# 29er DH bike?



## chainsuck (Feb 21, 2005)

So I searched and found 26 vs 24 inch wheel threads. But how about 29er wheels for DH? 29 front and rear? Just front? Not stiff enough? Faster through the rock gardens? What do you think?


----------



## X-Vert (Jan 22, 2004)

I'm sure faster flat out but less acceleration on tight courses and there's wheel strength/weight balance issues. 

I do see it moving forward at some point in the future.


----------



## jayjudy13 (May 8, 2004)

I gotta go with tried and true...


----------



## njhcx4xlife (Jan 9, 2006)

26 all around or 26f/24r...Who really wants to be associated with the 29er crowd anyway.


----------



## ferday (Jan 15, 2004)

search around the forums for user BCD, he's made some full 29er DH bikes and is racing world cup DH on a 29er this season (from a post on the 29er board)


> i will be using 29 wheels for world cup DH this year and found that
> my wtb rims and nevegals were 29.125. uci IS that anal so when
> my KH rims came in i was please to see the 38mm rim width
> was enought to bring nevegeals to 28.9 to keep me uci legal.


----------



## Karupshun (Jun 13, 2006)

good lord, what would a 29/24 combo look like?

our friend rides a bighit 26/24 as a trailbike. with a single ring the gear ratio is a little easier to pedal, but it's quite slack to ride at low speeds


----------



## Pistol2Ne (Apr 2, 2006)

njhcx4xlife said:


> 26 all around or 26f/24r...Who really wants to be associated with the 29er crowd anyway.


Ha good call not me


----------



## speeder3800 (Dec 13, 2006)

I have a 69er SOCOM that I ride daily. I am going to make it a full 29er as soon as I get the rear drop out made. I am going to whistler a lot this summer and will not be running the 29er on the front or rear. Yes the big wheels are great for most daily riding - single track - medium speed down hill - drops - skinnies etc. But for bombing down the hill over and over again I will feel safe on a tuff 26" wheel with a proper downhill tire. I have also read several accounts of 29er tire blow off. Riders flying down hill and having a tire blow right off the rim. Not a good thing on body or wheels. Stans has come out with a real downhill 29er rim and that may be the hot ticket. Other problem is the lack of a big 29er fork. I have seen some work-arounds but nothing you can buy and run.
I am sure we will see 29er down hill bikes in the near future but right now there are a few pieces missing.


----------



## KennyO (Apr 21, 2004)

*I see some pros, but more cons*

I suppose the pro for running a 29" front wheel would be rolling over obstacles easier. That's about the only pro I can come up with.

The cons would be:

Larger diameter means more rotational mass = more difficult to accelerate and to corner.

Larger circumference means heavier tube and tire. A 29 inch tire has 9.5 more inches of tread around the circumference than a 26 inch tire, even though the tire footprint on the ground is going to be about the same. That is a significant weight gain. This is why a 29 inch downhill wheel would be harder to change the direction of, pull up the handlebars, or accelerate, especially on the rear.

A 29 inch wheel will raise your handlebar height 1.5 inches, along with your center of gravity, unless you built a frame specifically for 29ers, then you could lower the bb height. However, the bars would still be 1.5 inches higher than a 26 inch would be.

A 29 inch wheel will have to be significantly heavier than a 26 inch wheel to be as strong. You're talking a heavier rim, longer spokes, you would probably have to run a hub that uses more spokes just to get the same strength in the wheel as a 26 inch.

If you like running a 2.7 tire on your 26 inch, then a 2.7 inch tire on a 29er would be a lot heavier- larger circumference.

That all said, the 29er would probably be okay for regular trail riding, but for anything where weight, acceleration, strength, and handling are critical, like FR/DH, I think physics is against the 29er.

If you go the other way from a 26 inch wheel, a 24 inch addresses a lot of this, but I would still run a 26 on the front for rolling over obstacles. Some bikes run into crank/ground clearance issues with 24 inch wheels, because you can't shorten the crankarms along with the wheel radius and expect to win any races. That's why you can't run 20 inch wheels on your DH rig. I think 26 inch is the right balance for DH.


----------



## BJ- (Jan 28, 2004)

29inch downhill bikes is a bad idea...


----------



## watermoccasin (Jan 28, 2004)

One more deal-killer for a 29er DH rig.

Since a 29er wheel is (roughly) 3 inches taller than a 26er, you would be limited to a 5 inch travel fork. DH forks are limited to 8 inches of travel because there isn't room for more travel without jacking up the handlebars too high.


----------



## bcd (Jan 27, 2004)

Thought I would comment on this, even though I can not change everyones mind.

Who of you have ridden a real dh race 6 f-r dh race setup. none of you. no ones 
has yet but me and maybe lance canfield. So how can you know its performace.

When frames and forks come everyone will be able to feel what i am NOW.
Thats what i am working towards.

