29" wheels, why?
- Thread starter twister
- Start date
Help Support Rat Rod Bikes Bicycle Forum:
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
- Messages
- 12,545
- Reaction score
- 2,898
A larger wheel will roll over a larger object, also a larger wheel is capable of higher speed as the circumference is greater so you get a few more inches per revolution, on the downside a larger wheel requires more torque to get moving not to mention if you're short like me there are some obvious disadvantages. Also tires and tubes are more expensive.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
- Messages
- 12,545
- Reaction score
- 2,898
B607 said:
Yeah but do we ever use anything for what it was intended on this site? :mrgreen:
Many riders report that 29" wheel bikes (especially mountain bikes) feel more stable and roll over objects more smoothly
The recent surge of interest in rigid MTB's may have to do with the trend of most of them being 29ers nowadays
The recent surge of interest in rigid MTB's may have to do with the trend of most of them being 29ers nowadays
I will say this for 29" wheels: they're great off-road for the trails/style I ride. They rollover bumps and dips better, and they excel on everything except for extremely tight switchbacks. And, for singlespeed folks, if you run te same gear-inch as you do on a 26", you'll take off just as fast from a stand-still, and the bigger wheels definitely hold the momentum longer. Essentially, it's a bigger flywheel. The first part, re: trails, doesn't apply to cruisers... the second part, about momentum, does. 29" cruisers? I think much of it has to do with the novelty, and some good-ol'fashioned "bigger is better" sentiment.
Like I said, I see the benefits of 29" off-road, especially for SS. Still, I'm back to rolling 26" on trails. I'm just a traditionalist, I guess. But, I suspect the recent surge of interest in MTBs has more to do with a lot of folks getting sick of the expense, weight, inefficiency, maintenance needs, and complication of boingy bikes. I can only speak for myself, but I'm a confirmed rigid MTB guy. Basically always have been. Never owned a dual suspension bike; the few hardtails I've owned have received a rigid fork "upgrade". Might have to do with SS (a whole lot of bouncing while standing up, plus most rear suspension designs wreak havoc on chain tension), but even my geared mtb is full-rigid.
old_skool said:
Like I said, I see the benefits of 29" off-road, especially for SS. Still, I'm back to rolling 26" on trails. I'm just a traditionalist, I guess. But, I suspect the recent surge of interest in MTBs has more to do with a lot of folks getting sick of the expense, weight, inefficiency, maintenance needs, and complication of boingy bikes. I can only speak for myself, but I'm a confirmed rigid MTB guy. Basically always have been. Never owned a dual suspension bike; the few hardtails I've owned have received a rigid fork "upgrade". Might have to do with SS (a whole lot of bouncing while standing up, plus most rear suspension designs wreak havoc on chain tension), but even my geared mtb is full-rigid.
29" wheel bikes (cruisers and MTB's) are certainly an improvement for tall folks who can benefit from bigger bikes
Those extra large frames with 26" wheels never have looked right to me
I'm average height so all I have is 26" wheel bikes. I've ridden a couple of 29ers but haven't had the urge to buy one.
Those extra large frames with 26" wheels never have looked right to me
I'm average height so all I have is 26" wheel bikes. I've ridden a couple of 29ers but haven't had the urge to buy one.
B607 said:
At 5' 5" 26" bikes fit me good. Lol
twister said:
It's all relative, I'm 5'6" and as you can see from the pic below, my 29er actually has better standover until you get close to the head tube and because the bottom brackets end up about the same height the seat and bars are about exactly in the same position. The 29ers definitely have many advantages especially for MTB with really no downside, but for cruisers I don't think there's a compelling argument other than rider height.
Downsides to 29" for mtb is extra weight, weaker wheels (all other things being equal). Also, it "ups" the gearing, so you need to either live with that or look into a bigger cassette/smaller rings.
Unless you're racing the weight isn't usually a huge factor and there's not that big a difference anymore especially with hydro/air-formed Aluminum or the carbon frames(and wheels) between 26/29. I've had issues with wheels from the factory in both 26 and 29 usually no-name spoke breakage. Gearing really isn't that far apart, I run 24/36x12/36(10spd0 cassette on my RIP9 and 24/36x11/34(9spd) on my Iron Horse 7p3(which is my heaviest MTB at 50 pounds). My GT Peace 9R SS steel is within a couple pounds of my RIP9 even though it's got a lot more gear on it(derailleurs, suspension, dropper post), new RIPs are half pound lighter frame with air-formed tubing versus hydro.
The only distinct wheel weakness widely reported issue early on and one that hit me twice was rear hubs breaking especially with Shimano, they just couldn't handle the torque, from XT(not all models) on down. Here's what happens when 29er meets weak pawls, pretty much a brand new hub(525) left me with a fixie on the trail. Shimano later came out with 529/629 to address the issue.
The only distinct wheel weakness widely reported issue early on and one that hit me twice was rear hubs breaking especially with Shimano, they just couldn't handle the torque, from XT(not all models) on down. Here's what happens when 29er meets weak pawls, pretty much a brand new hub(525) left me with a fixie on the trail. Shimano later came out with 529/629 to address the issue.
