Results 1 to 50 of 50
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    18

    better climber: 29er or 96er?

    I am interested in learning your expriences with 29er and 96ers while climbing. If you havent used a 96er it would be better if you don't reply to this thread. I have read many threads here and have found many users unreosonably opposed the 96er concept and those who used a 96er highly pleased. So please be honest and unbiased in your replies.

    Thanks

  2. #2
    TNC
    TNC is offline
    noMAD man
    Reputation: TNC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,059

    Maybe not a clear winner.

    Here's why. If the terrain flows well with the ability to maintain more momentum than not, I think a 29'er with a decently strong pedaler may have the advantage. If the terrain gets more herky-jerky...frequent starts/stops, pitchups...and has bigger rocks or ledges in combination, then I think the 69'er may have the advantage. We're talking some generalities here obviously.

    Most of us at our shop have not been high on full-on 29'ers for our area because it has the characteristics that I described in the second scenario. So out of curiosity we decided to try one of our better performing longer travel trail bikes with a 29'er front/26'er rear to see how things would shake out. The Maverick ML8 is an outstanding climber and awesome accelerating bike. So...would a 29'er front help or hurt this bike. We put a 29'er on the front of the shop owner's ML8 and reduced the travel of the DUC32 fork and rode it on the trails we normally ride. The bike worked really well. I noticed no climbing deficiency brought on by the big front wheel. The surprised me, and it was a pleasant surprise. We were using a Weirwolf LT 2.55 on the front, and the cornering quality was excellent. This has led all of us here at the shop to feel that what we didn't like about the full-on 29'ers was the larger front wheel for our riding. This ML8 climbs extremely well, and in fact there is some quite noticeable improvement in how it clears ledges, rock gardens, and rock channels prevalent on our trails. Additionaly it helps clear some of those annoying ledges that you often find right at the end of the top of a climb. The bike maintains an improved rolling quality to get that front tire over that last lip. This was positive...for the most part. The rockier and gnarlier the terrain got, and as speed dropped because of conditions, the reduced travel began to enter the picture for me. I would have like the combination of the 29'er wheel and longer travel.

    So...what I didn't like about the 29'er front end was the reduced travel. It wasn't horrible by any means, but IMO the bigger wheel didn't quite make up that 1.5" travel loss that was available before. Now...this is obviously an area where preference will come into play. I like longer travel trail bikes in the 6-inch-plus category...Nomad, ML8, Reign, etc. If your riding style and terrain gravitates toward this longer travel, rocky terrain, type of bike, then full-on 29'ers have limitations for travel options. Throw in the sluggish acceleration that we note in our situation and trail conditions, and you don't have a good match. Also consider that some or many riders on 29'ers are minimalists in their approach and preference to riding in "any" type of terrain. Nothing wrong with that preference, but it generally puts them on hardtails or at least short travel bikes. I'll also speculate that many of these riders are very strong pedalers who even have a tendency to enjoy suffering a little to accomplish their goals when riding. Nothing wrong with that either. What is wrong is thinking that everyone else "wants" or "should" select bikes and that approach to offroad riding that matches theirs. I find it interesting that "some" full-on 29'er devotees are so strong in their preference and belief that they will even call a 69'er a "bastard". It seems odd that one cannot consider that "thinking outside the box" might yield a setup different from what any of us anticipated...or perhaps "wanted" to be ideal for a given rider, given riding style, or given location.

    I have definitely seen the advantage of a bigger wheel for the front of the bike while not being so impressed with that big wheel for the rear...but I don't want to give up the long travel fork. That's why I'm going to try the 650B front wheel application for my Nomad in a 160mm fork...but that's another story. Your question was about full-on 29'ers and 69'ers and climbing. I think I've tried to address my perspective on that, but I think you also have to consider the other elements of how each affects overall acceleration quality, cornering, and suspension travel requirements and/or preferences. The type of bikes we ride usually relfect a good deal about us as riders...both for personal preference and the way we ride and places we ride. To think that "one size fits all" borders on tunnel vision IMO. All of the known formats of current bike and/or wheel size...26, 650B, 29, and combinations thereof...have pros and cons.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Morpheous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    497
    ...a 69er will definitely climb well because of weight bias to the rear(traction), buit it will limit your maximum climbing incline pitch due to the raised front end(and subsequent wheelie over) Now a 96er would be the ultimate steep incline climber! (but would def suck otherwise)
    Last edited by Morpheous; 01-10-2008 at 02:31 PM.
    2015 Budnitz MTB Ti Limited 650B
    2015 Surly Instigator 2.0 26+/27.5+

  4. #4
    no fat chicks
    Reputation: iliketoridebikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    774
    i've had two trek 69ers and a fisher rig, all SS rigid.
    the 69ers climb better, hands down
    i have no concrete proof other than how they feel
    i just never could get the ol 29er rig to really feel like a climbin machine
    #1 NORBA elite singlespeed racer 30-34 age group

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    18
    Thank you. What you all have said comfirms what I was thinking.

