29ers

In article ,
ospam (Andrew Thorne) wrote:


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.

Still too narrow and they weren't available in the 80's. The hot tires
were Tioga Farmer Johns back then. Most bikes back then came with narrow
rubber to get around import restrictions. Most people that were serious
about riding off-road changed out these narrow tires right away for
fatter ones.


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.

24x32 didn't exist then because everything was Biopace. The smallest
Biopace ring was 26 and lots of bikes came with a 28 tooth small ring
(like my '89 Univega). And no, 24x32 with a large 29" wheel is not low
enough for the mountains around here. It's barely adequate with a 26"
wheel. 22x34 is the low gear I would want with a 29" wheel.

With no marketing hyping the advantage of a 29"/700c wheel over a 26"
wheel, and a dearth of decent tires, mountain bike specific rims, and
low enough gears, no wonder these bikes didn't sell.

--
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.

Still too narrow and they weren't available in the 80's. The hot tires
were Tioga Farmer Johns back then. Most bikes back then came with narrow
rubber to get around import restrictions. Most people that were serious
about riding off-road changed out these narrow tires right away for
fatter ones.


The Bianchi project bikes were early late 80's to early 90's. And Smokes were
available then because the Bianchi came stock with them installed. And not only
were 24T rings available, I'm pretty sure there was a model available with
Suntour Microdrive


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.

24x32 didn't exist then because everything was Biopace. The smallest
Biopace ring was 26 and lots of bikes came with a 28 tooth small ring
(like my '89 Univega). And no, 24x32 with a large 29" wheel is not low
enough for the mountains around here. It's barely adequate with a 26"
wheel. 22x34 is the low gear I would want with a 29" wheel.

Well, my 89 Nishiki came stock with 24 36 46 up front and 13-30 in back. And
13-32's were readily available.

And I hear you that low low gears are nice for heavy squishy bikes, but for a
rigid bike - even one with big wheels - you don't need to go so low.


With no marketing hyping the advantage of a 29"/700c wheel over a 26"
wheel, and a dearth of decent tires, mountain bike specific rims, and
low enough gears, no wonder these bikes didn't sell.

--
Mike DeMicco

I agree that the problems were marketing and fashion. Tires existed, gears were
low enough for most (even if not for you) and the rim question is a non-issue.
The best 26" rims of the era were re-rolled road rims anyway, so why not just
ride 'em at their original diameter.

-Andrew

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.

Miles


I think its 'cos the mountain bike market is a lot fatter these days.

Back in the late eighties there was steel hardtails, radical new
aluminum hardtails, and freakishly exotic and expensive dual suspension
bikes.

Now rather than being a barely-in-the-door fringe sport, there is a
bouregeoning market for all sorts of riders trying to find their niche.
Hence Surly.
Hence Kona.
Hence &c.

A

Anthony Sloan 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"?

Pete



This is why wheels should be built to purpose.

I have a set of 29" whells built up for fully rigid singlespeeding. I
have every confidence in them.

Now if they were machine laced OEM crap, then yup. I'd be skeered to
ride em.

A

What might that build be, buddy?

/s

supabonbon wrote:


What might that build be, buddy?

/s

High flange Paul W.O.R.D. Hubs, TD 17 rims, Dt Swiss spokes.

A