KennyO] 
_I suppose the pro for running a 29" front wheel would be rolling over obstacles easier. That's about the only pro I can come up with._

*thats the best one. how much time do you coast VS pedal? if your coasting you are 
rolling faster. period.*

_The cons would be:
Larger diameter means more rotational mass = more difficult to accelerate and to corner._

*false and false
my setup with 2.2 nevegals and 38mm rims weight LESS than 2.5 26 wheel.
how? the tire doesn't NEED to be as thick or wide to have the same pinch and
traction, larger diameter rolles OVER not into better, you said it yourself.*

_Larger circumference means heavier tube and tire. A 29 inch tire has 9.5 more inches of tread around the circumference than a 26 inch tire, even though the tire footprint on the ground is going to be about the same. That is a significant weight gain. This is why a 29 inch downhill wheel would be harder to change the direction of, pull up the handlebars, or accelerate, especially on the rear. _

*false - tube is 30g heavier but my tire is 840g vs around 1200 for a 2.5 thats 1 lbs less.
there is more gyro effect but have not found it a hindrance in changing direction.
if anything it helps me hold lines better. the traction is far better with a 2.2 then any 2.5
braking and cornering! Again, how would you know not ever riden one?*

_A 29 inch wheel will raise your handlebar height 1.5 inches, along with your center of gravity, unless you built a frame specifically for 29ers, then you could lower the bb height. However, the bars would still be 1.5 inches higher than a 26 inch would be._

*not true, a 2.5 wheel is 27'' makign it only 1'' difference. i don't use long travel, you don't 
need it b/c they roll over so well. so my bars can actually be 1'' lower going from 8-6
front fork!*

_A 29 inch wheel will have to be significantly heavier than a 26 inch wheel to be as strong. You're talking a heavier rim, longer spokes, you would probably have to run a hub that uses more spokes just to get the same strength in the wheel as a 26 inch._

*if you use a dishless front and head hub this is not true. there is 1'' more spoke lenght
can't argue that, but the wheels still weights less than a 2.5 26er.*

_If you like running a 2.7 tire on your 26 inch, then a 2.7 inch tire on a 29er would be a lot heavier- larger circumference._

*yeah, thue here, but you will never need a 2.7 on a 29...............*

_That all said, the 29er would probably be okay for regular trail riding, but for anything where weight, acceleration, strength, and handling are critical, like FR/DH, I think physics is against the 29er._

*i will prove that wrong when i race 3-5 WC's on mine this year. wait till you see whos jumping in next year!*


----------



## speeder3800 (Dec 13, 2006)

Watermoccasin I have a 7" 29er fork and it's sweet. I run a flat bar and 10 degree down stem to keep things in line. 
KennyO and jake69 you are wrong on all counts. Post something like that over on the 29er board and you will be run out.
Weight is a bigger factor for XC riding and there are plenty of light weight 29 XC bikes both HT and Soft. The contact patch is a ton bigger providing more traction - better cornering - better braking. 
Quit crying about heavy wheels we are going downhill right. Anyway wheels can be built heavy or light - really depends more on how bomb proof you want to be. Right now there are no really good 29er down hill tires but maybe soon. 
I bet in the next few seasons you will see a bunch of full on 29er DH bikes. 
FreeRide Probably NOT! Not really concerned with: speed - rolling - etc.....


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

29 front 24 back equalls:


----------



## JMH (Feb 23, 2005)

Pics please?

JMH



speeder3800 said:


> I have a 69er SOCOM that I ride daily. I am going to make it a full 29er as soon as I get the rear drop out made. I am going to whistler a lot this summer and will not be running the 29er on the front or rear. Yes the big wheels are great for most daily riding - single track - medium speed down hill - drops - skinnies etc. But for bombing down the hill over and over again I will feel safe on a tuff 26" wheel with a proper downhill tire. I have also read several accounts of 29er tire blow off. Riders flying down hill and having a tire blow right off the rim. Not a good thing on body or wheels. Stans has come out with a real downhill 29er rim and that may be the hot ticket. Other problem is the lack of a big 29er fork. I have seen some work-arounds but nothing you can buy and run.
> I am sure we will see 29er down hill bikes in the near future but right now there are a few pieces missing.


----------



## KennyO (Apr 21, 2004)

*Your math is weak...*

*Who of you have ridden a real dh race 6 f-r dh race setup. none of you. no ones 
has yet but me and maybe lance canfield. So how can you know its performace.

When frames and forks come everyone will be able to feel what i am NOW.
Thats what i am working towards..*

*thats the best one. how much time do you coast VS pedal? if your coasting you are 
rolling faster. period.*

I don't know what DH races you are riding, but I pedal a lot.

*false and false
my setup with 2.2 nevegals and 38mm rims weight LESS than 2.5 26 wheel.
how? the tire doesn't NEED to be as thick or wide to have the same pinch and
traction, larger diameter rolles OVER not into better, you said it yourself.*

You are comparing 2.2 apples with 2.5 oranges. Explain to us how a 2.2 wide tire can get better traction than a 2.5 tire, tread being the same? You've got about the same length of rubber on the ground, but it's narrower. The ground doesn't care what diameter your wheel is, when it comes to traction. You're kidding yourself if you think you can thrash a 2.2 without pinch flatting it where a 2.5 would pinch flat.

