Do 29ers cure cancer?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 33 of 33
  1. #1
    Occasionally engaged…
    Reputation: Ptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,668

    Do 29ers cure cancer?

    Just wondering... You have to admit; sometimes the 29er bandwagon sounds a lot like a political convention.

    Actually, I do want to understand how a 29er wheel can have a bigger footprint, better traction, and less rolling resistance -- as has been claimed more than once in this forum. And for the life of me I can't understand how the heavier 29er wheel and tire (and it has to be heavier than a standard sized wheel and tire) would ever allow you to climb better, particularly on climbs lasting for tens of minutes.

    I was all set to join the 29er parade, but then my wife (probably motivated by the thought of saving that $2k I was ready to sink into the new bike) asked how could a bike with heavier wheels possibly serve me better in the type of races I like and excel at (100 mile mtb races with big, long climbs). As she knows, in these races it's all about climbing -- not about the descent or the technical issues. I had even justified to her the need for expensive light wheels and tires by droning on and on about how mtb racing was all about having to constantly accelerate back up to speed due to the technical terrain, so she immediately pointed out the inconsistencies in my pro-29er arguments.

    I like to spend money and accumulate new toys as much as the next guy, so I need someone to provide me with a logical, sound argument to counter my wife's point (no bs here, she has a PhD in Biochemistry and is far too smart to be fooled by lame technical arguments).

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    My gloves stink
    Reputation: Appendage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,486

    No, but 29ers will find Osama Bin Laden

    Quote Originally Posted by PeT
    Just wondering... You have to admit; sometimes the 29er bandwagon sounds a lot like a political convention.

    Actually, I do want to understand how a 29er wheel can have a bigger footprint, better traction, and less rolling resistance -- as has been claimed more than once in this forum. And for the life of me I can't understand how the heavier 29er wheel and tire (and it has to be heavier than a standard sized wheel and tire) would ever allow you to climb better, particularly on climbs lasting for tens of minutes.

    I was all set to join the 29er parade, but then my wife (probably motivated by the thought of saving that $2k I was ready to sink into the new bike) asked how could a bike with heavier wheels possibly serve me better in the type of races I like and excel at (100 mile mtb races with big, long climbs). As she knows, in these races it's all about climbing -- not about the descent or the technical issues. I had even justified to her the need for expensive light wheels and tires by droning on and on about how mtb racing was all about having to constantly accelerate back up to speed due to the technical terrain, so she immediately pointed out the inconsistencies in my pro-29er arguments.

    I like to spend money and accumulate new toys as much as the next guy, so I need someone to provide me with a logical, sound argument to counter my wife's point (no bs here, she has a PhD in Biochemistry and is far too smart to be fooled by lame technical arguments).

    Thanks!
    I agree that the pro/con 29er debate is at times entirely emotional. For the most part, people don't look at the facts and make a rational decision with this or anything else. They go with their gut and then look for rationale to justify their decision. The mind justifies the choices of the heart.

    I wouldn't presume to argue with someone with anything more than a grade skool education, let alone someone with a PhD. However...

    Any argument that can be made against the 29er by comparison with a 26 inch wheel bike could also be made against a 26 relative to a 24 inch wheel. Why would anyone want a heavy 26 inch wheel when they can have a lighter 24 inch wheel? Why not even smaller?

    Similarly, a case could be made for putting the skinniest tires on your bike that you can find. Hey, reduced weight and reduced drag, right?

    The answer, of course, is that there's more to a wheel than how much it weighs. Back in the days when Gary Fisher visited this forum, he claimed to have spreadsheets showing that the flatter angle of approach of the larger wheel created less loss of momentum on bumpy terrain.

    I don't think 29ers climb better in conditions that are relatively smooth, with relatively good traction. They climb better in the nasty stuff, due to the bigger footprint and lower tire pressure.

    I have no direct experience on this point, but I would think the less-punishing ride afforded by the bigger wheels would pay off big dividends fatigue-wise in an endurance ride.

    Just my non-technical 2-cents worth.

    ~Appendage

  3. #3

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    39
    As a SS Monkey owner for three weeks, I don't get it either!

    Not giving up, yet

    -Mo

  4. #4
    Occasionally engaged…
    Reputation: Ptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,668

    Long climbs are about weight...

    Quote Originally Posted by Appendage
    Any argument that can be made against the 29er by comparison with a 26 inch wheel bike could also be made against a 26 relative to a 24 inch wheel. Why would anyone want a heavy 26 inch wheel when they can have a lighter 24 inch wheel? Why not even smaller?

    Similarly, a case could be made for putting the skinniest tires on your bike that you can find. Hey, reduced weight and reduced drag, right?
    I would actually say that the skinniest/lightest tire or wheel actually does improve performance on a long climb. I can climb virtually any dirt track faster on my cyclocross bike with 32c knobby tires than I can on my mtb. If it's loose and rocky that's not necessarily true, but then I might well be able to run up it faster anyway. The only real difference between the two bikes is 300 g more of tire and a bigger contact patch on the mtb. However, I can't go down the trail on the cyclocross bike much faster than I got up it (pinch flat issues if nothing else) so it's not the bike of choice for most of my off-road epics. It's taken me years of experimentation to find the happy medium of tire width and tread style to maximize my performance on long climbs and descents.

    I would love to see the technical arguments/spreadsheets for "angle of attack" of the 29er wheel that Gary Fisher claimed to have. I saw the "10% decrease in rolling resistance" mentioned in the FAQ, but I don't know how much of that percentage is reality and how much is hype. Testimonial/anecdotal evidence only works for me when it's my testimonial or my anecdote...

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    664
    Enough blather.

    Borrow one, ride it, and see for yourself.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,530
    29ers are the key to perpetual motion.

    Fisher used to have this on his webpage (back in the 2002 archives)

    *The concept is simple. If my skateboarding son hits a 1" stone with his 2" diameter wheels, the board stops hard and Nick goes flying – The small wheel's angle of attack on the stone is so severe that it cannot roll over the rock

    When I used to have a 26er steel hardtail and my 29er aluminum hardtail, I was amazed by how much smoother the 29er bike rode over the same surfaces.

    The bigger wheels do take more energy to get going, but once they get rolling they do hold their speed much better. There isn't too much of a difference in the weight of the wheel/tire combo.

    I agree that if you can get the skinnier tires to hook up they would be the faster setup, however, if you need the extra air volume of a bigger tire for rocky terrain you may need to compromise. I tried running Mutanoraptors on my 29er, and although the bike was much more nimble, there just wasn't enough air volume to cushion out the rocks.

    Isn't your cyclocross 700c (or essentially a 29er)?

    If you're ever out in AZ bring the cyclocrosser, and we'll swap for a ride. I'd love to try a cyclocross bike!




