I'm getting back into mountain bike riding, the kids are grown up now and they don't want to come with Dad as much as they did. Dang kids. I always had a 26'' bike so my question is when I buy a new bike should it be a 26 or 29 ?
26 vs 29 ?
26bike4canada
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Joined
·
1 Posts
I'm getting back into mountain bike riding, the kids are grown up now and they don't want to come with Dad as much as they did. Dang kids. I always had a 26'' bike so my question is when I buy a new bike should it be a 26 or 29 ?
Joined
·
13,076 Posts
The main difference between a 29er and a 26er is obviously the wheel size. The difference between the taller 29er tire and the shorter 26er tire is mainly twofold:
- the angle of attack between obstacles and tire is shallower allowing the bike to ease over obstacles where a 26er wheel might hang a little more. This translate into a smoother technical riding bike.
- the contact patch on the 29er tire is a different shape, longer, which can provide increased traction, allowing the bike to climb easier up looser, more difficult terrain than a comparably equipped 26er bikes.
- they have more momentum depending on wheel/tire weight than a 26er, they may have less standover than a comparably sized 26er, they can weigh more than a comparably priced 26er.
Joined
·
847 Posts
from True Fab site
Rockcrusher,
Thanks for your starting point. I've cut-n-pasted some stuff below that came from our TF website. Its funny to see this topic up here now because so much of this was hashed out for the "early adopters". Now its coming back around for the mainstream crowd.
(FYI- this text was written in 2006.)
The bottom line is that you cannot escape the physics of the larger wheel. This applies to both the positive attributes and the negative attributes. What are these attributes? They are:
Positive
-Raised axle line, which causes a proportionately deeper bottom bracket drop. This is what gives the sensation of sitting more "in between" the wheels and noticeably reduces endo tendencies.
-Longer contact patch on the tire. This increases climbing, braking and turning traction. It allows you to brake deeper into turns, climb steeper sections of trail before spinning loose and improves general traction in poor trail conditions. We also found that it allows us to run faster tire tread patterns that we previously felt did not provide enough traction,
-Lower angle of attack due to the larger wheel diameter. Think: monster truck concept. The bigger wheels just roll over things easier. It smoothes out the trail somewhat and this is what makes the 29er platform great on a rigid bike.
-Less prone to deflection from trail obstacles due to the 29er wheel being a larger lever applied against the opposing force.
-Once up to speed, the larger and heavier wheel can maintain momentum like a heavier flywheel
Negative
-The larger wheels take up space. This creates some possible design issues for smaller riders. These issues can range from the "forced" need to run a slacker HTA, toe overlap, stand over problems, inability to get proper handle bar drop.
-Raised axle line, which reduces the endo sensation, also makes a bike harder to manual or wheelie.
-All thing being equal, the 29er will weigh more. This weight is usually found in the wheels (tires, tubes, rims, spokes).
Even though we just mentioned that you cannot escape the physics, we also feel that there is nothing better that first-hand experience. We strongly urge you to try one out so that you can confirm or dispel how "the physics" will work for you. Besides the design limitations, we feel that the negative attributes are almost inconsequential and are greatly overshadowed by the positive.
It should also be worth mentioning we have successfully designed 29er frames for people down to 5'3" with virtually no "compromises". In our eyes, part of the beauty of the 29er movement is the fact that there are no real geometry standards. Nothing is locked and loaded such as the 26-inch wheel's standard "Norba Geometry" (71/73, 11.79BB, 16.75 CS). You will regularly find 29ers ranging from a long and stable enduro feel to a short and quick XC slant and anywhere in between. The only standard is the one set for your style.
Rockcrusher,
Thanks for your starting point. I've cut-n-pasted some stuff below that came from our TF website. Its funny to see this topic up here now because so much of this was hashed out for the "early adopters". Now its coming back around for the mainstream crowd.
(FYI- this text was written in 2006.)