*false - tube is 30g heavier but my tire is 840g vs around 1200 for a 2.5 thats 1 lbs less.
there is more gyro effect but have not found it a hindrance in changing direction.
if anything it helps me hold lines better. the traction is far better with a 2.2 then any 2.5
braking and cornering! Again, how would you know not ever riden one?*

Here's where your math is weak. You are once again comparing 2.2 apples with 2.5 oranges. Given the same tire compound, width, and tread design, a 29 inch 2.5 will weigh significantly more than a 26 inch 2.5. You need to learn about what acceleration does to mass. Your 29 inch wheel with equal width tire will require more force to change its direction. If you like holding your line better, then by your logic, you should put water in your inner tubes. And once again, explain to everyone in here how your 2.2 will get better traction than a 2.5, with the same tread design of course. I'm not talking about your blocked 2.2 against a bald 2.5, so don't try to further skew the argument with bad comparisons there too.

*not true, a 2.5 wheel is 27'' makign it only 1'' difference. i don't use long travel, you don't 
need it b/c they roll over so well. so my bars can actually be 1'' lower going from 8-6
front fork!*

You'd better go back and measure a 2.5. I have measured many tire sizes because I build frames, and I need to worry about tire clearance for those frames. I know tire diameters. A 3 inch tire barely hits 27 inches, a 2.5 doesn't pass 26.5, some brands even less. If you bothered to put some real DH rubber on that 29er to actually get the traction you seem to think you get, then you'd be a half inch over 29 as well. Once again, apples to apples. As far as your fork, it's not my problem if you haven't maxxed out your 6 inch fork in DH yet. Maybe the sport course is a bit too mellow.

*if you use a dishless front and head hub this is not true. there is 1'' more spoke lenght
can't argue that, but the wheels still weights less than a 2.5 26er.*

Your math makes no sense. First of all, I already run a dishless rear 26. You have nothing on me with a dishless 29. Apples to apples, my 26 will always be stronger than your 29. If we have the same tire tread and width, same rim, same hub, my 26 will always be stronger. You can't have it both ways.

*yeah, thue here, but you will never need a 2.7 on a 29...............*

Maybe not on the sport course. Besides, I run a 2.7 front, 2.5 rear, depending on the course. Sometimes, it's 2.5 front, 2.3 rear.

*i will prove that wrong when i race 3-5 WC's on mine this year. wait till you see whos jumping in next year!*[/QUOTE]

Apparently you'd like to convince everyone that a 29er will take you to the moon. Unfortunately, even going to the moon requires obeying the laws of physics. Oh yeah, good math too.


----------



## bcd (Jan 27, 2004)

KennyO said:


> You are comparing 2.2 apples with 2.5 oranges. Explain to us how a 2.2 wide tire can get better traction than a 2.5 tire, tread being the same? You've got about the same length of rubber on the ground, but it's narrower. The ground doesn't care what diameter your wheel is, when it comes to traction. You're kidding yourself if you think you can thrash a 2.2 without pinch flatting it where a 2.5 would pinch flat.
> 
> Here's where your math is weak. You are once again comparing 2.2 apples with 2.5 oranges. Given the same tire compound, width, and tread design, a 29 inch 2.5 will weigh significantly more than a 26 inch 2.5. You need to learn about what acceleration does to mass. Your 29 inch wheel with equal width tire will require more force to change its direction. If you like holding your line better, then by your logic, you should put water in your inner tubes. And once again, explain to everyone in here how your 2.2 will get better traction than a 2.5, with the same tread design of course. I'm not talking about your blocked 2.2 against a bald 2.5, so don't try to further skew the argument with bad comparisons there too.
> 
> ...


first off i have been pro for 8 years and have raced all over the globe. you?

so if i had a 50'' wheel it would not make more contact to the ground? yes it would.
29 has more contact = more traction

yes a 2,5 29 would weight more than a 26, DUUUUH, but you don't need 2.5 in 29.
how do i know, I HAVE BEEN ON THEM. you?

you might be right on the 26 dia @ 26.5, even so thats only 12mm easy overcome
will less bar rise to keep it as low as a 26.

as for the fork, AGAIN you have not been on a 6'' 29er dh fork. you don't know.
its all you need, b/c i am skipping across rock while your 2.7 tires slam into them
slowing you donw with every hit, go count the amount of brake bumps,rock,roots
down MSA world cup track. I would kill you in a coast race, KILL. physics. your
math doesn't add up.

have you been on a 2.2 nevegal 29? 
so how do you know it doesn't hook up like you 2.5's.

you are right 26 dishless will alway be stronger, but who runs front dishless? you?
my 29 dishless front is stronger than your dished 26 hand down, its just physics.


----------



## BikeSATORI (Mar 20, 2004)

interesting "discussions" going on here....

bible pushers, drug pushers, 29" pushers... they are all the same. steppenwolf and blind melon got it right on those first two.


----------



## KennyO (Apr 21, 2004)

bcd said:


> first off i have been pro for 8 years and have raced all over the globe. you?
> 
> so if i had a 50'' wheel it would not make more contact to the ground? yes it would.
> 29 has more contact = more traction
> ...


Isn't it sad when all you have to argue for your 29er is a bunch of subjective, non-quantitative points?

