March 24th, 2006
More 29er nonsense
Against:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/mtb.php?id=news/2006/mar06/mar03mtbnews
For:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/?id=2006/features/29inlandmines
Actually that second item interests me. It appears to suggest that if all else is equal a 29er is more efficient.
But as we all know all things are not equal.
The conclusion I’ve drawn from reading these two articles together is that other variables, such as suspension design have a larger effect than wheel size.
Well, no shit Sherlock.
One of the criticisms that has been levelled at article #1 is that the two bikes that were compared were not truly normalized. But that in itself also tells us something useful. That you can overcome the supposed inefficiencies in a 26er wheel and make a 26er more efficient than a 29er.
To be honest I’m surprised that a true suspension design, Trek Fuel, came out as more efficient than a softtail, Salsa Dos Niner, in article #1. Then again I don’t know what terrain they were running over. The real world. Yet another variable, and more complexity, into the mix.
For the record I take as utterly meaningless any comments about 29er wheels rolling further per pedal revolution compared to 26er wheels. Anyone can make a 26er wheel roll further each pedal revolution by just changing up a gear. What I’d like to see is some logging of gear choice and cadence and power and effort (Heart Rate) to see if you can actually run a higher development in a 29er at the same comfort level. But then of course we could introduce yet more variables such as crank length into the equation.
As in life nothing is ever truly as simple as it first appears.
But I suppose it does look as if the most efficient might be a true full-suspension 29er.
Thanks: To Raoul at Ferrous Engineering for pointing these articles out to me.
![[Valid RSS]](http://32sixteen.com/wp-content/themes/three_column/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
del.icio.us
March 27th, 2006 at 8:03 am
29er wheels will be more efficient as the larger diameter wheel makes for a shallower angle of attack on bumps in the trail.
Remember that formula on the swing arms of old Proflexes? That the bigger the bump, the greater the loss of momentum. Well bigger wheels will loose less momentum meaning they will roll faster compared to a 26″ wheel.
I guess you still won’t like them, but I though I would put another spin on it.
Alex
March 27th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Oh, I know all about the angle of attack argument.
Other factors I’ve ignored are the size of the contact patch which is bigger on a 29er meaning you can run skinnier or semi-slick tyres and still get the same grip.
Or higher pressures…
or…
…
All I need to be convinced is:
1) a 29er that looks right for someone under 6 foot 2. I’ve already admitted that Kelly have covered that base.
2) to ride one that feels like you’re not sat an extra foot up in the air.
March 27th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
so, have you ordered it yet ?
:))
March 27th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
I’ve still got a Five Spot to pay off :-)
March 28th, 2006 at 7:51 am
“2) to ride one that feels like you’re not sat an extra foot up in the air”
Thats too easy. The bb height is the same, just a bigger bb drop (below the wheel axle height)
I have just designed a 29er (with sus forks) for a rider with a 30″ inside leg and a bb / handlebars / saddle positions exactly the same as her Bontrager Race. The BB height and trail are also the same (with in 2mm) so it should feel like the old bike but with the “29er advantage” (TM)
BikeCAD Pro is great as you can import a drawing of the old bike and put it over the new design and match it all up :) Almost makes it too easy.
With all this “he doth protest too much” 29er-sceptisism I think you are angling for a “build me a 29er to change my mind” freebie….might make a good STW article ;)
Alex
March 28th, 2006 at 10:01 am
I’m just not sure that there aren’t too many variables to say definitively that 29ers are better, and I can see one at some point in my future.
But I learnt a long time ago that the obligations that come with free stuff make it more onerous than paying for it yourself. I’ll get a 29er when I’m good and ready, and more to the point, they’re good and ready.
March 28th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
“But I learnt a long time ago that the obligations that come with free stuff make it more onerous than paying for it yourself. I’ll get a 29er when I’m good and ready, and more to the point, they’re good and ready”
Thats lucky because I have spent my “marketing budget” already :)
March 29th, 2006 at 9:56 am
Nick you should have had a go on mine at the weekend. It’d probably fit too.
Maybe at the SS nationals I’ll let you change pedals for a brief go ;0)
March 29th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Efficiency, FFS when did that ever come in to it? When someone can prove a 29er is more fun over my local loop than my regular bike then I might pay a bit more attention.
BTW I have tried quite a few of the above options and being 6′3ish I would say going by size I should be in the ideal target market:
Ferrous, beautiful but would have to beef it up a bit, but then could you do that and still feel the same?
On-one, bargin-tastic nowt wrong with it. bit twitchy steering if anything.
Rig, quite nice allround, couldn’t stop thinking about the headtube snapping off :-(
Karate Monkey, bit small as it was Chipps’s. Nicest of the lot ride wise, nice short back end and good heft to it.
March 29th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Karate Monkey … nice short back end
Aye, so short you need to mong around for hours to fit gears.
Not that gears would be an option.
March 29th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
The tyres you run make far more difference in efficiency stakes.
For me it’s the light weight and light wheels and tyres than have made the diffence on the ferrous.
Although I’m too scared to buy a light 26″ ss now just in case ;0)
March 29th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
“Aye, so short you need to Not that gears would be an option”
You could always put a 26″ back wheel in it, old Cdale stylee! :-))))
or 9 speed it or does an e-type mech not work?
I think the type of shorts you put on in the morning makes more difference to your efficiency than the size of your wheels. where is that daft article with lycra vs baggies evaluated? and still I know which one I would prefer to be wearing while standing at the bar in our local.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
I think the type of shorts you put on in the morning makes more difference to your efficiency than the size of your wheels.
All this measuring and procrastination leads to articles in Skinny Whippet Monthly along the lines of:
A Good Shit
What you Need To Know to Save Maximum Weight