29 incher - all hype?

Trips, adventures, bikes, equipment, etc.
MikeF
Posts: 3972
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: 29 incher - all hype?

Postby MikeF » 8 Aug 2015, 3:59pm

wahoofish wrote: I personally don't see the purpose of the 650b.
How tall are you??? Our grandson has a 650b.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master

wahoofish
Posts: 91
Joined: 20 May 2015, 10:41am

Re: 29 incher - all hype?

Postby wahoofish » 23 Aug 2015, 10:05pm

MikeF wrote:
wahoofish wrote: I personally don't see the purpose of the 650b.
How tall are you??? Our grandson has a 650b.


I am 6'4" but have been more than comfortable on a 26" frame mtb in the past. Nothing wrong with the 650b but it doesn't really serve a specific purpose imo.

SoloRider
Posts: 49
Joined: 7 Apr 2013, 10:06pm

Re: 29 incher - all hype?

Postby SoloRider » 30 Aug 2015, 10:01pm

I was almost sucked in by the hype. Bigger was all of a sudden better. 29+?

Then suddenly there was a backlash about 'rideability' and 27.5 was decreed to be better. So all the reviews that I read were flawed and now I need 27.5 instead.

Just like I need 10 speed. Or double MTB chainsets. Or compact road chainsets... you get the idea.

For that reason, I'm out.

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 10369
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: 29 incher - all hype?

Postby horizon » 30 Aug 2015, 10:36pm

AIUI (and I'm not a mountain-biker), MTBs need to be able to ride over lumpy ground (that's large wheels please) and be nimble enough to avoid obstacles (that's small wheels please). 26" is obviously a compromise (albeit a good one) but the thing I find odd is that the smaller 26" wheel ends up on the rough ground while the larger 700c finds itself on the smooth tarmac. I know this has historical causes but it's surely bound to produce some marketing boomerangs from time to time. I personally believe all bikes should be 650B but that's just becasue it would make managing my eight bikes easier. :)
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher

firedfromthecircus
Posts: 265
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 7:50pm

Re: 29 incher - all hype?

Postby firedfromthecircus » 31 Aug 2015, 1:05pm

The thing is 26" wasn't a design decision based on extensive research. It was due to that size being available from paperboy bikes in the US and BMX cruiser alloy rims. If they had designed a mountain bike from the ground up at the start I'd wager the wheels would be bigger than 26". :wink:

sbcoombs
Posts: 171
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 8:21pm

Re: 29 incher - all hype?

Postby sbcoombs » 4 Jan 2016, 11:31pm

As Galloper said earlier, I have both so conducted a trial on a known local route. The 29er is around 6 minutes quicker over an hour loop. I do a lot of riding and my 26er is a better spec but the 29er is definitely quicker on open trails. On twisty single track, the smaller wheels are quicker though. Both have advantages. 650b can be considered as a compromise or a jack of all trades. For me, they are about marketing but I could understand the benefit for someone who only has one bike.

MikeDee
Posts: 690
Joined: 11 Dec 2014, 8:36pm

Re: 29 incher - all hype?

Postby MikeDee » 5 Jan 2016, 2:15am

I've ridden all 3 wheel sizes. If I were to buy a new bike, I'm undecided whether I would buy another 29er or a 650b. 29ers give a good ride though. Not as good for technical riding however. They're good for rolling over stuff, not as easy to lift the front wheel over roots and rocks or for tight turns. The overall bike is heavier too.

Mattyfez
Posts: 354
Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 7:24pm

Re: 29 incher - all hype?

Postby Mattyfez » 8 Mar 2016, 4:32pm

I'd care more about whether they were quality rims hubs and spokes before I even look at the rim size..

User avatar
Lance Dopestrong
Posts: 1227
Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 1:52pm

Re: 29 incher - all hype?

Postby Lance Dopestrong » 22 Mar 2016, 7:23am

I'm quite tall, 194cm, never felt any particular benefit. Perhaps it's because I'm also a road cyclist so the feel of 700c isn't novel to me?

£ for £ I also encountered problems. A cheap 26" wheel is stiffer than a cheap 700c one, and even on my £1100 Spesh I could feel the flex. I also found the extra circumference was simply additional surface area to pick up mud and make the bike heavier. I couldn't feel the benefit, but others may love it so all power to them. I'm on 650B now, but won't be rushing to sell my 2 older 26" wheeled MTBs.
https://themediocrecyclist.home.blog
Self employed MIAS L5.B Instructor.
Warwickshire Lowland Rescue Bike lead.
IPMBA certified member.
Cyctech C2 hammer and crowbar bodger.
Lapsed CTC Ride Leader, amateur hour stuff from the fun old days.

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 10369
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: 29 incher - all hype?

Postby horizon » 22 Mar 2016, 11:19am

sbcoombs wrote: 650b can be considered as a compromise or a jack of all trades. For me, they are about marketing but I could understand the benefit for someone who only has one bike.


Thorn went over to 26" for its tandems. It was in considering this that I came to the conclusion that 650B was a Jolly Good Thing and wished that it had quickly become the standard for all bikes. Not everyone agrees with me and people then say that it causes problems at the top and lower ends of bike frame sizing so you end up with three wheel sizes in use, not just the one I hope for or the two we have present. But now that 650B has arrived in at least the MTB domain I would like to see it spread further, driven by marketing or not.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher

Manc33
Posts: 1713
Joined: 25 Apr 2015, 9:37pm

Re: 29 incher - all hype?

