Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
986 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
On the two or three rides I've been able to take 29ers out they have been fun but felt like land sharks. They don't really want to/feel comfortable flying through the air.

I realized these mullet bikes could be what I am looking for. The 29er wheel and fork would take the edge off but I wouldn't lose the pop of 26".

Am I riding the wrong hardtail 29ers, or have I found a trail bike that retains some decent jumping feel? If I go this route it'll be with a custom steel frame from a local builder. I figure that way I can maximize the geometry for jumping and also avoid retro fitting a 29er wheel/fork into a 26" bike.

Anyone jumped 29ers and 69ers that could give me an opinion?
 

·
simple
Joined
·
665 Posts
While I love my 69er bike, my 26in wheeled bike is slightly better for BMX style jumps. With the rigid fork on the 69er it definitely improves the jumping feel, maybe try that.

I agree, 29ers don't feel comfortable on BMX style jumps
 

·
Rhino
Joined
·
567 Posts
I agree, I like my 69er for dirt jumps better than my full 29er and B9er. The B9 is my go to bike, but If I was only going to play around for the day, the 69er (with rigid fork) is the weapon.

If you build a bike for 69, think about saving some clearance for the rubber in case you want to throw a 650B on the back. My 2 cents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
986 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Normally I ride a 26" bike, but was thinking that by having the 29er front end I could be squeezing out a better trail riding bike than a straight 26" ride. Keeping the 26" in the back would retain most of the 'pop' that I love when riding.

Thanks for the opinion urban, seems like a good idea to allow the frame to accept multiple wheel sizes, within reason.

Gotta keep that CS length as short as possible though, considering thats where I attribute alot of the pop and hopping abilities to stem from

I should mention that I am planning this to be a singlespeed steel hardtail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,987 Posts
I think that "flickable" is a cheesy word that has no meaning, but sounds great to kids when they read MBAction.

I also think that a bike's HTA, trail measurement, top tube length, and stem/saddle drop all have much more impact on on a frame riding characteristics than the wheel size does. You can make a crappy bike have any size wheel that you want, or a nice bike with any size wheel that you want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
986 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
flick basically means to man-handle the bike in the way I want it go. It is to use body english to achieve a response in the bike. It is a valuable skill that I have developed over a decade of dirt jumping and trail riding.

...I agree that the measurements of the frame/ seat height are the most important factors when building a bike to ride a certain way though. Which is why I am having it custom built.

From my experience 29ers have been land sharks. I don't like land sharks. I like to jump and feel comfortable in the air. Thats why I have stuck with 26". My thoughts were to use a 29 up front for better trail attributes but keeping the 26 in back to still retain some of the responsiveness that I love so much.

I talked to my builder today and he thinks that a full on 29er can be built to get me where I want to go. We will see. If anyone has anymore opinions I'd appreciate it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
986 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I'm not looking to take this bike out in my dirt jumps or pump track... but when I am out riding singletrack and I see a 15ft double or 6ft+ drop I don't want to think twice or get squirrely in the air because the bike doesn't want to move with me.

Maybe I should stick with 26" wheels. I am hoping however that I can squeeze a better trail bike out of this next ride by adding a 29er front end
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,887 Posts
i don't think i've ever seen anything related to "29er" and "flickable" in the same sentence before. i thought in general smaller = more "flickable", whatever that means. isn't a 29er going in the opposite direction?
 

·
www.derbyrims.com
Joined
·
6,766 Posts
Bigger wheels feel slower changing directions and bumps or jumps feel smaller, in my experience. But the bigger wheels roll bumps easier and smoother, have more traction, and increase stability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
986 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Thanks moonraker, that is what I am looking for. Info from people that understand what I am talking about
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,887 Posts
boostin said:
I think I am going to roll full 29er and ride the piss out of it.

that is all
This is really what it comes down to. Just pick something and ride it till it breaks. To hell with all the DWLINK vs HORST or 650b vs 29er or One-Legged-Hookers vs Midget-Hookers, you can have fun on anything. If one setup has "shortcomings" over another then just consider it more challenging (unless you're racing), it's all a state of mind really anyway which can be manipulated so JUST GO DO IT :D
 

