Difference between revisions of "29 Inch MTBs"
(→Comparison of two actual frames) |
(→Comparison of two actual frames) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
* The 29" bike attempts to offset the increased top tube lenght by steepening the seat tube angle. | * The 29" bike attempts to offset the increased top tube lenght by steepening the seat tube angle. | ||
| − | * To keep the head angle in line with accepted norms, the 'real trail' has increased by 0.37", a drastic increase. | + | * To keep the head angle in line with accepted norms, the 'real trail' has increased by 0.37", a drastic increase. 13% more leverage on the system. |
* Toe clip overlap is comprimised by 0.81" on the 29" frame, leading to problems for riders with larger feet. | * Toe clip overlap is comprimised by 0.81" on the 29" frame, leading to problems for riders with larger feet. | ||
* The chainstay length (unshown) had to be increase to 17.5 (fron 16.7")to fit the larger wheel, combined with the large trail, the thing will ride like a truck. | * The chainstay length (unshown) had to be increase to 17.5 (fron 16.7")to fit the larger wheel, combined with the large trail, the thing will ride like a truck. | ||
Revision as of 18:00, 24 November 2006
These bikes are quite the fad these days. They are a fine choice for a rider, providing they are around 6 feet tall or taller. Here's why.
Tall riders over 6 feet can give can free up a lot of geometric space to make these wheels work for them. Notice when a tall person is on a 29" wheel bike, it 'looks' right. When a short person is on one, it look god awful.
Theoretical Differences
On the image below; note that to maintain the same 'real' wheelbase and 'real' trail (not ground wheelbase or trail) on an average 23" top tube MTB, the top tube must grow over 1.14 inches, pedal clearance drops about 1.4 inches, steering quickens by over 2 degrees, suspension travel is reduced considerably, and fork and tire selection are reduced to only a handful of options.
Most people are not in a position to give any of these features up for the supposed (and probable) gain of having a larger wheel to roll over the surface easier. By giving up suspension travel, though, this gain is reduced still.
Comparison of two actual frames
Here is a comparison of two frames, one a 26" and one a 29" wheel frame. The represent standard issue type product rather than extreme niche product.
- The 29" bike attempts to offset the increased top tube lenght by steepening the seat tube angle.
- To keep the head angle in line with accepted norms, the 'real trail' has increased by 0.37", a drastic increase. 13% more leverage on the system.
- Toe clip overlap is comprimised by 0.81" on the 29" frame, leading to problems for riders with larger feet.
- The chainstay length (unshown) had to be increase to 17.5 (fron 16.7")to fit the larger wheel, combined with the large trail, the thing will ride like a truck.
- The overall length of the bike is up 3.17", total garbage for riding tight singletrack or rocks.
note that the 29" frame will handle like a truck compared to the 26" version. Also, the manufacturer of the 29" bike recomends this size for a much smaller rider than I have given it credit. I went by comparable top tube sizes (approx 23") that most average sized men will end up using.
