roccobike

So I tried a 29er today. It was a 13' Cannondale Five with a Suntour XCM fork. Not high end. Rode it at Harris Lake trying a direct comparison to my Stumpjumpers. There were pluses and minuses, but overall, I'd say if I was buying new it would be a 29er.
I wasn't faster on the 29er, in fact, the 26er Stumpy hardtail would have smoked the 29er on smooth fast trail.
However, on sections that were heavily laden with roots, the 29er rolled over them like they were nothing, and I'm referring to a section that I won't ride anymore cause it's caused enough problems when on the 26er. That really impressed me.
On jumping logs, the 29er was smoother, handling most easily with one exception. Going downhill, the 29er was superior to the 26ers, but on an uphill, hitting a 8-9" log, the 29er almost stalled when the rear wheel hit, but I did clear it. That was disappointing, but it was only one instance.
I also noticed the rear was way more stable on the 29er vs the hardtail 26er. By this I mean riding over obstacles, there was no hopping of the rear and it handled snake-bite much better than the 26er. In fact the hardtail 29er seemed as stable as the dual sus Stumpy.
Don't know if I'm ready to make a change, but the shop I went to has a 2012 Rockhopper Comp in the frame size I ride, used on sale for $750 (MSRP was $1100 on this.) So I'm thinking about it.

Lew.

I think it's good to hear more positive stuff about 29", I haven't read too much. But, how tall are you? I am 5' 9", and also ride a 26" StumpJumper (19" frame, I think?). I tried a friend's new Whyte 29" (don't know model name...), we swapped bikes and rode a local trail, with technical switchbacks. I found it so difficult to get the larger wheel around tight corners, but will admit it was fantastic down the smooth, not-so-tight section of the trail. After swapping bikes a few times, and doing the same trail, I still believe 26" is the wheel size for *me*.
I think the size and style of the rider have more to do with whether it is right for you than "Oh look, big wheels go over stuff smoother". So, are you a big build? I'm a much smaller climber type build and I don't think it mixes well with 29ers...
Edit- I ride a 17" frame, no idea why I posted 19", might be the road bike or something.

roccobike

Yeah, good point. I'm a tad over 5'8". I think folks our size are at that "tween" size. Most of the guys I've talked to that swear by the 29er are taller than I am. I've noticed that. I didn't comment on hairpin turns, but I should have. At first, I thought the 29er was having problems handling the hairpin turns. After I rode over a few obstacles, I gained more confidence in it. Now, I'm not sure which handles the hairpins better. BTW, at my height, I ride a small, 15.5" frame. That's just a personal preference. I used to ride 17" frames, then, by accident, tried a small frame and really like it. But I know that's not for everyone.

ncfisherman

The amount of roots out at Harris does make it 29er friendly, though I haven't really found anything that's unrideable on my Pivot 26er.

Lew...try out a 29er with short chainstays(sub 17"). Where I live, all we have is very tight heavily wooded trails and I don't have any issues getting through tight spots on my Canfield Yelli Screamy -- my bigger concern is getting the 700mm width bars through those sections. Short chainstays have a huge effect on how nimble a 29er feels.

osco53

27.5er,,650B is out there now...
https://www.mbaction.com/Main/News/Mo...ideo-5266.aspx

I really like my 29er HT But I'm 6ft n 185 Lbs and I'm more into faster open places and long trails.
I'm also a rookie and the very few technical trails I have took my 29er on were fun and they whipped me good.

The very tight turns I have been on IMO would have been much faster and simpler on smaller wheels yes BUT my engines
are not up to speed yet so the 29" wheels give me an edge..

If I wanted smaller for tighter places I'd go to 27.5"......

Wooden Tiger

Having owned a 26er MTB and now a 29er, I wanna say the 29er actually feels just as nimble, though I haven't been able to do a back to back comparison as the 26er was destroyed in an accident a few years ago.

- A lot of people claim the 29er is slow to handle and harder to navigate with but I find mine to be extremely responsive.

- I've also heard it takes more effort to get the wheels moving but I've found it to be easier! My 29er is also lighter than what my 26er was and climbs far better. Climbing on it is near effortless.

- My 29er feels/is fast. I can actually ride my MTB faster than I can ride my road bike when it's on hybrid tires.

- I am 5'11 and my wife is 5'8. We both have 29ers and have no problems with them. A lot of people thing you need to be a giant in order to be comfortable on a 29er. Neither of us have found that to be the case.

