29ers...here to stay or fade away?

[Ox_Wagon]

OX Wagon' date=' 29er feel nice because of their long wheel base.

 

Same difference can be felt if you take a long wheel base bakkie and short wheel base bakkie on a 4x4 course. The long wheel base feels better because you are further from the wheels.

 

Notice the wheels size there is the same at 13" with 80 profile tyres

[/quote']

 

It was interesting to ride the Scalpel with 2.0? tires after the 29er with 2.25? tires.  The acceleration was amazing  but you did feel more of the trail undulations.   <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 

So, as in all things it will depend what you looking for in a bike.  I am more of a long wheelbase bakkie with high profile tire kind of person .  

Ox_Wagon2009-12-02 06:41:15

[_Daemon_]

 

All I can say to Johan is ride one before you take it apart on engineering mumbo jumbo...

 

I cannot wait for Johan to design...and build a bike, it surely will be one of the most amazing bikes ever!

 

[GoLefty!!]

I can do science me' date=' and I can see the benefits scientifically...[/quote']

 

 

thats like saying, the Earth looks flat therefore it is...

 

there may be science behind possible benefits to 29ers but it has nothing to do with the wheels.

[Johan Bornman]

All I can say to Johan is ride one before you take it apart on engineering mumbo jumbo...

 

And then you go on to say you understand the science behind it.  Maybe you do, maybe you don't, but you are yet to present it.

 

I think quite a few people here will smirk at you equating engineering with mumbo jumbo. It is after all, the exact opposite of mumbo jumbo. As a self-professed scientist you should rephrase that.  

 

Futher...and this goes for the other sarky posters here too, I never shot down 29ers. I shot down all the silly theorists post-rationalising their existence.

 

I haven't tried one and you'd have noticed that I have not commented as if I had. But that doesn't disqualify me shouting foul when crap is posted, regurgitated and invented on the spot.

 

 

 

[Johan Bornman]

Mr. Bornman' date=' I am also skeptical about all the marketing speak (and still am).  <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 

So at the last ?Ride before you buy? I made a point to ride the two Gary Fisher 29ers (HT and full sussers).  I first rode the 26? HIFI and was not very impressed I prefer the Zula/Anthem X/Scalpel.  I then got hold of the HIFI 29er and there was a big difference.   It really felt  as it kept its speed better and it was smoother (Very unscientific, I know ). 

 

The one reason, and I am reluctant to mention it due to ?logical? conclusion it may lead to, may be the larger diameter, slightly heavier wheel that has a ?higher? flywheel effect. 

 

No it doesn?t mean it is a good idea to add weights to your wheels or the ?perpetual motion? sliding weights on the spokes idea.   

 

 The big negative is that it will effect you acceleration. 

 

I think <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Santa Cruz summed it up nicely in their write up on the Fatboy: ?Long haul trucker?.

 

If you want a fast accelerating XC bike go for the 26?.  If you want a marathon/stage race/24hr bike have a look at a 29er. 

 

I think you can extend the idea the relative merits of low profile climbing road wheels and heavier ?aero? wheel sets for a hill stage vs a TT.   

[/quote']

 

Oxie, I think you are a voice of reason.

[Johan Bornman]

All I can say to Johan is ride one before you take it apart on engineering mumbo jumbo...

I cannot wait for Johan to design...and build a bike' date=' it surely will be one of the most amazing bikes ever!
[/quote']

 

Nudge nudge, wink wink, , I have actually done so, about five years ago.

 

Since I'm no great welder, my materials were limited to steel. I spent 6 months cutting out long-finger lugs to a classic Fleur de Lys design. I then struggled with all the variables in what the larnies here call "geometry". I had to decide on chainstay length (I went for maximum length the tubeset allowed), head tube angles, fork blade curves, offset, BB drop and all that. I researched all this for months and broke my head over each little detail. I then built a jig, silver-soldered the Columbus Neuron tubes and took it to African Electroplaters to chrome the lugs. They dipped the frame in some corrosive acid and it ate away my frame - huge holes in all the thin tubes. They didn't tell me about this and stalled me.

