29ers

B. Sanders wrote:


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


For your interest I will not say the following.

Karate Monkey. (F.U.S.S.Y compliant, mind you)
1x8
Bob Trailer
Colorado Trail
4 days

There. See how nice I am?

A

(Tom Purvis) wrote:

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.

Actually, the contact patch will be the same size (more or less...),
since its determined by tire pressure, not wheel size. Given tires
with similar cross sections and the same pressure, the 29" tire
contact patch will be slightly longer and thinner. As you went on to
say, the difference that's most noticeable will be the way the wheels
handle over rocks.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

miles todd wrote:
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.

Of course, you are correct, Corvus. It does give a longer, but
narrower contact patch (given the same pressure). Is this better?

I regret having attempted to use language that was so technical.
Clearly I'm not qualified. What I can tell you from experience is
that 29ers handle nice in loose and chunky situations. They feel
like a longer pair of skis. Or something.

Intuitively, that happens because there is more rubber actually
touching fore and aft, than a similarly wide, inflated, and treaded
tire mounted on a 26" rim. But of course, it could also have to do
with the fact that the wheels tend to be heavier, or a millian other
variables that I fail to account for. Ain't no scientist.

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.

Well that's easy. Opportunism. The 29er advocates out there can barely get
manufacterers to produce a variety of tires. Who's going to get in line
with a whole new mainstream wheel size?

You think I can declare the 31" wheel the new standard and then tomorrow
Mavic will sell the 31" Crossmax?
--
Tom Purvis - http://www.arkansasvalley.net/tpurvis/
Salida, CO

"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.


I don't know, but we did a night ride with Ethan the other night, he was
riding his new Strong Frames 29'er singlespeed. I gotta say, the man was
rocket fast on that bike.

Momentum is your friend...

- CA-G

Can-Am Girls Kick Ass!

Pete wrote:

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

which is stronger?

"Yes"

"ClydedaleMTB_in_TN" wrote in message
...


Pete wrote:

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

which is stronger?

"Yes"

I'm not saying there is a big, even really measurable difference. Especially
with a 3% difference in size.

But material science would point to a larger assembly being 'weaker' than a
smaller one. All else being equal, of course...

Pete

Tom Purvis wrote:

miles todd wrote:



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.


Well that's easy. Opportunism. The 29er advocates out there can barely get
manufacterers to produce a variety of tires. Who's going to get in line
with a whole new mainstream wheel size?

You think I can declare the 31" wheel the new standard and then tomorrow
Mavic will sell the 31" Crossmax?
--
Tom Purvis - http://www.arkansasvalley.net/tpurvis/
Salida, CO

Go for it. I'd prefer a 32", but what the hell.

Opportunism is exactly my point. If the original Marin County dudes
started out modifying their cyclocross bikes to take more abuse (rather
than putting shifters on clunkers)we'd all be riding drop-barred 29ers
now, rather than upright barred 26ers.

Still, I want to know why 700c mountain bikes are a good idea now, but
weren't so cool back in the late 80's when Bianchi had a full line of
them, Diamond back had a couple of models, and Specialized had a
drop-bar 700c Stumpjumper (if I remember correctly).
I tend to think that it wasn't such a good idea back then because it
wasn't Gary Fisher's idea... now he's really pushing it, and that's
just the sort of momentum that the big-wheel movement needs (no pun
intended.

Miles

Miles says:

snip

Still, I want to know why 700c mountain bikes are a good idea now, but
weren't so cool back in the late 80's when Bianchi had a full line of
them, Diamond back had a couple of models, and Specialized had a
drop-bar 700c Stumpjumper (if I remember correctly).

It's a Madison Avenue thing. The word "700er" doesn't ring or roll off the
tongue quite as well as "29er", and the "29er" brings back nostalgic images of
the 49ers trudging over the snowy passes to seek their fortunes.
Something like that. Would the Segway have sold at all (intead of a whopping
6000 to date!) with a name like TranspoBot? (or insert other dorky/geeky name)

Steve

In article ,
miles todd wrote:

Still, I want to know why 700c mountain bikes are a good idea now, but
weren't so cool back in the late 80's when Bianchi had a full line of
them, Diamond back had a couple of models, and Specialized had a
drop-bar 700c Stumpjumper (if I remember correctly).
I tend to think that it wasn't such a good idea back then because it
wasn't Gary Fisher's idea... now he's really pushing it, and that's
just the sort of momentum that the big-wheel movement needs (no pun
intended.

I doubt these bikes were ever marketed as being more efficient off-road
like they are claimed today. Were there any decent tires available? Lack
of low enough gears at the time was another good reason not to buy them.

--
Mike DeMicco
(Remove the REMOVE_THIS from my email address to reply.)

I doubt these bikes were ever marketed as being more efficient off-road
like they are claimed today. Were there any decent tires available? Lack
of low enough gears at the time was another good reason not to buy them.


I don't know how they were marketed, but great tires were available - 700 x 45
Smokes. Nice.

And the gearing was plenty low enough. If you can't get a light, rigid bike up
something with a 24 x 32, another couple teeth on the cog ain't gonna make much
difference.

In fact, I'd love to have one of the old bianchi "project" bikes. I thought
then (and still think) they were pretty cool.

-Andrew