david was speaking his opinion. for my two cents, i side with him on this...

Bang-on right, Mike. Some of the opinions expressed on this forum may do more harm than good for the acceptance of the 29er format.

[movingmountain]

Amen.

[Dirdir]

Originally Posted by Quasi

But then you could say the same things for a 20" wheel over your 26" wheel too. You gonna switch?

No, because I ride 29. There are differences between 26 and 29, that is all. One is not better than the other. I don't race XC or DH. I like to ride technical terrain. I like stability. I like 29.

[rmb]

I don't mind if 29ers don't take over the market, as long as I can get them I'm happy. I like the diversity.

With respect to DT's comments, I don't see anything wrong with someone confident enough to express his honest opinion. I'm sure it would have been easy for DT to say nothing but positive things about 29ers, especially since he is building one.

I like to hear a respected person's opinion on something, evaluate it for myself, and make a decision.

For the record I have two Konas (one is a Unit 29) , One Rocky Mountain and one Mrazek.

[Thylacine]

I have to confess, I'm really very happy with the mtbr 29er board. For a couple of years honestly, it was a bit of a laughing stock - the ammont of zealotism, closed-mindedness, and "Screw you, I had bigger wheels first!" rhetoric was enough to drown in.

Now what am I hearing? I'm hearing positive discourse! I'm hearing "Yes, 29er wheels aren't for everyone, but they might be for you!"

And you know what this change brings about? It makes people who actually make bikes and bike products take the niche seriously, rather than being dismissive. It makes guys like DT bring a 29er to market. Heck, it even makes me look more closely at it (In the land where there's a total of 40 29ers in the entire country and I've never ever seen one at the races.)

Way to go mtbr 29er crowd! Keep up the good work. You never know, you might even bring Cloxxki around one of these days (for the record, don't dismiss the Netherlands as a cycling dead-zone. Do some homework there before you start laying the boots in!)

[mvi]

If wheel weight and agility is so important why do pro cyclocross riders not ride 650C (26"?) instead of 700C. Since the tubes can be handmade to order ,and the carbon rims are there nobody does it.
Cross is all about tight turns and constant accelerations and the smaller/lighter/stiffer wheel should have a great advantage not?
Even 5'3" female riders ride the big wheels.
Only race results will clarify the advantages I guess. Three years from now we can probably look back on these discussions and say who was right.

[BruceBrown]

Originally Posted by turnerbikes

Uhhh, I don't know what to say.

(skip)

DT

Dave,

You're doing fine. I bought the Bike Magazine and enjoyed the article as well as your comments which were filled with experience, wisdom and opinion. And, of course, I always enjoy seeing the F word in print. My first reading of the article did not result in my best comprehension of what you had said. For that, I apologize and am man enough to say I was wrong. Reading it again a couple of times, it made much more sense as to what you were saying. Damn - and I always scored high in reading comprehension! Anyway, apologies and glad you are "in the news" and in the design process of a big hooped bike.

Also, I appreciate that you actually came to this forum several months ago asking us to measure our saddle to bar drop and report back to you via email so you could see what riding positions those of us on the larger hoops have dialed in for our riding styles. I sent my measurements in as I figured the more the merrier. Anyway, I feel it proves you have thought your design through for your introduction into designing and selling a product for the customers who are seeking a 29". I would hope you would do the same whether you were designing a tandem, a recumbent, a unicycle or whatever.

I would hope that your product and interest in selling that product will help lead to the network effect in the industry so that some of the cons of the 29" platform such as tire choice and fork choice might be bolstered based on your success and clout within the industry. We would all appreciate that and tip our hats to your contribution.

In the meantime, I wish you best of luck with the big hoop platform product launch. Extra Brownie points if it is called the FN 29"er.

BB

[Thylacine]

Originally Posted by mvi

If wheel weight and agility is so important why do pro cyclocross riders not ride 650C (26"?) instead of 700C. Since the tubes can be handmade to order ,and the carbon rims are there nobody does it.
Cross is all about tight turns and constant accelerations and the smaller/lighter/stiffer wheel should have a great advantage not?
Even 5'3" female riders ride the big wheels.
Only race results will clarify the advantages I guess. Three years from now we can probably look back on these discussions and say who was right.

'Cross is a bastardisation of road cycling. It was invented to give the roadies in Europe something to do during the Winter - that's why the bikes look like they do.