 

After extensive delays I suspected something wrong and drove over to the company in Industria. I caught some idiot in the act of trying to solder close the holes. I klapped him on the ear (I kid you not) and freaked out. The owner kindly agreed to compensate me by buying me another tubeset. He couldn't pay for the labour on the lugs and I then attempted to save the lugs. Being cast iron and thick, most of them survived the acid accident.

 

I then build a second frame using the same jig and most of the lugs. I couldn't save the fork lugs and re-made them all over again. The old fork is now an elegant toilet roll holder in my workshop garage. It still has the acid holes to remind me of African Electroplaters.

 

I didn't chrome the lugs this time and had it painted SEVERAL times, even taking it to Cycleart twice. No-one in this country can paint a lugged frame. Period.

 

It is now a boring blue and I ride it all the time.

 

Is it one of the most amazing bikes ever? Of course. It has internal cable routing, long-reach brakes so that I can fit mudguards between the tyre and fork and run 32mm tyres if I want. It has lugs for carriers (I did a few tours with panniers and stuff), it has super long chainstays, a straight blade fork, special lugs for mounting my panga and the bicycle version of vanity plates - my initials engraved in some of the lugs.

 

You are welcome to come ride it, crit it and write about it.

 

But I guess this is not what you wanted to hear. My experience with designing this single bike is that most of the design talk is bullsh*t. All this talk about geometry, wheelbase, climbing this, accelleration that is nonsense. At the extremes of the envelope these issues can make a difference but talking about lower centre of gravity without realising that it means your pedals wont clear around corners is just nonsense and I'll point it out when it comes my way.

 

Thank you for your interest.

 

[Flowta]

 

All I can say to Johan is ride one before you take it apart on engineering mumbo jumbo...

 

I cannot wait for Johan to design...and build a bike' date=' it surely will be one of the most amazing bikes ever!

[/quote']

 

Nudge nudge, wink wink, , I have actually done so, about five years ago.

 

Since I'm no great welder, my materials were limited to steel. I spent 6 months cutting out long-finger lugs to a classic Fleur de Lys design. I then struggled with all the variables in what the larnies here call "geometry". I had to decide on chainstay length (I went for maximum length the tubeset allowed), head tube angles, fork blade curves, offset, BB drop and all that. I researched all this for months and broke my head over each little detail. I then built a jig, silver-soldered the Columbus Neuron tubes and took it to African Electroplaters to chrome the lugs. They dipped the frame in some corrosive acid and it ate away my frame - huge holes in all the thin tubes. They didn't tell me about this and stalled me.

 

After extensive delays I suspected something wrong and drove over to the company in Industria. I caught some idiot in the act of trying to solder close the holes. I klapped him on the ear (I kid you not) and freaked out. The owner kindly agreed to compensate me by buying me another tubeset. He couldn't pay for the labour on the lugs and I then attempted to save the lugs. Being cast iron and thick, most of them survived the acid accident.

 

I then build a second frame using the same jig and most of the lugs. I couldn't save the fork lugs and re-made them all over again. The old fork is now an elegant toilet roll holder in my workshop garage. It still has the acid holes to remind me of African Electroplaters.

 

I didn't chrome the lugs this time and had it painted SEVERAL times, even taking it to Cycleart twice. No-one in this country can paint a lugged frame. Period.

 

It is now a boring blue and I ride it all the time.

 

Is it one of the most amazing bikes ever? Of course. It has internal cable routing, long-reach brakes so that I can fit mudguards between the tyre and fork and run 32mm tyres if I want. It has lugs for carriers (I did a few tours with panniers and stuff), it has super long chainstays, a straight blade fork, special lugs for mounting my panga and the bicycle version of vanity plates - my initials engraved in some of the lugs.