    Let me change the question -would you agree that a smaller rider, say 5, 8", would have a better advantage in a 96er then a 29er at climbing and pedal efficiency? Please Support with exprience.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,776
    Quote Originally Posted by iliketoridebikes
    i've had two trek 69ers and a fisher rig, all SS rigid.
    the 69ers climb better, hands down
    How many 29ers have you tried perhaps the one which you had had before, had possessed some faults? Heavy frame, heavy, wheels, heavy tyres, you did not have a cessette 11-34. Have considered those?

    Bigger wheel in the rear will provide you with a better traction, even when the front end is weighted on a climb standing the rear wheel is surgind but still preserving adherence while smaller wheel will perform worse losing it thus may not bring you uphill so effectively. I assumed that the rear 29er wheel is light enough.
    keep in mind this short clue
    http://twentynineinches.com/2006/06/...-and-traction/

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Morpheous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    497
    Lots of other factors for that question: Rider technique/torso vs leg length/gearing/crank length/stem/bars/flats or clipins, etc...but generally you will gain some traction while sacrificing some incline pitch limit.
    Last edited by Morpheous; 01-10-2008 at 07:42 PM.
    2015 Budnitz MTB Ti Limited 650B
    2015 Surly Instigator 2.0 26+/27.5+

  8. #8
    banned
    Reputation: 29Colossus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,137
    I am the better climber.

    On my 29er.

    The wheel fits me much better than a 26" wheel, and in turn, I climb better. That is not true for everyone of course.

  9. #9
    TNC
    TNC is offline
    noMAD man
    Reputation: TNC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,059
    Suck otherwise?...Morpheus, do you mean that as an absolute state of performance for all 69'ers? I would agree that just slapping on a 29'er fork and wheel/tire combo for some or many 26'ers might indeed suck...though that might take a rather extensive test to really prove that...LOL! However, there are models of bikes and/or forks that allow this without killing the geometry and handling. The ML8 for example has no more of an elevated ride height than an ML8 with a conventional 150-160mm fork. Over on the Maverick forum under a post on this bike titled, "I hate the ML8"...don't take that title literally...there are pictures of this bike in both the 69'er setup and with a Fox Van 36. You can see from the pics taken against the same shop wall that the bike changed little if any in either setup as far as ride height. Riding both bikes confirms this. If anything the more conventional fork and 26'er may have a tiny bit higher rided height in this case. That 69'er cornered every bit as well, and maybe a bit more confindently. I'm not flaming you here, but I do disagree that a 69'er would, "suck otherwise" as a general rule.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AZTtripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by TNC
    Suck otherwise?...Morpheus, do you mean that as an absolute state of performance for all 69'ers? I would agree that just slapping on a 29'er fork and wheel/tire combo for some or many 26'ers might indeed suck...though that might take a rather extensive test to really prove that...LOL! However, there are models of bikes and/or forks that allow this without killing the geometry and handling. The ML8 for example has no more of an elevated ride height than an ML8 with a conventional 150-160mm fork. Over on the Maverick forum under a post on this bike titled, "I hate the ML8"...don't take that title literally...there are pictures of this bike in both the 69'er setup and with a Fox Van 36. You can see from the pics taken against the same shop wall that the bike changed little if any in either setup as far as ride height. Riding both bikes confirms this. If anything the more conventional fork and 26'er may have a tiny bit higher rided height in this case. That 69'er cornered every bit as well, and maybe a bit more confindently. I'm not flaming you here, but I do disagree that a 69'er would, "suck otherwise" as a general rule.
    I think that Morpheus is referring to the 96er (an idea that was in IMO put out by a troll) a bike with a 29er rear wheel 26er front wheel. This would also be a great bike for going down hill backwards. Morpheus is just getting a jump on the troll.
    Singin' I love hike a bike!!!

  11. #11
    TNC
    TNC is offline
    noMAD man
    Reputation: TNC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,059

    D'oh!