The bottom line is that you cannot escape the physics of the larger wheel. This applies to both the positive attributes and the negative attributes. What are these attributes? They are:
Positive
-Raised axle line, which causes a proportionately deeper bottom bracket drop. This is what gives the sensation of sitting more "in between" the wheels and noticeably reduces endo tendencies.
-Longer contact patch on the tire. This increases climbing, braking and turning traction. It allows you to brake deeper into turns, climb steeper sections of trail before spinning loose and improves general traction in poor trail conditions. We also found that it allows us to run faster tire tread patterns that we previously felt did not provide enough traction,
-Lower angle of attack due to the larger wheel diameter. Think: monster truck concept. The bigger wheels just roll over things easier. It smoothes out the trail somewhat and this is what makes the 29er platform great on a rigid bike.
-Less prone to deflection from trail obstacles due to the 29er wheel being a larger lever applied against the opposing force.
-Once up to speed, the larger and heavier wheel can maintain momentum like a heavier flywheel
Negative
-The larger wheels take up space. This creates some possible design issues for smaller riders. These issues can range from the "forced" need to run a slacker HTA, toe overlap, stand over problems, inability to get proper handle bar drop.
-Raised axle line, which reduces the endo sensation, also makes a bike harder to manual or wheelie.
-All thing being equal, the 29er will weigh more. This weight is usually found in the wheels (tires, tubes, rims, spokes).
Even though we just mentioned that you cannot escape the physics, we also feel that there is nothing better that first-hand experience. We strongly urge you to try one out so that you can confirm or dispel how "the physics" will work for you. Besides the design limitations, we feel that the negative attributes are almost inconsequential and are greatly overshadowed by the positive.
It should also be worth mentioning we have successfully designed 29er frames for people down to 5'3" with virtually no "compromises". In our eyes, part of the beauty of the 29er movement is the fact that there are no real geometry standards. Nothing is locked and loaded such as the 26-inch wheel's standard "Norba Geometry" (71/73, 11.79BB, 16.75 CS). You will regularly find 29ers ranging from a long and stable enduro feel to a short and quick XC slant and anywhere in between. The only standard is the one set for your style.
Joined
·
13,076 Posts
And as most also recommend: If you can test ride all the bikes you are interested in, if you can borrow a bike from a local and test it off road, then buy the bike that fits you the best.
if you have doubts as to what a good fit is it is totally worth your money to have a professional bike fit done by a local shop. If you are interested in 29ers make sure the bike shop sells and stands behind 29ers.
Nothing is more satisfying than a well fitting bike!
if you have doubts as to what a good fit is it is totally worth your money to have a professional bike fit done by a local shop. If you are interested in 29ers make sure the bike shop sells and stands behind 29ers.
Nothing is more satisfying than a well fitting bike!
Joined
·
763 Posts
This seems generally fair except...
The momentum argument really needs to be nailed if this is to act as a useful FAQ. In any real world scenario greater rotating mass is never a bonus. Any momentum gain could be exactly replicated by adding perimeter weights to a 26" wheel. It will, of course, be a cold day in hell before you see a serious component manufacturer selling such things. Can you imagine - "Buy Mavic lead rim weights for extra momentum!".CBaron said:
Joined
·
2,291 Posts
Advantages
+Allows you to roll over larger obstacles, or small obstacles more smoothly and easily
+The above, and longer contact patch, offer increased traction in rough terrein- technical climbs are much easier
+Increased traction offers enhanced cornering and braking
+Slightly smoother ride (wheels don't fall down into small depressions as far)
+Slightly lower rolling resistance. Or, if you trade the increased traction for lower resistance tires, offering similar overall traction as a 26er with high resistance tires, significantly better rolling resistance
+More stable
+Less likely to endo
Disadvantages
-Will always be heavier than a comparable 26er, mostly in the wheels and tires, but also in the fork and stays
-Geometry limitations. e.g. toe overlap for smaller riders, higher head tube, longer chain stays,
-Longer spokes, stays, and fork legs will either be heavier or more flexy than on a 26er. Wheel strength is why there haven't been many 29er DH and Freeride bikes
-Slower steering. Long wheelbase plus big wheels means slower steering, although modern geometry has mitigated this
-All gears will be 12% taller
-More limitied tire selection
-Not typically available in travel over 4.5"
-Usually a bit more expensive
-More difficult to wheelie
Pretty much all of those negatives are being mitigated through new geometry techniques and materials. The only real disadvantage of a 29er over a very similar 26er (e.g. Blur XCc vs Tallboy, Anthem vs. Anthem 29er) is the 29er will always be a couple pounds heavier, and most of that will be in the wheels. I think it's a good tradeoff for most riders overall.