You want to rub PRO all in my face? I've never heard of you. I've never heard of you smoking all of those other pro DHer's on the world cup circuit either. In fact, I suppose that if 29er's were everything you claim, then the greatest minds in DH bicycle development would have known what you know at least a couple years ago. The real pros would already be ripping the Worlds and World Cup on them, I'd think.

I guarantee a 29er with skinny tires would roll faster than me on my 26er with normal DH rubber. Less rubber on the ground means less friction, also means less traction. You'd lose out in the corners. But, next time there's a DH no-chain race in town, then your argument will mean something, and you can have the trophy. I'll take the trophy girl. They don't like those goofy cross bikes anyway.

My front, 26 inch, dished wheel holds up just fine to the 20-30 foot drops I give them in the big mountain, and they do just fine on the DH courses- not just for me, but for the top pro racers too. The only time they fail is when subjected to what would trash any wheel anyway.

I'd like to know more about this super 6 inch 29er fork that is all we need. Maybe they should let all other fork builders in on their 6 inch secret. Who knows, maybe 8 inches is overkill, and all those top racers don't know it.

Oh, btw, I have a Nevegal 2.5. Explain how your 2.2 will hook up better. You could let a bunch of air out until it gets the square inches on the ground like a 2.5, but then you'd destroy your wimpy rim.

Before this post, I was mostly indifferent about the whole 29er thing, but now, after talking to you, I think I'd rather ride beach cruisers.


----------



## KennyO (Apr 21, 2004)

speeder3800 said:


> Watermoccasin I have a 7" 29er fork and it's sweet. I run a flat bar and 10 degree down stem to keep things in line.
> KennyO and jake69 you are wrong on all counts. Post something like that over on the 29er board and you will be run out.
> Weight is a bigger factor for XC riding and there are plenty of light weight 29 XC bikes both HT and Soft. The contact patch is a ton bigger providing more traction - better cornering - better braking.
> Quit crying about heavy wheels we are going downhill right. Anyway wheels can be built heavy or light - really depends more on how bomb proof you want to be. Right now there are no really good 29er down hill tires but maybe soon.
> ...


Oh it would break my heart to be run out of the 29er forum. 
Wrong on all counts? What a sweeping generalization- how about backing it up with something of substance? Your 7 inch "sweet" fork is dated. I have ridden one of those, there is new technology out there, you know.
You'd better re-evaluate your contact patch. It's a lot less than you think. Not enough to hang any traction argument on. Ever heard of a tangent on a circle? That's called the ground.
How can you expect better cornering? You're not getting better traction, you're still contacting the ground the same as a 26. Better braking? Give me a break. Are you running 10 inch rotors to go with the bigger wheel circumference that you are stopping?
I bet if 29ers in DH were worth anything over 26's, you'd already have top pros on the podium with them for the past couple years. So why not? Because a taller wheel doesn't corner like a shorter wheel. The only reason I'd go to a bigger wheel would be if I were running 200mm cranks or something.

Your last statement says more about you than all the others. You obviously don't know anything about freeriding.


----------



## bcd (Jan 27, 2004)

KennyO said:


> Isn't it sad when all you have to argue for your 29er is a bunch of subjective, non-quantitative points?


isn't sad when you claim to know something you have never tried, so how do you know.



KennyO said:


> You want to rub PRO all in my face? I've never heard of you. I've never heard of you smoking all of those other pro DHer's on the world cup circuit either. In fact, I suppose that if 29er's were everything you claim, then the greatest minds in DH bicycle development would have known what you know at least a couple years ago. The real pros would already be ripping the Worlds and World Cup on them, I'd think.


this will be the first year 29's have ever been on the world cup b/c the tire for dh racing did 
not exist. i am not a fast pro, never said i was. i just said i know more about what makes
a good race bike b/c i AM one of the greatest minds in bike design!



KennyO said:


> My front, 26 inch, dished wheel holds up just fine to the 20-30 foot drops ................


that explains a lot.



KennyO said:


> Before this post, I was mostly indifferent about the whole 29er thing, but now, after talking to you, I think I'd rather ride beach cruisers.


i'd stick to the beach too if i were you.

chainsuck, you need anymore info on 29dh? that is why i am in this thread anyways.


----------



## bcd (Jan 27, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> im not going to go into a huge argument because I dont really care... but if 29 is SOOO AWESOME for DH, then where the fyck are they???
> 
> for fire road riding with your girlfriend, sure _maybe_ a 29er is nicer... but that isnt DH...
> 
> I am going to start driving nascar with 50" dubs... becuase you know, they are better....


no dh forks yet, i have to modify a wb inverted.

not until this year has there been a tire with big enough knobs.

that why.


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

I see much more logic in KennyO arguments, sorry.


----------



## Juan Speeder (Jan 13, 2005)

KennyO said:


> I bet if 29ers in DH were worth anything over 26's, you'd already have top pros on the podium with them for the past couple years. So why not?


Umm, this is just a guess on my part, but I'm going with: BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST.

Again, just a guess. I could be wrong.

Or, we could look at it from this 1991 perspective: "I bet if *full suspension* were worth anything over *hardtails*, you'd already have top pros on the podium with them or the last couple years. So why not?"