As with anything, there are advantages and disadvantages. I've never done the "downhill thing" but the claim is that the 26er is superior to the 29er. I'll never test this theory because I'm just not crazy enough to do "downhill."

My biggest complaint about the 29er is how long the handlebars are. I can see how the length would pose a problem through tight areas, but other than that, I'm very happy with my 29er.

Everything being said, based on my experiences, I don't think I'd go back to a 26er unless I got a really good deal on one, and these days, with the growing popularity of 29ers, finding a good deal on a 26er shouldn't be hard.

FrenchFit 

I think the fit trick with a 29er is to go a size, even two, down from the charts...otherwise they are sloppy riders. Obviously, if you are at the end of the chart there is nowhere to go. My 26er MTB is 18", which is on the small side for me according to fit charts, but a 17" 29er is perfection. I also guessing it's why there are so many large 29er frames for sale on eBay and CL.

Wooden Tiger

I'm at that size where I could go either way, Medium or Large. I originally looked at a Cannondale Trail SL1 29er and sat on a Medium, which I felt was too small. When I sat on the Large, I felt it was too large. I guess overall, I just didn't like it and it was a huge disappointment for me as I thought it was a really cool looking bike and I liked the component group.

I had my mind pretty much made up on a Scott Scale until I gave my Cannondale Flash 2 another go. I'd previously ridden my Flash but it didn't set the world on fire for me, more than likely because I didn't think I could afford it so there wasn't any point in liking it anyway. The owner of the LBS quoted me a price and told me to take it out again. Knowing his price and knowing it was near what my budget was, I paid a bit more attention to it the second time and really liked it. It didn't hurt that the component group was a smidge nicer than the Scott's, either.

My Cannondale is a large bike but it "rides small." It handles very well and is super-responsive, not to mention, it's quite light. As for being the correct size, I don't know, but it feels good to me! As for standover height, I know the rule of thumb is to leave about two inches but that's just not happening with this bike. If I find myself slipping forward, I'm going to be in for a really painful experience. Aside from the standover height, the bike fits me well.

ColinL

I utterly disagree. If you do this, you risk toe overlap and awful ergonomics.

What you really need to do is ride the bikes. Barring that, look closely at the frame geometry-- reach & stack if available; HTA, STA & eTT if not.

Riding a 17" bike of one brand and model and an 18" of another totally different brand and model is not overly unusual.

Zephyr11

I bet the reach and stack are similar. Or proportional if they're different types of bikes with geometry suited for different types of riding. That's just inconsistency of bike sizing between manufacturers and models you're talking about.

oldpuck81

I just bought a 29er ht 2 months ago- my first mtb- as I've always been a roadie. This bike is a BEAST!! It's like driving a 4x4 pickup compared to a sports car. It does take some muscle to get it rolling, but it rolls well and you run over just about anything. Some day my neighbors are gonna report me for cutting through their backyards and jumping over the curbs! The only thing I don't like about it is I sit a few inches higher off the ground and can't touch-down at stop lights, etc. I forgot I was riding the mtb the other day and almost fell over at a stop! 29ers are great to just cruise around the neighborhood and I don't have to worry about hitting potholes, cracks and junk in the road.

dminor 

^^ Good to know. Reason #56 to get a 29er mountain bike next time: Sidewalk cracks won't make me spill my Mocha Frappacino.

Wooden Tiger

It really does surprise me at how many people mention sitting on a 29er feels like he's/she's sitting in a pickup or on a 4x4, especially when coming off a roadie. In fact, roadies and 29ers take the same sized inner-tubes and I believe are actually very close to the same heights. The biggest difference I've noticed between my roadie and MTB are that there is a little more standover height with my roadie. My roadie is probably is as large as my MTB from a height/length perspective.

ColinL

That is interesting.

1. No, they don't use the same size inner tubes. Try putting a 29er tube in your road bike tire.

2. Despite the inside diameter being the same, the outside diameter of the tires is nowhere near equal. Look at a 29x2.35 next to a 700x23, or check the specs on a manufacturer's website who makes both, like Schwalbe.

3. The bottom bracket is *way* higher on MTBs, which should cause you to sit on a 29er higher than a road bike assuming you have the saddle height the same for pedaling efficiency. If you run a MTB saddle way low, like you never pedal seated (to me this means no rides over 30 min unless straight downhill), then maybe it would be the same for you.

