[goneskiian]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/mtb.php?id=news/2006/mar06/mar03mtbnews
I think Dave's been in here sharing his results with us before. Not sure if he was very well recieved though.

Anyway, thought you all might like to read about his most recent test at Old Pueblo.

If I missed a previous thread about this I apologize as I did a rudimentary scan of the most recent topics and I know this just came up on Cyclingnews in the last couple hours.

Cheers!
-Ian

 

[Cloxxki]

That's what I would say if I were riding my 29"er at that level

I remember 29" virgins reporting they were pedaling down hill the normally were lucky to clean without injury. I can imagine this extra energy used may bring average power up some, but hardly affect laptimes. And I can't help but think that a good FS bike may suit his riding better, cornering better, decending faster with less effort, etc.
If one bike has a whole different character, it may bring the rider to ride it differently. With singlespeeding, I've found how many pedalstrokes I can just leave out, and still stay with the guy I'm chasing. The SS thing to me was so exhausting, I used all my brain power to make me go the same speed with the minimal energy. Less braking, more risks, smooth lines, etc. On one bike I can feel superman in a knife's edge of perfection, on another I just turn the pedals and hope for it to stop soon.

 

[ssmike]

And I can't help but think that a good FS bike may suit his riding ...

FWIW, the old pueblo course is pretty smooth - a cyclocross bike would easily be at home on it.

 

[funkenstein]

hogwash

that's a crap test. the suspension design between the 2 bikes could cause that much of a difference. it could be the suspension design just as much as the wheel size. I am disturbed that cyclingnews would publish such a crap test.

 

[stonedead]

As a purely scientific observation, it seems difficult to compare a active suspension bike (the fuel) to a soft tail bike. I seem to remember that Velonews did a test with a 26" and 29" bike, both being the same design (Lenzsport). At least, that test design would eliminate any discrepancies between the bikes. However, I can't remember what exactly they found. He does state in the article that it's only a test of his riding of the bikes, not 29"ers as a whole.

 

[Salsa Cycles]

Ouch

Yeah, this is a good one...Especially since they name our brand and bike model and the team is sponsored by TREK. To Dave's credit, he did say he bought both bikes. Still kind of stinks. I wish I had all the data, both for bike spec and race data. I do understand that based on his results on his bikes and set up, the data is what it is. One note though, it looks like from his blog his conclusion is based on only 2 laps with the Dos. I may be wrong here as it's sort of hard to make out the colored dots.

The good news though, is that this article has given me an inspiration to build up some Power Tap wheels and ride them all year. Even though I almost exclusively ride my Dos Niner, there are times where I'm required to ride my little wheel bike too. This will give me an opportunity to ride both and do some of my own comparisons.

On a side note, I offered Cycling News a Dos Niner to do a more conclusive, unbiased test that wasn't based on a single location.

Jason
Salsa Crew

 

[WBMB]

I would also add that of the two bikes he had obviously spent more time on the Trek as it was his normal race bike. You take anyone's trusty race machine and put them on a bike that they have less time on and I find it as no surprise that he was better on his Fuel. I would also agree that it is hard to compare a full suspension bike to a soft tail, kinda apples and oranges.

 

[OneGearGuy]

As a purely scientific observation, it seems difficult to compare a active suspension bike (the fuel) to a soft tail bike. I seem to remember that Velonews did a test with a 26" and 29" bike, both being the same design (Lenzsport). At least, that test design would eliminate any discrepancies between the bikes. However, I can't remember what exactly they found. He does state in the article that it's only a test of his riding of the bikes, not 29"ers as a whole.

That's what I am thinking. He needs to compare that Fuel to the upcomming Intense Spyder 29er if you ask me. Too dissimilar of a comparison but I still think it's cool he went through the trouble to do it.

OGG

 

[mwr]

If you just want to focus on the effects of wheel size, do a rigid vs. rigid comparison to eliminate suspension variables altogether.

 

[Cloxxki]

I get to compare all my 29"er to a 26" hardtail I know like my own back pocket on an almost weekly basis. My buddy rides a VooDoo that was the first hardtail (non-rigid, non-FS) bike I ever rode. When I built it for him in 1999, and rode it around the block, it freaked me out and months later I had two of them. I got him into lending it to me for all races I had to ride until my own VooDoo HT was done. So, I regard the 26" bike as quick.
The 26" bike rolls like mad, but it always on a worn 2.35" Fast Fred rear and a 2.4" Racing Ralph front. Tires we in 29" land can only dream of.
But every corner, every downhill, every bump in the trail, every hill, the 26" bike is plain cumbersome compared to whichever 29" bike I brung that day. We always do multiple short laps, and tend to swap a couple times so he can give his opinion on whatever I changed to my setup.
Over a 16min lap stuffed totally with singletrack corners, I regard 29" as 20s faster, and this is with much slower tires even. No Powertaps to back it up, yet. I'm building a 700c wheel, some time.

I can't help but think, that if it wasn't the tires or suspension, Dave pedalled harder on the Dos where it was no use. Perhaps some more elaborate coasting cost bring the average power down by a couple percent without a notable time penalty.

Best to compare would be 2 rigid bikes. Nothing to adjust. Geometry and tires so similar that thay almost ride like the same bike.

Last night at the park, 1" of snow, I found a good way to compare maximum grip levels between 2 bikes. In the middle of a grass field, sat a perfectly circular labyrith. Grass around it was very smooth and consistent. Max speed when riding around the labyrith was limited only by grip, not power, not air drag, not rolling resistance. There was no cutting the corners.
Let's say you ride a couple of laps around such an object, rolling start, that would be a great indicator of the bike's cornering potential. Mostly the tires, I think. I was riding Nano's, front a custom cut one. I understeered. Buddy oversteered, with that worn rear tire. I was faster this time, we didn't swap bikes. In such a test guts is a factor, but if you practice at it, most everyone should come close to the bike's maximum.