----------



## BikeSATORI (Mar 20, 2004)

Juan Speeder said:


> Umm, this is just a guess on my part, but I'm going with: BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST.
> 
> Again, just a guess. I could be wrong.
> 
> Or, we could look at it from this 1991 perspective "I bet if *full suspension* were worth anything over *hardtails*, you'd already have top pros on the podium with them or the last couple years. So why not?


EXACTLY! maybe not to the extent of suspension coming on in the 90's... but still has some underlying truth I'm sure.

Everyone is suspicious of change, a little leary... at least until some see respected name brands they trust begin pumping out parts for the said change... This will alter some views no doubt....

But I still feel there are too many 29" pushers out there comin' down on me (us) like door to door jehovah's witnesses (no offense if anyone here is a jehovah's witness, or a 29 rider, I have an open mind, but I'm just getting sick of the one-sided arguments.)


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Uh, actually, I have.*

Alex -

Actually, I beat both of you guys to the punch in 2004. I've built (and ridden extensively) 3 different 6-8" travel 29ers. Admittedly, I am just (at best) a middle of the pack expert on the DH bike, not a pro like you or Lance.

For now, the equipment just isn't up to the challenge. Tires are mediocre (though they're better than last year) especially when it comes to thin sidewalls and flimsy casings that are way too easy to flat unless you're a smooth dude. Forks are downright awful, though you can get WB to make a reduced travel DH180 or DH200. I've run modified Marzocchi Junior Ts (5" travel), Risse Trixxy (6"), WB Fluid130 (5"), and now a HaneBrink S-6 (6"), none of which ride worth crap compared to, say, a blown out Boxxer from 5 years ago.

Rims aren't that bad, but there's not much selection.

For what it's worth, though, people who have test-ridden my bikes have told me they would buy one in a second if the tire and fork options improved. The traction improvement over 26" tires is (IMO) noticeable, and the rollover abilities on technical terrain are pretty nice too. A 6+" travel 29er is never going to fit anyone under 6', though, which eliminates a decent section of the market.

I've been periodically posting info on my latest DH/29 project on my blog if you're bored:
waltworks.blogspot.com

-Walt



bcd said:


> Thought I would comment on this, even though I can not change everyones mind.
> 
> Who of you have ridden a real dh race 6 f-r dh race setup. none of you. no ones
> has yet but me and maybe lance canfield. So how can you know its performace.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Uh, he's really fast...*

Alex has been racing as a pro since probably before you started riding. He holds his own quite nicely against the NORBA pros here in CO, who are wicked fast, and he doesn't do too bad in World Cup races either...on bikes that he builds himself. I don't want to toot his horn too much here, you can say a lot of things about him, but you can't say he's slow. Trust me on this.

Personally, I'm not convinced that 29" wheels are that fantastic for DH riding, but the arguments I hear in this thread pretty much parrot what we heard about XC 29ers 5 years ago - "weak wheels, "won't accelerate", etc, etc. Yet they caught on quite nicely anyway. Time will tell.

-Walt



KennyO said:


> You want to rub PRO all in my face? I've never heard of you. I've never heard of you smoking all of those other pro DHer's on the world cup circuit either. In fact, I suppose that if 29er's were everything you claim, then the greatest minds in DH bicycle development would have known what you know at least a couple years ago. The real pros would already be ripping the Worlds and World Cup on them, I'd think.


----------



## RageHardIntoTheBendies (May 1, 2006)

Some of the argument's here are a little funny, have you guy's seen any of the BCD stuff? Regardless of his personal racing results he is obviously a talented frame builder, and from what I have seen on other boards is more than willing to discuss the pro and con's of his design's with people that are willing to do so intelligently.

The bottom line as I see it is, will a 29er be the mutt's nut’s for every rider? No
Will a 29er provide a better setup for a sub-section of the DH populous? no doubt, especially taller riders.

If you don’t think it would be faster for you don't ride it.

I have seen all of these arguments with regards to 24" vs 26", some guys still rock 24's as they work for them. 

I don’t like to see so much negativity directed at someone that is willing to try new things.


----------



## HANKg (Mar 20, 2006)

KennyO said:


> . But, next time there's a DH no-chain race in town, then your argument will mean something, and you can have the trophy. I'll take the trophy girl. They don't like those goofy cross bikes anyway.


That's good.

I think it was already said, but a 50 in wheel will have no more contact with the ground than a 26 in wheel or a 2 in wheel for that matter.


----------



## Godzilla (Mar 31, 2005)

Personally, I'd be interested in trying one. Like everyone else, I get tired of hearing the "29 inch wheels make your cock longer" bit coming from the 29er forum, but hey, if there's a possibility that they really _are_ faster, why not try one? Maybe I can con BCD into letting me roll his around if he's hitting the MSC this year - it couldn't be too hard to find a guy riding a 29" equipped BCD.

For those of you who haven't been following this whole debate - Lance Canfield was pretty impressed after riding a 5" (?) Lenz around GJ more than a year ago. There's a shot of him hitting a pretty substantial gap on thing somewhere around here. He seemed to think that tire selection was the biggest stumbling block if I remember correctly, and that appears to be not so much of an issue any more.