·
noMAD man
Joined
·
12,220 Posts
We built up this Maverick ML8 at our shop into a 69'er. I rode this bike a lot. The DUC32 fork was reduced to 120mm, and the rear travel remained at 6.5". This bike was fun to ride. I was all ready for this great rollover quality that a 29" wheel was supposed to supply, and that was evident. However, I was perhaps more surprised about the turning quality this bike exhibited. I thought it would be more wheelbarrow-like, but it wasn't. The bike had to be leaned more aggressively in turns, but it would take that aggressive leaning with authority. I'm used to dirt motorcycles, so I'm used to aggressive leaning into corners. If you can't bring yourself to lean aggressively on a dirt motor, you won't turn with any great authority. That WTB Weirwolf 2.55 tire bit like an alligator. I was impressed. The 26" rear still provided that "whip-around" quality that I don't find as evident in a full 29'er. To me, the 29'er front and rear start changing the character of the bike's handling a little too much, much less the loss of quick spin-up of the 26'er. Many riders don't have this experience, but I do...hence the reason for options...options are nice.

Ultimately what I didn't like about the 69'er is the loss of travel in the fork. On most trails, this was not an issue, but as things got extremely technical and rocky, the loss of travel was noticeable and not made up for by the taller wheel. It wasn't horrible, but the 26" wheel up front with the long travel actually made a more positive impact IMO. This is why I'm thinking that 29'ers will be more applicable to the 3-4" travel range, but that's not set in concrete either. There are some impressive attempts at long travel AM/DH bikes with 29" wheels, but I think most agree that they are freight trains in terms of changing direction. On the right trail or DH course, this could be great, but I notice a fair degree of flickability being required even on many DH courses. Horses for courses, as they say.

So, my assessment is that 69'ers are indeed quite flickable...surprisingly. The 26" rear wheel keeps the back end more fluid, and the 29'er front when leaned aggressively provides great traction and carving quality. Some of this will depend on the frame and fork with which it is combined, but I think the 69'er has real merit despite the endless wringing of hands by some 29'er ideologs.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,849 Posts
A bike with the right geometry can be nimble regardless of wheel size. Any idea how much extra energy it takes to pivot a 29er rear wheel vs a 26"? Me neither, because it's a tiny, imperceptible amount.

26 on the rear isn't ideal because you get a rougher ride, greater rolling resistance, and less traction. BUT, if it's the only affordable way for you to get the right geometry, then go for it. I'm pretty certain you'll like it more than 26/26 or a long-wheelbase 29er.

From best to worst , IMO:

short-wlbs 29er
29/650
29/26
26/26 and long wlbs 29/29
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
986 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 · (Edited)
For years all I rode were 26" dj bikes. I would even put the seat WAY up and do FS road climbs and bomb singletrack. I moved up to a Transition Covert a couple years ago to get a 'real' AM bike. First "squishy" bike I ever owned, and the first bike with gears I had owned in years!

I love the covert, it is honestly a blast to ride. The suspension is supple and the gears make life easier. I can climb like a madman and rail the trails on the way down.

I am burnt out on it though. I miss the simplicity of a HT and singlespeed. No noise, no breakage, no nuthin. That in of itself is a winner. I have enough bike skill so that squish is not necessary, usually. Sometimes I go slower through certain sections, but to me that is what it is. I don't ride a moto mtn bike that makes up for my lack of skill by pushing through obstacles.

Heres a pic of my dj bike in its current set up:





My buddy Oscar at simple built it a few months back to replace another Simple that I had been abusing for years.

I think I am going to ask him to apply the dj geo to a 29er frame. I'll ride it ss but cheat with a hammershmidt and a joplin seatpost. Should be a fun build! Need to get funds in order.

Until I can build this puppy I am going to put my 36 Talas on a buddies Surly 1x1 and rail it!

I appreciate the comments, they help me sort through the BS and the truth. The 69 is appealing to me. If for anything else, the short CS and the big front end. I don't know however if I can achieve what I want with a full 29er.

Like alot of people have said, and I agree, it won't really matter once I get it, cause I'll just ride it with a smile on my face.

Before I drop the cash I want it to be good and have no regrets one way or another
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top