Postby Manc33 » 22 Mar 2016, 2:05pm

Not as much hype as all this "1x11" everyone is "upgrading" to.

Removing your outer and inner chainring is an "upgrade" these days is it? :shock:

Give me a shout when you want to slap me around the face some more.

Isn't it amazing that one of the main things that set a MTB apart from other bikes going way back, was that it had a triple chainset - but now people reckon you don't need that gear range?

Did the world magically flatten itself out? (yes that was a deliberate reference to Flat Earth). :P

People copy each other like monkeys. One guy goes to 1x11 they all have to. One guy gets a 29er they all have to. Everyone is being marketed to and doesn't even realize it.

Soon those guys will be back on doubles I bet then in ten years some clever geek that doesn't even know what a triple is (too young) will say "Imagine how good this would be if we added a chainring and made it have three chainrings".

Egyptians were more advanced than we are today.
When two cyclists get married, they should throw anodized cable crimps instead of confetti.

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 10369
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: 29 incher - all hype?

Postby horizon » 22 Mar 2016, 3:17pm

Actually you might not need the gear range anymore:

http://www.glencoemountain.co.uk/mountain-biking.html

I don't think anyone really saw that coming.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher

Manc33
Posts: 1713
Joined: 25 Apr 2015, 9:37pm

Re: 29 incher - all hype?

Postby Manc33 » 24 Mar 2016, 6:02pm

Dave W wrote:I bought a 29 incher last Autumn and whilst it's a very capable bike (Whyte) I can't help but feel that the 29 inch wheel on a mountain bike is total marketing hype.


I feel this way about 99/100 components, Di2 for starters but simple things as well like swapping everything to Octalink when square taper worked perfectly for decades. I have never seen a crank split or cracked at the square hole, maybe they exist, but IMO there wasn't a reason to change it apart from to keep on selling something new to people. Notice how its "Octalink v2" as well, because the first one wasn't quite up to it.

So something that worked perfectly (AFAIK) was replaced with something that didn't work and had to be tweaked to work. The only sense this makes is business sense.

Shampoo sales doubled when a company first said "Rinse and repeat" on the back of the bottle. I suppose after ten years they managed to get away with giving you the same bottle at double or triple the price because it "gives you two washes in one" :lol: :lol: :lol: This is marketing 101. To suggest Shimano aren't doing this, or companies making 29er bikes, is a bit naive. We just aren't taught that side of life.

The only thing I ever changed my mind on was the missing link (as long as it is KMC) because I was still going off what they used to be like in 2000 (metal blending into the chain making it impossible to remove) but they seem to work these days or the KMC 8s and 9s ones have.

OP a 29er does go over the trails better and you did say that. :P So it has positives to it... but yes I am 99% sure it is a marketing gimmick, what isn't these days, everything has already been invented, its just a case of "upgrading" people all the time then, which is what it is all based around.

I think the same thing about "I upgraded to 1x11" when removing the outer and inner chainring is definitely a downgrade! So the front mech can't get all clogged up... so what, how on Earth is that "equal" to never having a low gear or a high gear? Those guys on a 34t chainring and 11-42t cassette have got something like 22" to 85" gear inches. Sorry but 85" is a good 20" away from the high gear I need! 22" is about 4" higher gear than I have now too so, about 1.5 gears missing at that end and 2 or 3 missing at the other end.

So how are these guys getting up hills, how are they speeding up from 30MPH to 35 MPH? They aren't able to. On a 29er with a 34t chainring in the 34x11 gear to go at 30 MPH is 123 RPM and to go 35 MPH is 144 RPM. :? All you can do then is put a bigger chainring on and make the gears that were already too high even higher at the lower end. I am sure they do it to test people, see if they do it... if they do that will they do this... what else will they do... these guys know more about us than we know about ourselves that's for sure.
When two cyclists get married, they should throw anodized cable crimps instead of confetti.

Trail Beater

Re: 29 incher - all hype?

Postby Trail Beater » 20 Apr 2016, 9:34pm

For taller riders then yeah,a 29er will feel more "in size" for them.
But I feel anything under a 19" frame looks really stupid,and I'm convinced the ride quality would be compromised.
Saw a chap on a 29er who was no more than 5' 6",and the frame looked no more than a 16"
It looked like he had borrrowed his much larger dads bike.
And he couldn't handle the damn thing either, the front bucking and squirming downhill,I'm surprised he never got injured.
I think they made a massive balls up with the wheel size,having wheels the size of a road bike on a trail bike.
Hence the scramble to the middle ground 27.5.
Sure,professionals ride them,but they are paid to.
And people who have bought them will defend them to the hilt,as they don't want tosay they made a mistake.
If you just want to have a blast round fairly flattish trails then fine.
Take it off piste ?
You have a massive problem in front of you called a front wheel :o

flash
Posts: 565
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 11:34am

Re: 29 incher - all hype?

Postby flash » 21 Apr 2016, 6:43am

I don't agree. I am 5' 7" ride a 16" 29er. They ride well. I ride a Bikefest lap on my way home in Bristol most nights. My second fastest lap was on my fixed gear 29er, the same bike I rode the Gravel Dash, a 100 mile in a day off road ride and it's certainly a better all day bike than any of my 26ers. I may look daft, but as long as I'm happy, so what....