29ers

Subject: 29ers
From: (Tom Purvis)
Date: 9/28/2003 8:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

wrote:
Mike DeMicco wrote:
Is this all marketing hype, or will 29" wheels actually make you
faster? I'm interested in A-B comparisions over a timed course.

29" bikes are actually slower, especially in tigher single track
situations. They are good for conquering trail obstacles and mud
riding though. I test rode a GF at a mtb festival this spring and was
pretty dissapointed with its performance. It was amazing to me that
GF offered some of his more popular hard tails for 2003 exclusively in
the 29" format.

I've ridden a couple different big-wheel bikes, and I ride with people
who think they are absolutely better. I don't own one, unless my Bianchi
cyclocross bike counts, but I'd set up a Karate Monkey tomorrow if I had
a thousand dollars my wife didn't know about.

Did you ride the GF 292/293 (the fully based on the Sugar)?. I've ridden
one of those, and I wouldn't call it typical of the 29" bikes that are
really leading the trend. The trend was created by hardtails and rigid
bikes. A 29-er can be set up to do tighter switchbacks and twisty stuff
well. It's a question of frame design. On some the good ones I've ridden,
I didn't really notice that the wheels were bigger than the ones on my
Moots until I rolled through some rocky stuff.

The contact patch is automatically bigger, and it's more oblong than a
similar width 26" tire. The bikes corner very reliably in messy conditions,
and when they take a drop-off the motion is less dramatic. The advocates
I know either rode 26 bikes for years before switching, or have both and
switch back and forth. They say that bigger wheels make having suspension
(especially long-travel) less of a requirement.

It helps if you are physically large enough to need a medium-large or
larger frame. I know a couple 29 riders who are fairly small guys, and
at least one of them has some toe overlap (wheel can hit shoe toe if
crank arm is facing straight forward and wheel is turned).

As for the GF 292, that bike is a tanker. Both because it's a fully and
because of those big wheels. I rode it (among other places) down a nasty
rutted babyhead and loose gravel slope. It was freakishly solid. I didn't
like climbing with the big mama, but on the descent it was too damn easy.
Fist-sized rocks didn't even make it move. But full suspension is kind
of a waste on a 29 IMO. Belt and suspenders.

If you really want to know what a big wheel bike is like, try riding
the '02 GF Procalibre 29 or (better) a Surly Karate Monkey. If all you
ride is smooth and buff, you probably won't get it.
--
Tom Purvis - http://www.arkansasvalley.net/tpurvis/
Salida, CO

The model I rode was the SuperCaliber, but maybe I'm wrong. It had the team GF
paint job. Anyway, I rode it at Vultures Knob, Ohio, which up to this point,
was the absoloute most tight and twisty single track I have ridden. The trails
I ride are far from buff, tree roots and fallen trees abound.

"Anthony Sloan" wrote in message
...


wrote:
Mike DeMicco wrote in message
.1.4...

Is this all marketing hype, or will 29" wheels actually make you faster?
I'm interested in A-B comparisions over a timed course.


29" bikes are actually slower, especially in tigher single track
situations. They are good for conquering trail obstacles and mud
riding though. I test rode a GF at a mtb festival this spring and was
pretty dissapointed with its performance. It was amazing to me that
GF offered some of his more popular hard tails for 2003 exclusively in
the 29" format.

29" bikes are not, in fact, actually slower.

As with any bike, it all boils down to geometry.

I agree. (All other things being equal, of course.)

One could make a 29er
that is an absolute tank. Or, as is the case with my Karate Monkey, you
could dial in one to be a singletrack machine. In very tight, twisty
singletrack, the Karate Monkey is one of the better carvers I've been
on. Quite nearly rivaling my Merlin XLM in grin inducing,
hang-it-all-out, carve-a-liscious handling joy.

Stop it! You're making me want to order a Karate Monkey frameset right
friggin' now!

Must....resist....impulse....purchase...

But I've only been riding mine since Feb. so what do I know...

:-)

-=B=-

Dave W wrote:
Sorry to interject here, John. But how the hell are ya?

Great!
Just got back to TN from 4 days in NH, rode lots of sweet singletrack.
Now it's back to bustin' the bad guys.

