|   Some Bike magazine food for thought... | dcm311
Dec 29, 2003 4:08 PM | | I was searching for a source for a new set of lowers for my broken Marathon and this was one of the first hits on my "Marzocchi Marathon S 29 lowers" search. I don't know if anyone's seen it, but as far as I'm concerned I glad the rags are bashing 29ers. If everyone rode one, we wouldn't have an advantage.
BTW, the Mt. Tam I was going to part out came today and it's in near new condition. They guy didn't even ride it. I may sell the whole thing to a friend of mine, but if that falls through I'll get out a price list to everyone who requested it.
Cheers,
Daniel
Q: Jasen,
What's your take on 29" wheels? Do you think the racing crowd (or any other subset of the mountain bike family) will pick up on the concept, or is Pops the only one who thinks this idea will eventually gain any traction (so to speak)?
Have you had a chance to put some Crank Brothers Eggbeaters through their paces? Are they Atac killers, or just a cool concept that needs work?
Have fun,
Steve Rempel
Mountain View CA
A: 29in wheels frustrate me to no end. It's already tough to make bikes with reasonable geometry for small riders. 29in wheels make the problem even worse, requiring taller forks and taller rear triangles than their 26in counterparts. To accommodate the increased fork height, without increasing handlebar height, manufacturers have to decrease the headtube length. Meaning, the fork has more leverage over the frame, and the frame has to be made beefier (heavier) to have the same strength as a 26in-wheeled bike.
Beyond that, the 29ers we've ridden haven't shown us a performance advantage except, perhaps, on smooth, straight trails. I'm not sure what that proves. Maybe that road bikes should have bigger wheels or something.
Last, what I find most amazing about the 29in wheel thing is the relative lack of testing behind it. No one has come to us and said, "Hey, we tested these bikes with 26in wheels and these bikes with 29in wheels, in these conditions and found the 29in wheel to be better for X, X, and X situations, and stronger in X, X, and X situation and." The choice of 29in (700c) seems to be as arbitrary as the initial choice of 26in wheels for mountain bikes - it's based on parts availability and the desire for a single rim size as a standard for adult bicycles. We haven't seen any evidence to support the assertion that 29in wheels are a better way to go, and we haven't felt much love for the 29ers we've ridden. |
| Sounds like some of Richard Cunninghams.... | martini
Dec 30, 2003 6:28 AM | | highly biased ranting to me.
requiring taller forks well, DUH! and taller rear triangles than their 26in counterparts HUH??. To accommodate the increased fork height, without increasing handlebar height, manufacturers have to decrease the headtube length. Meaning, the fork has more leverage over the frame, and the frame has to be made beefier (heavier) to have the same strength as a 26in-wheeled bike.Again, HUH??? Fisher frames aren't exactly heavy. Where does he come up with this sh!t? I realize he made some of the coolest bikes out there(Mantis), but this new job has totally clouded his judgement.
Speaking of Judgement:
Last, what I find most amazing about the 29in wheel thing is the relative lack of testing behind it. No one has come to us and said, "Hey, we tested these bikes with 26in wheels and these bikes with 29in wheels, in these conditions and found the 29in wheel to be better for X, X, and X situations, and stronger in X, X, and X situation and." The choice of 29in (700c) seems to be as arbitrary as the initial choice of 26in wheels for mountain bikes - it's based on parts availability and the desire for a single rim size as a standard for adult bicycles. We haven't seen any evidence to support the assertion that 29in wheels are a better way to go, and we haven't felt much love for the 29ers we've ridden. Why don't you guys do it? You're an "impartial" part of the media that's SUPPOSED to test stuff like this, not a 'biased' manufacturer. Not that I'd put much wieght behind a test like this done by MBA. |
| Sounds like some of Richard Cunninghams.... | Cloxxki
Dec 30, 2003 7:04 AM | | I think one of the best bets would be the German bike press. They have a very thourough testing method, and already often do rolling resistance test. They wouldn't see much difficulty in computer modelling all weight and force differences to a change in lap time.
Once I somehow get (also German) Schwalbe to join in and make tires, things could start "rolling". They have very sophisticated measuring equipment (used by the local magazines) and could use this to promote their new "findings" and sell tires.
The 26" Fast Fred and Racing Racing are probably faster than any 29" tire in present existence (rolling over smooth surface), but their 29" syblings would be a true impulse for global mountainbiking. |
| Actually I think it's Jasen Thorpe | MTJ
Dec 30, 2003 7:07 AM | | First off, it's too coherent and well spoken to have been written by Cunningham.
Secondly, the guy who wrote the question addressed it to Jasen.
Whoever it is, though, I totally agree with your assessment. |
| duh! yep Jasen t'is... | martini
Dec 30, 2003 7:35 AM | | My bad. I'm used to bashing MBA since MB folded. I'm just not used to thier drivel. |
| They're not totally wrong about the short headtubes... | ss jimbo
Dec 30, 2003 1:00 PM | | A longer fork combined with a shorter headtube does require a stronger frame in that location. I have seen a number of 26" bikes with headtubes sheared off. A longer lever working on a shorter head tube will just exacerbate (sic?) that issue. This is certainly a valid concern.
I know I am happy that the headtube on Matt's bikes are chunky ti. I would be very wary of thin tubed steel, especially for ovalizing.
As far as building for shorties, I'm 5'9" and have ~3" of space between my toes and my tire with 175mm cranks and a 72 deg HA. With the right build you would have to have really big feet or be really short to have problems with toe overlap. As for bar height, I can see a problem getting the bars low enough, but I'm in love with my new Salsa flat bars. Stonger, lighter, and just as wide as my old risers. And I think flat bars look kule.
jimbo |
| I'm surprised we haven't seen more use of Zero Stack headsets
| næstep
Dec 31, 2003 9:17 AM | | ...on 29" frames. Not only because they offer up a larger diameter head tube for larger weld area, but because of the lower stack height they offer.
Initially I was sure this would have been a "signature" of 29" frames.
næstep |
| Nishiki never even offered non-zero stack 29"ers | Cloxxki
Jan 3, 2004 3:50 AM | | Here in Europe zero-stack is actually common place now, various brands use it on their complete line-up.
For Nishiki, it at least partically makes up for they longish headtubes. Quite uninteresting to USA resisdents now because of $/ rates, but the Nishiki line-up looks a lot more mature for 2004. www.29inch.com
Still, it seems they use the same frame drawings for the hardtails as the rigids. Nishiki 2003 bikes are reported to handle well especially when fitted with short rigid forks, as if they were given way too slack angles in their original hardtail design.
Nishiki for 2004 also has a very interesting looking FS bike, adjustable travel, the works. |
| keep searching on bike mag | john voss
Dec 30, 2003 8:19 AM | | and you will see jason revisited the issue after some energetic feedback from several people on this board including me. He ended up saying that it makes sense if you are a big guy (which I agree with)
THanks
-jv |
| |
