Bikedued

I'd love to get a Trek Sawyer, and put a nice shock on the front. After trying it rigid of course. A Talon 29er 1 is looking good though based on price alone(employee purchase) The Talon 2 has HORRIBLE cable disc brakes. Not just budget horrible either! We're talking levers to the grips out of the box, and can't be made better. I smell a big recall coming bwfore the end of the model year.

With that said, THIS is my ride of choice for now. I love the agility, and it climbs so well I have to keep my weight over the front wheel. I've yet to ride a 29er that doesn't feel like attempting a 3 point turn in an 18 wheeler, but I guess you get used to it?,,,,BD

2009ish Specialized P-1 All Mountain

RFC

I have wondered if I could fit 29er knobbies on my 2006 Bianchi Volpe. There appears to be a lot of clearance. BTW, i have also spent weekends with my son's troop orienteering. I think it is one of the best skills they learn.

well biked

I read statements like this a lot when people are discussing 29ers, and having ridden one for a couple of years now on lots of twisty, technical singletrack, I have to wonder how much real mountain biking these folks have done on a 29" mountain bike? My 29er doesn't feel like that at all, and it's not like I don't have a lot of mountain bike experience on 26" wheels to compare it to. I've been riding the same mountain bike trails for years, and up until a couple of years ago it was all on 26" bikes. Our trails are typically heavily wooded, twisty, up and down, rocky and rooty. A 29er excels in conditions like this, the bigger wheels just gobble the stuff up much more efficiently than 26" wheel. And the most surprising thing about riding a 29er to me is the way I can climb with it. I literally shoot up steep, rocky sections on the 29er, I've found loose, technical climbs to be noticeably easier with the bigger wheels. Using tubeless tires at very low pressure helps with all this, but I ran tubeless tires on 26ers for about ten years before I ever got on a 29er. A 29er handles like an 18 wheeler? Uh, no, not a good one at least.

redxj

I have owned a number of them since first "taking a chance" on buying a used SS one a number of years ago. I still have two left: single speed rigid IRO model 19, and a geared Gary Fisher Ferrous. The Fisher picture is old before I cut the steerer tube and lowered the seat. I need to reduce the travel in the RS Reba down to 80mm as it was previously set to 100mm from the bike I had it on before. I also have a brand new set of Avid Elixer X9 brakes for it, a new headset, and a new stem (stem pictured is on a different bike).

A lot of the 29er handling problems were because of just adding the extra chainstay and fork length to make the 29er tires fit. They often kept the same angles and rake as a 26 and calling it good. Now they have realized you can't do that and make it handle as well as it should. And, rigid 29ers are like a low travel 26". I call my usual tire setup on the rigid the reverse mullet (aka party up front and business in the back). A big 2.3-2.5" fatty up front with a fast rolling narrower 2.0-2.1 in the back. The pic of the model 19 shows a Weirwolf 2.5 up front and a Ignitor in the back. I have changed the front to a still fat, but lighter 2.4" Racing Ralph.

Chris W.

the Hunqa 29er.

Marc[/QUOTE]

That is so very cool!


Cheers,
Chris

well biked

I'm using one of those on the front of my bike now, too. I've got the 2.25 version on the rear, and the 2.4 on the front. I had Racing Ralph 2.4's both front and rear for a few rides, but the clearance was so close with the 2.4 in the rear that any amount of mud buildup would have caused a lot of rubbing on the stays. I do love the 2.4 on the front, it's like a big ol' pillow up there at 25psi. Amazingly light tire for how big it is.

20grit

I have a Cannondale Trail SL 29er with X9 10 speed and hydraulic disc brakes. on it. Coming from an early 90's Stumpjumper comp to that bike.... It's a different world. On tighter trails with a lot of quick turning and accelerating in those turns, I occasionally miss the 26. If there are rocks, roots, etc on the trail, the 29er is quite a bit better. The components, esp. brakes, are a huge upgrade too. I may be judging things a bit unfairly because of that.

