Any good reason to get a 29er for road use?

[LittleGreyCat]

I've had a brief look back.
The main mention of 29ers for road use seems to be related to heavy riders.
At around 12 stone, and six foot tall, I don't fit any outsize category and fit touring and MTB bikes fine.

I am seeing quite a few 29ers around, and I wondered if they were off-roaders who just happened to be on road at that point, or if there was a compelling technical reason, or if it was a fashion statement.

I have a mid '90s had everything MTB which has served me very well but is looking a little worn and in need of various bits of refurbishment.
Some of which you will no doubt see in the Technical Section.
I also have the itch for something new which is probably unjustified, but I am coming round to the view that I shouldn't ride my Spa Wayfarer in the depths of winter with all the mud, floods and salt.
So I could be looking for a winter bike.

Also the cycling group I ride with has a tendency to throw in the occasional bridleway (often downplayed with "oh, there might be a short bit of off-road but it will be fine" followed by much cursing by me if I am riding with drop bars (which are very recent for me) as opposed to my trusty flat barred MTB).

Anyway, if I fancied a new flat bar no suspension bike for on road (slick or semi-slick tyres) plus a bit of bridleway would a 29er be a valid choice?
I must admit to being intrigued by the way the rider seems to sit a bit lower in relation to the axles, so more between than above the wheels, but this may be an illusion.

[531colin]

Don't muck about with a 'niner....get something with BIG wheels
https://pimcycles.co.uk/gallery/....scroll down for some 36 ers

[rotavator]

Wide tyres run at low pressures should give you a more comfy ride on the bridleways and will soak up the shocks from potholes and sketchy tarmac so could be a good idea for your winter rides. Also look for sufficient clearances for mudguards. I use Schwalbe Marathon Supremes in 50-559 size on my winter bike and find them very comfortable.

[VinceLedge]

Basically it is 29ers are just MTBs , not much else you can get just now!.
Recently bought a Marlin 6 for off road use, not sure what any advantage would be of setting one up for road use, you would probably have to change the gearing as they seem to be set up for off road, and I have noticed on the short stretches of ride we ride to and from the tracks that you easily run out of gears on the flat or slight downhill and that is with the tractor tyres on!

[531colin]

Seriously, though, I designed the Wayfarer as a roughstuff/expedition bike.
Cable discs, Shimano cup and cone hubs, square taper BB.....nothing fragile or fussy there. long wheelbase, stable steering, and the wheel out in front rather than underneath you.
Are you struggling on tracks because you have too much weight on your hands?

[PH]

I've got a Surly Ogre as a 29'er (Could also be built up with other size wheels), it's not marketed as a MTB but as a commuter/utility vehicle, although I think I know what the words mean, I have no idea what the differences are in the context of this bike. It's fun to ride, I've used it for an Audax just because, it's done a couple of long overnighters, but mostly it's grinding out fifty mile Deliveroo days. It goes where you point it and I don't need to take as much care about where that is as I do on other bikes. It is a tank and it makes me smile. I'm pretty sure if I were to put flat bars and 2" tyres on another tourer, it'd be 90% the same.

[DevonDamo]

For muddy bridleways in winter, I'd say a hybrid or gravel bike with fat, grippyish, tyres would be the right tool for the job. Maybe with front suspension, depending on how bumpy it gets.

If you were to get a mountain bike for that, then you'd want a 'cross country' bike, preferably a hardtail with a frame with a steep head angle. These are the lightest type of mountain bikes (unless you include cyclocross bikes in the definition) and are optimised for speed - higher gearing, better geometry for climbing etc. 29er wheels will roll easier over obstacles than your 26" bike, but it will feel less nimble. The other option is 27.5", which is a compromise between the two and is currently the most popular choice for proper off-road use. (For tall people, I still think 29ers are the best option though.)

You're right about the way modern mountain bikes put the rider in a different position with respect to the wheels. Mountain bike geometry has changed a lot over recent years, in particular the frames have been designed to have lower bottom bracket heights, and 'slacker' head angles - i.e. the forks are more angled-out forward, making the overall length longer. Also 'dropper' seatposts mean at the press of a lever, riders can get their bodyweight right down to the frame when they need to. All this makes them superb for going down suicidal steep descents, but would just feel a bit wrong on a bridlepath.

