Sold on 29er Thing

[tkblazer]

Originally Posted by MTBMaven

Though I do want to investigate a flat bar that puts my wrists in a better position, i.e. an aggressive sweep.

i like my new Salsa Promoto 17* bar

[Padre]

Originally Posted by el_d00der1n0

That's why the 650B I read about recently sounded intriguing. It's supposed to roll more like a 29er, but without bringing you 8ft off the ground.

Dude, are you joking?

Are you convinced that you are higher off the ground on a 29er? Please tell me you were kidding.

If you aren't kidding, here's a tutorial:
29er frames designs account for the hubs being higher by an inch or so, and the frame is adjusted closer to the ground. Your butt, your hands, your head and your feet are all at the same height they are on 26" wheels (assuming the same BB height etc).

Originally Posted by dstepper

After tacoing and seeing how easy 29" rims taco i agree with the cross country use.

Dean

Dean, let's not start this again.

Poor wheel builds or poor wheel/rider combo can occur in any riding segment.

Having ridden 29ers for almost 5 years now, I've never so much as bent a wheel. I ride pretty hard/aggressive/not gentle also.

Even more so with the advent of Stan's Flow, Kris Holm Uni rim and even the Salsa Gordo now. There is no shortage of AM/DH rims.(just forks)

[el_d00der1n0]

Originally Posted by Padre

Dude, are you joking?

Are you convinced that you are higher off the ground on a 29er? Please tell me you were kidding.

If you aren't kidding, here's a tutorial:
29er frames designs account for the hubs being higher by an inch or so, and the frame is adjusted closer to the ground. Your butt, your hands, your head and your feet are all at the same height they are on 26" wheels (assuming the same BB height etc).

Not joking. Just observations based on stuff I've read about. The geometry has to change right? How else can you get the wheels in there without banging your knees into them? I've seen models with dropped BBs, but I've also read that it makes it a little harder to pop the front wheel up over stuff that the wheel's still not big enough to just roll over.

Don't get me wrong. I'm still interested. I've been looking into doing one rigid ss. I'm just trying to learn.

[jcampbell]

I am 5'9"... not tall, but also not an oompa loompa. For me, the 29 feels great, handles the bumps great, and corners like I am slalom ski's. Fork selection is the only complaint I have. You do not sit higher than regular bikes. The BB is lower than the axle height, so you sit in the exact same position you would on a 26er. The larger tires and the increased gyro effect of the tires makes you feel like you are in the bike instead of on top of it.

From the moment I got on the bike, I understand completely why taller riders like the feel of the 29er. When is the last time you been on a bmx bike? The feeling is what taller riders have on 26ers. But the kicker in all this is that what the taller rider feels, is magnified with a shorter rider. Shorter riders lower the center of gravity which only gives you more control, effectively making the 29 handle like dream compared to their 26er.

Go grab a bmx bike and a cruiser bmx. Tell me what you feel. It works the same as a 26 to 29.

About the wheel weight and strength, to this day I haven't felt the increase in weight and since a 29er is 700c wheel, technology has surpassed the needs for strength. Its why you are seeing roadie wheels with only a few spokes. The wheels are just as strong as 26er wheels now as long as they are built properly. Besides, its not like you going to be ripping down Velocity at Ludicris speed with them.

Originally Posted by el_d00der1n0

Not joking. Just observations based on stuff I've read about. The geometry has to change right? How else can you get the wheels in there without banging your knees into them? I've seen models with dropped BBs, but I've also read that it makes it a little harder to pop the front wheel up over stuff that the wheel's still not big enough to just roll over.

Don't get me wrong. I'm still interested. I've been looking into doing one rigid ss. I'm just trying to learn.

Yes Geometry is changed, only becuase the wheels are larger. For example, head angle can be sharper because of the tires , but the frames are no different than any other road bike. The wheel size isthe same as any road wheel, its just the tires have a little taller sidewall than a road tire effectively making the overall diameter of the tire larger.

I can still wheelie the thing and bunny hop curbs with ease. It does have a different feel to it, but you'll probably end up being a convert just like the rest of us.

[ECOdork]

I think this is one of those cases where you are both right...in a way.
My comparison is between the VooDoo Dambala (17") and Rocky Mountain 2003 ETSX-50 (18").

In my experience, the larger wheels do feel a little bigger (thanks Capitan Obvious, eh?) but I really don't feel much higher on the bike (never measured). But I do occasionally hit my crank arm on roots and obstacles. To me this suggests they did, indeed, lower the BB to accommodate the different geometry. If it bothered me more I'd consider putting on shorter cranks (<175mm) to address the issue.

Keep in mind too that some frames are "suspension corrected" which I imagine would influence the overall geometry and handling to some degree. That Vassago Jabberwocky is for an 80mm fork but my voodoo is 100mm.