Bianchigirll 

Although she is currently set up s a road/railtrail bike my Project 3 could be consiered one of the original 29ers



OEM tires were 700 x 45s. it does not have alot of off road milesbut it is a great machine.

norskagent

jan heine says there is no noticeable difference in rolling resistance btween 26rs and 29rs, of course that was test riding on highway rumble strips. I guess he hasn't ridden the trails around here. There may not be much measurable difference, but how do you measure confidence and satisfaction?

Bikedued

I have been looking at the latest catalogs, and noticed at least Specialized has tightened the head tube angle. That may help my perception of them somewhat. Shorter wheelbases and steeper head tube angles would make a world of difference. The tire diameter
still poses an issue. You have more tread touching the ground lengthwise. At lower speeds, it has to make some sort of difference in turns?,,,,BD

jan nikolajsen 

Yes to 29er. My Marin NailTrail sees a lot of long distance dirt of the sort that rarely presents this unskilled rider with too many obstacles.

Here at dawn on a White Rim Day Lap:

trekKiller

You should ride a Niner, might change your mind.. the carbon Air 9 I rode was the highest energy ride I've ever had.

There is a steel 853 reynolds bike from Niner us C&v'ers would appreciate and it's called a S.I.R. 9 for "steel is real"

well biked

My Jamis Dragon 29 on page 1 is an 853 frame......I certainly appreciate it.

rat fink

well, I'm not sure if higher energy is an accurate description. I'm talking about getting air, doing tricks, etc. How about I put it this way: I believe that if the type of mountain riding you're doing is more closely related to road riding: logging miles, lots of climbing, taking smoother lines, and sightseeing, then a 29 is probably a good match. If the style of riding you intend to do is more closely related to bmx: big air, rougher lines, doing tricks, and taking chances, a 26 might be better for that.

I haven't tried a Niner brand bike yet, mostly just Trek, Specialized. I would like to, though. There's room in my stable for both, but the 26" bike would be my go-to.

DRietz

Joe, understandable that you prefer a 26". A majority of pro cross country riders still do as well.

I don't do tricks on the 29er, but I've definitely ridden my share of technical trails on it. Tight single track and large drops, rock gardens, etc are not a problem.

To each their own!

DRietz

Also being an employee in a shop that retails Giant, I tend to disagree about the brakes. They improved for the 2012 product year and the only reason for the levers to touch the bar before skidding is simply poor mechanics. You've got to straighten those rotors pretty well, though.

RaleighSport

Were any of your guys bikes originally 26"? Just curious.. this thread is amazing to my newb brain.

Italuminium

Just a quick question to you 29'er folks (forgive me that I don't post this in MTB but this is my usual haunt): is there any relation between rider size (inseam, length etc.) and the choice between 26 and 29? I've seen some very small pro women ride 29'ers and some very tall guys 26'ers, but it seems logical to me that taller guys/gals have more advantages of bigger wheels. I'm 178 cm and feel comfortable on frames ranging from 54 to 58 cm, with shortish reach.

- BTW my first 'serious' bike at the tender age of 8 was a 24'' MTB. I used to tear up the local park with it. Now I want to capture that feeling again by buying a MTB, but I'm not sure wether to pick a 26 or 29.

rat fink

I'll give my .02 here. I don't think rider size has as much bearing on bike type as does riding style. The only practical limitation is that smaller riders have a difficult time finding a 29er frame in their size that has a desirable geometry. A few people I ride with who are in the 5' 7" (~175cm) range actually prefer a 29er, while myself (6' 1" or 187cm) and others who are in the 6 foot range prefer 26er. The difference is almost invariably, riding style. A lot of the guys who prefer a 29er ride XC almost exclusively, while the guys who prefer 26" usually enjoy more downhill and all mountain riding.