+Allows you to roll over larger obstacles, or small obstacles more smoothly and easily
+The above, and longer contact patch, offer increased traction in rough terrein- technical climbs are much easier
+Increased traction offers enhanced cornering and braking
+Slightly smoother ride (wheels don't fall down into small depressions as far)
+Slightly lower rolling resistance. Or, if you trade the increased traction for lower resistance tires, offering similar overall traction as a 26er with high resistance tires, significantly better rolling resistance
+More stable
+Less likely to endo
Disadvantages
-Will always be heavier than a comparable 26er, mostly in the wheels and tires, but also in the fork and stays
-Geometry limitations. e.g. toe overlap for smaller riders, higher head tube, longer chain stays,
-Longer spokes, stays, and fork legs will either be heavier or more flexy than on a 26er. Wheel strength is why there haven't been many 29er DH and Freeride bikes
-Slower steering. Long wheelbase plus big wheels means slower steering, although modern geometry has mitigated this
-All gears will be 12% taller
-More limitied tire selection
-Not typically available in travel over 4.5"
-Usually a bit more expensive
-More difficult to wheelie
Pretty much all of those negatives are being mitigated through new geometry techniques and materials. The only real disadvantage of a 29er over a very similar 26er (e.g. Blur XCc vs Tallboy, Anthem vs. Anthem 29er) is the 29er will always be a couple pounds heavier, and most of that will be in the wheels. I think it's a good tradeoff for most riders overall.
G
Guest
·True. Angular momentum of the wheels is tiny compared to overall momentum so it's of little consequence regardless. There are people here, though, that argue that heavy wheels improve performance. They argue it poorly.nuffink said:
Joined
·
17 Posts
Having ridden a 26" hard tail for the past 15 years I recently took a big step into a 29" full suspension. The "cons" that are mentioned in this thread are pretty weak. After you have a little time to get used to the 29" setup, any prior questions marks quickly go away.26bike4canada said:
The size of the wheels eliminate a ton of trail chatter making for a much smoother ride. Which immediately gives you more confidence to attack the downhills, leading to much more momentum going into the climbs. A major concern of mine before getting the 29er was getting going or climbing. Not a problem. If you're in shape you won't even notice.
Also, a buddy of mine just went from a full suspension Giant Trance to a 29" hard tail. A little concerned in the beginning going to a hardtail after all the years with suspension. He loves it. going back to what I said above, the real pros of the 29er are felt in on the trail. Most of the posts here seem to be regurgitating reviews.
Get a loaner from a LBS and give it a shot. You won't be disappointed.
Check out:
The Bike Cincinnati
The Bike Louisville
Joined
·
7,636 Posts
Why is it generally accepted fact that the 29er contact patch is a "pro" with such simplistic reasoning such as saying it's longer or larger? Without facts to support it, skeptics will be all over that.