 

You are welcome to come ride it, crit it and write about it.

 

But I guess this is not what you wanted to hear. My experience with designing this single bike is that most of the design talk is bullsh*t. All this talk about geometry, wheelbase, climbing this, accelleration that is nonsense. At the extremes of the envelope these issues can make a difference but talking about lower centre of gravity without realising that it means your pedals wont clear around corners is just nonsense and I'll point it out when it comes my way.

 

Thank you for your interest.

 

 

Building my own frame is my "To do" list

 

[techguy]

Well done Johan for trying, However what you have described (Imay be wrong) gives me a picture of what Terry Dolan, Claud Butler and other frame builders in the UK call a winter traing bike, steel with mud guards, and relaxed geometry to do long base miles on...

 

I have painted lugged frames in the past, but for what one can charge is restrictive for the amount of time it takes to do properly.

 

You can buy premade lugs from tiawan...and frames from steel are traditionally brazed and not welded.

 

Just my 2c

[GoLefty!!]

per Bornman,...snip.........snip........snip

 

"I researched all this for months and broke my head over each little

detail. I then built a jig, silver-soldered the Columbus Neuron tubes

and took it to African Electroplaters to chrome the lugs."

 

 

nuff said.

 

 

well done for getting this right. I once visited Terry Dolan to have an Old Bianchi frame restored.  arrived at their Liverpool factory and after introductions he showed me around.

Then the cheap scoucer made me repair my own darn frame.

It was an education in silver solder as I had the frame stays widdened to accomodate a 130mm hub. You see Columbus SLX has quite a bit of tension in it so when you cram a 130mm hub between 126mm stays you do compress thigns a little and the wheel just won't align.

So in went a new brake bridge.

 

Smoothed down my soldering and tested the job. Strong enough, he took the frame for stripping and preparation for painting.

I collected it a week later for the princely sum of GBP200-00.

 

expensive? Nah, I had that Bianchi since 1995 and it now resides under the bum of a development rider in the Velokhaya group. If you see it (it's balcks and celeste in the colours of t)hat team that Ullrich rode for one year.

 

I agree all the geometry stuff is nonsense all things considered, but it does change the way a bike feels and that is important to some.

 

E.G. I was out at the Morewood laucnh over the weekend. I hopped on the new production Zula and after the first bend I realised they had changed something.

The head angle was slackedn by half a degree. makes a big difference to the handling by slowing down the steering just a tad.

 

[Thug]

I once visited Terry Dolan to have an Old Bianchi frame restored.? arrived at their Liverpool factory and after introductions he showed me around.Then the cheap scoucer made me ......

 

 

 

 

Not all of us Scousers are cheap

[Eldron]

 

Yes' date=' the 29-er has a lower rolling resistance.....0.00009% lower. What problem does this solve?

 

What does "roll faster" mean?

 

The attack angle. Puhleeeze. Has he done the comparison. I think not, 'cause he would ahve found that the only time it would make a difference is if you want to ride into a 400mm rock.

 

I like the bit about "once you get the wheels moving". It sounds like it is difficult to do so.

 

Nevertheless he then goes on to talk about "Where the axles are situated." I think he means "the axles are higher". But this is neither here nor there, since then talks a whole bunch of nonsense about lower centre of gravity. If the bottom brackets on both bikes are the same distance from the ground, then the centres of gravity of the same rider on either bike will be the same. Technically he's talking crap. Practically he's talking crap too.

 

BB height (or BB drop) is determined by how easy you want to make it for the rider to put a foot out and touch the road. On a MTB you want to balance it with ground clearance. Those of us who have road and MTBs will know that MTBs are not so lekker in the traffic because you need a looooong leg to stop at robots.

 

29ers don't turn better at speed. This is based on a stupid premise. The turning feel will be determined by the fork offset.