[Padre]

Originally Posted by el_d00der1n0

Not joking. Just observations based on stuff I've read about. The geometry has to change right?

Yes, it changes to accommodate the wheels. It's not much of a change though.

Originally Posted by el_d00der1n0

How else can you get the wheels in there without banging your knees into them?

I'm not going to address this question as it doesn't even border on sensical. (how close are your knees to your wheel on any bike?)

Originally Posted by el_d00der1n0

I've seen models with dropped BBs, but I've also read that it makes it a little harder to pop the front wheel up over stuff that the wheel's still not big enough to just roll over.

Looks like it's time for you to stop reading and go ride the bike. Most of your info seems way way way off.

Please watch this video from yesterday at San Juan. Watch this 125lb 5'8 rider "struggle" to get his front wheel up and over stuff while "battling" not to hit the "huge" wheels with his knees. <--sarcasm

SJT Video

[el_d00der1n0]

Originally Posted by Padre

Looks like it's time for you to stop reading and go ride the bike.

I think you're right. I need to demo one. Thanks.

http://www.dirtragmag.com/print/arti...=stuff_reviews
"The downside to the lowered bottom bracket is that getting the front end up takes a little more effort. During slow, very technical terrain, concentrating on maintaining momentum and getting the front wheel over things takes some getting used to."

http://www.dirtragmag.com/print/arti...=stuff_reviews
"With the market chock full of well-made, high performance 26" and 29" mountain bikes, why would we need a 650B? According to Kirk Pacenti, the answer is frame geometry. In designing the 650B, Pacenti wanted to incorporate the performance advantages of the bigger 29" wheels but also experienced their inherent limitations when it comes to frame design and geometry."

[Endo Verendo]

I'm 5' 7.5" and I'd never buy a 26er again.

Originally Posted by tkblazer

i like my new Salsa Promoto 17* bar

I'll be ordering the carbon version soon. Can't wait!

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by el_d00der1n0

I" In designing the 650B, Pacenti wanted to incorporate the performance advantages of the bigger 29" wheels but also experienced their inherent limitations when it comes to frame design and geometry."

I'm not sure it's as much that there's an "inherent limitation" to the geometry of 29ers, and more than there's a limitation to the geo of 26ers. (more limitations among the riders anyway!).

My guess is that it's just a matter of more time, R&D, and feedback to get the geometry worked out better for many builders. Plus there will be a different feel than a 26er, so those transitioning to the new size may feel sensations that they perceive as "limitations."

I ride a 26er, but am getting curious. I'd love to demo a Niner RIP locally...anybody know how/where?

[Pho'dUp]

Just go out and try a 29'er.

I like reading reviews too but seriously I take them all with a grain of salt. Especially if it's in a mag. You're reading someone else's review riding on probably a different trail than you and may have a totally different bike skill set than you.

I tried it(29'er SS). Liked it. Can definitely see some advantages/disadvantages. But overall it's was a plus plus and I'd like to buy one down the road.

But El Duderino, you're not me so you gotta figure that out for yourself.

This dude abides..

[DeeZee]

Originally Posted by mechmann

29ers are good for some things and bad for others. it is always a compromise. for XC 29ers rule IMO, especially on a HT. i feel the tradeoff for a little weight gains much more in rolling and traction. for DH it is all about 24 or 26. in the middle you choose!

my next agressive AM bike is going to be a Lenz 29er.

But why?

"for DH it is all about 24 or 26."

My 4" travel 29'er out performes my old 6" 26'er by a long shot.

[GP_pilot]

I've been riding a full-sus medium Niner RIP since Aug when I picked up a full build I couldn't turn down. It is different than my 26" Superlight and both are 4-4.5" travel bikes.
Height
I initially it felt like I was riding 1-2" higher off the ground on the RIP, but both the RIP & SL seat heights are w/in 1/2" of each other when measured from the ground. I'm 5'8" and do have a little less clearance on the top tube as compared to my SL, but this comes down to riding confidence. I'm getting more confident riding techy sections, so it's not bothering me as much.
Steering
29" steers differently, a little more like my dual sport motorcycle than a sport bike. The Reba fork does seem to steer slower due to geometries and isn't as stiff in torsion in design as the Fox on my SL, but after riding it a while you learn it. It's no different than riding w/ a wider bar or stem change. I also don't have any problem navigating sharp switchbacks than I do on my 26".
Climbing
I'm still up in the air whether 29" has absolutely more traction than 26". Partly because the same 34-22 gearing on a 26" is more like a 30-22 on a 29". The slightly taller gearing doesn't let you spin the tire out as easily on loose ground, but does take more leg power. I also don't have the same tires on both bikes.
Descending
I find my the biggest difference w/ a 29" is the opportunity to taking different lines (climbing as well). This comes down to the larger diameter tire rolling better over terrain.
Rolling Resistance
Again, I don't have the same tires on both bikes, but the 29" can be a two edge sword. Initially it does take more to get the wheels going and there is definitely drag on my 2.3" Rampage 29ers. But when it comes to flow (down & up), I find I carry much more speed and am nearly rear ending folks in front of me or just passing them due to momentum.
Choice?
Some days I roll on the RIP, other days I rip on the Superlight (also 3 lb lighter).
Bottomline: It's really hard to get a feel for what a bike can do in a parking lot, so see if you can borrow or rent a demo bike and ride it back to back w/ a comparable 26" bike. Even better, get a buddy to go w/ you.