When all things are equal, with a typical load (190 lbs total, rider and bike weight), typical tire pressure (32 psi), and typical tire width (2.2), etc. the tire contact area is not any larger theoretically and the different footprints give different handling characteristics. To get better grip, you would need to run lower pressure (29ers can run lower psi with less risk, due to higher air volume, which increases tire contact area), tires need a softer durometer (tires don't complete as many revolutions as a 26" tire over the same distance, so may wear longer), and the tread needs to be tweaked to the 29er's "pressure hotspots" in its footprint (weight distribution in the tire contact patch area is a different than a 26" tire).
Assuming similar tire diameter, using wide rims and wide tires to get a low and wide profile tire gives much different characteristics than using a narrow rim and tall tires to get a narrow and long profile. High performance sports cars typically run low profile tires to get a short and wide footprint while trucks and a majority of other cars run tall and/or narrow tires to get a longer footprint. I don't know tires or cars enough to say anything else from that, but that should give at least a little insight to the difference in handling the different tire contact patch shapes offer. I just have a hunch that there's more cornering performance (such as cornering stability and cornering traction) from the wider, low profile style tire. I'd like to touch on this some more, but I honestly would only come up with speculation. What kind of traction do you want most? Cornering? Off-camber? Braking? Climbing? Now throw rolling resistance into the mix and also: wear, flat resistance, casing/sidewall durability, weight, tubeless compatibility, rigidity/flimsiness, optimal pressure, type of terrain intended for, wet/dry, mud clearance, etc.
Since it's a bike tire, real world performance isn't really all that different as the theories make them out to be, due to the relatively low weights and forces it deals with. A 26" tire may climb something just as well as a 29er with good tire design and good technique, though if you give them gear which is identical except for scale and ask them to use the same exact technique, one will feel worse and one will feel better. In the big picture, you will learn the nuances of such and adjust. You may need to put more weight on a 29er tire to make it up a climb and you may need to scoot up a bit more on the 26" bike. Some may feel more comfortable further back on a 29er than being on the very tip of the saddle on a 26". Too much weight is just as bad as too little weight on a tire in many cases. More aggressive riders find themselves being a little too light on their tires and smaller contact patch focuses more force into the ground. They sometimes would have to slow down to get more weight. Cruisers type riders sometimes find themselves having too much weight. Going slow in greasy sections feels killer and sometimes you just have to be more aggressive and try to cross it with speed to be lighter. As you can see, each can be made up for with technique. I think it may boil down to preference in style more than just calling it "improved traction".
Well, until 29er tire technology catches up, this is disputable. I see good things already though, so I'll let that pass and you can consider this post as a nod to the "improved traction" statement if the points in my second paragraph are heeded. One more point is that I'd like to run a 29er tire that's wider than I would usually run on a 26". Theoretically, that would be the best of both worlds, but I haven't put too much thought into it.
Back on topic:
Pros:
- smooths out bumps in a way different than suspension (feels like ~1" of extra travel)
- makes obstacles seem smaller
- can roll down off of rocks easier, dropping the front wheel first with less risk of ending up in an endo
Cons:
- generally more expensive
- generally less selection
Opinions that can't be applied to all 29ers, just some from my experience:
- has the feel of a road bike's long distance efficiency
- still a bit immature in robustness. Can't just pick any 29er [part] and expect it to be solid. Need to do a bit of shopping/research to know which truly stand out and are at a fair price
- current drivetrain stock gearing not really designed optimally for 29ers
- notably lacking long travel AM presence (*hint hint manufacturers, wide open market*)
- stock wheelsets spec'd on many bikes are just terrible
- cockpit/front end sometimes a bit high, notably for shorter riders riding smaller frames
- standover clearance issues with numerous designs
- relatively poor cornering and switchback performance
- more vulnerable to tracking/steering/stability issues due to flex from longer fork legs, bigger wheels, and longer seatstays+chainstays
- makes ramps (natural or dirt jumps) seem smaller, resulting in much less air.