If you want any decent mountain bike, they're hellishly expensive as you have to pay through the nose for decent suspension forks etc. So unless you're thinking of doing anything more challenging off-road, I wouldn't think it would be worth the expense.

[slowster]

Slick - or even semi-slick - tyres would not be my choice for winter, certainly not for muddy roads and bridlepaths. As 531Colin says, you already have a bike that is designed for the sort of riding you describe. Maybe you just need more suitable tyres for wet winter tracks?

[LittleGreyCat]

Slick - or even semi-slick - tyres would not be my choice for winter, certainly not for muddy roads and bridlepaths. As 531Colin says, you already have a bike that is designed for the sort of riding you describe. Maybe you just need more suitable tyres for wet winter tracks?

Edit: I may have misunderstood where you were coming from, and perhaps you were asking why I needed more than one bike?

I have no issues or problems with the tyres and have ridden for many years on slicks (with a very faint tread pattern).
The current tyres have a bit more tread because that was what was easily available when I had to replace the old ones.

[I believe that 531Colin was talking about the Wayfarer, not my Univega Rover3.5.
Again, there was no discussion about the tyres and I haven't mentioned recently what tyres I have fitted.]

However please note that the question was not "Should I change the tyres or change the bike?".
I am circling around the fact that the bike will soon need a major refurbishment (being built around 1995 and much of it being original) and wondering what I might replace it with if I get the chance.
I am very reluctant to replace it because of sentimental reasons, though, but also may have trouble justifying a n+1.

[LittleGreyCat]

Seriously, though, I designed the Wayfarer as a roughstuff/expedition bike.
Cable discs, Shimano cup and cone hubs, square taper BB.....nothing fragile or fussy there. long wheelbase, stable steering, and the wheel out in front rather than underneath you.
Are you struggling on tracks because you have too much weight on your hands?

It is possible that I may have too much weight on my hands but I don't think so.

I have owned the Univega Rover 3.5 from new from about 1995 so I am very familiar with it.
It is a traditional steel MTB frame with 26" wheels so is more compact than the Wayfarer. About 2" shorter from a rough measurement.
It has the traditional benefits of being a little more compact and therefore a little more agile, and also has straight bars which I find reassuring at slow speeds over rough ground. I assume most of the benefits of a traditional MTB over a traditional road bike.
I feel confident riding it because of very long experience with the bike.

I have only owned the Wayfarer for a couple of years (or so) and this is my first major experience riding with drop bars.
I don't feel as comfortable riding over rough ground at slow speed.
I prefer the Wayfarer on the road, as it is comfortable for long distances and has higher top gearing and a better aero position.
The general dimensions of saddle and bars seem much the same and I took my MTB with me when I test rode the Wayfarer to make sure that it felt as comfortable as my MTB.

TL;DR - lack of confidence riding on drop bars over rough ground is my main issue. I'm not blaming the bike.

[PH]

I am very reluctant to replace it because of sentimental reasons, though, but also may have trouble justifying a n+1.

In that case the difference will be minor and it’s 50/50 which you’ll prefer.
We can change for changes sake, that’s not always a bad thing, if it renews some enthusiasm or interest, but it doesn’t always make practical sense

[Gearoidmuar]

Slick - or even semi-slick - tyres would not be my choice for winter, certainly not for muddy roads and bridlepaths. As 531Colin says, you already have a bike that is designed for the sort of riding you describe. Maybe you just need more suitable tyres for wet winter tracks?

I can no longer get slicks as they stopped making (it appears) the fantastic Specialized Fatboys. I used them for 2y or more on mtbs which I used mostly for road cycling.
They do NOT make you more likely to skin in the wet. Jobst Brandt a famous cycling engineer was very strong on this.
The need for a tread on the tyres for roads is entirely psychological.

In rainy Cork, for 20 years, I never once had a skid on them.
One factor seldom mentioned on line is tyre carcass flexibility. If it's flexible it'll be fast. If stiff, slow.

A tread is better on thick semi-dry mud off road and maybe on rock and grass.

[Jdsk]

They do NOT make you more likely to skin in the wet. Jobst Brandt a famous cycling engineer was very strong on this.
The need for a tread on the tyres for roads is entirely psychological.

Brandt on slicks:
https://www.yarchive.net/bike/slicks.html

Jonathan