    Quote Originally Posted by AZTtripper
    I think that Morpheus is referring to the 96er (an idea that was in IMO put out by a troll) a bike with a 29er rear wheel 26er front wheel. This would also be a great bike for going down hill backwards. Morpheus is just getting a jump on the troll.
    Overlooking the obvious.

    I don't know...there has been a time or two when rolling backwards in terror from failing to make a steep technical climb that a 96'er might indeed have been handy.

  12. #12
    no fat chicks
    Reputation: iliketoridebikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    774
    they were all single speeds with nice parts

    how many 69ers have you tried there mr. science guy

    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    How many 29ers have you tried perhaps the one which you had had before, had possessed some faults? Heavy frame, heavy, wheels, heavy tyres, you did not have a cessette 11-34. Have considered those?

    Bigger wheel in the rear will provide you with a better traction, even when the front end is weighted on a climb standing the rear wheel is surgind but still preserving adherence while smaller wheel will perform worse losing it thus may not bring you uphill so effectively. I assumed that the rear 29er wheel is light enough.
    keep in mind this short clue
    http://twentynineinches.com/2006/06/...-and-traction/
    #1 NORBA elite singlespeed racer 30-34 age group

  13. #13
    conjoinicorned
    Reputation: ferday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,525
    he hasn't even ridden a 29er, much less a 69er. just ignore DC, he's a blight on the 29er forum as well.
    although i do agree with him on one point...
    in THEORY the 29er rear should provide more traction while the 26er wheel should be easier to spin.

    my 29er SS has noticeably more traction than my 26er SS....but i did have to drop a gear to keep them spinning the same. my 29er FS is getting built and i will soon know how a geared 29 compares to a geared 26 (same rear tires, same setup and travel).

    i personally feel that a 29er front is too large to pair with a 26er rear (from experience) unless the bike was specifically designed for it (Carver). a 29er front 650b rear makes a lot more sense to me....
    what would rainbow unicorn do?

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AZTtripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by ferday
    i personally feel that a 29er front is too large to pair with a 26er rear (from experience) unless the bike was specifically designed for it (Carver). a 29er front 650b rear makes a lot more sense to me....
    Although I am quite happy with my Kona Explosif 6-9r conversion, I am thinking you are right about the 650b combo. Weather you put it in front on a 26er or the back of a 29er having the two wheels a little closer to being the same size (more like motos) would not be a bad thing.

    The main thing IMO is that the wheels should not be the same size. If it works for motos it would make sense that it will work on bikes. I really don’t care what the math says should or shouldn’t work all I care about is how the bike handles out on the trail. And I know from the last month and a half of riding the 6-9r that it is a great set up.
    Singin' I love hike a bike!!!

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: grawbass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,044
    Quote Originally Posted by AZTtripper
    If it works for motos it would make sense that it will work on bikes.
    Actually the outer tire diameter is pretty close in size, its the rims that are different sizes.
    Wanted: broken Titec 2 bolt seatpost, any size

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,330
    I 69'd my GT I've got slacker angles and no ETA which was a must and strangely my 69er out climbs it in straight 26er form especially if you throw in some roots and rocks the 26er would just stall out on.

    Only limited 29er full experience ( get my own soon well when / if available ), but the only place the 29" wheel in the rear seems to be handy is climbing on really slippy mud, even then the lack of decent tyres with deep lugs could hinder this.

    Yes the lack of travel from 150 to 105 on small drops is abit more uncomfortable but there rarely ( normally un planned to ), but general riding into obstacles is SO much smoother it more than makes up for it. ( Plus I hate LT fork brake dive and the extra over the bars feeling while landing drops front first yes badly )

    All is good, long live my 69er

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,776
    Quote Originally Posted by ferday
    although i do agree with him on one point...
    in THEORY the 29er rear should provide more traction while the 26er wheel should be easier to spin.
    and in PRACTISE 26" as a rear wil stilll fall more into ruts, stall out on stones hindering acceleration, loosing traction and momentum when standing/mashing - the front end is weighted. You will still feel obsctacles being big under you. I do not see any situation when 69er could outperform 29er or generally any bike with one bigger wheel compared to another bike with two equal wheels being as big as the bigger in the previous one.

