Just built a 29'er. Will I ever ride on 26" wheels again?
- Thread starter NeilM
- Start date
- Feedback
- View
Re:
I blame Geoff Apps for the whole wheel size debate. It has been going on in some form or other since he exported 650x54b and 700x47c Finnish made Hakkapeliitta tyres to Gary Fisher and Charlie Kelly in the early 1980s.
The early US 1980s debate went with 26" because they were cheaper and readily available, and Apps says that he chose 650b for his production bikes mainly because they were easier to obtain than the 700c versions.
Apps also says that he tried to persuade the then manufactures of the Hakkapeliitta, Nokia, to make a 700x54c version. But there was little chance of any tyre manufacturer making a new tyre size when it will not fit existing bikes. That is unless someone who can create bikes to fit the new tyre size gets involved. This was the case in 1998 when Gary Fisher paid the moulding costs of the first modern with 29er tyre, the 700x 52c WTB Nanoraptor.
I blame Geoff Apps for the whole wheel size debate. It has been going on in some form or other since he exported 650x54b and 700x47c Finnish made Hakkapeliitta tyres to Gary Fisher and Charlie Kelly in the early 1980s.
The early US 1980s debate went with 26" because they were cheaper and readily available, and Apps says that he chose 650b for his production bikes mainly because they were easier to obtain than the 700c versions.
Apps also says that he tried to persuade the then manufactures of the Hakkapeliitta, Nokia, to make a 700x54c version. But there was little chance of any tyre manufacturer making a new tyre size when it will not fit existing bikes. That is unless someone who can create bikes to fit the new tyre size gets involved. This was the case in 1998 when Gary Fisher paid the moulding costs of the first modern with 29er tyre, the 700x 52c WTB Nanoraptor.
Attachments
JamesM
Senior Retro Guru
Re:
Funny isnt it how when a new bike comes out, that rides over rocks and roots like they aren't even there, we think it's amazing and look at our old bikes as being outdated and crap. But, when the local authourites do some work on our favourite trails and remove the rocks and roots we turn around and complain that they're ruined them!!! :mrgreen:
:facepalm:
Funny isnt it how when a new bike comes out, that rides over rocks and roots like they aren't even there, we think it's amazing and look at our old bikes as being outdated and crap. But, when the local authourites do some work on our favourite trails and remove the rocks and roots we turn around and complain that they're ruined them!!! :mrgreen:
:facepalm:
- Feedback
- View
Re:
I've done some modelling of the pros and cons of various wheel sizes, and the losses and gains in numerical terms turn out to be small. Usually plus or minus a few percent at best. They should at best be described as marginal gains. If by riding larger wheel your sensing something more than slight advantage then there is probably something else that is different apart from the size of the wheels. Maybe lighter more modern tyres, or lower tubeless running pressures etc.
There is also the placebo created as a result of having to justify spending all that money on a new bike when you already have a perfectly good one.
On certain bikes a particular larger wheel advantages, like rear wheel traction, were negated by the lengthened rear triangle and wheelbase caused by fitting the larger wheels. On others, lighter tyres and rims led to faster acceleration than expected with bigger wheels.
With the basic design of bicycles being unchanged for nearly 100 years, the concept of 'big wheels are better' is an a piece of marketing genius. And the only way that consumers can test its validity is by buying a brand new bike. A bike that probably benefits from other technological improvements in rim and tyre design. So consumers are not exactly comparing like with like.
My own experience is that putting modern wheels on an old bike can dramatically transform the performance irrespective the wheel size. And suspension also makes a bike perform as if its wheels are larger.
One advantage that the 29er riders seem to have missed is that narrower large diameter tyres are excellent in mud as they cut through the mud to find the traction below. The result is lower rolling resistance than with wider tyres, whilst the large diameter ensures a longer contact patch and so good traction.
I've done some modelling of the pros and cons of various wheel sizes, and the losses and gains in numerical terms turn out to be small. Usually plus or minus a few percent at best. They should at best be described as marginal gains. If by riding larger wheel your sensing something more than slight advantage then there is probably something else that is different apart from the size of the wheels. Maybe lighter more modern tyres, or lower tubeless running pressures etc.