----------



## RageHardIntoTheBendies (May 1, 2006)

> I think it was already said, but a 50 in wheel will have no more contact with the ground than a 26 in wheel or a 2 in wheel for that matter.


OK I can see this argument of we were talking about a solid rim, but a tyre flex's creating more of a contact patch.

Think of it this way if a 50" wheel and a 2" wheel both had flat tyre, I guarantee the 50" would have more tyre contacting the ground.
You have to take the height of the tyres sidewall into account when taking about this.


----------



## Juan Speeder (Jan 13, 2005)

HANKg said:


> That's good.
> 
> I think it was already said, but a 50 in wheel will have no more contact with the ground than a 26 in wheel or a 2 in wheel for that matter.


Correct, assuming the same air pressure is used in all tires in question (and eliminating tire deflection differences due to differences in casing stiffness).

Though I don't know about the 2" wheel. There is a limit, and if a given wheel size doesn't possess enough physical tread to produce, say a 5^2" contact patch, then the eqaution doesn't work.


----------



## tibug (Dec 5, 2006)

26 all around for now. Maybe when 29er wheel technologies get a little better and more tested, then MAYBE.

When the world gets in my face, I say, have a nice day...
Tim


----------



## Nuckfut (Feb 11, 2004)

I'll stick with 26 all around too. There are too many drawbacks for me to understand why you would want them. I'll agree more with Kenny's math and comparing apples to apples.... I can't see a 2.2 getting the same or better traction than my 2.5's or any rims holding up well enough and I'm a fairly smooth rider. I do think it's cool that BCD is still going though after all these years... just can't see the logic in 29s.


----------



## El Caballo (Nov 22, 2004)

PSA:

The two people in the *entire world* with the most experience on 29er DH bikes have already posted. Therefore, this thread is officially over unless flymybike (probably #3) has something to add.


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

Don't want to ruin the fuzzy party here, but I'll still try to share my experience for small vs big wheeled front ends, where it's about braking and accelerating.

As I understand, braking is something you do when you're done going as fast as you can go, and it's to be left to a minimum. In practice (theory be damned for a sec), on a 29"er you'll be hitting the brakes later on, and carving the following corner a bit faster. This means you win time before you start braking, even if you're not getting the funky faster rolling expereince.

Where does it come from? 2 things.
Yes, even if by laws of physics 2 tires at 40psi, regardless of size, will have the same contact patch surface area, shape is different. Long and narrow for larger wheels. Concentrated along the center, where you need it. 
Let's take one part of the physics involced to the extreme :
A tree branch lies on the trail in your brake zone (or marbel, etc). You're braking while you roll onto the branch with your 26" front wheel. The trail is let go off, and all weight it ON the branch, which starts to roll under the tire. A longer contact patch may manage to touch the trail at all times through the same roll over.
Do note that most 29" riders notice that they are running lower pressures, and that even if they feel the rim hitting, the odds for surviving without a pinch flat are much better. Lots of factors involved, won't go there now.

On decently clean trails with good gripping tires, at times grip is not really what's keeping you from decellerating harder, endo'ing is.
A higher placed front hub means that the riders (constant between wheel sizes) center of gravity is pivoting around a higher pivot. Or if you will, the angle between COG and front axle is shallower. Greater decelleration is required to top the rider over the front axle, asit take more energy to lift the rear wheel up by 1º. When the COG is right above the front hub, it was raised to that put by a 1.25" greater lift. Like having a 1.25" lower BB just the moment you start braking, sortof.

I first unmistakingly encountered this effect when I converted a street-mtb from 26/26 to 26/28. I got a shorter CX fork to compensate for the taller front axle, so the BB and bar height and everything all remained the same. I've got a really tall seat height and like low bars, so I know a thing or two about lifting a rear wheel under casual braking. I was just setting my brakes, testing them a bit, when I noticed the rear would not lift although a was getting to a stop on a dime. This same effect helps me a lot in XC racing. I close the gaps under braking, which allows me to take it real easy on the climb before, and eat less dust chasing a guy down the trail with chance he'll crash me out.

I wish BCD would stop panicing about wheel diameter matching 29.00" or not, the main UCI has already written he won't be anal about this, as 26" bikes were never legal in the first place. But if the Nevegals are BCD's way to pester the World's other DH Pro's, great!

I don't mind a bit of extra weight myself (and I've actually got a history on a the weightweenie boards. The fun with alrger wheels : they give more rolling resistance as you make the bigger than they gain in acceleration penalty. The trick? All of you and the bike together (say 220lb) are generating rolling resistance. A lot, on DH tires. To spin up wheels, you just need to spin up the wheels (10lb?). Put a wheel in the stand, and give it a quick swing. Easy huh? Take 10% of that, and figure using 2 well trained legs to do it (20x stronger?), taking 10x as much time for 1/4 the speed differemce. Simple : you are also accelerating your now 221lb train weight. Odd physics yes, but a big wheel as long as used on a vehicle 50 times it's weight, accelerates faster as it grows bigger. Nothing to worry about.