    The only minor advantage in 69er or 9er650B is a little shorter wheelbase and perhaps a bit faster acceleration and all other discussion is like 24vs26vs29vs32 but in terms one wheel instead of two.

    my 2 Eurocents

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    324
    I'm 5'8 and enjoy climbing. I have a Trek 69er and have demoed a Cannondale F-29 as well as some other full 29er's. I think on a long smooth climb where you sit back,pick a gear and grind, I didn't notice any advantage with either bike. Rolling terrain with lots of short power ups and downs - the 29er accelerated slower at the start of the climb and required more effort to crest the top. It felt like it was requiring alot more energy to maintain flow. Technical climbs, with water bars and step ups - the lighter rear wheel on the 69er lifts effortlessly and was easier to roll or loft the front wheel up the step and lift and slide the rear wheel in after. As far as climbing traction didn't notice much differance between the two, but niether stick to the ground like my FS bike. I am sold on the 69er concept. My Trek 69er handles the tight twisty stuff equally as well as my 26" race hardtail (this is my new race hardtail) , but navigates the gnarly rock gardens better than my FS race bike. But that comes at a price, going fast through rock gardens on a hardtail is hard on this old mans bones.

    Mike
    Last edited by WindWalker; 01-12-2008 at 04:38 AM.
    Mike

  19. #19
    banned
    Reputation: 29Colossus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,137
    Quote Originally Posted by WindWalker
    - the lighter rear wheel on the 69er lifts effortlessly and was easier to roll or loft the front wheel up the step and lift and slide the rear wheel in after.
    What were the wheels? Did you weigh them, or are you just assuming that because the 29" wheel was bigger, it was heavier to some great extent... or any extent?

    29" wheel set-ups can be and often times are, lighter than 26" wheel set-ups. What are you comparing?

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,330
    On a HT yes, 29" wheel rear should help out, but on a FS, the rear suspension can take hits better than a front fork can, forks are very inefficent in many ways which is why 29" wheel up front helps out so much, but isn't required as such for the rear.

    Not saying 29" hasn't got advantages on the rear, but it's also got disadvantages, so I really do think 69er is the better format for a FS bike.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,776
    Quote Originally Posted by Turveyd
    Not saying 29" hasn't got advantages on the rear, but it's also got disadvantages, so I really do think 69er is the better format for a FS bike.
    I still see disadvantage in rear 559mm wheel falling into ruts and being hooked against rocks, and slipping on loamy, muddy and icy terrain and not so efficient compared to a light state-of-the-art 622mm.

    What about 584-650B rear wheel, do you think it would be better?

    For a dedicated rider height 32er would be for sure better than 32" front and 29" rear.
    There is certain boundary which tells you how much more weight can be compensated by trction, bigger momentum, better braking. For egample a 622mm which weight 1500grams is worse than 700 gram 559mm rear wheel, but a 900gram 622mm wheel is more efficient than 559mm in this case. The question is how much more weight may be compansated.

  22. #22
    TNC
    TNC is offline
    noMAD man
    Reputation: TNC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,059

    27/25

    Quote Originally Posted by grawbass
    Actually the outer tire diameter is pretty close in size, its the rims that are different sizes.
    I don't know...they're a good 2" different...maybe "pretty close" is relative. I measured mine, and I have the biggest front and rear tires that I should put on my bike...27 inches front...25 inches rear.

  23. #23
    Expert Crasher
    Reputation: GreenLightGo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    6,349
    TNC - do you think the positive characteristics you experienced with the 96'd ML8 would be reflected in a 96'd Durance?
    Happiness depends more on the inward disposition of mind than on outward circumstances. Benjamin Franklin

  24. #24
    TNC
    TNC is offline
    noMAD man
    Reputation: TNC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,059
    Yeah, and in fact, that fork and wheel are now on the shop owner's ML7...some similarity to the Durance...at least probably more than the ML8. He absolutely loves that setup and says it made a big improvement over the Reba 115 that was on there. The 4.5" in the DUC32 fork setup seemed to be a good match to the 4" ML7 that he has. The 69'er front wheel/tire may be a better fit for that bike.

  25. #25
    Expert Crasher
    Reputation: GreenLightGo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    6,349
    thanks
    Happiness depends more on the inward disposition of mind than on outward circumstances. Benjamin Franklin

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Flat Ark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by 29Colossus
    What were the wheels? Did you weigh them, or are you just assuming that because the 29" wheel was bigger, it was heavier to some great extent... or any extent?