    Quote Originally Posted by PeT
    I would actually say that the skinniest/lightest tire or wheel actually does improve performance on a long climb. I can climb virtually any dirt track faster on my cyclocross bike with 32c knobby tires than I can on my mtb. If it's loose and rocky that's not necessarily true, but then I might well be able to run up it faster anyway. The only real difference between the two bikes is 300 g more of tire and a bigger contact patch on the mtb. However, I can't go down the trail on the cyclocross bike much faster than I got up it (pinch flat issues if nothing else) so it's not the bike of choice for most of my off-road epics. It's taken me years of experimentation to find the happy medium of tire width and tread style to maximize my performance on long climbs and descents.

    I would love to see the technical arguments/spreadsheets for "angle of attack" of the 29er wheel that Gary Fisher claimed to have. I saw the "10% decrease in rolling resistance" mentioned in the FAQ, but I don't know how much of that percentage is reality and how much is hype. Testimonial/anecdotal evidence only works for me when it's my testimonial or my anecdote...

  7. #7
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489

    Not faster on smooth climbs

    I doubt there's any noticeable difference on a smooth climb. Perhaps the extra pound or so of weight on the 29er will slow you down a few seconds on a long climb, but it's going to be basically a wash. But as has been pointed out already, a 650c wheeled road bike with no big chainring and 19c tires would be best - if it's smooth enough. Sounds like a 29er with ~40c cross tires might be ideal for you, or perhaps 1.9" mountain bike tires. Provided, of course, that you actually want to try one.

    Keeping in mind that this is a mountain biking forum, however, 29ers have enough advantages in terms of handling for *many* people to prefer them. I honestly don't think there's much of a speed differential on short distance rides - the reports many people were posting about doing 20% faster times on their favorite trail and such were baloney, IMO. But, all things being equal (meaning, both bikes are hardtails, both are using approximately the same tires, etc) a 29er will beat you up quite a bit less in even moderately rough terrain - which means that for really long races or rides, there's probably a small advantage on the 29er side.

    Most people ride the big wheels for handling reasons, not for performance reasons. Though I think there are performance benefits to be had.

    -Walt

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,530
    Agree! Thats what actually sold me on one.

    Quote Originally Posted by the_eleven
    Enough blather.

    Borrow one, ride it, and see for yourself.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,530
    Walt's post reminded me... somewhere on here, someone posted a thread about a road bike (or cyclocross) winning a MTB race.


    Quote Originally Posted by Walt
    I doubt there's any noticeable difference on a smooth climb. Perhaps the extra pound or so of weight on the 29er will slow you down a few seconds on a long climb, but it's going to be basically a wash. But as has been pointed out already, a 650c wheeled road bike with no big chainring and 19c tires would be best - if it's smooth enough. Sounds like a 29er with ~40c cross tires might be ideal for you, or perhaps 1.9" mountain bike tires. Provided, of course, that you actually want to try one.

    Keeping in mind that this is a mountain biking forum, however, 29ers have enough advantages in terms of handling for *many* people to prefer them. I honestly don't think there's much of a speed differential on short distance rides - the reports many people were posting about doing 20% faster times on their favorite trail and such were baloney, IMO. But, all things being equal (meaning, both bikes are hardtails, both are using approximately the same tires, etc) a 29er will beat you up quite a bit less in even moderately rough terrain - which means that for really long races or rides, there's probably a small advantage on the 29er side.

    Most people ride the big wheels for handling reasons, not for performance reasons. Though I think there are performance benefits to be had.

    -Walt

  10. #10
    What's up Dut?
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    361

    29ers vs 26ers

    I agree with some of the discussion here, but like it has been said. Borrow one, ride it, and see for yourself. I did just that. I was completely blown away with what I have found. I climb much better/faster on the 29er. Despite the terrain being smooth or rocky. Also, I find that they roll a lot faster on flat surfaces with little or no effort. I had a race this last summer where it had a lot of flat sections in it. I found that I was dropping people on their 26ers in those sections. If there is technical stuff like rock gardens, than I generally just point the wheel and go through it without trying to choose the best line. The bigger wheels just seem to float over stuff much better. The only downside thus far for me, is that I find it a little more difficult to manuveur the bike in tight technical sections like a switchback or something.

    So, find a 29er, if you can, and try it out for yourself.

    Also, there is a FAQ thread on 29er's on this board. Search for it and read it. You should be able to get all of your questions answered there.

    Love the 29er. I don't ever see myself going back to a kiddie bike.

  11. #11
    Beware of Doggerel
    Reputation: Adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    665
    To me the issue is rolling resistance. My hardtail 29er weighs in at 23.9 w/ a cx-1. Plenty light enough. I think wheel weight is a myth. The issue is just plain ol’ weight. Wheel weight vs acceleration is an issue for hot-rods and motorcycles, things that put out lots of power and undergo dramatic acceleration. A biker just doesn’t make enough power to really worry about wheel weight (any more than any other form of weight). I run super light weight wheels because I want a light bike not because I think that rotating weight is more important than any other type of weight. Although if you want to argue that wheel weight is more important than other weight the real issue isn’t acceleration but sprung vs unsprung weight. Second any increase in weight (wheel or otherwise) is more than offset by less rolling resistance. I also like long rides and races, the 29er is faster hands down. On road smooth surfaces a road bike will always be faster, but on bumpy off-road riding the 29er benefits kick in.

    I find the 29er generally climbs faster and on longer rolling climbs the benefit is enhanced. Again the issue is rolling resistance. The 29er will hold its speed better so it rolls faster with less effort from the rider. This is crucial, especially if you are doing 100mile races or longer because by the time you load yourself down with gear (assuming the race is self supported) you are on a heavy bike anyway so you need it to roll as best as possible. In a race like that the advantage is not so much weight as your ability to move the weight smoothly and efficiently over the terrain. A 29er means you can carry more food, but will need less of it

    I also think the bigger foot print issue is a bit of a red herring. All things being equal a 2.1 29er tire and a 2.1 26er tire at the exact same pressure will have the same footprint BUT the footprint will be shaped differently. The Foot print is a result of tire pressure and the way a tire deforms at pressure you should have the same amount of tire on the ground, BUT the 26er tire will be squished out and deformed wider than an 29er tire. Also, all things are not really equal because 29ers can run lower pressures, because of the high volume tire so that is where the bigger footprint idea comes from, lower tire pressure. Again the issue is rolling resistance less tire deformation equals less rolling resistance. The key is in changing the shape of the foot print.

    Check out "Bicycling Science" from the MIT press. It is full of reasons why rolling resistance is a huge issue in biking, and will impress the PHD spouse. There is a whole chapter on why bigger wheels are better than smaller wheels. So that’s my rant. Rolling resistance is more important than weight so 29ers are better (in general I’m not saying that a 30lb 29er will beat a 22lb 26er but that my 23.9lb 29er is faster under me than a equal or slightly lighter 26er). Try one and see for yourself, also if you do ride one post back here with your thoughts.

    Good luck

    Adam


    QUOTE=PeT]Just wondering... You have to admit; sometimes the 29er bandwagon sounds a lot like a political convention.

