Comprendo this...29'er pretty well suck at long travel AM style bikes for most folks. It's not their strong suite at all. The long travel 29'ers that exist are freakin' freight trains.
Well, eight years ago you would say the same about first inroads into XC in SS style and would laugh about GF trekking bikes with fattish tyres. I deem that the same applies here- read AM 29ers for 2010 are freight trains but what about 2020 am 29ers? Remeber first xc 29ers from 2001 and '02 and current 2011 ones? Do you grasp the difference?
That's not a slam at the 29'er concept, however, as the true advantage of the 29'er lies in its wheel size and wheel size alone.
I think you just negated that above, but it's just me.
A 29'er wheel and long travel are not synonymous. There is a different quality gained by both approaches, but a bigger wheel doesn't translate directly into a certain amount of travel as many would like to claim.
When I recall the first suspension on 26ers, there were some articles saying that a 120-130mm forks are only for going down and are impossible to climb on. Also all FS frame were considered DH only! You are just taking the footsteps of history, repeating the same myths.
Think negaive riser handlebars to get the them low enough for short people. Insanity, but hey are they any flat bars already in use and negative stems, why not go further. You said something about open mind...
Yes, there is a rolling quality to a 29'er, and it is similar to more travel in certain types of terrain, but when things get more extreme, travel is king...unless you're trying to run 20" wheels, of course.
So there is a large room for improvemnt in the frames and negative risers for the "lowness" of handlebar.
650B is the tallest wheel you can run while maintaining the relative excellent geometry of the 26'er and the long travel suspension of a 26'er.
No. 26er geometry is excellent for a 26er so a 29er needs another one, varying... and 26er one is little point of reference. It's merely the one we are accustomed to since 70'ties but it's not the best for 29er.
Not everyone wants or needs the long travel of an AM bike, so the 29'er may be a good choice for those folks.
You wouldn't have said that overall about 29ers in the early days, would you? So how can you know if you don't say it about future am 29ers?
Not everyone wants the geometry and wheel size of the 29'er, and this is where the 26'er or 650B gives the alternative.
Hmm who wants more rolling resistance and less traction and proness to endoing and hight centre of gravity? I'm examining covring a lot of miles or kilometers not flying in the air.
I do know that when you start going above 650B, the bike starts changing in character and performance
That's obvious, I guess you're implying that 26er design is somehow imtelling and to be copied or something. 559mm rim came into mtb by accident. The third paragraph.
These bikes had smaller rims (559mm) than the more popular 700c road bikes but had much larger tires. There was a good reason for that, too. These bikes were being built by Schwinn and others for 10- to 16-year-olds to use, jumping curbs, riding through empty lots full of gopher holes and weeds
...not necessarily bad or good depending on what fits your riding style, preference, and physiology.
The best wheel size for rolling and covering mileage is the biggest you can fit into the frame and that is reached when the headset touches your chin. Remeber negative risers and negative stems? What is wrong in having the handlebar below the headset? More sloping frames. I guess a 32er and 36ers can be saddled by 5'6" persons using these inventions. Of course 26er technology solves nothing. Think outside the box.
I don't understand what your problem is, DC.
This is my problem. I'm serious
And what's with your comment about a quick fix for the 26'er?
I think they call it "improvement"...advancement...thinking outside the box...trying something new.
And I call it not being able to design a righteous 29er owing to being cofined to 26er designs and proportions and insisting on introducing something new without too much effort and investment. What's wrong about this see the ling in the previous quote.
The point with 650B is that it can get the most of what is basically a 26'er without throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Why ought we to stick to 26er geometry and proportions? Again consult the link above.
My thought is that all bikes in the 26'er frame range could probably be designed to run both wheel sizes interchageably without much ado as time and frame upgrades and new designs come from the different manufacturers.
Agreed but it is not substitute for a 29er.