    29" wheel set-ups can be and often times are, lighter than 26" wheel set-ups. What are you comparing?
    I have ridden 29ers with light weight wheels and I still find them to be slower accelerating and harder to pedal when comparing them to a 26" rear, especially when going uphill. With a 26" wheel the pedal stroke feels easier towards the bottom of the stroke, where as with a 29er I feel like that resistance is there through the entire pedal stroke. I attribute that to the larger diameter of the wheel. Let's say you want tip over 2 blocks that are the exact same weight, but one of them(the 29") has a wider base. The object with the skinnier base will be easier to push over. That is the best way that I can describe the feeling I get from the 2 wheels. That said, I am back on a full 26er after riding a 96er and a 29er for most of this year and I don't plan to get back on either of those platforms. I liked the 96er MUCH better than the 29er, but the 26" just feels more balanced, but to each his own.

  27. #27
    TNC
    TNC is offline
    noMAD man
    Reputation: TNC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,059

    Basically same experience.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flat Ark
    I have ridden 29ers with light weight wheels and I still find them to be slower accelerating and harder to pedal when comparing them to a 26" rear, especially when going uphill. With a 26" wheel the pedal stroke feels easier towards the bottom of the stroke, where as with a 29er I feel like that resistance is there through the entire pedal stroke. I attribute that to the larger diameter of the wheel. Let's say you want tip over 2 blocks that are the exact same weight, but one of them(the 29") has a wider base. The object with the skinnier base will be easier to push over. That is the best way that I can describe the feeling I get from the 2 wheels. That said, I am back on a full 26er after riding a 96er and a 29er for most of this year and I don't plan to get back on either of those platforms. I liked the 96er MUCH better than the 29er, but the 26" just feels more balanced, but to each his own.
    I would actually like to be able to go with a bike with 29" wheels, as I believe there is a rolling benefit when striking trail obstacles. However, the slower acceleration...more noticeable on the rear wheel...ate up any benefit. I also tried the 69'er setup, and it actually worked quite well with the only negative being that it ate up more of the fork travel than I want to give up on long travel trail bikes like a Nomad and such. Everything should be here this week to get my front wheel 650B setup going to see what kind of benefit this brings. I'll retain a 160mm fork and see if there is an appreciable rolling quality. I just rode my Nomad in its 26'er mode for the past 3 days in our gnarliest, rockiest, up-and-down terrain, and it was awesome. Sometimes it seems just about perfect. I'm looking forward to seeing if this 650B deal can boost up handling performance...even a little bit would be nice.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fisty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    891
    My Niners out climb my 650, B9er and my 26s hands down. Its actually what I miss most when I dont have the niner. Just goes to show you how individualistic a bike setup is. Ya just wont know til ya try.
    Rule of thumb- 1 Lb. costs 2 sec. per mile of climb

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,776

    New question here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flat Ark
    I have ridden 29ers with light weight wheels and I still find them to be slower accelerating and harder to pedal when comparing them to a 26" rear, especially when going uphill. With a 26" wheel the pedal stroke feels easier towards the bottom of the stroke, where as with a 29er I feel like that resistance is there through the entire pedal stroke.
    Explore this thread http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=371516
    Perhaps what you said pertains to the initial strokes- accelerating from 0 to 5 km/h? How much did those light 29er wheels weight? Have you tried accelerating with larger sprocket? How much did the entire tested 29er weight?

  30. #30
    no fat chicks
    Reputation: iliketoridebikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    774
    is anyone making a tubeless 650B tire with 120tpi casing
    if so i would try that out b/c it would probably ride pretty good
    #1 NORBA elite singlespeed racer 30-34 age group

  31. #31
    Ride da mOOn Moderator
    Reputation: NEPMTBA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    8,348

    Good job!

    It depends on frame design and rider input and terrain.

    Once again you can't hold a test without exact parameters or on paper! Which is impossible, even with the same rider on different bikes his input as to power will be different due to his position on the bike and his indeterminable power output!

    All of my bikes with me on them climb well as far as I'm concerned, but the Mono 9 could use a shorter chainstay, and as others have told me it's not a chainstay length or shortness that makes the ride work well.

    I think it's "IF" you make it to the top of the hill that counts, not how you got there!

    Now hop on a 2 stroke and forget all this silly nonsense! People powered vehicles?... Man was meant to sit and Twist the Throttle..............

    BRAAAAPPPPPP....................................LO L!