When all things are equal, with a typical load (190 lbs total, rider and bike weight), typical tire pressure (32 psi), and typical tire width (2.2), etc. the tire contact area is not any larger theoretically and the different footprints give different handling characteristics. To get better grip, you would need to run lower pressure (29ers can run lower psi with less risk, due to higher air volume, which increases tire contact area), tires need a softer durometer (tires don't complete as many revolutions as a 26" tire over the same distance, so may wear longer), and the tread needs to be tweaked to the 29er's "pressure hotspots" in its footprint (weight distribution in the tire contact patch area is a different than a 26" tire).
Assuming similar tire diameter, using wide rims and wide tires to get a low and wide profile tire gives much different characteristics than using a narrow rim and tall tires to get a narrow and long profile. High performance sports cars typically run low profile tires to get a short and wide footprint while trucks and a majority of other cars run tall and/or narrow tires to get a longer footprint. I don't know tires or cars enough to say anything else from that, but that should give at least a little insight to the difference in handling the different tire contact patch shapes offer. I just have a hunch that there's more cornering performance (such as cornering stability and cornering traction) from the wider, low profile style tire. I'd like to touch on this some more, but I honestly would only come up with speculation. What kind of traction do you want most? Cornering? Off-camber? Braking? Climbing? Now throw rolling resistance into the mix and also: wear, flat resistance, casing/sidewall durability, weight, tubeless compatibility, rigidity/flimsiness, optimal pressure, type of terrain intended for, wet/dry, mud clearance, etc.
Since it's a bike tire, real world performance isn't really all that different as the theories make them out to be, due to the relatively low weights and forces it deals with. A 26" tire may climb something just as well as a 29er with good tire design and good technique, though if you give them gear which is identical except for scale and ask them to use the same exact technique, one will feel worse and one will feel better. In the big picture, you will learn the nuances of such and adjust. You may need to put more weight on a 29er tire to make it up a climb and you may need to scoot up a bit more on the 26" bike. Some may feel more comfortable further back on a 29er than being on the very tip of the saddle on a 26". Too much weight is just as bad as too little weight on a tire in many cases. More aggressive riders find themselves being a little too light on their tires and smaller contact patch focuses more force into the ground. They sometimes would have to slow down to get more weight. Cruisers type riders sometimes find themselves having too much weight. Going slow in greasy sections feels killer and sometimes you just have to be more aggressive and try to cross it with speed to be lighter. As you can see, each can be made up for with technique. I think it may boil down to preference in style more than just calling it "improved traction".
Well, until 29er tire technology catches up, this is disputable. I see good things already though, so I'll let that pass and you can consider this post as a nod to the "improved traction" statement if the points in my second paragraph are heeded. One more point is that I'd like to run a 29er tire that's wider than I would usually run on a 26". Theoretically, that would be the best of both worlds, but I haven't put too much thought into it.
Back on topic:
Pros:
- smooths out bumps in a way different than suspension (feels like ~1" of extra travel)
- makes obstacles seem smaller
- can roll down off of rocks easier, dropping the front wheel first with less risk of ending up in an endo
Cons:
- generally more expensive
- generally less selection
Opinions that can't be applied to all 29ers, just some from my experience:
- has the feel of a road bike's long distance efficiency
- still a bit immature in robustness. Can't just pick any 29er [part] and expect it to be solid. Need to do a bit of shopping/research to know which truly stand out and are at a fair price
- current drivetrain stock gearing not really designed optimally for 29ers
- notably lacking long travel AM presence (*hint hint manufacturers, wide open market*)
- stock wheelsets spec'd on many bikes are just terrible
- cockpit/front end sometimes a bit high, notably for shorter riders riding smaller frames
- standover clearance issues with numerous designs
- relatively poor cornering and switchback performance
- more vulnerable to tracking/steering/stability issues due to flex from longer fork legs, bigger wheels, and longer seatstays+chainstays
- makes ramps (natural or dirt jumps) seem smaller, resulting in much less air.
Joined
·
5,221 Posts
Grip
For your info.