    Actually, I do want to understand how a 29er wheel can have a bigger footprint, better traction, and less rolling resistance -- as has been claimed more than once in this forum. And for the life of me I can't understand how the heavier 29er wheel and tire (and it has to be heavier than a standard sized wheel and tire) would ever allow you to climb better, particularly on climbs lasting for tens of minutes.

    I was all set to join the 29er parade, but then my wife (probably motivated by the thought of saving that $2k I was ready to sink into the new bike) asked how could a bike with heavier wheels possibly serve me better in the type of races I like and excel at (100 mile mtb races with big, long climbs). As she knows, in these races it's all about climbing -- not about the descent or the technical issues. I had even justified to her the need for expensive light wheels and tires by droning on and on about how mtb racing was all about having to constantly accelerate back up to speed due to the technical terrain, so she immediately pointed out the inconsistencies in my pro-29er arguments.

    I like to spend money and accumulate new toys as much as the next guy, so I need someone to provide me with a logical, sound argument to counter my wife's point (no bs here, she has a PhD in Biochemistry and is far too smart to be fooled by lame technical arguments).

    Thanks![/QUOTE]

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Quasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,049
    Quote Originally Posted by PeT
    Just wondering... You have to admit; sometimes the 29er bandwagon sounds a lot like a political convention.

    Actually, I do want to understand how a 29er wheel can have a bigger footprint, better traction, and less rolling resistance -- as has been claimed more than once in this forum. And for the life of me I can't understand how the heavier 29er wheel and tire (and it has to be heavier than a standard sized wheel and tire) would ever allow you to climb better, particularly on climbs lasting for tens of minutes.

    I was all set to join the 29er parade, but then my wife (probably motivated by the thought of saving that $2k I was ready to sink into the new bike) asked how could a bike with heavier wheels possibly serve me better in the type of races I like and excel at (100 mile mtb races with big, long climbs). As she knows, in these races it's all about climbing -- not about the descent or the technical issues. I had even justified to her the need for expensive light wheels and tires by droning on and on about how mtb racing was all about having to constantly accelerate back up to speed due to the technical terrain, so she immediately pointed out the inconsistencies in my pro-29er arguments.

    I like to spend money and accumulate new toys as much as the next guy, so I need someone to provide me with a logical, sound argument to counter my wife's point (no bs here, she has a PhD in Biochemistry and is far too smart to be fooled by lame technical arguments).

    Thanks!
    If weight was everything, we would all be rollerblading up rocky single tracks.

  13. #13

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    233

    No but they can ...

    ... help heal a broken heart

    Take a look at:

    http://www.electric-bikes.com/physics.htm

    With calculator in hand you can calculate the power required to ride.
    up a grade at some speed with some tire rolling resistance.

    Coefficient of rolling resistance according to the page is:

    0.008 for a 700c road bike
    0.020 for a mountain bike tire
    0.040 for a 9 inch scooter tire

    Power to overcome rolling resistance is like going up a 2%
    grade. So lower rolling resistance reduces the grade ...

    -r
    Last edited by !bike; 10-06-2004 at 07:26 PM.

  14. #14
    mtbr memeber
    Reputation: jpre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    557
    Quote Originally Posted by PeT
    Actually, I do want to understand how a 29er wheel can have a bigger footprint, better traction, and less rolling resistance -- as has been claimed more than once in this forum.
    Guess it's time to trot out some old links:

    http://www.precisiontandems.com/artbillwheelsize.htm

    http://www.gtgtandems.com/tech/700-26.html

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pasted from the precisiontandems site:

    WHEEL SIZE 26 vs 700C

    Testing 26 vs 700

    By Bill McCready, president Santana Cycles, Inc.

    A Posting from Bill at Santana

    Because of an aol software problem we lost a week of postings and only caught the tail end of the most recent 700c vs 26" battle.

    Many of the comments were on-target and should be amplified.

    First, the physics of the 26vs700 discussion are only meaningful if we standardize the other variables: rim width, tire width, tread pattern and inflation. To perform comparisons here at Santana we used two diameters of otherwise identical Avocet tires mounted to two diameters of otherwise identical Sun rims. We installed these wheels in frames built from identical tubesets. The frame geometries differed only to the degree that the resulting bottom bracket heights were equal. Components other than the wheels were identical. We inflated the tires to 115psi.

    Between 700c and 26" there is no difference in the AREA of the contact patch. "Pounds per square inch" means just what it says. If we know the loaded weight of a tandem and the inflation of the tires we can accurately predict the area of the contact patch. Actually, if we know any two of three variables (weight, inflation and the size of the contact patch) we can calculate the third. Tire diameter has no effect.

    Tire diameter does, however, effect the SHAPE of the contact patch. Because the 26" wheel has a diameter that is 11% smaller (559mm vs 622mm bead seat diameter) the resulting contact patch or footprint of a 26" tire is both 11% shorter and 11% fatter.

    The shape of the footprint affects handling. With all other things equal (especially fork rake and bottom bracket heights) the rounder contact patch of a 26" front tire dramatically improves low speed maneuverability. Conversely, high speed stability is enhanced by the longer and narrower footprint of a 700c front tire. While the two tires will feel different in a hairpin curve--the smaller tire corrects quicker and the larger tire holds a smoother line--because cornering speed is a function of area and grip, maximum speed through a sharp turn is the same.

    If they both corner at the same speed, is either wheel size more efficient? Yes. Because of its smaller diameter, the 26" tire is forced to deform more to apply its equal-area-yet-fatter contact patch to the ground. When we put the same weight on both bikes it's easy to observe more "bulge" in the sidewall where the 26" tires meet the ground. Greater tire deformation (sidewall flex and tread squirm) equals greater internal tire friction; the leading cause of rolling resistance.

    Why not compensate for the extra rolling resistance by inflating 26" tires to higher pressures? While many of us fear blowouts, the leading justification for lower pressures (and wider tires) is COMFORT. Because the smaller wheels start with a comfort handicap (smaller wheels are less compliant), higher pressures won't be a popular option.

    If rolling resistance effects speed, why do leading triathletes use 26" tires?

    For certain events (triathlons, track pursuits and time trials) rolling resistance is less important than the frontal area of the tire--in these no-slipstreaming events a solo bike with 26" wheels has an advantage. But for pack cycling events (criteriums, sprints and road races) the aerodynamic advantage of the smaller wheel is not great enough to offset increased rolling resistance.

    Is the wheel efficiency equation different for tandems? Yes. Compared to a solo bike, a tandem tire's frontal area is roughly half as important (twice as much power to push each tire through the wind). Further, a tandem's doubled weight can make sidewall deformation and rolling resistance twice as critical. Subsequently, there are no on-road races where a tandem with 26" wheels will be faster.

    If a 700c tandem is faster, why does Santana offer nearly twice as many models with 26" wheels?

    Even though a 700c wheel is actually slightly heavier than a 26" wheel, the difference in "bash-strength" (the ability to survive impacts) is enough to render a 700c wheel damned near useless for rutted jeep trails and urban curb-hopping.