  32. #32
    Smile and think light!
    Reputation: cowgirlonwheels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    172

    Nevegal

    Quote Originally Posted by iliketoridebikes
    is anyone making a tubeless 650B tire with 120tpi casing
    if so i would try that out b/c it would probably ride pretty good
    Of course it's not out yet, but I've heard talk from Kenda about a Nevegal 650B.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,776
    http://twentynineinches.com/2006/11/...hybrid-update/
    Kiddy wheels just suck no matter how few of them you have. Off road moto you say ok then to level out the outside diameter put a 4" non-existrant DH tyre to match your 2,25" 29er one in front. If you don't comply, the credo
    "Bigger front wheel and smaller rear have all the advantages, which are omni-present in MX" is a marketing hogwash.
    Trek simply suck they could have done a decent Top Fuel 29er and it was asked a helluva of times to provide a longer rear swing arm. What a pack of *******s Revenue is the only thing that matters for them, where is passion in their dictionary, heh?
    Last edited by Davidcopperfield; 03-25-2008 at 07:37 AM.

  34. #34
    TNC
    TNC is offline
    noMAD man
    Reputation: TNC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,059

    Bull...

    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    http://twentynineinches.com/2006/11/...hybrid-update/
    Kiddy wheels just suck no matter how few of them you have. Off road moto you say ok then to level out the outside diameter put a 4" non-existrant DH tyre to match your 2,25" 29er one in front. If you dont do that the credo
    "Bigger front wheel and smaller rear have all the advantages, which are omni-present in MX"
    Trek simply suck they could have done a decent Top fuel 29er and it was asked a helluva of times to provide a longer rear swing arm. What a pack of *******s Revenue is the only thing that matters for them, where is passion in their dictionary, heh?
    IMO your assessment of Trek's alleged heartless ideology is baloney...but you're entitled to your opinion. Your assessment of "kiddy wheels" is also baloney, at least as far as making one big sweeping statement of alleged fact goes.

    Bigger wheels do indeed have an advantage in many situations, but perhaps they are not "the" do-all-end-all for all riders, all bikes, or all situations. In your link, the author even touches on the acceleration quality of the rear 26" wheel as opposed to a 29" wheel, and I'll bet he's even a 29'er afficianado. That's the problem that I have with a full 29'er...a slower and noticeably sluggish acceleration...a least for me. Not everyone has the same physical characteristics in terms of pedaling power or technique, and neither do they need to conform to someone else's idea of what is ideal. Then throw in the aspect of a heavier, long travel, trail bike into the mix, and a full 29'er can be a handful for many riders in rocky, technical terrain. For some it may be an ideal setup, and they should indeed take full advantage of the ability to use the bigger wheels on both ends of the bike. I'm happy for them and glad that they have that option. However, I really tire of hearing some 29'er advocates wail and gnash their teeth about how others might actually prefer the use of a 26'er or a 650B just because it isn't as tall as a 29'er.

    DC...you spend too much time within your own head from what I've noticed in your posts on the 29'er forum...and perhaps it's a little lonely in there at times.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    23

    29 vs 69 ride

    I couldn't disagree with DC more I have test ridden three different 29ers and liked them, but I have test ridden the top fuel 69er twice and loved it. Trek got it right with this bike, at least for me and the type of riding I like; tight, fast, twisty single track with some quick climbs/drops. The front doesn't slide out like my 26 will in the leaf/sand conditions on our trails. I liked the straight-line speed of the 29ers, and in the long curved trails it worked well, but the tighter the trail, the less it held the line in the back. The 69er feels like it's on rails and feels extremely well balanced, so based on these test rides, that's why I'm buying one
    So the moral of the story here is; ride a lot of different bikes in the area you'll be riding the most; see how it feels, THEN try to figure why it feels that way to you, but don't say this or that about a particular bike based on just figures or untested opinion.
    There's my 2$ (which is worth 2 cents now

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,330
    My issue with going full blown 29er is ( 69er home made conversion here ) lack of high volume fast rolling 29" tyres, although I accept the 29" wheel would role abit quicker anyway.

    Hard enough to find front tyres I like sadly there abit low on volume for me and tread depth!!

  37. #37
    conjoinicorned
    Reputation: ferday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Turveyd
    My issue with going full blown 29er is ( 69er home made conversion here ) lack of high volume fast rolling 29" tyres, although I accept the 29" wheel would role abit quicker anyway.

    Hard enough to find front tyres I like sadly there abit low on volume for me and tread depth!!

    lies!

    the rampages is as good as any 26er tire in grip and decent volume (ok, a bit slow)
    racing ralph is a huge volume, very fast tire
    fireXC is identical (volume and tread depth) to the 26er version
    the weirwolf is HUGE volume and fast (but i don't like the grip)
    the new stout is huge, and grip as good as a 26er DH tire....but heavy (1100g...)

    there are lots more choices. just playing the devils advocate here.