 

[AOK]

As a purely scientific observation, it seems difficult to compare a active suspension bike (the fuel) to a soft tail bike. I seem to remember that Velonews did a test with a 26" and 29" bike, both being the same design (Lenzsport). At least, that test design would eliminate any discrepancies between the bikes. However, I can't remember what exactly they found. He does state in the article that it's only a test of his riding of the bikes, not 29"ers as a whole.

Agreed. A test like this would be much more interesting if the bikes were closer to the same.

Something like Racer-X 26 vs Asylum 29, or Moots YBB 26 vs Moots YBB 29. Or similar 26/29 Fisher models.

 

[toddre]

I remember Brant at on-one saying that a Euro mag was doing a 26 v. 29 inbred story that should be coming up soon. That will be good... full suspension designs eliminated and the frames are the same

 

[chidDONG]

although I'm taking his comparison with a grain of salt I am a bit concerned about the results. I too am changing from a trek fuel (98, carbon frame) to a dos niner and I race as well. Hopefully the results won't be the same for me. If I end up being slower, I'll be totally bummed. I do have one advantage though and that is I think that the dos will be a pound or two lighter than my fuel so hopefully that will help balance out any power differential.

 

[Tbonius]

why?

Like I said before....it's interesting that he went to the trouble to test two bikes.....but in the end he really doesn't have any data that's worth while for any of us...and a lot of us ride 26" and 29".

Something bothers me regarding the negative source of why he started testing in the first place - but we don't need to get into that. I actually learned something new from that article also. It mentioned that he switched his 29er middle chainring to a smaller size? Why on earth would he do that?......He's engaged in way too many assumptions, and "normalizing" scenarios for anyone (including himself) to actually take the test seriously. It seems that he just wasted time.
He could've (and did) come to the same conclusions without wasting so much time. He just doesn't feel as fast on the 29er......and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. His test supports exactly how he feels.

 

[Cloxxki]

Tbonius, smaller chainrings for 29" are subject of discussion in probably 5-10% of all this forum. do a search, and read all about it

chidDONG, I don't think you have to be afraid to lose speed going to the Dos from your 26"er, although I must admit I don't have saddle time on either. 29"-specific riding style is required to get the best out of a 29" bike. 26" principles get you around the lap, but not quite as fast.
I discussed similar bike-topics of cranklength and drivetrains with a rider today, and he said that pro riders need to know a year in advance what their bike will be like to be worth anything on it, come D-Day. Pro's log loads of miles, and new stuff takes them lots of adjustment. Dave seems to be more than our average level of rider, so may also still have room for further acquaintance with the 29"er, where he probably has been on a plateau of bike handling skills when it comes to 26". I'm so tall that 26" is ridiculous for me, but it also took a couple of months to before I really got at 70% of the adjustment required. I'm rounding corners so much better now, I get to save loads of watts accelerating out of them.

Interestingly though, imagine if you get 1% faster around a lap just in the bike skill department, only won in the times you don't pedal (braking, descending, coasting). Lap time goes down, average power over the lap goes UP by 5%! Hmmm...

 

[Tbonius]

Tbonius, smaller chainrings for 29" are subject of discussion in probably 5-10% of all this forum. do a search, and read all about it

Dude..you spend so much time on this forum that I think you no longer comprehend the gist of anything.(kidding) I'm talking about a smaller chainring in the "context of testing", and how an individual is supposed to come to some objective conclusion when they are changing rings to "simulate gear ratios" etc...etc...

Bottom line is...as soon as you start "simulating"...."normalizing"....."interpreting" etc...then you may as well be up front and declare the test as completely devoid of anything......

hmmmmmm - it takes a pro a whole year huh.....hmmmmm

 

[discodave]

Fisher

I wish would do and publish a real world long term test. they have the perfect elements already in place, a paid pro team, identical 26 and 29in models both hardtail and full supension. To me this would not only be interesting it could be an advantage for marketing and their riders. Or if I was a conspriacy buff maybe they have already done a study and found that 26 are faster and they know this might hurt 29" sales. Of course thats if I was a conspiracy buff. To be fair it seems to me each bike has terrain that it excels and has comprimises in others.

 

[Cloxxki]

hmmmmmm - it takes a pro a whole year huh.....hmmmmm

As a matter of speaking, yes. They need a month to get used to a new chamois compound. I know a champ that took so long to get used to V-brakes that he never got to using them, swapped from canti's to discs.

My best friend took my first 29" bike to it's limit on first couple of seconds he rode it. He felt the bike, adjusted, and took off. Normal people may take weeks, retards like myself a couple months, pro's, well, maybe indeed a whole year

 

[shiggy]

Agreed. A test like this would be much more interesting if the bikes were closer to the same.

Something like Racer-X 26 vs Asylum 29, or Moots YBB 26 vs Moots YBB 29. Or similar 26/29 Fisher models.

or even his Fuel vs a Sugar 29er.

 

[Tbonius]

Hey...whatever you say Cloxxki.......

As a matter of speaking, yes. They need a month to get used to a new chamois compound. I know a champ that took so long to get used to V-brakes that he never got to using them, swapped from canti's to discs.

My best friend took my first 29" bike to it's limit on first couple of seconds he rode it. He felt the bike, adjusted, and took off. Normal people may take weeks, retards like myself a couple months, pro's, well, maybe indeed a whole year