    If you want one tandem that does it all, 26" is the only wheel size that makes sense. While a 26" mountain tandem can easily be converted into a pavement scorcher that will keep you abreast of the fastest roadies on their solo bikes, a tandem with 700c wheels is too fragile for real mountain biking.

    And even if you never plan to venture off pavement, the "bigger is faster" argument is limited by the size of the riders--tandems built around 700c wheels are inefficiently tall for captains shorter than about 5'7".

    Prove it to yourself section:

    Because one or two netizens might (again) find it easier to malign the messenger than to attempt to understand the accuracy of the message, I've included the following quick and simple experiments to allow everyone to test the verity of this posting.

    Experiment 1: To confirm identical contact AREA and differing footprint SHAPE use an ink pad, a sheet of paper, a bathroom scale and a pair of different diameter wheels with similar width rims. Install similar-width smooth tires--worn out tires from the discard pile of a local bike shop work great. Inflate both tires to the same pressure before testing.

    Experiment 2: To determine that tire deformation effects rolling resistance attach any bike to a wind or magneto trainer. After riding a bike for a couple of minutes, overtighten the adjustable roller (or lower the chainstay support pad) and try it again. Where does all that extra energy go? If you can stand to ride the "tight" setup for a few minutes you'll confirm that a bulging tire converts energy into heat.

    Experiment 3: To discover the diameter-dependent differences in stability and handling visit a Santana dealer and ride a Visa & Vision, or Arriva & Fusion, or Sovereign & Encore back to back. These three 700c / 26" model-pairs have the same tubesets, neutral handling characteristics and identical components (except rims and tires). Experienced tandem riders will easily note the differences in crawl-speed maneuverability and high speed stability. If the dealer is willing (most are) bring along your cyclo-computer and tape or tie-strip it to each model before coasting down the same hill to determine the speed difference.

    Happy trails

    Bill

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Pasted from the gtgtandems site:

    700c vs. 26": Testing Reveals Best Choice for You

    by Bill McCready, President of Santana Cycles
    Santana sells similar numbers of tandems with both wheel sizes and has no ax to grind.

    Four years ago a respected bike designer confidently predicted the impending demise of 700c tandems. While this was not particularly frightening to Santana (we had designed and promoted 26" road tandems as far back as 1983), it also didn't ring true. I've watched as hundreds of customers tested both sizes before making a decision --- was it possible the majority who chose 700c tandems were mistaken?

    Many people who advocate one size over the other insist on comparing fat 26-inch tires and skinny 700c tires. Some make recommendations based on the availability of a particular tread pattern. Others confuse the issue by comparing 700c tandems designed for pavement with 26" tandems designed for dirt. Santana's question was simple: if you were to eliminate the differences in tread width, tread pattern, inflation pressure and frame geometry, is a 26" wheel superior to a 700c wheel strictly on the basis of its diameter? If yes, why? In an attempt to discover the truth, we prepared some test tandems and asked a number of teams to evaluate them.

    To reduce extraneous perceptions our test bikes used identical tubing and direct-lateral frame style, 26" and 700c rims produced from the same extrusion, and tires with the same width and tread pattern inflated to the same pressure. The honest attempt was to discover the best size --- after all, life here at Santana would be a whole lot simpler if we could standardize on 26" wheels.

    But first, some background. The argument over wheel size did not start with tandem riders. Alex Moulton of England produced pro racing bikes with 14-inch sew-up wheels in the late-'60s. In the mid-'70s, Tarn Cycles of Chicago built a series of Campy-equipped full-race singles (and at least one tandem) with 20-inch wheels. In the early-'80s California's first production mountain bikes, built by Victor Vincente, were equipped with 20" wheels. All of these builders argued that bikes with smaller wheels would be superior due to lower weight, stronger wheels, quicker acceleration, and less wind resistance.

    Critics of these designs claimed bikes with smaller wheels were slower and less stable. While slower was difficult to prove, some organizers banned small-wheeled bikes from racing (where they might have disproved the "slower" argument) fearing "diminished gyroscopic effect" would inevitably lead to crashes in pack racing events.

    Fred de Long, Technical Editor of Bicycling, disproved the "gyro" theory in the late '60s when he assembled a unique bike with side by side front wheels --- a normal front wheel plus an identical counter-rotating wheel slightly above and to one side. The second wheel (which rotated at the same speed but never touched the ground) offset the gyro effect of the first. His finding: a bicycle's gyro-stability is a myth. He postulated (and I agree) that all us cyclists remain upright by continually steering through/across the path of our imminent fall. (You can quickly prove this to yourself by riding a bike with an over-tightened headset --- the results are extremely convincing).

    Three years ago there was yet another resurgence of interest in road-racing bikes with smaller-than-700c wheels. For a time you could buy road racing bikes with 26-inch wheels from many serious builders including Serotta and Paramount.

    While a few large-frame time trial and triathlete bikes are still built around a pair of 26" wheels, the designers of these bikes are admittedly chasing tiny aerodynamic and weight advantages that will be lost on a tandem (where doubled power reduces the significance of these advantages by 50%).

    So what did we learn during Santana's testing? Our panel of testers uniformly found 700c tandems were more stable at higher speeds. Most testers also believed the tandems with 700c wheels were faster. The difference in "feel" was substantial enough so that an envisioned follow-up "blind" test with carefully shielded-from-view wheels was deemed unnecessary.

    Why were 700c tandems clearly more stable? At the time of the testing, none of us had a clue. I later developed a theory, first published three years ago, that the answer was due to the shape of the tires' contact patch (footprint). If the same mass is supported on tires inflated to the same pr essure, the area of the contact patch must also be the same --- this is, after all, the meaning of p.s.i. or "pounds per square inch." The difference in wheel diameter causes the footprint of the bigger wheel's tire to be more elongated than the footprint of the tire on the smaller wheel. I reasoned a longer footprint would provide greater directional stability at high speeds (as is the case with longer skis, surfboards, and skates). Until someone comes up with an alternative explanation, this theory not only explains the increase in high speed stability, it also explains why off-road riders might reasonably prefer 26-inch wheels --- the rounder footprint provides less steering resistance and easier maneuvering at low speeds.

    While my original "footprint" theory explained stability, it didn't explain the perceived difference in speed. I originally thought it probable our testers were mistaken about a speed advantage for 700c wheels. If they actually rode faster with 700c wheels, I felt certain it was an ephemeral result of enhanced rider confidence. Put simply, if riders on 700c test tandems felt more confident at higher speeds (because of stability resulting from the shape of the footprint), this confidence might allow a temporary increase in performance. If there was an enduring speed difference, it seemed likely to me the lighter and smaller 26" wheels would have the advantage.

    Some of you might think the difference in diameter between 26" and 700c is too small to matter. Actually, even though we all know 700c rim is slightly smaller than 27" rim, a 700c rim is a full 2-1/2 inches larger than 26" rim.