    FWIW....i have a few hours on my RIP9 now, and i have to say it climbs way better than any 26er bike i've ever owned. it is harder to keep the tire going for sure....but if i have the power left in the legs, it'll climb a wall!
    what would rainbow unicorn do?

  38. #38
    TNC
    TNC is offline
    noMAD man
    Reputation: TNC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,059
    I have to agree/disagree with ferday on the tire issue. While it is fact that there are not a lot of choices on a comparitive basis to 26" tires, there are still some very good tires. The 69'er I mentioned in my original post on this thread has the Weirwolf LT, a relatively huge tire. Frankly I was leary of the lower tread aspect of this tire as compared to the Weirwolf Race tires that I had been running on the front. However, there is some magic in the combination of the LT and the 29" wheel that changes the nature of this tire. I did not like the 26" version of this tire for the front in our local loose and harsh terrain. The tire breaks loose a little too easily compared to the Race model. On the 29'er though, the taller aspect and longer footprint apparently gives the tire a boost in traction performance. It seems like a whole other tire. As I said, this combo is what opened my eyes to the benefits of the taller wheel concept.

    Unlike ferday, however, I just don't have the pedaling power and/or technique for the full 29'er...even with gearing and/or other changes in the approach, especially in our terrain and my type of bike preference. This is where I think there are notable differences in riders, preferences, bike type, and terrain that can dicatate what will work best for a given rider...full 26, full 29, 69'er, 650B'er, or any mix thereof. If there truly was "the ONE" proper approach to riding, we wouldn't even have other brands with varying designs. We'd all be riding exactly the same bike. Now wouldn't that be silly...LOL!

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: monty797's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    683
    I've had the pleasure of trying 26, 29 and 69'er formats.

    I like them each for different reason's. First on the 26'er, I like how nimble the bike actually feels, and I really enjoy the acceleration that the 26'er offers.

    The 29'er for me was a pleasure, it was a Dos Niner and was a total blast to ride, the bike was built up pretty light, with a very nice light weight wheelset. I enjoyed how the bike ate up small roots, trail chatter and made everything really smooth. If in a wide open area where I could focus on just pedaling and pushing as hard as possible, (race sprints for instance) nothing could catch the bigger wheels, after you got the momentum there it was just plain fast. Where I didnt like the bigger wheels is if you stalled during a climb, it just takes more effort to get going, for a stronger rider probably not as much as an issue, but for me it was.

    And now the 69'er, I have a Trek 69'er SS with the DUC fork. I love this bike, I enjoy the SS aspect of it, and I love the big front wheel with the acceleration of the little wheel. I notice I can't go as fast in a spint compared to a 29'er once up to speed BUT I blame that on being SS .

    Overall for climbing I think the 69'er is just peachy for me, I like it alot, now if I can get better at climbing while SS'ing I'll be a happy camper!

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,330
    Got to disagree on the tyre side.

    The Rampages DRAG on the front interestingly and run the pressure anywhere near low and there loose fit to the rim means they rotate and rip the valve off, had 2 go in 1 ride, sadly as I bought 2 of them for a 29er that never happened

    Haven't tried the Weirwolf yet, but didn't like it on the 26" version so unsure but the shorter knobs may lessen the squirmness of them.

    Bonty ACX 2.2's for All round / Mud bias, and Halo Choir Master for all round / rock bias for me so far.

  41. #41
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,304
    I've got a slightly off topic question. I'm trying to decide whether to 69'er my old schwinn (which was super fun with a taller fork) or just opt for a new 29er frame. I've heard a few people say that the 29'er option would be a better choice for a stronger rider to spin up. I'm 6'2", 225lbs and about as fit as any other 2x a week cyclist. Do y'all think i'd notice the slower spin up for the 29er rear wheel less since it's a small % of my body mass, or are you really referring to skinny racer types?
    "Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple."
    Mikhail Kalashnikov

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: troll killer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    95

    Is it true?

    Is it true that Davidcopperfield has never even ridden a 29'er?