During the early 90's, MTB riders raced a few local US 'Cross events on 26ers when they were allowed and did very well.

The design of 'Cross bikes that are UCI legal I'm lead to believe is pretty narrow, which is why everyone's bikes look the same. It's the same reason why you don't see any 26" wheels in the road peloton, yet funny enough you see heaps in Triathlon.

It's all about the rules and regulations.

Now, onto "tight turns and accellerations", which two classes of bikes are the most technical, the most dependant on the ability to change direction quickly? I'd argue Mod Trials and BMX flatland freestyle.

How many 29ers do you see there?

Granted, Mod Trials is highly regulated, but they ALWAYS out do their Stock brethren.

Horses for courses I think is the saying.

[TheSherpa]

Originally Posted by Bob the Wheelbuilder

As tires, rims and hubs, forks and geometry are dialed further, I think a 29er downhiller could perform very well in certain situations. Riders change tires, shock settings, travel and geometry for different courses, why not wheel size?

Agreed. Courses like Angelfire and Snowmass would be awesome on a 29er. (Not a lot of acceleration on those courses, just high speed rock gardens and open ski runs). But, on a course like Snowshoe or Sugar where theres a lot of low speed accelerating, 26s make sense.

I really think BCD is on to something with his bike able to run both 26s and 29s.

[mvi]

Quote"The design of 'Cross bikes that are UCI legal I'm lead to believe is pretty narrow, which is why everyone's bikes look the same. It's the same reason why you don't see any 26" wheels in the road peloton, yet funny enough you see heaps in Triathlon.

It's all about the rules and regulations." End quote/

The rules allow 650C wheels on the road and in cross.
Still nobody ride them.

[JoelM]

I would also have to support what Dave said in that article. Every one of his comments seemed right on to me, but none of them really indicated a lack of support for 29ers. He pretty much just stated the cons of 29ers and the fact that they're not likely to dominate the mtb world one day as some would like to see happen. I totally agree with everything DT said, and if I didn't, I still wouldn't have taken the article to mean that he didn't stand behind his product or 29ers in general. The truth hurts, I guess

[Geez]

I’m a 5’10”(read unlikely) die hard 29’er for 4 years now, ever since I threw a leg over the 02Supercal. I currently have 3 29’ers and will be building up another next winter. The RIP, Race Day, 4” Lev and yes the Turner will all be in contention. I’ll make my decision on the quality and geometry of the bike, not the mindset or politics of the designer/builder. For all I know the designer-builders of my other bikes could be Al Queda sympathizers or even worse, Republicans . When did it become un-mountainbike like to speak one’s mind?

[miles e]

Originally Posted by ncj01

I was previously looking forward to his bike, but now I have it on my "never" list...which is impressive, becuase I typically own everthing.

Wasn't Turner pretty much already on the #@%! list here for not having adopted 29" wheels earlier? DT must know he's playing to a tough crowd, and still doesn't think twice about speaking his mind. I tend to appreciate that type of straight shooting (regardless of whether or not I wholeheartedly agree) more than the mealy-mouthed pandering you typically see.

Nate, you're free to make your decisions in bicycles based on whatever criteria you choose, but a) don't expect everyone (anyone?) else to react the same way, and b) don't ride the Turner 29"er if you've sworn not to own one!

[nick3216]

Originally Posted by jbogner

While there were naysayers like DT, there were a couple others with clout (Intense, etc) at least interested in exploring the idea...

Surely by asking on the forums for advice on setup, bringing one to market, and giving people even more choice in 29ers, DT has demonstrated that he is interested in exploring the idea.

This debate reminds me a bit of how the early-adopter singlespeeders got upset when the big companies started adding a one-speed to their range. While it was still a niche they cried out that if only the big guys would support their idea it wouldn't be a niche and we would all see the light. Then as soon as the big guys did as they'd been asking and added a singlespeed to range they all cried sell-out.

With some folk you just can't win, and DT has shown a much more open-minded and positive attitude than them.

Who's going to get more converts to 29ers?

A guy taking all sorts of financial and business risks developing and bringing a new 29er to market or some man off the street who publicly and irrationally bad-mouths that maker?