    Two-and-one-half inches?! How can difference between 26" and 27" exceed 2-1/2"?! Answer: a ridiculous tradition dictates that sizes of bicycle wheels --- unlike car and motorcycle wheels --- indicate the nominal outside diameter of the TIRE, and not the actual diameter of the rim. While the out side diameter of a traditional 26-inch "balloon" tire is about an inch smaller than the original 27-inch "racing" tire, the rim is nearly 3 inches smaller. The same tradition exists in Europe where there are no fewer than 4 diameters of rims that accept "650" tires (labeled 650-A through 650-D). To compare the "real" size of a rim or tire you must know the "bead seat diameter." Fortunately, this number is found molded into the sidewall of most tires. The real size of a 27" rim is 630mm (about 24.8"), a 700c rim has a bead seat diameter of 622mm, and the "26-inch" rim found on tandems a nd mountain bikes is only 559mm (a mere 22"). If matching width tires are installed, the outside diameter of a 622 (700c) tire is 63mm (2.5") larger than the outside diameter of a 559 (26") tire.

    I've since realized the testers who reported faster speeds on a tandem with 700c wheels were correct --- and here's why:

    Remember that the area of a tire's contact patch (or footprint), because it is purely a function of weight and inflation, owes nothing to the diameter or width of a tire. It follows that our test tandems with 11% smaller wheels produced footprints that were exactly 11% shorter and, therefore exactly 11% wider. Shorter explains the stability difference and wider explains the speed difference.

    Why is wider slower? To apply the extra width against the pavement, the tread and sidewall of the smaller yet equally-wide tire is forced to undergo a great deal of additional contortion --- and tread and sidewall squirm are the primary causes of rolling resistance.

    Is the difference in rolling resistance enough to produce a significant difference in speed? Because rolling resistance is a much smaller factor than wind resistance, until a few months ago I would have guessed no. Today I'm convinced otherwise --- whereas aerodynamic and weight differences are probably only half as significant for tandems (because of doubled power), internal tire friction is probably twice as critical (because of doubled mass). Even if 26" someday proves itself the superior size for road racing singles (it hasn't yet), the optimal wheel size for a racing tandem will always be larger.

    While determining an exact difference in rolling resistance would be fairly easy, the effect on speed is difficult to ascertain. My best current estimate is a 26" tandem with equivalent rims, tread width, tread pattern and inflation will be 2-4% slower than a 700c tandem. While this will be a small difference for those who want the flexibility of using their tandem off-road, those interested in ultra-fast pavement rides might expect a cruising speed difference of up to one mile per hour (or a century finishing time difference of 5-10 minutes).

    A couple of final thoughts about ultra-fast road rides on a 26" tandem. To achieve the same gearing as a 700c road tandem with a 54 tooth chainring, a 26" racing tandem will need a 60 tooth ring --- which is incompatible with the curvature of modern front derailleurs. And when you want to stop, because braking power is a squared function of effective brake radius, a rim brake on a 26" tandem is 19% less effective than the same brake on a 700c tandem.

    Does this mean 26" tandems are stupid? Hardly. If you want to conquer the toughest terrain, 700c wheels simply aren't strong enough. And if we built a 700c frame with sufficient clearance for as-yet nonexistent 2.5" knobbies (700x63), captains shorter than six feet would have a hard time straddling the top tube.

    If you want a tandem for tackling rugged trails or rutted fire-roads, a 26" tandem with clearance for wide knobbies is the only choice. If you can limit your off-road excursions to graded dirt, a good 700c tandem is adequately strong and will always be faster on pavement.

  15. #15
    No Reputation!
    Reputation: Fastskiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,710

    I think you should start with the Krebs cycle

    You've gotta show her this diagram

    http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/krebs.html

    and tell her how the Krebs cycle is like a 29" bicycle. It's great! . Now you explain that a 26" bike is llke a the Krebs cycle without the citrate. It just not great! This is the reason that you need a 29" wheeled bike and the real reason that they are better.

    So, back to the original question, no it won't cure cancer but it is responsible for the function of the Krebs cycle!

  16. #16
    No Reputation!
    Reputation: Fastskiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,710

    20" wheels even faster?

    Just saw this interbike photo of the burro with 20" wheels. They'd be really light and stiff and probably just tear it up on those climbs!

    http://gallery.mtbr.com/showphoto.ph...cat=564&page=2


    See, this pic really shows why 29" bikes are so critically important to big riders. They just look better!

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: shark67's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    319

    Maybe not Cancer...how about heart disease

    In the 15 months since I purchased my Gary Fisher 29er, I have have lost a fairly substantial amount of weight, lowered my cholesterol, triglicerides and blood pressure. I found out I have a very bad family history of ateriolschlerosis(sp?) and I riding my 29er has definitely increased my lifespan. Sure, any biking could have done this, but my 29er fits so much better, is so much more comfortable that I went from riding 3-5 times a month to 5-7 times a week! I even bought a road bike so that I could ride when the trails are too sloppy. I have so much more fun riding this bike than any other bike that I have ridden (a lot) that I just can't imagine just NOT riding it.
    Don't get stuck on stupid!

  18. #18
    Occasionally engaged…
    Reputation: Ptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Fastskiguy
    You've gotta show her this diagram

    http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/krebs.html

    and tell her how the Krebs cycle is like a 29" bicycle. It's great! . Now you explain that a 26" bike is llke a the Krebs cycle without the citrate. It just not great! This is the reason that you need a 29" wheeled bike and the real reason that they are better.

    So, back to the original question, no it won't cure cancer but it is responsible for the function of the Krebs cycle!
    Hey now, all biochemists know the Krebs cycle is more akin to a unicycle. If you want a bicycle, you need something like the combined Krebs and Glyoxylate cycle, or even the malate/aspartate shunt. But I do think you're on to something...

  19. #19
    Occasionally engaged…
    Reputation: Ptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,668

    Now this is useful ammunition!

    Quote Originally Posted by jpre
    I read the responses above and have gone through the FAQ more than once and, frankly, it's mostly fluff and hyperbole. The material in jpre's post on the other hand is thought provoking and informative -- this should be in the FAQ, or some version of it. Time to go hone my arguments for the wife...

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: highrustler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    458

    Other advantages besides better climbing...

    Dunno if these points were mentioned above or if it will help convince your wife that bigger is better in the case of bicycle wheels. Other than the larger footprint and lower volume tire, another rarely mentioned advantage of a 29" bike is that the bottom bracket is better protected due to less distance between the front wheel and large chain ring. Check out my cheesy diagram below. The bikes are both Gary Fisher Sugar's, one a 26", the other a 29".

    Notice the EXTRA distance (BLUE BOX) between the large chain ring and front tire on the 26". The added distance increases the chance whacking that new $100 XTR chain ring and thus getting stuck in the deep stuff. The big wheels close this gap and allow you to BLAST over just about anything in your path. Also, notice that the 29" wheel bike is longer (RED lines on left and right) even though the frames are the same size. The larger diameter wheels extend the wheelbase thus providing increased stability. Combine this with the increased momentum of a 29" wheel, the shallower angle of attack and you've got the ultimate climbing machine when the terrain gets nasty.