29" will never be for pure dirt jump (till they make the ramps bigger), or hucking (till they make the cliffs lower). When it's about the fastest way from a to B offroad though, I wonder more what will be the point where larger wheels become too restrictive than whether a grown man can be fast on a proper 29" DH bike. It doesn't mean BCD is now invincible because he make the smart move, but I trust he'll do fine, and better himself.


----------



## jbflyfshr (Jul 24, 2006)

*Falling out of my chair...*




Juan Speeder said:


> Umm, this is just a guess on my part, but I'm going with: BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST.
> 
> Again, just a guess. I could be wrong.
> 
> Or, we could look at it from this 1991 perspective: "I bet if *full suspension* were worth anything over *hardtails*, you'd already have top pros on the podium with them or the last couple years. So why not?"


Nailed it!!:thumbsup:

The tire technology in 26in has been evolving for 20 yrs and we now have 29er tires coming up in half that time.

KennyO remember these companies have invested so much money in the equipment it will be a while before we have the same options in DH tires in 29er ville.

Be patient, 26" DH will be eclipsed by 29" DH when we have the technology:eekster:

BTW BikeSATROI, sometimes we must be persistant when we know we've got a point. Ride what you want for sure. I keep my 29er, it's cool.


----------



## tibug (Dec 5, 2006)

El Caballo said:


> PSA:
> 
> The two people in the *entire world* with the most experience on 29er DH bikes have already posted. Therefore, this thread is officially over unless flymybike (probably #3) has something to add.


I could be living in a small town, riding 29er DH bikes ever since there was a 29 inch rim. You never know!

Safety in numbers! Of just those two people posted, it'd be like okay, that's great. But the purpose of a poll thread is to accurately determine the proportion of the amount of people who do a certain thing, etc. If just them two people voted, then obviously that is not accurate as if 40 people vote.

627 days!
Tim


----------



## flymybike (Jan 6, 2004)

OK I'll bite.
I've ridden a Lenz 29 and a F1 with 26 rear and 29 front. 

The Lenz dual 29er was quite big, I'm 6ft, and I had issues with draging my legs on the rear tire with extreme body movement. Dual 29s are not a great option for shorter riders but tall guys it's managable. The tires where the biggest problem but I saw a sweet set of 29s from WTB's at the Taipei bike show. Now there needs to be a fork, btw a fork casting to make a 29 fork is a incredably huge investment. 
I rode the F1 with a 29 front in practace at Angle Fire and it had very noticable advantages. I got hung up very little in the rocks and the larger size allowed the tires to roll over holes that my 26 deflected off or stopped in. Traction was an issue but really a tire issue, not a 29 issue. I agree with BCD that a 2.2 29 would compare to a 2.5 26. Turning tight wasn't a problem but if there where really tight burmed corners, it would hinder you slightly.

For racing a 29 x 26 combo could be killer if the couse is rough. If it's smooth it wouldn't matter either way. So to recap we need a good 29" DH fork, a tire is now available but more options would be nice (MAXXIS) and a frame, unless your Alex, Walt or myself.

BCD, your the man! Thanks for setting up the US Decline World Cup team. Go kill it, you deserve some podium action. Right behind my brother Chris of course! Kennyo obviously doesn't know who you are or how much you have lead DH bike design for longer than anyone. Respect


----------



## RickyD (Jan 28, 2004)

I gotta say, a 29er would be primo at Angel Fire. I mean the first mile of that course is basically nothing but basketball sized rocks. No super big air. Not to many twisty's. I'd definitely love to try one there (hint, hint BCD).

I'm not a 29er nut job. But I did just recently buy a completely ridgid monocog and I'm quite impressed with it. Did Templeton in Palmer Park on my maiden ride and easily cleaned everything and I haven't ridden a ridgid in years. Not bad for a bike with no suspension and a 72degree HA. Anyone who has ridden Templeton knows that it's one rocky SOB, with plenty of opportunity for an OTB. 

It wasn't the life transforming experience for me that many on the 29er board seem to have had. I'm not gonna give up my Nomad for a Fully 29er. But I'll definitely keep the monocog in my stable.

At this point, if I had the cheddar, I'd be willing to play with a DH 29er for certain courses. I do think they have potential and agree they are mostly held back by tire selection and forks.


----------



## Daner (Apr 30, 2004)

Those who are bashing the idea are primarily doing so based on theory rather than experience. They do not appear to have tried the combinations that BCD and others are talking about. They do not appear to realize that 38mm Uni rims void the "weak wheels" arguments. They aren't saying "I tried the setup that BCD is talking about and thought it really sucked".

Those who are pushing the idea of 29ers for DH (note: for racing, not for hucking) are using theory as well, but backing it with experience. Time (and times) will bring much more objectivity to this discussion.

I'm neither tall enough to benefit from a full 29/29 DH setup nor fast enough for the speed issues to make a difference to me personally, but I've learned enough to know not to rag on something that I've never tried.


----------



## flymybike (Jan 6, 2004)

Not enough pics in here!

The F1 used in Angle Fire and the huck on a Lenz 29er mentioned earlier in this thread at the GJ Lunch Loop trails.