[willtsmith_nwi]

Originally Posted by jbogner

Having said that, Nate's question is a fair one- "why build a bike if he has so many reservations about it?" Especially since the bike he's building- a 4" travel XC machine- is squarely aimed at those XC riders who are likely to be "nauseated" by all that extra wheel weight. Turner's never been one to "follow the crowd" before, so why start now?

Turner could just as well switch to 24" wheels to make "quicker accelerating" and "lighter". The question is about finding the "sweet spot" in performance vs weight.

For downhillers, I think they would be more than happy to have bigger wheels. Just make the hub flange bigger to keep the wheel strong. Gravity will take care of the extra weight.

[jbogner]

Originally Posted by nick3216

Surely by asking on the forums for advice on setup, bringing one to market, and giving people even more choice in 29ers, DT has demonstrated that he is interested in exploring the idea.

If you read the context, you'll see that the quoted comment was specifically related to the Decline mag article and 29ers in the DH/Freeride space- an area DT has repeatedly said he is not interested in exploring. It had nothing to do with Turner's foray into a 29er trailbike.

[Nonracerrichie]

This is one funny thread. So if you are that nutty about 29" wheels and one of the best builders of mountain bikes isn't then no one should buy a Turner? You mind was open enough to try 29er's now keep it open. If I was a fan of full susser rides I doubt I would ever consider riding a 29er. It just seems unnecessary. With a properly set up suspension a 26in wheel easily rolls over obstacles. If I was riding DH even and if my favorite tire came in a 29 inch version I would not ride it. It would weigh what 1800 grams compared to its 1300 g counterpart? Then it would go on a much heavier or much weaker wheel, then frame designs would look like what to get 10" of travel? There would be many compromises. Longer heavier fork legs, Longer heavier stays, Head tubes would need to be shorter to get the same seat bar relationship which would decrease the area to weld the D tube and T tube. On a full suspension bike you would also be increasing the weight of the unsprung moving parts which will make the suspension movement slower and less responsive in general.

My next bike will be a 29er, but I am steel riding, single speeding, wool wearin', rigid ridin', simplicity seekin', non race winnin', less is more and yet less to break, self depricatin, self hatin', neo-retro-luddite-crumudgin. But I ain't so bad that I would ride fixie. Word. So am I a lazy coastin' non-purist or what?

[jbogner]

Nate's argument could be boiled down to this analogy- would you go to a church where you knew the minister was an atheist, even though he delivered sermons that were powerfully moving and deepened your own faith?

Of course, the flip side is that we all do things in our daily work that we're not thrilled about, because it's our job. And just because we don't like doing them doesn't mean we'll do them poorly. It's absolutely possible to take pride in your work, even if it's work you don't love doing and wouldn't do for yourself.

It's just harder for some to get fired up about spending thousands of dollars on an object of love designed by someone who was just doing it because it was their job...

While I don't necessarily agree with Nate, I certainly understand the sentiment.

[nick3216]

Originally Posted by jbogner

Nate's argument could be boiled down to this analogy- would you go to a church where you knew the minister was an atheist, even though he delivered sermons that were powerfully moving and deepened your own faith?

Well they're all just bikes, so a better analogy might be - would you as a Roman Catholic go to a church where you knew the minister was an Anglican, even though he delivered sermons that were powerfully moving and deepened your own faith?

[PeanutButterBreath]

Originally Posted by jbogner

Nate's argument could be boiled down to this analogy- would you go to a church where you knew the minister was an atheist, even though he delivered sermons that were powerfully moving and deepened your own faith?

Creepy true.

Some people do indeed seem to treat a different bicycle wheel size as a religion, and judge others with either blind adulation or baseless disdain depending on whether their every utterance and action adequately glorifies 29" wheels.

Turner doesn't think the positives of 29ers outshine the negatives? Burn the witch!!!!

[Cloxxki]

Originally Posted by Nonracerrichie

If I was riding DH even and if my favorite tire came in a 29 inch version I would not ride it. It would weigh what 1800 grams compared to its 1300 g counterpart?

No. Where did you get that 26" to 29" weight ratio from?
1400-1450g is what you're looking at. If you look at a tire are a simple tube, the 29" one is just about 9-10% longer. Same for rims, add ~10%. 9 or 11% and you're off spec :-)
But perhaps the sufficient air volume is reach with a narrower 29" tire already, making the DH race tire end up at the same weight as the 26". BCD is already riding some pretty rough terrain (DH races) with 29x2.1" Motoraptors.