It's definitely a personal preference thing, but I think your mention of wanting something like your 24" bike is applicable to what I said in my previous post. A 26" bike would probably suit better than a 29", If I interpreted correctly that by park riding you mean mountain bike parks with jumps and flowy singletrack lines.

rat fink

Definitely! Like I said, there is room in stable for both.

well biked

I think Rat Fink covered the subject well already, but I'll add my .02. We currently carry 29er frames that vary from 15" to 21" in our shop, measured at the seat tube. A 15" frame will typically fit someone from about 5"4" to 5'8." I'm 5'7" and have always felt most comfortable on 17" mountain bike frames, whether with 26" or 29" wheels. The pics I posted on page 1 are of my 17" Jamis 29er. Most 26" wheeled bikes we carry are avalailble in a 13" size, for folks about 5'3" or less. The problem with an extra small frame with the big wheels is toe overlap, but I know there are some bikes out there with the geometry designed to minimize this problem, so even that is possible. So, in the mainstream at least, the only real limiting factor for shorter folks is that extra small 29er frames may not be available in the brand or model you want.

As far as the way a bike fits, comparing 26" bikes to 29," if you're used to riding a certain frame size in a 26" bike you'll likely feel best on the same sized 29er. My case is a good example; I've got a long torso for my height (5'7"), and I've always ridden a 17" frame in modern mountain bikes. I feel just as cramped in the cockpit on a 15" 29er as I do on a 15" 26er. There is a difference, however. You'll have less standover clearance on most 29ers as you do on the same sized 26er because the front end of the 29er is so much taller. While I'm used to maybe 3" of clearance on a 17" 26er, it's more like an inch or two on a 17" 29er. Another note: A lot of frames, particularly hydroformed aluminum and carbon fiber frames, account for this with creative tubing shapes in the area of the top tube where you stand over the frame. Some models, and we have a couple of them in our store, don't measure the frame size with the actual seat tube length, they use a virtual measurement because of unconventional top tube shape.

Which brings up another geometry issue with 29ers that's worth mentioning: the bottom bracket height is pretty much the same as a 26er, there's just more bottom bracket drop (the amount of drop from the height of the axle to the height of the bottom bracket). What this means, and I think this is a key point in some of the things rat fink has mentioned, is that the rider's weight is lower relative to the axles on a 29er. This affects handling in that there is more inherent stability, but the bike doesn't like to get airborne as much as a 26er does. This is a big part of why, very generally speaking, that 29" bikes have begun to dominate the XC market, but 26" bikes still rule for big-hit type riding. In the case of our shop, there are hardly any mountain bike trails around here that are anything but good ol' XC trail riding, no freeride or downhill at all, and because of that, mountain bike sales to folks who are really going to go out and ride off road are almost always 29er sales. And it's not just our shop; almost all higher end mountain bike sales around here are 29ers, and it's happening more and more across the country.

You made the statement "it seems logical to me that taller guys/gals have more advantages of bigger wheels." The real advantage to the 29" wheel compared to the 26" wheel is so simple it applies to everyone who rides them: they roll over stuff easier. They really do. Put an obstacle out in front of a 29" wheel and it will be less affected in rolling over it than a 26" wheel will be. Now, if you're going to jump or hop over the obstacle, you might prefer the way a 26" wheeled bike handles. But as far as just rolling over rocks, roots, etc etc, the 29er is the winner, hands down. There's also the fact that the larger radius wheel has a larger contact patch with the ground, so there's inherently better traction. Loose, steep, technical climbs may be the place I like my 29er the best; it makes this stuff noticeably easier than any 26" bike I've ever ridden. So no, the 29er is not about bigger folks, it's about the bigger wheels' advantages and anyone who's riding them has the same benefit.

DRietz

I was introduced to mountain biking with around a thousand miles logged on a fully rigid 26" single speed. I've thankfully moved to gears, and I like the 29er too, but I'm never giving up fully rigid. Suspension and I don't mix.

toytech

Interesting thread just as I am contemplating selling my all mountain 26" bike and getting a short travel 29er. I ride a Comencal with 140mm of travel which is complete overkill for the local (legal) trails. I do enjoy the barcalounger ride though..

Italuminium

Thanks Wellbiked and rat fink, that really helped.

Bikedued

The Talon 1 with hydraulics is fine. I'm talking only about the cable discs on the Talon 2? I checked one over myself, as I am not a new bike assembler. The pads had almost no visible gap, yet still felt weak. They're a new design from last year.,,,,BD