Pete wrote:

"ClydesdaleMTB" wrote
Well, they're heavier
Really?
Larger + same materials = more weight

and weaker,
And what independent data do you base this presumption upon?
Larger + same materials and construction = less strong.

The actual measured diff might not be much, but extrapolate it up and down.
Would a 50" wheel be heavier, and taco easier than a 10"?


A competent framebuilder can overcome that...

next?

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 16:57:25 -0500, ClydedaleMTB_in_TN
wrote:



Dave W wrote:
Sorry to interject here, John. But how the hell are ya?

Great!
Just got back to TN from 4 days in NH, rode lots of sweet singletrack.
Now it's back to bustin' the bad guys.


Good job Clyde. i would think the beautiful singletrack is a great
coping device. Glad you had a chance to get some of the goods then.
Nice to hear from ya'

Dave (that's cope-ing)

(Tom Purvis) wrote

The contact patch is automatically bigger, and it's more oblong than a
similar width 26" tire.

Say again? I don't think a larger radius tire give you a bigger
contact patch -- that's determined entirely by the tire pressure.

The rest of what you had to say certainly seems very reasonable. I
just couldn't let this one go without comment.

CC

"ClydedaleMTB_in_TN" wrote in message
...


Pete wrote:

"ClydesdaleMTB" wrote
Well, they're heavier
Really?
Larger + same materials = more weight

and weaker,
And what independent data do you base this presumption upon?
Larger + same materials and construction = less strong.

The actual measured diff might not be much, but extrapolate it up and
down.
Would a 50" wheel be heavier, and taco easier than a 10"?


A competent framebuilder can overcome that...

next?


given equal materials, and equal construction, by the same competent
builder.....

which is stronger?

Pete

Corvus Corvax wrote:

(Tom Purvis) wrote

The contact patch is automatically bigger, and it's more oblong than a
similar width 26" tire.


Say again? I don't think a larger radius tire give you a bigger
contact patch -- that's determined entirely by the tire pressure.

The rest of what you had to say certainly seems very reasonable. I
just couldn't let this one go without comment.

CC

Of course, you are correct, Corvus. It does give a longer, but
narrower contact patch (given the same pressure). Is this better? I
guess you could find conditions where a long skinny contact patch is
better than a shorter, wider one, and vice versa.
In general, a larger diameter wheel will have lower rolling resistance
because of reduced tire carcass deformation, and in general a wider tire
will have reduced rolling resistance for the same reason. Maybe,
then, a 700x48c Mutanoraptor and a 26x2.4inch Mutanopator would have the
same resistance? Who knows.
If 29ers are so great, why not 32ers? The 29inch (700c) proponents say
we should break free from the constraints of MTB history (cruiser tire
size). On the other hand, they are in favor of us using another
historical wheel size (European road bikes). This strikes me as odd.

Miles

(MTBlamerie) wrote in message ...
The model I rode was the SuperCaliber, but maybe I'm wrong. It had the team GF
paint job. Anyway, I rode it at Vultures Knob, Ohio, which up to this point,
was the absoloute most tight and twisty single track I have ridden. The trails
I ride are far from buff, tree roots and fallen trees abound.

Just admit that you don't know **** about 29ers or mountain biking.
Anthony has been riding his 29er for more than enough time to tell the
facts about his particular bike. This, accompanied by the fact that
he has been riding for many years and knows what World Class mountain
bike trails are, you don't have even one toe to stand on, howdie
doodie.

I have ridden Vultures Knob and find your view of what it really is, a
true testament to your lack of knowledge and just how limited your
"experience" really is. You are only kidding yourself.

JD

Corvus Corvax wrote:
(Tom Purvis) wrote

The contact patch is automatically bigger, and it's more oblong than a
similar width 26" tire.


Say again? I don't think a larger radius tire give you a bigger
contact patch -- that's determined entirely by the tire pressure.

The rest of what you had to say certainly seems very reasonable. I
just couldn't let this one go without comment.

CC


I dunno diddly about contact patch, and I do suspect it is one of those
bike tech things that could be argued about endlessly on the internet.
In the real world however, I have experienced this: On loose choppy,
ledgy climbs, I noticed immediately thst the rear wheel on the monkey
hooked up a LOT better than the 26" singlespeed I had been riding. Same
trail, two days apart.

Could be patch, could be dynamics of a bigger wheel, but it certainly
was kewl.


A