Sports cars race on road tracks & not on uneven surfaces so they can get away with a lower profile tyre that weighs less & will let you run a bigger brake & give more controlable braking.
Also note that the diameter of sports car wheels is getting larger & larger & the width isn't
With a bigger Diameter & narrower tyre you get a longer tyre patch all things being equal & the tyre travels on less ground width.
With a wider tyre covers more ground (width ) so on uneven or dirty ground there is more things that can lift the tyre off the ground & reduce the grip.
When the wider tyre runs over something like a stone with the wider tyre with side loads (cornering ) the tyre will have to roll sideways for longer before it will clear it giving the bike/car or what ever more time to pick up side load speed before the tyre contacts the road again & at times the momentum gained is to great for the tyre to regain ( Very easy to happen if you were on the limit in the 1st place )
The reason a rally car runs higher profile tyre even on tarmac than the said sports car is with the larger side wall has more chance to soak up the said stone / uneven road / track to try to stop the car from gaining sideway momentum.
You can have a 12 inch wide tyre @ 1.5 inch stone can lift that complete tyre off the ground taking lets say 40 square inches of contact patch down to 0
A longer contact patch will only run over what it was going to run over any way were as a wider tyre has more ground that it covers so it has more chance of hitting something to upset it.
Not only do the bigger diameter tyres have a narrower patch given the same pressure,Because of a lesser angle that it will hit things you can get away with a lower pressure & give the tyre a greater chance of wraping around the said stone instead of lifting the whole tyre off the ground.
I could get into this alot more (because there is just so much to it ) but if you don't get it at this point I feel you just wont get it.
For your info.
Sports cars race on road tracks & not on uneven surfaces so they can get away with a lower profile tyre that weighs less & will let you run a bigger brake & give more controlable braking.
Also note that the diameter of sports car wheels is getting larger & larger & the width isn't
With a bigger Diameter & narrower tyre you get a longer tyre patch all things being equal & the tyre travels on less ground width.
With a wider tyre covers more ground (width ) so on uneven or dirty ground there is more things that can lift the tyre off the ground & reduce the grip.
When the wider tyre runs over something like a stone with the wider tyre with side loads (cornering ) the tyre will have to roll sideways for longer before it will clear it giving the bike/car or what ever more time to pick up side load speed before the tyre contacts the road again & at times the momentum gained is to great for the tyre to regain ( Very easy to happen if you were on the limit in the 1st place )
The reason a rally car runs higher profile tyre even on tarmac than the said sports car is with the larger side wall has more chance to soak up the said stone / uneven road / track to try to stop the car from gaining sideway momentum.
You can have a 12 inch wide tyre @ 1.5 inch stone can lift that complete tyre off the ground taking lets say 40 square inches of contact patch down to 0
A longer contact patch will only run over what it was going to run over any way were as a wider tyre has more ground that it covers so it has more chance of hitting something to upset it.
Not only do the bigger diameter tyres have a narrower patch given the same pressure,Because of a lesser angle that it will hit things you can get away with a lower pressure & give the tyre a greater chance of wraping around the said stone instead of lifting the whole tyre off the ground.
I could get into this alot more (because there is just so much to it ) but if you don't get it at this point I feel you just wont get it.
Joined
·
7,636 Posts
You are embarrassing yourself
I don't see a clear relation between your car experiences and bikes. My car relation is left as a hunch that shorter and wider tire contact patch had more cornering stability and grip. That's generally accepted fact in the car world, but that logic doesn't translate clearly to bikes, so that's why I leave it as a hunch and didn't go further.
Technically, it's not the angle of attack that allows lower tire pressure. It's the higher tire volume. 29x2.1 vs 26x2.1, the 29er tire has much more volume. The angle of attack simply gives you a smoother ride, making all the bumps seem smaller. You still have high angle of attack with cyclocross wheels, but to set the pressure on those lower than 26" MTB tires because of the angle of attack difference...
