Defining the 29er wheel

In a thread called "29er Wheel: Why Not Cross-4?", Pete Cresswell
says: "I'm building to cyclocross tires instead of MTB tires bc I
enjoy the livelier feel of the narrower tires."

Seems to me that the "29er" headline and the "narrower tires" are
mutually exclusive.

A 29er is just a bike with standard 622mm diameter wheels, fitted with
balloon tyres. To make the biggest balloons work well, often wider
rims than normal are fitted. The defining element of the 29er is the
fat tyre.

A 622mm rim fitted with a 60mm tyre, commonly and cheaply available
from Schwalbe as the Big Apple, is just over 29 inches in diameter,
hence the name.

Note that by definition, a bike with 26in rims cannot be a 29er.

Pete's post raises the question, What is the smallest section tyre on
a 622 rim which results in a wheel/bike that honestly can be called a
29er?

Andre Jute
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/Andre%20Jute's%20Utopia%20Kranich.pdf

On 17 June, 18:59, Andre Jute wrote:
In a thread called "29er Wheel: Why Not Cross-4?", Pete Cresswell
says: "I'm building to cyclocross tires instead of MTB tires bc I
enjoy the livelier feel of the narrower tires."

Seems to me that the "29er" headline and the "narrower tires" are
mutually exclusive.

A 29er is just a bike with standard 622mm diameter wheels, fitted with
balloon tyres. To make the biggest balloons work well, often wider
rims than normal are fitted. The defining element of the 29er is the
fat tyre.

A 622mm rim fitted with a 60mm tyre, commonly and cheaply available
from Schwalbe as the Big Apple, is just over 29 inches in diameter,
hence the name.

Note that by definition, a bike with 26in rims cannot be a 29er.

Pete's post raises the question, What is the smallest section tyre on
a 622 rim which results in a wheel/bike that honestly can be called a
29er?

Andre Jute
*http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/Andre%20Jute's%20Utopia%20Kranich....

54mm 2.1/8"

Andre Jute wrote:

Pete's post raises the question, What is the smallest section tyre on
a 622 rim which results in a wheel/bike that honestly can be called a
29er?

The difference is semantic, but since there is a categorical
difference between the clearance built into frames designated 29ers
and those simply considered utility bikes or hybrids, I suggest that
it's a 29er tire if you need a 29er frame to accommodate it. Based on
the nature and intended purpose of the tires now on the market, I'd
say 700c tires at or below a nominal 47mm wide are not 29ers, and
those wider than a nominal 47mm are 29ers.

Utopia bikes are an exception to the general rule that only 29er MTBs
can fit 29er tires.

Chalo

On 17 June, 19:15, thirty-six wrote:
On 17 June, 18:59, Andre Jute wrote:



In a thread called "29er Wheel: Why Not Cross-4?", Pete Cresswell
says: "I'm building to cyclocross tires instead of MTB tires bc I
enjoy the livelier feel of the narrower tires."

Seems to me that the "29er" headline and the "narrower tires" are
mutually exclusive.

A 29er is just a bike with standard 622mm diameter wheels, fitted with
balloon tyres. To make the biggest balloons work well, often wider
rims than normal are fitted. The defining element of the 29er is the
fat tyre.

A 622mm rim fitted with a 60mm tyre, commonly and cheaply available
from Schwalbe as the Big Apple, is just over 29 inches in diameter,
hence the name.

Note that by definition, a bike with 26in rims cannot be a 29er.

Pete's post raises the question, What is the smallest section tyre on
a 622 rim which results in a wheel/bike that honestly can be called a
29er?

Andre Jute
*http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/Andre%20Jute's%20Utopia%20Kranich...

54mm * 2.1/8"

No hold on, that would be 29", anything between 28 and 29" could be
called a 29" in the right frame. so bigger than 1.5/8"

er 25.4 + 12.7 + 3.2= 41.3mm

So 42mm and over could not technically fit a frame for 28" wheels and
so would have to be termed a 29" (you have to pay more for 1/2 sizes,
never ask for a 28and1/2).

On Jun 17, 11:50*am, Chalo wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Pete's post raises the question, What is the smallest section tyre on
a 622 rim which results in a wheel/bike that honestly can be called a
29er?

The difference is semantic, but since there is a categorical
difference between the clearance built into frames designated 29ers
and those simply considered utility bikes or hybrids, I suggest that
it's a 29er tire if you need a 29er frame to accommodate it. *Based on
the nature and intended purpose of the tires now on the market, I'd
say 700c tires at or below a nominal 47mm wide are not 29ers, and
those wider than a nominal 47mm are 29ers.

Utopia bikes are an exception to the general rule that only 29er MTBs
can fit 29er tires.