 

In summary, our friend the leading 29er advocate has not made a single point for moving to 29 inch bikes.

 

[/quote']

 

As you would undoubtedly know - the bigger the difference between the size of the wheel and the size of the object it's hitting the better the contact angle. A 29" wheel is 11.5% bigger than a 26" wheel - this is significant enough to produce a meaningful difference.

 

For me this is the biggest reason for buying a 29er. The rest of the faux science could help but no-one will ever put any money or effort into coming up with difinitive numbers...

 

Johan - try one. After your whoops of joy you'll be finding scientific reasons to agree with the data and stop playing devis advocate.

 

 

 

[GoLefty!!]

 

 

Yes' date=' the 29-er has a lower rolling resistance.....0.00009% lower. What problem does this solve?

 

What does "roll faster" mean?

 

The attack angle. Puhleeeze. Has he done the comparison. I think not, 'cause he would ahve found that the only time it would make a difference is if you want to ride into a 400mm rock.

 

I like the bit about "once you get the wheels moving". It sounds like it is difficult to do so.

 

Nevertheless he then goes on to talk about "Where the axles are situated." I think he means "the axles are higher". But this is neither here nor there, since then talks a whole bunch of nonsense about lower centre of gravity. If the bottom brackets on both bikes are the same distance from the ground, then the centres of gravity of the same rider on either bike will be the same. Technically he's talking crap. Practically he's talking crap too.

 

BB height (or BB drop) is determined by how easy you want to make it for the rider to put a foot out and touch the road. On a MTB you want to balance it with ground clearance. Those of us who have road and MTBs will know that MTBs are not so lekker in the traffic because you need a looooong leg to stop at robots.

 

29ers don't turn better at speed. This is based on a stupid premise. The turning feel will be determined by the fork offset.

 

In summary, our friend the leading 29er advocate has not made a single point for moving to 29 inch bikes.

 

[/quote']

 

As you would undoubtedly know - the bigger the difference between the size of the wheel and the size of the object it's hitting the better the contact angle. A 29" wheel is 11.5% bigger than a 26" wheel - this is significant enough to produce a meaningful difference.

 

For me this is the biggest reason for buying a 29er. The rest of the faux science could help but no-one will ever put any money or effort into coming up with difinitive numbers...

 

Johan - try one. After your whoops of joy you'll be finding scientific reasons to agree with the data and stop playing devis advocate.

 

 

 

 

 

I think you need to stop now. You sound like a pentecostal preacher shouting the word without knowing why.

 

11% better, really? what does that mean. Better how? 11% less suspension, 11% faster compression on the fork, 11% lower angle?

 

I remind you that the profile of the compression provdes a graph under which the work done lies. The profile of the graphs of a 26er and 29 er look exactly the same as the object being traversed is exactly the same therefore the work done is similar, therefore a 29er is not better. Its just a big wheel that flexes more and helps you think its' eating the bumps better.

maybe theres psychological value in that same as there is in super light weight wheels vs normal 1500gr wheels

 

[Flowta]

 

 

Yes' date=' the 29-er has a lower rolling resistance.....0.00009% lower. What problem does this solve?

 

What does "roll faster" mean?

 

The attack angle. Puhleeeze. Has he done the comparison. I think not, 'cause he would ahve found that the only time it would make a difference is if you want to ride into a 400mm rock.

 

I like the bit about "once you get the wheels moving". It sounds like it is difficult to do so.

 

Nevertheless he then goes on to talk about "Where the axles are situated." I think he means "the axles are higher". But this is neither here nor there, since then talks a whole bunch of nonsense about lower centre of gravity. If the bottom brackets on both bikes are the same distance from the ground, then the centres of gravity of the same rider on either bike will be the same. Technically he's talking crap. Practically he's talking crap too.

 

BB height (or BB drop) is determined by how easy you want to make it for the rider to put a foot out and touch the road. On a MTB you want to balance it with ground clearance. Those of us who have road and MTBs will know that MTBs are not so lekker in the traffic because you need a looooong leg to stop at robots.