The point is, essentially, if you take a 26" wheelset w/ the same exact number of spokes, in the same gauge, with the same extrusion for the wheels (say, sun mtx33 26" vs sun mtx33 29"), same hubs, same tires (say, nevegal 26x2.2" vs nevegal 29x2.2"), the 29 wheels/tires are going to weigh more. And, it's rotational weight, which is going to count for a lot more than dead weight. (Flipside: those bigger wheels will hold momentum longer; get going to like 15mph and coast, all other things being equal, the 29" will roll longer.) Also, the larger diameter wheels with longer spokes will be weaker, all other things being equal. The shimano hubs with upgraded freehub bodies also had modification to the hub flanges for added strength. (I've heard that a lot of shimano freehub bodies die young, even on 26" bikes. I've never had a problem,, but I'm more of a SS guy.)
As for gearing: like I said, I'm a SS guy. so, my usual 32x17 26" SS gearing went to a 32x19 for the 29" SS I used to run. NBD. But, I've read a bunch of articles and forum posts where guys were whining about gear ratios, which led to 29"-specific chainsets with smaller rings and 12-36t "29er" cassettes. With 10speeds taking over, with the 36t low gear being basically standard, that kinda solved itself. Again, NBD, but still one detracting factor(albeit one that's sort of going away).
BITD, early 29ers had awkward geometry and suffered from a lack of awesome rims and rubber variety. Nowadays, that's all gone (except that I suspect the small frames with 29" wheels prolly handle terribly.). But, there are still reasons why I love 26", and it saddens me to see 26" hardtails/rigids dying out. I like the snappy acceleration, the nimble handling, and the bombproof wheels. Still trying to figure out what my next mtb will be, and I may go with a 29er again... but I suspect I'll pick up a 26".
As for gearing: like I said, I'm a SS guy. so, my usual 32x17 26" SS gearing went to a 32x19 for the 29" SS I used to run. NBD. But, I've read a bunch of articles and forum posts where guys were whining about gear ratios, which led to 29"-specific chainsets with smaller rings and 12-36t "29er" cassettes. With 10speeds taking over, with the 36t low gear being basically standard, that kinda solved itself. Again, NBD, but still one detracting factor(albeit one that's sort of going away).
BITD, early 29ers had awkward geometry and suffered from a lack of awesome rims and rubber variety. Nowadays, that's all gone (except that I suspect the small frames with 29" wheels prolly handle terribly.). But, there are still reasons why I love 26", and it saddens me to see 26" hardtails/rigids dying out. I like the snappy acceleration, the nimble handling, and the bombproof wheels. Still trying to figure out what my next mtb will be, and I may go with a 29er again... but I suspect I'll pick up a 26".
I think we agree on more of this than not, I wasn't saying there wasn't a weight difference on the wheels just it's not as bad as it used to be especially with tubeless alternatives, though I don't use that myself, I always ran the heaviest stuff on my IH, 2.5" DH Nevs, ultra thick tubes, 20mm up front, 150mm axle in the rear. No flats 
For my SS I run 32x22 but that has more to do with the really steep climbs around here, I don't think I'd be too far off that even with a 26". With my RIP9 I started off with a 9 spd crankset I had bought on a screaming deal before I had the RIP9 a triple I converted to 2x with bash 32/22 11/34 in back when I went the new Type 2(Shadow+ I believe for Shimano) 10 spd went to an actual 2x 24/36 up front like my IH. Those Type2 derailleurs are awesome, dead quiet and no more chainslap.
Both my frames are smalls but handle great, the only caveat I would add is to really make a 29er handle you need to really use the DHer technique of loading the outside pedal and positioning your body a bit different, you can slack on a 26 but to get a 29er bike to really carve and turn tight without blowing out of corners it imperative, the bike just wants to turn doing this. Next rigid 29er bike will be one of the uber short chainstay with slack head angle 29ers, that seems to counteract much of the old geometry problems. Niner has a new one out looks tempting, the ROS 9.
Fabian Barel video on cornering weighting, works uphill too
http://www.pinkbike.com/news/Fabien-Barels-videos--how-to-cornering.html
For my SS I run 32x22 but that has more to do with the really steep climbs around here, I don't think I'd be too far off that even with a 26". With my RIP9 I started off with a 9 spd crankset I had bought on a screaming deal before I had the RIP9 a triple I converted to 2x with bash 32/22 11/34 in back when I went the new Type 2(Shadow+ I believe for Shimano) 10 spd went to an actual 2x 24/36 up front like my IH. Those Type2 derailleurs are awesome, dead quiet and no more chainslap.
Both my frames are smalls but handle great, the only caveat I would add is to really make a 29er handle you need to really use the DHer technique of loading the outside pedal and positioning your body a bit different, you can slack on a 26 but to get a 29er bike to really carve and turn tight without blowing out of corners it imperative, the bike just wants to turn doing this. Next rigid 29er bike will be one of the uber short chainstay with slack head angle 29ers, that seems to counteract much of the old geometry problems. Niner has a new one out looks tempting, the ROS 9.
Fabian Barel video on cornering weighting, works uphill too
http://www.pinkbike.com/news/Fabien-Barels-videos--how-to-cornering.html
Bike Donks! lol.
I think it's to make older sizes obsolete. Look at cars over the years. Model Ts and the like had what, 19" or 20" tires? Then down to 16s in the 30s, 15s in the 50s, 14s in the 60s-70s. Then 13s into the 80s-90s, and now everything's 17-18! :roll: -Adam