I don't even want to dispute your car knowledge, such as bouncing off the ground from a 1.5" stone, and the logic you use that seemingly implies that you prefer tires with skinny and long tire contact patches.
I thought somewhere in your post or your edited post, you mentioned larger contact patch. I don't see it anywhere now, but I'll go over it again. Tire contact area is the same if the load (rider and bike weight) and tire pressure is the same. It's not wise to test tires of different sizes at the same psi, since they'd either be overinflated or underinflated. Low volume tires need more pressure and high volume tires need less. Though if tire pressures were the same, it would help to precisely know how the different contact patch shapes affect performance and handling. That's the topic I left open.
Also, upon reading up on cars, I found that certain tire compounds could only be effectively made into certain shaped and sized tires. Softer (grippier) compounds needed to be made into a wider tire so its sidewall would be able to support the car. I'd like to think mtb tires are already on that same level, where they are playing with compounds that's optimized to that extent.
muzzanic said:
I don't see a clear relation between your car experiences and bikes. My car relation is left as a hunch that shorter and wider tire contact patch had more cornering stability and grip. That's generally accepted fact in the car world, but that logic doesn't translate clearly to bikes, so that's why I leave it as a hunch and didn't go further.
Technically, it's not the angle of attack that allows lower tire pressure. It's the higher tire volume. 29x2.1 vs 26x2.1, the 29er tire has much more volume. The angle of attack simply gives you a smoother ride, making all the bumps seem smaller. You still have high angle of attack with cyclocross wheels, but to set the pressure on those lower than 26" MTB tires because of the angle of attack difference...
I don't even want to dispute your car knowledge, such as bouncing off the ground from a 1.5" stone, and the logic you use that seemingly implies that you prefer tires with skinny and long tire contact patches.
I thought somewhere in your post or your edited post, you mentioned larger contact patch. I don't see it anywhere now, but I'll go over it again. Tire contact area is the same if the load (rider and bike weight) and tire pressure is the same. It's not wise to test tires of different sizes at the same psi, since they'd either be overinflated or underinflated. Low volume tires need more pressure and high volume tires need less. Though if tire pressures were the same, it would help to precisely know how the different contact patch shapes affect performance and handling. That's the topic I left open.
Also, upon reading up on cars, I found that certain tire compounds could only be effectively made into certain shaped and sized tires. Softer (grippier) compounds needed to be made into a wider tire so its sidewall would be able to support the car. I'd like to think mtb tires are already on that same level, where they are playing with compounds that's optimized to that extent.
Joined
·
5,221 Posts
Like I said you don't get it:madman:
Sports cars are not going smaller & smaller in wheel dia, Why do you think that is:madman: ???
Sports cars are not going smaller & smaller in wheel dia, Why do you think that is:madman: ???
Varaxis said:
I don't see a clear relation between your car experiences and bikes. My car relation is left as a hunch that shorter and wider tire contact patch had more cornering stability and grip. That's generally accepted fact in the car world, but that logic doesn't translate clearly to bikes, so that's why I leave it as a hunch and didn't go further.
Technically, it's not the angle of attack that allows lower tire pressure. It's the higher tire volume. 29x2.1 vs 26x2.1, the 29er tire has much more volume. The angle of attack simply gives you a smoother ride, making all the bumps seem smaller. You still have high angle of attack with cyclocross wheels, but to set the pressure on those lower than 26" MTB tires because of the angle of attack difference...
I don't even want to dispute your car knowledge, such as bouncing off the ground from a 1.5" stone, and the logic you use that seemingly implies that you prefer tires with skinny and long tire contact patches.
I thought somewhere in your post or your edited post, you mentioned larger contact patch. I don't see it anywhere now, but I'll go over it again. Tire contact area is the same if the load (rider and bike weight) and tire pressure is the same. It's not wise to test tires of different sizes at the same psi, since they'd either be overinflated or underinflated. Low volume tires need more pressure and high volume tires need less. Though if tire pressures were the same, it would help to precisely know how the different contact patch shapes affect performance and handling. That's the topic I left open.