  43. #43
    TNC
    TNC is offline
    noMAD man
    Reputation: TNC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,059
    scott, I think it's one of those things you never really know unless you try one, and apparently it doesn't always just go by rider size and such. It seems that it really helps if you're a strong, powerful rider, but it seems some smaller riders use power and technique just as well to accomplish the same. I kinda get a little envy when I see something like that Lens Lunchbox, but I even have a little trouble with the hardtail 29'ers I've tried, at least from a pedaling perspective. See if you can try a couple of decent models and see how it suits you.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,330
    Check your spoke tension on your rear wheel I still say the slow spin up is caused by power being wasted through the longer spokes.

    My bikes 26" rear has been feeling sluggish recently on spin up to, checked the spokes last night way loose some of my power is lost twisting the rim relative to the hub.

    Will see if it runs better today!!

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,776

    New question here. How come...

    Quote Originally Posted by TNC
    I kinda get a little envy when I see something like that Lens Lunchbox, but I even have a little trouble with the hardtail 29'ers I've tried, at least from a pedaling perspective.
    Please explain to me how the heck riders as short as 5' 3" or 5' 5" females can propel 29ers and never loock back to 26ers and be elated, whereas you ..... have meager legs or what? It really puzzles me how an experienced rider as you cannot cope with a 150 grams heavier wheelset.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,330
    Hence my spoke wind theory, and people with 69ers notice no difference in performance, reason being still a 26" wheel driving you transfering the power to the ground.

    Just ill thought out weight weenie crap.

    My re tensioned 26" rear wheel didn't have the wasteful lag on climbs today and miraculously I was climbing better than my mate since wednedsay, that proves it for me.

    So rear wheel, if power is important forget the weight, go 36spokes to transfer the power better and job done, maybe use thicker spokes to.

    To prove how little a difference weight makes on a wheel, spin 2 wheels by hand 1 heavy 1 light you can spin both upto 20mph by hand in 1 stroke in .2seconds maybe .2seconds and .22 seconds, but if just the wheel takes 10% more, factor in the bike the person and the difference becomes so ridiculous it's just not worth bothering to work out.

  47. #47
    Master of the Obvious
    Reputation: Angus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    498
    OK
    Time for me to jump in here, I am not going to babble any scientific fast nor am I going to redirect you to other babbling threads (LIKE DC!) I am just going to give my biased opinion.

    I have owned a Karate Monkey, A Rig and a Trek 69er hardtail geared.and several 26ers before these. I feel the 29ers climbed better than any 26" bike I have owned.
    Now when comparing the 29er against my 69er it really depends on the climb. I feel they both climb well but the shine in different areas. the 29er is my bike of choice on less technical climbs and trails, when I raced up in Michigan and Wisconsin (ala Chequamegon) a 29er would be my choice. Now living and racing on more technical rock strewn courses in Arkansas I find the 69er is more agile in climbing and handling, I still rock the rig on fire roads and take it out for fun but The 69er is my performance machine for this season.
    Check out my Blog!
    Yes ! I am posting on my Blog again! come visit!

  48. #48
    wyrd bið ful ãræd
    Reputation: chinaman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,725
    bottom line we are all anatomically different ... what works for 1 individual may not exactly work for another ... what looks logical on paper may not be so on the trails ... different trails will throw up different scenarios ... and your own body condition is not the same 1 day to the next ...

    we can only try to get on as many bikes as possible and come to own satisfactory conclusions ... so what i need now is a 3rd bike with 622 wheels which my missus will not be too happy about ...

  49. #49
    Ride da mOOn Moderator
    Reputation: NEPMTBA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    8,348

    Wink

    Gentlemen:

    Like I said millions of times before we ride on Dirt and it is the texture of that which makes all this talk nil!

    You would need a sanitized testing area to prove any of the comments where the same exact amount of torque applied to the pedal would be the constant thus leaving the human elements out of the picture.

    WOW... that came out of my head? Time to go ride directly into a tree and get back to being myself... LOL

    "Watch out for that TREE" (pronounced Leonard Skinnerd)

  50. #50
    TNC
    TNC is offline
    noMAD man
    Reputation: TNC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,059

    Different strokes...

    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Please explain to me how the heck riders as short as 5' 3" or 5' 5" females can propel 29ers and never loock back to 26ers and be elated, whereas you ..... have meager legs or what? It really puzzles me how an experienced rider as you cannot cope with a 150 grams heavier wheelset.
    And I mean that in everything from technique, physiology, preference, type of terrain, etc., etc. DC, have you become some kind of ambassador for the "29'er Only" club? Why do you care whether a 29'er suits me or not? You're puzzled?...nothing new there. Meager legs?...better that than a meager brain.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.