# Whats the advantage of the 29" mtb wheels?



## wa-loaf (Jun 3, 2008)

I used to know a lot about mtn bikes and even worked in a shop, but that was all 10 years ago. And the last 5 years I kinda drifted away from the sport and am now getting back into it. I see a lot of mtbs with 29 inch wheels for sale, but haven't seen a good explanation of the purpose.


----------



## madman (Jun 3, 2008)

They roll over things better having a larger diameter. I rode a frends and it is nice but I am kind of leary about buying one until i can be sure they are here to stay.I have noticed a lot of companys are making them . Also I dont believe they are an actual 29" wheel I will have to check


----------



## MR. evil (Jun 3, 2008)

They are supposed to roll over obsticals better due to the larger size and they also create new goemetry possibilities for taller riders. I tried them lat summer when shopping for a new bike and didn't like them. I felt they were sluggish and didn't handle as well due to the larger tires size. The other problem I had was that if I actually turned the front wheel a good amount my foward foot would rub against the tire while peddling. Front shock slection is fairly limited at this time and even the strongest 29" wheel is still weaker than some of the weakest 26" wheels. If I rode stricly cross country I might have given them a try. But I am not sure how those wheels would hold up aggresive riding  on the more technical terrain we have around here. I have trouble keeping my 26" wheels true riding some of the nasty rocks gardens I ride. 


There is a new movment out there for 27.5" wheels, halfway between 26" and 29". Apparently the 27.5" wheels will work with most frames & forks that were designed for 26" wheels, and they are not as weak and the 29" wheels. 


waiting for the pro 29er responce :flame:


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 3, 2008)

MR. evil said:


> They are supposed to roll over obsticals better due to the larger size and they also create new goemetry possibilities for taller riders. I tried them lat summer when shopping for a new bike and didn't like them. I felt they were sluggish and didn't handle as well due to the larger tires size. The other problem I had was that if I actually turned the front wheel a good amount my foward foot would rub against the tire while peddling. Front shock slection is fairly limited at this time and even the strongest 29" wheel is still weaker than some of the weakest 26" wheels. If I rode stricly cross country I might have given them a try. But I am not sure how those wheels would hold up aggresive riding  on the more technical terrain we have around here. I have trouble keeping my 26" wheels true riding some of the nasty rocks gardens I ride.
> 
> 
> There is a new movment out there for 27.5" wheels, halfway between 26" and 29". Apparently the 27.5" wheels will work with most frames & forks that were designed for 26" wheels, and they are not as weak and the 29" wheels.
> ...



Thanks, thats good info. I'm not rushing out to buy anything and prob won't do anything until next year at the earliest. I have been looking around a bit though and the 29ers were popping up a lot.


----------



## cbcbd (Jun 3, 2008)

I think the reasons I've heard why 29rs are better than 26rs are like the reasons I've heard why Telemark is better than Alpine... seems like 29rs are forming a cult-like following but not necessarily for practical reasons.

I think Mr Evil has it right on... basically depends on what kinda stuff you're riding, but for technical rocky stuff that is usually what I have seen in CT riding it's probably not the best tool. Yeah, and I'll second that I really don't want to have to true my wheels more than what I have to do for my 26rs - and my 26rs still can't be trued perfectly right now from the abuse - I really don't want to have to spend more time fixing wheels.


----------



## MR. evil (Jun 3, 2008)

cbcbd said:


> I think the reasons I've heard why 29rs are better than 26rs are like the reasons I've heard why Telemark is better than Alpine... seems like 29rs are forming a cult-like following but not necessarily for practical reasons..



Alot of the people that I have met in person or online that ride 29ers are down right fanatical about the bikes! 

I am not sure what kind of riding you do, but these days you can't go wrong with a nice 5" trail bike (5" suspension front and rear). Also refered to as an 'All Mountain" bike. These are the newest category of bikes and are kind of the do all bike. Good at everything, but master of none.  They will have a more upright (aka comfirtable) riding position over a cross country bike, and are built to take more abuse.