    Another fine attribute of a 29" bike is that the bottom bracket center of gravity is LOWER than that of a 26" bike. The (GREEN BOX) box shows this clearly. One of the first things people notice when they ride a big wheel bike is the superior stability. Wes Williams describes the feel of a 26" bike to be more of a swaying back and forth (skittish) motion when descending, especially at high speed. This is a result of the bottom bracket being equal in height (or very close) to that of the hubs, thus a higher center of gravity. Due to the larger diameter 29" wheel, the bottom bracket drops below the hub axis. This brings the overall center of gravity lower which results in more stable and surefooted handling. Conversely, some would argue this makes a big wheel a less responsive in the handling department. I say ride one then decide. And don't listen to those who have not tried it. Like most of us here, your 26" stuff will probably end up on Ebay.

    Cheers,
    James
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by highrustler; 10-06-2004 at 11:51 PM.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: highrustler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    458

    ...

    bedtime...
    Last edited by highrustler; 10-06-2004 at 11:52 PM.

  22. #22
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,017
    On steep climb, the percentage of your power sucked up by rolling resistance is much less than on flats. Still, equal 29" tires can take off 10% from that part. Not many equal 29" tires exist, but they'll start arriving in 2005.

    On a long, steep, rocky climb last year, I took so much advantage over my buddies when I was the only on a 29"er, at the top I got worried and rode back down. Turns out they'd been riding as fast as they could, but were unable to find the rythm I used to fly up the sukker. I'm not that much faster normally, even lose to them on asphalt at times. They're the same level of mtbikers for sure. My wheels made me look good.

    This weekend on a SS gathering, I borrowed my bike to a guy my size who's intrigued by 29" as the ideal way to spand his money. After a mile or so he turn to me and asks why it feels so "soft". His own bike has 2.35" Fast Freds, as soft as it gets, and even a Pace rigid fork, mine was a very rigid KM. He felt faster on my bike, while it's quite a bit heavier.
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  23. #23
    Belltown Brazer
    Reputation: MDEnvEngr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    693

    New 29 er owner here...

    PeT,
    I have been mtbing since 1986, and have ridden everything from full rigid to FS and now back to full rigid. A couple of years ago I rebuilt my old Yo Eddy as a single speed, and since then my FSR enduro has been gathering dust. I also wondered about the 29er thing, just because it made a lot of sense in my head. I found a great deal on a (hardly) used Sofa King dub 9 here on MTBR.

    I have been riding it for 3 months now. I have been wanting to put up some kind of "this bike is better than a 26" because of X, Y and Z". But I can't.

    So I have my 26" single speed, and my 29" is set up 1X9. They are both fully rigid at this point. I love them both.

    I can't put into words the differences, let alone quantify them. I have ridden the bikes back-to-back on my 1 hour backyard loop...they are different.

    I think that the differences I feel are more frame than wheels. I believe that the Fat Chance Yo Eddy was one of the best (if not *the* best) handling bike ever made. The Sofa King is nice, the workmanship is nice, the paint is beautiful...but it is just missing something in the handling department.

    Generally, when the ride is going to be <2 hours, I'll go SS. More than 2 hours, I'll go 29er. Here's why:

    The 29er climbs better...Yea, I know it has gears, but those big wheels really do roll over stuff better.
    The 29er is more comfortable. I live in New England, where the trails have a rep for rocky, rooty goodness. The 29er seems to beat me up less.
    The 29er holds momentum better.
    The 29er is more stable at speed.

    For some reason I just can't nail down, the 29er just makes you want to ride longer. Say you've got a 2 hour hammerfest with the fellas. At the end on the SS, it's a relief...you're spent and happy. The 29er will go just as fast, but leave you ready to do it again, or add in another loop.

    The 29er has opened up longer rides to me. I would say that for the first 17 years of riding, my average ride time was right around 1.5 hours. The 29er has made me into a rider that loves the 4, 5, 10 hour ride. Two weeks ago I did the Connecticut 50 miler. It was a piece of cake. Just nothing but an enjoyable ride (albiet 4 normal rides stacked on top of each other).

    If you like to do endurance races, the 29er is the way to go in my experience. I can't offer any quantitative or formulatic evidence to satisfy your scientist squeeze...just my opinion.

    Will the 29er cure cancer? Will it chop huge amounts of time off your PRs? Will you see the light an elevate to a higher karmic plateau? Will you be the envy of you friends? Is it the answer? Na.

    I'm just another hosehead on an internet board giving my opinion, but there it is. Hope this helps.

    B
    East Hampton, CT

  24. #24
    Belltown Brazer
    Reputation: MDEnvEngr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    693

    One more thing...

    ...and this is probably more telling than any of that other blather I wrote:

    What will my next bike be?

    29

    The one after that? 29 The one after that? 29

    I want the folks at IF to make me a Yo Eddy with 29 wheels. I'll put a suspension fork on it. Disk brakes. 1X9.

    The bomb.

  25. #25
    minister of chaos
    Reputation: Frank Tuesday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    312
    Quote Originally Posted by PeT
    Just wondering... You have to admit; sometimes the 29er bandwagon sounds a lot like a political convention.

    Actually, I do want to understand how a 29er wheel can have a bigger footprint, better traction, and less rolling resistance -- as has been claimed more than once in this forum. And for the life of me I can't understand how the heavier 29er wheel and tire (and it has to be heavier than a standard sized wheel and tire) would ever allow you to climb better, particularly on climbs lasting for tens of minutes.

    I was all set to join the 29er parade, but then my wife (probably motivated by the thought of saving that $2k I was ready to sink into the new bike) asked how could a bike with heavier wheels possibly serve me better in the type of races I like and excel at (100 mile mtb races with big, long climbs). As she knows, in these races it's all about climbing -- not about the descent or the technical issues. I had even justified to her the need for expensive light wheels and tires by droning on and on about how mtb racing was all about having to constantly accelerate back up to speed due to the technical terrain, so she immediately pointed out the inconsistencies in my pro-29er arguments.

    I like to spend money and accumulate new toys as much as the next guy, so I need someone to provide me with a logical, sound argument to counter my wife's point (no bs here, she has a PhD in Biochemistry and is far too smart to be fooled by lame technical arguments).

    Thanks!
    A few months ago, I did all the energy math and posted it here. Basically the setup was this. Identically sized bikes. Identical brand rim in both sizes, identical tires in both sizes, 175 lb rider.

    When you look at just the energy required to increase the rotational velocity of the wheel/tire/tube, there was, not surprisingly, about a 10% difference in energy required.

    However, when you look at the total amount of energy required to accelerater the entire bike and rider (translational velocity of the whole mass plus the rotational velocity of the wheels) the difference was only 0.6%. That is right, less than 2/3 of 1%. The additional weight of the tyres in fairly negligible in the grand scheme of things.