[dutch]

my first experience with a 29er was a coworker's gary fisher X-cal at the late Whiting Ranch. It was also concurrently my first hardtail experience after getting into mtbing. I really enjoyed the feeling of momentum that the bigger wheels provided, and although the ride was rougher than my full-susser, it didn't stop me from bombing cactus with almost the same amount of confidence. My first ride did send me OTB though, as I hung up the bigger wheel after i jackknifed it in a trench after the spittoon. My second ride was much better, and I also took it to santiago oaks, where it handled chutes with aplomb. The only sections there that hurt were the few jumps along the ridge that I probably would have done well to avoid.

All in all, I still really like my 26er, but I see nothing wrong with the big wheels and nothing wrong with the benefits of it.

[ECOdork]

A ladyfriend I often ride with just got a GaryFish HiFi GS. It's the ladies version of the Full Susser 29er.

Normally I'm not a huge GaryFisher fan, but they did well with this rig. Well equipped for the $$$. Looks smooth and rode smooth for the little bit that I rode it. She's not a big girl, so I didn't want to destroy her plush new bike with all my massive power and strength

[DeeZee]

Originally Posted by mechmann

i guess it could be ignorance, but i think that 29" rear tires would increase the CS length which would suck. also 29" wheels would raise the CG of the bike, that would suck. IF someone came out with new hubs and forks and frames that allowed one to build 29" DH wheels as strong as 24 or 26", then i would try one, but i would not expect it to outperform my 26" bike.

just my opinion by the way. i ride 29" for 80% of my rides.

[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]Been riding only 29’ers for the past 4 years. Back then “the word on the street’ was that they we only good for SS’ing and you had to be tall. Then the Reba fork came out and changed everything. Well kind of. Then the word was that 29’ers were good for geared HT’s because of the CS length needed for a FS bike was way to long. Then…………. fast forward to today. [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]I think Padre pointed out that there are strong rims and wide tires available but what is holding everything back is a fork. A bike co with big pockets like Trek needs to place an order with Fox or whoever for a 29’er trail / freeride fork and then wait and see how many “longer travel” frames hit the market.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[FONT='Times New Roman']DT told me that he absolutely will not build a longer travel 29’er until there are more fork choices available. [/FONT]

[Padre]

Originally Posted by mechmann

i guess it could be ignorance, but i think that 29" rear tires would increase the CS length which would suck. also 29" wheels would raise the CG of the bike, that would suck. IF someone came out with new hubs and forks and frames that allowed one to build 29" DH wheels as strong as 24 or 26", then i would try one, but i would not expect it to outperform my 26" bike.

just my opinion by the way. i ride 29" for 80% of my rides.

A little bit of ignorance.

Lenz is making 29er huck bikes with short CS. I've ridden around the 6.5" travel front/rear Lenz Lunchbox. Brian at the Path has done some light hucking at Gooseberry on it.

29er bikes do NOT raise the center of gravity. Adding 29er wheels to your 26" would raise it, buying a 29er frame designed around the wheels would not.

My 5.5" White Brothers 29er fork feels every bit as good as my Marzocchi. It's almost too much fork for me. Thru-axle, etc.

[dudevf1]

Allegedly Fisher's new G2 Gemometry on its 2008 29ers is meant to accomodate, among other things, riders who are less than 5'10" height. So, you may want to check out an 08 Fisher 29er to see if there is something to the G2 Geometry fit.

[ghixon]

Originally Posted by dudevf1

Allegedly Fisher's new G2 Gemometry on its 2008 29ers is meant to accomodate, among other things, riders who are less than 5'10" height. So, you may want to check out an 08 Fisher 29er to see if there is something to the G2 Geometry fit.

That's me.

I have a '08 GF Rig that that I ordered back in October and it SHOULD be here this week. I'm 5'10" (30" inseam) and I loved the feel of the SS 29er. The new offset of the Fox fork made it handle as quickly as a 26" hardtail. I had a chance to ride a Rig with both a Reba and Fox fork and the difference was astounding in terms of responsiveness. I haven't had the pleasure of riding a RIP, but I think I'm going to be happy drinking the Trek/GF Kool-Aid for a while.