[turnerbikes]

This has turned into a fantastic read, untill the burning part. Couldn't you have left that out PB?

Of course I think that the positives outweight the negatives, if it were all negatives I would not have designed one. But all the positives and negatives are not the same for all people, it is a matter of each individuals perspective. We build bikes for the free riders too, they are completely the opposite of nonraceritchie! Piles of synthetic gear, tons of travel and 2 tons of bike. Am I a free rider? do I believe with my very broken bones? No Freakin way! I can't ride off anything bigger than my desk, but I understand their need for air and speed and technicaly dangerous riding, just as I understand nonrace's need for anti tech. It is all bikes and it is all cool. If we would all be as religious about sharing riding with the lazy heathens of this world it would be far better time spent than pointing fingers at the other niche's of mountain biking and crying blaspemy!

David Turner

[Ricky J]

Sherwood Gibson and Devin Lenz.

[donkey]

Originally Posted by djcrb9

Maybe you don't hang out in the 29'er forum much, so i'll give you a pointer. For the most part, ignore Cloxx. He's kinda like the crazy guy on the street corner waving a sign about the end of the world. He has his opinion, it is RIGHT, and he is NOT INTERESTED in hearing what you have to say. Saying the 29'er might be good for some people, but not all? BLASPHEMY!!! Sheer and utter blashphemy.

Absolutely classic.

B

[holycromoly]

I don't think there is anything wrong with Turner making a bike and not really personally believe in it himself.

Here's my take attempt at hypothetical explanation... Enter Turner the Ice Cream Factory.

Turner is an ice cream maker. He loves dark chocolate ice cream and makes it to sell. It's his best seller and accounts for most of his business. It's been proven and sold well. So chocolate is his 26ers.

He doesn't like pistachio ice cream. Enter the 29er. He's downright allergic to it. He hates it and would never consume and personally can't understand why anyone would want to eat pistachio ice cream. But he gets email for it everyweek, "Puuuhlease make pistachio!". Even though he hates pistachios, he decides to make it and makes it damn well. The best ingredients and quality put in to. But he never eats, just sampled it for quality and makes sure it's up to par to his namesake.

Would pistachio lovers boycott his ice cream because he didn't like it? Probably not because they don't care so long as the product it good.

[artnshel]

Originally Posted by holycromoly

I don't think there is anything wrong with Turner making a bike and not really personally believe in it himself.

Here's my take attempt at hypothetical explanation... Enter Turner the Ice Cream Factory.

Turner is an ice cream maker. He loves dark chocolate ice cream and makes it to sell. It's his best seller and accounts for most of his business. It's been proven and sold well. So chocolate is his 26ers.

He doesn't like pistachio ice cream. Enter the 29er. He's downright allergic to it. He hates it and would never consume and personally can't understand why anyone would want to eat pistachio ice cream. But he gets email for it everyweek, "Puuuhlease make pistachio!". Even though he hates pistachios, he decides to make it and makes it damn well. The best ingredients and quality put in to. But he never eats, just sampled it for quality and makes sure it's up to par to his namesake.

Would pistachio lovers boycott his ice cream because he didn't like it? Probably not because they don't care so long as the product it good.

Good analogy. He doesn't have to drink the kool-aid, he'll still make a high quality frame. We should be happy to get another solid 29" option and not question the maker.

Does anyone really think the Trek bean counters thought the 29" thing would work when Gary Fisher wanted to make one? I highly doubt it, but people still bought them.

[Cloxxki]

Sherwood didn't think much of 29" until he rode his own bike, I seem to remember :-)
Four 29" models in just over a year since? And just one new 26" model...

[shiggy]

Originally Posted by holycromoly

I don't think there is anything wrong with Turner making a bike and not really personally believe in it himself.

Here's my take attempt at hypothetical explanation... Enter Turner the Ice Cream Factory.

Turner is an ice cream maker. He loves dark chocolate ice cream and makes it to sell. It's his best seller and accounts for most of his business. It's been proven and sold well. So chocolate is his 26ers.

He doesn't like pistachio ice cream. Enter the 29er. He's downright allergic to it. He hates it and would never consume and personally can't understand why anyone would want to eat pistachio ice cream. But he gets email for it everyweek, "Puuuhlease make pistachio!". Even though he hates pistachios, he decides to make it and makes it damn well. The best ingredients and quality put in to. But he never eats, just sampled it for quality and makes sure it's up to par to his namesake.