    Frank
    Frank Tuesday
    minister of chaos
    franktuesday.blogspot.com

  26. #26
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,606
    Quote Originally Posted by PeT
    Just wondering... You have to admit; sometimes the 29er bandwagon sounds a lot like a political convention.....I was all set to join the 29er parade, but then my wife (probably motivated by the thought of saving that $2k I was ready to sink into the new bike) asked how could a bike with heavier wheels possibly serve me better in the type of races I like and excel at (100 mile mtb races with big, long climbs). As she knows, in these races it's all about climbing -- not about the descent or the technical issues. I had even justified to her the need for expensive light wheels and tires by droning on and on about how mtb racing was all about having to constantly accelerate back up to speed due to the technical terrain, so she immediately pointed out the inconsistencies in my pro-29er arguments.
    Who do you feel is most important for you to convince - your wife, yourself or us?

    It sounds like your niche is riding endurance races (a century on dirt so to speak). Few of the participants on this board are involved in that niche, so the rest of us cannot even fathom the needs for such a race. Your debate should engage Mike C. as he has plenty of experience in racing endurance events and could speak to the wheel size issues and fatigue factors involved in longer duration events. Many (probably most) of us do little if any racing at all as the mountain biking experience on any sized wheel does not demand that anyone has to "race".

    Comfort is more of an interest/need to many of us as we ride XC and aggressive XC on weekends or after work. Single speed is an interest to others. Many of us riding 29"er's are Clydesdales which means racing is not the most realistic kind of a lure.

    In other words, the "political convention" is divided into many niches and it would be difficult, at best, to lump all of those niche groups into one common interest/need and come up with a conclusion that equals a one size fits all answer with regard to smaller or larger wheels and why each niche group is using them.

    From the Santana Tandem links, the comment was made about the 700c wheel coming in with a 5 - 10 minute better time on pavement during a century than the 26" wheel. How one would calculate that for an off road century race has enough variables to make it a daunting task. Plus the Santana information was with regard to tandem bikes - not solo bikes. However, it is food for thought that over the duration of 100 miles and given similar rim/tread/psi, etc... that there could be a time benefit with the larger hoops. Would a small time benefit in and of itself have a dramatic impact on where you place in your 100 milers? If you look back at all of the standings from your prior races, at a distance of 100 miles, how many minutes separate the riders crossing the finish line in front of you as well as behind you.

    If you are happy with your current racing bike(s) and platform - then why switch? If you are interested in seeing the results, why not borrow or rent a 29"er to try out in one of your endurance races? Would you fatigue less on the big wheels resulting in a better time? Who knows? Give it a try under the "try before you buy" concept. Review and compare your findings and share with us what you find - be it positive or negative. You might like some aspects of it and you might dislike some aspects which dictates your decision for staying with your small wheeled endurance machines or leading to purchasing a big wheeled endurance machine. Most of us have come to the same conclusions (liking and disliking certain aspects about wheel size and performance).

    BB

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6

    what are you talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by highrustler
    Notice the EXTRA distance (BLUE BOX) between the large chain ring and front tire on the 26". The added distance increases the chance whacking that new $100 XTR chain ring and thus getting stuck in the deep stuff. The big wheels close this gap and allow you to BLAST over just about anything in your path.
    Huh? By this logic, you can simply use a larger chainring and then be able to BLAST over all obstacles!!!! You also mention wheelbase, which fundamentally has NOTHING to do with 29ers. You can make a 26" bike with a wheelbase as long as a 29er, you just can't make a 29er too short 'cause of clearance problems.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: highrustler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    458
    Yes, a custom builder can do anything BUT in the case of the two Sugar's, both size MED, the 29" has a bit longer wheelbase.

    I don't understand your chainring argument. Do you climb in your large ring? It has nothing to do with what ring you are using. If the large ring is better protected, you are less likely to to hit something. This was one of Wes Williams biggest claims reagrding the advantage of the big wheel.

    Quote Originally Posted by dirtySSanchez
    Huh? By this logic, you can simply use a larger chainring and then be able to BLAST over all obstacles!!!! You also mention wheelbase, which fundamentally has NOTHING to do with 29ers. You can make a 26" bike with a wheelbase as long as a 29er, you just can't make a 29er too short 'cause of clearance problems.

  29. #29
    Occasionally engaged…
    Reputation: Ptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,668
    Quote Originally Posted by funboarder1971
    I agree that if you can get the skinnier tires to hook up they would be the faster setup, however, if you need the extra air volume of a bigger tire for rocky terrain you may need to compromise. I tried running Mutanoraptors on my 29er, and although the bike was much more nimble, there just wasn't enough air volume to cushion out the rocks.

    Isn't your cyclocross 700c (or essentially a 29er)?
    The cyclocross is a 700c, but it is essentially a 27.5er with 32c cyclocross tires on it (and my mtb is a 26.5er with my current tires). In fact, trail riding the cyclocross bike is what initially fired me up about the possibilities of a 29er. It turned out some of my enthusiasm was due to the geometry and I have consequently altered my mtb to speed up the steering (decreasing the Trail measurement to a close approximation of the cyclocross bike) and that has helped tremendously. I'm not sure I can ascribe any of my enthusiasm to that extra 1 inch of wheel diameter. But maybe 2.5 to 3 inches could lift my game even more.

    I don't have clearance on the cyclcross for true mtb 29er tires, or otherwise I would already have my personal impression of the 29er phenomenon in hand. About the only unfortunate thing of living in a small Wyoming town is the near total absence of 29er mtbs to borrow for a real test ride. The local shop has (had?) a GF on the floor, but it was way too small and I'm not sure how amenable they would be to the test ride I want to do (and the owner knows there is no way I'd buy from him -- I'm a custom type of guy!).

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Quasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,049
    Quote Originally Posted by highrustler
    Another fine attribute of a 29" bike is that the bottom bracket center of gravity is LOWER than that of a 26" bike.
    I don't think so.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but on both bikes the bottom bracket should be about the same distance from the ground. On the 29er the centers of the wheels will be higher off the ground. So relative to the centers of the wheels, the BB is lower (sort of forming a triangle). But relative to the ground, the weight is at the same height. The center of gravity is related to the surface which the object is resting on, not anything within the object, so the relationship between the BB and the centers of the hubs is irrelevant. You get a lower center of gravity by putting weight closer to the ground. If a 29 inch wheel allows the designer to actually lower the bottom bracket, then yes, I would say that a 29er would have a lower center of gravity.

  31. #31
    Who turned out the lights
    Reputation: Francis Buxton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,127
    I do think that a lot of the benefit of the 29"er is somewhat intangable. A great deal of it just simply boils down to things like decreased fatigue. I know that my KM floats over rooted and/or rocky sections better than my 26" bike did. The bigger tire doesn't get bogged down as easily in the low spots between to large roots or rocks, so I don't get beat up as bad, and I fell fresher on that 3rd or 4th lap, and ride stronger and faster. This is a very difficult thing to put a quantifiable number on.