There is also the placebo created as a result of having to justify spending all that money on a new bike when you already have a perfectly good one.
On certain bikes a particular larger wheel advantages, like rear wheel traction, were negated by the lengthened rear triangle and wheelbase caused by fitting the larger wheels. On others, lighter tyres and rims led to faster acceleration than expected with bigger wheels.
With the basic design of bicycles being unchanged for nearly 100 years, the concept of 'big wheels are better' is an a piece of marketing genius. And the only way that consumers can test its validity is by buying a brand new bike. A bike that probably benefits from other technological improvements in rim and tyre design. So consumers are not exactly comparing like with like.
My own experience is that putting modern wheels on an old bike can dramatically transform the performance irrespective the wheel size. And suspension also makes a bike perform as if its wheels are larger.
One advantage that the 29er riders seem to have missed is that narrower large diameter tyres are excellent in mud as they cut through the mud to find the traction below. The result is lower rolling resistance than with wider tyres, whilst the large diameter ensures a longer contact patch and so good traction.
PurpleFrog
Kona Fan
Re: Re:
The big one difference is supposed to be angle-of-attack. But when you look at a graph then it doesn't seem like much at all:
GrahamJohnWallace":3armb4vm said:
The big one difference is supposed to be angle-of-attack. But when you look at a graph then it doesn't seem like much at all:
- Feedback
- View
I had no view either way but the 29er is far smoother having made a direct comparison. Two bikes both steel, hardtails, same route and conditions. As for placebo, the bike can be returned and I was prepared to do so as I was reluctant to spend.
Re:
My opinion...
It may not stack up with statistics and graphs, but this is not allowing for human intervention...If a bike feels better it inspires more confidence in the rider. And whilst the margins are minimal on paper, a 29" wheel gives me more confidence, stability and grip. Therefore it allows be to push my riding further, to go faster through that turn or dig in on that climb. This is not about having bought into the hype and justifying my purchase...this is about a product that actually works for me. Not saying its the right thing for everyone, but it has transformed my local trails and broken all records on my Strava rides.
Its not all about the physics, sometimes its more about the organic mass driving the machine!
Doug
My opinion...
It may not stack up with statistics and graphs, but this is not allowing for human intervention...If a bike feels better it inspires more confidence in the rider. And whilst the margins are minimal on paper, a 29" wheel gives me more confidence, stability and grip. Therefore it allows be to push my riding further, to go faster through that turn or dig in on that climb. This is not about having bought into the hype and justifying my purchase...this is about a product that actually works for me. Not saying its the right thing for everyone, but it has transformed my local trails and broken all records on my Strava rides.
Its not all about the physics, sometimes its more about the organic mass driving the machine!
Doug
- Feedback
- View
Re: Re:
Also small variations in geometry can make have large effects on handling, which makes comparison of even similar bikes difficult.
For accurate comparison you would need to have bikes that were effectively identical apart from being scaled up. In this case all that would change is the relationship of the rider with the bike smaller/larger bike and the tyres with the ground.
I have a 1988 Highpath that though designed for 650b wheels, due to having 2" of mud clearance and 100mm wide BB shell will also fit 29er wheels. I guess that swapping wheels around on that would make for an interesting comparison as the only things that would change would be the steering geometry and BB height.
I'm not questioning peoples observations that bigger wheel bikes ride better for them, just that the difference may not be solely the a product of the wheel size.wookiee":1lbd5pa2 said:
Also small variations in geometry can make have large effects on handling, which makes comparison of even similar bikes difficult.
For accurate comparison you would need to have bikes that were effectively identical apart from being scaled up. In this case all that would change is the relationship of the rider with the bike smaller/larger bike and the tyres with the ground.
I have a 1988 Highpath that though designed for 650b wheels, due to having 2" of mud clearance and 100mm wide BB shell will also fit 29er wheels. I guess that swapping wheels around on that would make for an interesting comparison as the only things that would change would be the steering geometry and BB height.
Similar threads