Chalo

the 29er especially the cyclocross geometry Chalo and i have in
Redline's World Champion geomtery allows verfsatility from a frame
welded for wide tires in that one can mount narrow tires keeping in
mind Sheldon's sweet spot tire/rim chat.
THAT SAID, I haven't switched the road bikes 32mm onto the Redline for
a try.
Chalo, surly yawl tried narrow tires....well maybe not given rumors of
your girth ....?..... but have you and how narrow and how rode ? Not
the soft taco wheels ?

On Jun 17, 6:59*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Pete's post raises the question, What is the smallest section tyre on
a 622 rim which results in a wheel/bike that honestly can be called a
29er?

Now that wasn't too difficult. A 29er wheel/bike must meet the
following criteria:

1. The rim must be 700c, 622mm diameter. (By definition.)

2. The tyre must be larger in section than 47mm nominal. (Chalo's
suggestion.)

3. So, in practice a 29er wheel is a 700c rim fitted with a tyre from
50mm upwards. (Because I don't know of any tyres of nominally 48 or
49mm section but Schwalbe makes a Big Apple in 50mm.)

4. By definition then a 29er frame must have clearance for available
tyres of 622x50mm or larger to qualify.

Thanks to all who contributed ideas.

Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

Andre Jute wrote:
On Jun 17, 6:59 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Pete's post raises the question, What is the smallest section tyre on
a 622 rim which results in a wheel/bike that honestly can be called a
29er?

Now that wasn't too difficult. A 29er wheel/bike must meet the
following criteria:

1. The rim must be 700c, 622mm diameter. (By definition.)

2. The tyre must be larger in section than 47mm nominal. (Chalo's
suggestion.)

3. So, in practice a 29er wheel is a 700c rim fitted with a tyre from
50mm upwards. (Because I don't know of any tyres of nominally 48 or
49mm section but Schwalbe makes a Big Apple in 50mm.)

4. By definition then a 29er frame must have clearance for available
tyres of 622x50mm or larger to qualify.

Thanks to all who contributed ideas.

Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

So a 700-40 is merely an omafiets, not a gnarly "29" ?
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/KARENDL2.JPG

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Per Andre Jute:
Pete's post raises the question, What is the smallest section tyre on
a 622 rim which results in a wheel/bike that honestly can be called a
29er?

My impression so far is that it depends on who is making the
call: Cyclocross rider or MTB rider.

'Cross riders seem to regard anything over 38mm (1.5") as "MTB"
and, by extension, "29er".

The 29er discussions I've read so far suggest that MTB riders
regard anything under 2" or 1.75" (depending...) as "Cyclocross".
--
PeteCresswell

On 17 June, 19:58, thirty-six wrote:
On 17 June, 19:15, thirty-six wrote:



On 17 June, 18:59, Andre Jute wrote:

In a thread called "29er Wheel: Why Not Cross-4?", Pete Cresswell
says: "I'm building to cyclocross tires instead of MTB tires bc I
enjoy the livelier feel of the narrower tires."

Seems to me that the "29er" headline and the "narrower tires" are
mutually exclusive.

A 29er is just a bike with standard 622mm diameter wheels, fitted with
balloon tyres. To make the biggest balloons work well, often wider
rims than normal are fitted. The defining element of the 29er is the
fat tyre.

A 622mm rim fitted with a 60mm tyre, commonly and cheaply available
from Schwalbe as the Big Apple, is just over 29 inches in diameter,
hence the name.

Note that by definition, a bike with 26in rims cannot be a 29er.

Pete's post raises the question, What is the smallest section tyre on
a 622 rim which results in a wheel/bike that honestly can be called a
29er?

Andre Jute
*http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/Andre%20Jute's%20Utopia%20Kranich...

54mm * 2.1/8"

No hold on, that would be 29", anything between 28 and 29" could be
called a 29" in the right frame. *so bigger than 1.5/8"

er 25.4 + 12.7 + 3.2= 41.3mm

So 42mm and over could not technically fit a frame for 28" wheels and
so would have to be termed a 29" *(you have to pay more for 1/2 sizes,
never ask for a 28and1/2).

My guesswork was wrong.

A 45mm tyre fitted to a 622 bead rim makes for a total diametric
dimension of 712mm or 28"
Anything bigger than a 45mm would technically be a 29er

Per kolldata:
THAT SAID, I haven't switched the road bikes 32mm onto the Redline for
a try.
Chalo, surly yawl tried narrow tires....well maybe not given rumors of
your girth ....?..... but have you and how narrow and how rode ? Not
the soft taco wheels ?

I'd like very much to hear somebody's account of 38mm tires vs
23mm tires in terms of their cruising speed with each.

I'm would venture that the diff between my WTB Mutano Raptor
55/55's and 1.5" tires is between 1.5 and 2 mph.
--
PeteCresswell