----------



## Philpug (Jun 3, 2008)

I want to make my bike a 6'9''er 26 rear wheel, 29 front.


----------



## MR. evil (Jun 3, 2008)

I [Hart] Skiing said:


> I want to make my bike a 6'9''er 26 rear wheel, 29 front.



I though a 29" front and 26" rear was called a 96er


----------



## davidhowland14 (Jun 3, 2008)

Trek sells a 69'er. It's a pretty nice bike, but not very popular.


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 3, 2008)

I [Hart] Skiing said:


> I want to make my bike a 6'9''er 26 rear wheel, 29 front.



That would probably really suck for climbing.


----------



## marcski (Jun 3, 2008)

First I think 29" wheels won't fit on a 26" wheeled bike frame.  2nd, a buddy of mine has a 29er which he built up as a single speed.  According to my LBS, this is being done more frequently.  (29er as a single spd). 

As Dr. Evil stated, they supposedly roll over obstacles better.  Also, I believe most 29ers are hardtails as opposed to fully's.   

Here's a good recent article:  
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080518/FEATURES06/805180305/1015/FEATURES06

Also found the following on Wikipedia, for what it is worth:

"Advantages

    * Larger wheels roll over obstacles more easily due to decrease in approach angle
    * Larger wheels have a lower rolling resistance for the same width tire
    * 29”er wheels are less prone to sinking in soft material such as sand and mud
    * Larger wheels are less prone to pinch flatting
    * The longer contact patch increases cornering and straight line traction
    * 29"er bikes tend to offer taller riders a more "natural" frame geometry.

It is worth noting that most of these claims have yet to be objectively verified one way or the other. Small scale, unpublished studies (including one done by Pepperdine University, reportedly at the request of Gary Fisher) exist but both proponents and detractors of 29" wheels are generally unimpressed with their lack of scientific rigor. Long debates over how to conduct a "fair" test of the efficiency of 29" vs 26" mountain bikes have raged online, but no serious efforts have been made to conduct a large-scale, scientific study.

[edit] Drawbacks

    * Increased wheel weight and rotating mass - the spokes, rim, and tire are all larger.
    * Many types of tires, rims and forks do not come in 29"-compatible versions, though the expanding popularity of the size is reducing this problem.
    * Longer spokes and rim result in a more laterally flexible wheel.
    * Longer spokes and increased angle between hub flange and rim result in a weaker wheel.
    * Smaller riders (i.e. less than 5'5" tall) may not be able to find a 29" bike with a geometry suitable for them. Numerous examples exist of custom bikes built for very small riders with 29" wheels, but in many cases smaller riders face significant geometry tradeoffs in order to ride a 29er, especially with regard to toe overlap, handlebar height, and standover.

[edit] 96er or 69er Variations

One variation is to have a 29 inch front wheel and a 26 inch rear wheel. Using the smaller rear wheel allows shorter and quicker handling frames, more options for rear suspension designs and lighter bicycle weight. Another variation is to have a 26 inch front wheel with a 29 inch rear wheel. Both are commonly called 69ers or 96ers, depending on the manufacturer. For example, Trek Bicycle Corporation introduced a 69er in 2007 with a 29 inch front wheel and a 26 inch rear wheel.[5] Carver Bicycles also has, what they call, a 96'er with a 29 inch front wheel and a 26 inch rear wheel."


----------



## JD (Jun 5, 2008)

wa-loaf said:


> That would probably really suck for climbing.



Cannondale's were 24/26 BITD, like in the 80s.  AS long as the frame is designed for it, it would be OK I think.  If not it would slack out the head angle.
Edit....long chainstay length would be the big drawback for me personally.  Def. has it's place, but I'm a opne bike fopr everything guy and the 29er is a bike for folks who like collecting. IMO.


----------