Would pistachio lovers boycott his ice cream because he didn't like it? Probably not because they don't care so long as the product it good.

I think DT's replies in this thread have clarified his position very well.

He is not anti-29er.

Different types of riding and riders have different requirements.

I find it funny that people keep defending or dissing a position he does not have.

[MikeDee]

Originally Posted by mvi

Quote"The design of 'Cross bikes that are UCI legal I'm lead to believe is pretty narrow, which is why everyone's bikes look the same. It's the same reason why you don't see any 26" wheels in the road peloton, yet funny enough you see heaps in Triathlon.

It's all about the rules and regulations." End quote/

The rules allow 650C wheels on the road and in cross.
Still nobody ride them.

This is a very interesting point, that is if 700C wheels (= 29" wheels) are heavier and weaker than 650C wheels, then why don't roadies use them? Leads me to believe the heavier and weaker mantra is overblown. In fact, I have many more problems with my road wheels than my mtb, primarily because there isn't that big, fat tire to cushion the impact.

[connie]

Originally Posted by Quasi

Strange, I didn't think weight was that big a concern for DH riders. So they must ride some wicked light bikes then right? I would venture to say that right now tire selection is the most important drawback for prospective 29er DH riders. Secondly, strength of the wheels. I don't think anybody is expecting 29ers to take over the DH market anytime soon, but IMHO, Turner's comment about wheel weight for XC riders is rather nauseating.

While a DH race bike doesn't seem light compared to an XC bike, I guarantee you that any DH racer is trying to get their bike as light as possible while maintaining durability, assuming they have the cash to afford doing it. I know plenty of guys who put the lightest XC race saddle they can find on their DH bike (since you don't have to sit on it as much) to save weight. Personally, I don't have the money to keep replacing things like that when I break them over and over again, but you get the idea.

So the combination of more weight, weaker wheels, slower accelleration... I can't imagine considering a 29er DH bike. Plus, even though I'm not particularly short at 5'9", the bikes are already pretty darn big - triple crown fork over an even bigger wheel? Seems like that would feel pretty weird.

[shiggy]

Originally Posted by Cloxxki

Sherwood didn't think much of 29" until he rode his own bike, I seem to remember :-)
Four 29" models in just over a year since? And just one new 26" model...

Very true.

[MikeDee]

Originally Posted by artnshel

Good analogy. He doesn't have to drink the kool-aid, he'll still make a high quality frame. We should be happy to get another solid 29" option and not question the maker.

Does anyone really think the Trek bean counters thought the 29" thing would work when Gary Fisher wanted to make one? I highly doubt it, but people still bought them.

No, bad analogy. The best products are made by people that have a passion for them. GF has a passion for 29ers. DT may indeed produce an excellent quality 29er, but there is a fair amount of detail, understanding, and nuance that goes into designing and building a quality 29er. I doubt simply scaling up a few dimensions will produce excellent results.

[shiggy]

Originally Posted by MikeDee

This is a very interesting point, that is if 700C wheels (= 29" wheels) are heavier and weaker than 650C wheels, then why don't roadies use them? Leads me to believe the heavier and weaker mantra is overblown. In fact, I have many more problems with my road wheels than my mtb, primarily because there isn't that big, fat tire to cushion the impact.

There is stronger and there is strong enough. Most wheels are strong enough.

Rear 9-speed wheels are not as strong as front wheels. Front disc wheels are not as strong as front non-disc wheels. Most of them hold up just fine under most riders.

[velocipus]

Originally Posted by Go Kart Motzart

We are a niche. Who cares? Not me, I would be just as happy if we stay that way.

It's nice to read that not everyone on this board is a zealot.

Niche is fine with me too. I don't care what Turner has to say about 29ers... Everyone is gonna build a 29er in the next couple of years... just like everyone makes a fixed gear now.

I somewhat agree with Turner anyway. I remember when full suspension bikes (Turner made some of the first) were niche.

If it weren't for niche's within the industry, the bike industry would die!

[Dusty Bottoms]

Haha, 29 inch wheels.

LOOK AT ME! I'M DIFFERENT AND UNIQUE ALL AT THE SAME TIME!