    Let's think back to high school physics class (everyone on this board took physics in high school, right?). The old rotating a bicycle wheel on a stool, and then turning the wheel on its side and it turns you around thing, and the knowledge that the rotating mass of the wheel is what 'balances' a bicycle in motion - that's why we can ride rollers. As argued above, on a 26" bike, the bb is about even with the hubs (give or take a bit, depending on the bike, of course). On a 29" bike, you are guaranteed to be 0.5" lower, relative to the bb. This means that you are 0.5" lower into the rotational inertia that is keeping you balanced - more stability.

    I would estimate that the advantage a triathlete sees for using a 26" road bike cannot be realized by a mountain biker. With aero bars, a good triathlete can average, what, 25 miles per hour? An equivalent mountain biker rides somewhere near half that? Wind resistance goes up in a somewhat exponential fashion, so at half the speed, you see 25% of the resistance. I'd say a 29" wheel doesn't hurt you enough on a mountain bike to notice.

    And now for celebrity endorsements -
    Cameron Chambers, on of the best solo 24-hour racers in the country, is a strictly 29" guy. I think he did 205 miles in 24 hours recently.

    Mike Curiak won the Continental Divide race on a 29"er. I believe every racer in that event rode a 29"er. +/-2500 miles.

    I think these guys are in your "club", and they're all sold on the platform. Check the 'loaner bike' thread and find someone somewhat close to you that would meet you for a swap-n-ride. We may not be able to fully provide enough quantifiable benefits to justify your purchase to your wife. It's likely that a good part of your argument is going to have to be emotional (as in, "holy crap honey, that bike feels so much faster").

  32. #32
    highly visible
    Reputation: GlowBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,206

    On the climbing issue ...

    As was said earlier, the main performance disadvantages of 29"ers are related to their greater rotational mass. They do take more effort to accelerate. But climbing is more a function of total mass than rotational mass. Most of your effort isn't going into acceleration, it's going into overcoming the pull of gravity by lifting the weight up the hill. The static weight difference between a 26" bike and a 29" bike - all else being equal - is about one pound. So if rolling resistance were equal (and it is not), the 29"er would climb slightly slower, but only slightly -- the equivalent of adding a half-full water bottle or forgetting to take a pee before the climb.

    Also, that extra energy you put into accelerating a 29"er has to GO somewhere. Either it's lost to wind resistance, rolling resistance or braking -- or preserved in the form of additional momentum. On a long climb, wind resistance is negligible, and you're not braking. Even if there weren't a rolling resistance advantage, any extra effort spent accelerating must to be preserved in the form of additional momentum, ultimately carrying you further up the hill.

    So on long climbs, the effect of heavier wheels is negligible - and far outweighed by the reduced rolling resistance. Actually, the increased rotational mass is most a disadvantage on rolling courses where you're alternately accelerating and braking. Since it takes more work to get your bike up to speed, you're carrying more energy into the curves and/or rough sections, forcing you to waste more of that hard-earned momentum in the form of braking. Of course, some would argue that 29"ers allow you to roll through those sections at higher speed, but that would only partly negate this effect.

    I know there are some who think the FAQs and the threads on this board are full of hype, but bear in mind that most of these statements are from long-time 26" riders who have made the switch. It is not just speculation. There may be some faith involved, but it's mostly coming from what we've already experienced - and in many cases were surprised to experience. I would encourage those who question the enthusiasm of 29" riders to go ride a 29" bike themselves and then come back and tell us where we're wrong. I have not encountered many people who've tried it and did not like it.

    I myself was a skeptic and an outspoken critic of 29" wheels when they first arrived, thinking it was another attempt by the bike industry to change standards on us and force us to upgrade our equipment. But then I bought a 'cross bike. I immediately noticed (despite the rough ride) how much better it rolled over things thanks to its 1.2 inch larger wheels. That led me to think that a 2.5 inch increase in diameter on a full-width MTB tire would be amazing. And it is.

    - Dan
    Last edited by GlowBoy; 10-07-2004 at 12:04 PM.

  33. #33
    hispanic mechanic
    Reputation: sslos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,552

    And to add to this...

    Quote Originally Posted by Francis
    I do think that a lot of the benefit of the 29"er is somewhat intangable. A great deal of it just simply boils down to things like decreased fatigue. I know that my KM floats over rooted and/or rocky sections better than my 26" bike did. The bigger tire doesn't get bogged down as easily in the low spots between to large roots or rocks, so I don't get beat up as bad, and I fell fresher on that 3rd or 4th lap, and ride stronger and faster. This is a very difficult thing to put a quantifiable number on.

    Let's think back to high school physics class (everyone on this board took physics in high school, right?). The old rotating a bicycle wheel on a stool, and then turning the wheel on its side and it turns you around thing, and the knowledge that the rotating mass of the wheel is what 'balances' a bicycle in motion - that's why we can ride rollers. As argued above, on a 26" bike, the bb is about even with the hubs (give or take a bit, depending on the bike, of course). On a 29" bike, you are guaranteed to be 0.5" lower, relative to the bb. This means that you are 0.5" lower into the rotational inertia that is keeping you balanced - more stability.

    I would estimate that the advantage a triathlete sees for using a 26" road bike cannot be realized by a mountain biker. With aero bars, a good triathlete can average, what, 25 miles per hour? An equivalent mountain biker rides somewhere near half that? Wind resistance goes up in a somewhat exponential fashion, so at half the speed, you see 25% of the resistance. I'd say a 29" wheel doesn't hurt you enough on a mountain bike to notice.

    And now for celebrity endorsements -
    Cameron Chambers, on of the best solo 24-hour racers in the country, is a strictly 29" guy. I think he did 205 miles in 24 hours recently.

    Mike Curiak won the Continental Divide race on a 29"er. I believe every racer in that event rode a 29"er. +/-2500 miles.

    I think these guys are in your "club", and they're all sold on the platform. Check the 'loaner bike' thread and find someone somewhat close to you that would meet you for a swap-n-ride. We may not be able to fully provide enough quantifiable benefits to justify your purchase to your wife. It's likely that a good part of your argument is going to have to be emotional (as in, "holy crap honey, that bike feels so much faster").
    Nat Ross also chooses to ride Marathon events, 100 milers, and 24 hour solo events on a 29".
    Now, as far as the non celebrity endorsements go, my Karate Monkey gave me the notion that I could do a 24 hour race solo. I'm no scientist, but I can tell you that I can climb faster on 29" wheels than on 26", regardless of steep-and-technical or long-gutbusting-hour-long-grinder.

    the los
    Support your local trail organization.

    www.swimba.org

Similar Threads

  1. 5 times the 29ers
    By SurlyPete in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-22-2005, 08:22 AM
  2. 29er geometry, weight, sizing questions
    By uphiller in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-05-2004, 01:06 AM
  3. Selling one of my Serotta 29ers.....
    By subluxation in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-04-2004, 11:12 AM
  4. Any 29ers in Snowshoe, WV
    By jvossman in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-02-2004, 08:43 AM

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 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.