Wooden Tiger

I guess that is interesting, because I'm running a 700 in my MTB tires. As far as width of MTB tires, they obviously differ from road tires. I'll be more than happy to compare my bikes next to each other and post a photo for you.

As for sitting "way higher" on an MTB than on a roadie, if the seat is adjusted correctly for both, you're "technically" going to be sitting at the same height, considering your legs are equally extended on each, the roadie and the MTB. The difference is going to come in terms of posture on the bicycle; with the roadie you're going to be leaning forward but on a MTB you're going to be in a more relaxed, upright position.

ColinL

Your seated height is derived from the pedals, which are higher on a MTB due to higher bottom bracket, as I said.

You can technically inflate a road tube enough to fill probably any 29er MTB tire but it will be very prone to punctures and pinch flats. 29er tubes are massive.

Wooden Tiger

And as I said, my MTB and roadie are just about the same height in terms of frame size and bottom bracket to the saddle. I'll be more than happy to provide measurements and photos.

As for the tubes, I also mentioned that while they are the same in height, the widths between a road tube and MTB tube are different but the heights are nearly the same. Yes, the 29er tubes for a MTB are massive, but a 29er wheel is extremely close in size to that of a roadie wheel. I'll be happy to provide photos and measurements of that as well.

osco53

My 29er is parked right next to my LWB Bent and Its 700 rear wheel,,, The 29er is ALOT bigger, taller,,,

Zephyr11

Right...but the bottom bracket starts at a higher point, so the whole bike sits higher off the ground. I think the BB on my 24" is higher off the ground than on my road bike, and he's just a lil' guy. The distance from my BB to my saddle is longer on my roadie than any of my mountain bikes, but I probably sit higher on my of my mountain bikes (other than the 24") because the BB is so much higher.

Zephyr11

Comparison. This is a 26" and a 700c...the wheels are basically the same diameter when you take the tire into account (I lined them up so they're sitting an equal distance off the floor), and you can see the BB on the 26" is higher (yellow dot = 26", red dot = roadie). You can also see I sit higher off the ground on the 26", despite the saddle being placed lower in comparison to the BB. This is a 26" XC weenie-mobile too...it'll be even more pronounced on most 29ers and on longer travel bikes.

Wooden Tiger

I guess all bikes are just different. I have a 56" Schwinn Paramount Series 7 and the BB of that bike and the one on my MTB are both actually nearly the same height, so I'm really not sitting any higher on the MTB than I am on my roadie.

Given the pictures people are providing, the 29er IS a taller tire but what I'm saying is that the inner diameter is nearly the same between a roadie and a MTB.

Now, what I've done is go outside and measure from the ground up to the center of the BB on each of my bikes. The CENTER of the BB on my MTB is 11.5" from the ground while the CENTER of the BB on my ROADIE is 11.25', so they are each VERY close in ground clearance.

ColinL

That is an unbelievably low BB height for a MTB. My bike is made for XC racing and it's lower than most at 12.6". Modern trail bikes are in the 13-13.5" range.

Wooden Tiger

My MTB is a 2012 Cannondale Flash 29er Alloy 2. Not sure if it matters that it's a hardtail. Maybe that's a normal height for the BB of a hardtail? I don't recall any of the BBs being overly high on any of the MTBs I tried out, the Scott Scale included.

***EDIT (hours later...)***

Okay, something just crossed my mind and I really screwed the pooch on my measurements. Right now, my wife's and my MTBs are sitting on Continental "hybrid" tires, which do not have the sidewall thickness of the original MTB tires that came on the bikes.

I scoured the net for specs on my Cannondale Flash and read from one resource the BB height is 11.9" and another the BB height is 305mm. There is a discrepancy somewhere because just looking at my wife's '12 Specialized Jett, I can tell the BB height on her MTB is higher than that of mine. What perplexes me here is that on Specialized's factory site, the specs for the Jett state the BB height is 305mm. Upon using a "mm to inches" calculator, 305mm comes out to 12 1/64 inches. It's impossible for both, my bicycle's BB and her bicycle's BB to be 305mm when hers is clearly higher.

lubes17319

26" x 2.5" Excavator in front of a 700c x 35c Slickasaurus in front of a 29" x 2.5" Dissent