Joined
·
7,636 Posts
Yea. I don't get it. Tell me why?
Oh, and while you're at it, tell me how it relates to mountain bikes in a way that helps explain 26 vs 29ers. I'm still skeptical of your wider tire "theories" for off-road purposes (seems to be more of an issue with a lack of suspension, proper tire pressure, and/or technique).
I'm not about to go off and give reasons why road bike wheels aren't getting smaller, since I don't see how that explains 26 vs 29er.
Oh, and while you're at it, tell me how it relates to mountain bikes in a way that helps explain 26 vs 29ers. I'm still skeptical of your wider tire "theories" for off-road purposes (seems to be more of an issue with a lack of suspension, proper tire pressure, and/or technique).
I'm not about to go off and give reasons why road bike wheels aren't getting smaller, since I don't see how that explains 26 vs 29er.
G
Guest
·It's curious that you'd dismiss the first claim as simplistic reasoning without facts and then offer all the simplistic garbage above. Not one of those points makes sense. I would also note that your claim of weight distribution differences in the contact patch suggests a different contact patch shape, an undeniable fact that you have questioned.Varaxis said:
Considering that road bike wheels are regulated to prevent them from getting smaller, it would be an embarrassing argument had you used it. Markets are generally not driven by technical merit so such an argument would be bogus anyway. It turns out, given unlimited racing budgets and freedom from regulation, that road wheels might indeed get smaller.Varaxis said:
Joined
·
13,076 Posts
This doesn't need to be an argument about the relative pros and cons. Just post all the salient characteristics of the 29er. Whether a person finds it a con or a pro is up to them. Pro and cons are arbitrary at best and highly biased at worse.
When we get a good list I will compile them into one compendium of the general traits of the 29er wheel size.
When we get a good list I will compile them into one compendium of the general traits of the 29er wheel size.
G
Guest
·If this is true then there isn't any such thing as a "good list" and one has to question the value of such an effort. Why pin down such a list if it is arbitrary at best?rockcrusher said:
Joined
·
13,076 Posts
because it isn't a a good or bad list, it is a list of the characteristics of 29ers in order to answer the frequently asked questions of users interested in that sort of thing. We don't need to provide the thinking for them, just the facts.craigsj said:
Joined
·
20,144 Posts
Apparently winter hasn't ended yet in certain parts of the country. Either that or certain people have nothing better to do than argue ceaselessly on the internet.
Seems kinda sad. But maybe that's just to me?
29" vs. 26", distilled:
29" wheels don't fall into 28" holes.
MC
Seems kinda sad. But maybe that's just to me?
29" vs. 26", distilled:
29" wheels don't fall into 28" holes.
MC
G
Guest
·Facts that are arbitrary at best and highly biased at worst?rockcrusher said:
There seems to be a huge gap in logic here. A consensus of lies and half-truths isn't useful to anyone. No list at all is better than one where there hasn't been any effort to make sure it's right.
Joined
·
13,076 Posts
Umm it's an internet forum everything here is a consensus of lies and half truths. If you wish that the FAQ does the thinking for all users with hard facts, support peer reviewed truths and unbiased lists then you have misunderstood the purpose and reason for forums and a FAQ in the 29er forum.craigsj said:
A new user or someone interested in 29ers comes here to decide if these bikes are the answer to the question "what bike shall I buy?"
They are here to decided for themselves what is best. They can sort through 1000's of posts, post themselves a "what is the difference between 26er and 29ers?" query (as the OP did here and I hijacked it) or they can look at a FAQ and get a gist of the answer in one post and then try to make an educated decision based on what they read, discerned as relevant to their needs and narrow down their breadth of questions to something a little less broad and post a new query based on these decisions to help them along.
Ultimately the thinking is up to the reader.
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