 

29ers don't turn better at speed. This is based on a stupid premise. The turning feel will be determined by the fork offset.

 

In summary, our friend the leading 29er advocate has not made a single point for moving to 29 inch bikes.

 

[/quote']

 

As you would undoubtedly know - the bigger the difference between the size of the wheel and the size of the object it's hitting the better the contact angle. A 29" wheel is 11.5% bigger than a 26" wheel - this is significant enough to produce a meaningful difference.

 

For me this is the biggest reason for buying a 29er. The rest of the faux science could help but no-one will ever put any money or effort into coming up with difinitive numbers...

 

Johan - try one. After your whoops of joy you'll be finding scientific reasons to agree with the data and stop playing devis advocate.

 

 

 

 

 

I think you need to stop now. You sound like a pentecostal preacher shouting the word without knowing why.

 

11% better, really? what does that mean. Better how? 11% less suspension, 11% faster compression on the fork, 11% lower angle?

 

I remind you that the profile of the compression provdes a graph under which the work done lies. The profile of the graphs of a 26er and 29 er look exactly the same as the object being traversed is exactly the same therefore the work done is similar, therefore a 29er is not better. Its just a big wheel that flexes more and helps you think its' eating the bumps better.

maybe theres psychological value in that same as there is in super light weight wheels vs normal 1500gr wheels

 

He never said better, he said bigger

 

[Johan Bornman]

 

As you would undoubtedly know - the bigger the difference between the size of the wheel and the size of the object it's hitting the better the contact angle. A 29" wheel is 11.5% bigger than a 26" wheel - this is significant enough to produce a meaningful difference.

 

For me this is the biggest reason for buying a 29er. The rest of the faux science could help but no-one will ever put any money or effort into coming up with difinitive numbers...

  

 

He never said better' date=' he said bigger

 

[/quote']

 

I think he did say better. It was just in politician-speak. The entire argument from the 29-er brigade is about better.

 

[GoLefty!!]

whatever, 11.5% bigger produces a meaningful difference implies that it's better.

What is the meaningful difference. Is it the same as if you believe you will recieve teh riches of heaven.

I believe I will win the lotto but I am yet to do so...

 

so what is the meaningful difference. Oh hold on, its just a meaningful feeling.

Sort of like waking up in the morning getting a hard on and feeling relieved that it still works.

 

Like I implied in a ride report 2 yrs ago, the 29er is nice, the designers have designed the latest frames so that they are no longer a hinderance to the rider. Are they better than 26er's? I believe I said that I would not be replacing a 26er for a 29er but that a 29er would be nice to have in the stable simply because its different.

 

In those 2 yrs, 26er design ha moved on as well so that the choice now is one of frame fit and vanity, not technical superiority of a big wheel.

 

You asked me about why 29er s create inferior frames.

 

to accomodate a bigger wheel the frame needs longer seat stays and chainstays and a longer fork. Both of these exhibit more deflection at the ends of the members than does a 26er. to control deflection the designer has to through more material further from the bending axis. This adds weigt which they claw back by using thinner sections of material which has higher stress.

Higher levels of bending affects the pivot points of the suspension members.

On longer travel bikes the clearance for teh front wheel is important and the only way to achieve this is to curve teh downtube in ways that limits the triangulation at the headtube. The longer fork legs places higher stress on the headtube of these bikes where typically there is inferior junction.  The only way around this is a 1.5 headtube but i don;t see many 29ers with this...

 

650B offers a suitable compromise between limits in frame design and comfort offered by bigger more flexible wheels.

It allows for a only slightly higher bendign stresses at frame junctions and pivots so it's a better compromise for full sussers.

 

 

 

[Wyatt Earp]

Gentleman let me conclude this for you, it's better to admit to ignorance than to resort to quasi-technical bluffing.