----------



## KennyO (Apr 21, 2004)

flymybike said:


> OK I'll bite.
> I've ridden a Lenz 29 and a F1 with 26 rear and 29 front.
> 
> The Lenz dual 29er was quite big, I'm 6ft, and I had issues with draging my legs on the rear tire with extreme body movement. Dual 29s are not a great option for shorter riders but tall guys it's managable. The tires where the biggest problem but I saw a sweet set of 29s from WTB's at the Taipei bike show. Now there needs to be a fork, btw a fork casting to make a 29 fork is a incredably huge investment.
> ...


A bit of clarification Lance. Not once in this forum have I bagged on old BCD's ability to design a frame. If he's had any involvement with your designs, then I'm impressed. If he wants to throw his status in my face for the crux of his argument, then I'll question it. I know lots of people rip it up but never get credit from everyone, and that could be his case. All I know is the only stink he's created that I see is on this board. As far as respect, I'll give it as I get it. For example, I've ridden with you and Chris, and you guys have shown me nothing but courtesy and respect, and I give that back to you 100%. I have never heard you guys having to tell everyone how good your riding is, everyone knows because it speaks for itself.

I posted on this thread what I consider to be pretty objective points about 29 inch wheels. Anyone can take that or leave it, but if someone comes at me swinging with nothing but, "I'm a pro, so I must be right", then I figure he can't toe the line with my points. I'm not going to sit here and say there is no place for these wheels, or even that they will never take off in some aspect of DH. I think you are right on the money about them being great for taller guys. But when the rubber hits the ground, someone in this forum has yet to show me how a 2.2 is going to get a better hookup than a 2.5. I'd like to hear some objective evidence other than, "it felt so good", or, "I know because I ride them", or "I'm a pro". Maybe sit down and look at a tire profile against the dirt.

I don't know this BCD, but if someone comes off as a jerk after I have posted the most benign opinion, then he gets no respect from me. I'll be swinging back. Your bikes rock, and I'll bet they lean a lot on logic, reason, mathematics, and physics, and not just subjective, unmeasurable impressions.

I also have to admit, when I see guys like that get so bugged with the logic that they resort to just generally attacking me, it makes me want to needle them even more just for the fun of it.

As you say you liked some things about those wheels, that means something. Of course, you are about a head taller than I am.


----------



## MT Road (Sep 26, 2004)

I think it is kind of interesting that you all have not heard of BCD.. Heck even Decline did an artile on him last year.. he is legit, fast , and has built all of his bikes and they are wicked.. XC guys said never, but I see about 50% of the bikes at races in the 29'er catagory... so sooner or later...

www.bcdracing.com


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*It's a subjective question, though.*

What do you mean? How would you come up with "objective evidence"? Put a robot on the bike and have it lean over through the turn until it loses traction? I think it's odd that you want to make judgements about the performance of a 29" tire by *looking* at it. What??!?

I see it this way - we have three people here who have actually ridden the kind of bike being discussed. One is super gung-ho, the other two say "I like some aspects, I dislike others". All three of us, however, agree that the traction of a relatively small 29er tire is equivalent to or better than a larger diameter 26" one (at least in dry conditions - there aren't any 29" mud tires). It's fine for you not to believe that, but telling us to "look at a tire profile" isn't a great argument. I can look at things all day, but at the end of it, actual riding experience blows looking out of the water. Keep in mind, I've logged hundreds of hours on 26" downhill bikes too, and I like them a lot. I'm not trying to push 29" wheels on anyone.

For what it's worth, I'll have 2 of my low-tech single-pivot 6" and 7" travel 29ers at Keystone quite a bit this summer. If any of y'all see my wife and I (black bikes, gold Waltworks decals) and we're having lunch or just chilling out, introduce yourself and ask politely and I'll be happy to let you borrow a bike for a run, or swap bikes with you for a few minutes. Seriously. Then you can come back to this thread and bash the concept as much as you'd like.

-Walt



KennyO said:


> I'd like to hear some objective evidence other than, "it felt so good", or, "I know because I ride them", or "I'm a pro". Maybe sit down and look at a tire profile against the dirt.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Scientific method:

Hypothesize. test. analyze. results. revise hypothesis. repeat.

I will always take a scientists word over a pontificator and Alex is the Mad Scientist of the cycling world. If it is an advantage then he knows about it and tests it.

Ditto for Lance. Scientists all.


----------



## Nuckfut (Feb 11, 2004)

I like BCD cause he uses CARBON.... oh wait isn't that a dirty word in the DH forum? I'd be curious to ride a 29" DH bike... but I'm kinda short too, don't know if it'd be an advantage or not. Betcha it'd roll over everything though... but I'd like a 2.5 tire.... I know it'd weigh more... but I like my fat tires.


----------



## flymybike (Jan 6, 2004)

I was simply stating that you didn't know him. It's ok, I don't know alot of these guys in here and it's too easy to be opinionated when we are all faceless e-bikers. I personally respect Alex for alot of reasons, invovative designs, years ahead of the mainstream, sticking with the bike industry for so many years, beating me racing, being a cool guy in general and not sticking with the norn but pushing performance even if it isn't popular. KennyO, I respect you too and anyone that has taken the time and effort to build bikes because they love it. I've seen you throw down! Hopefully see you at the races this year and somemore sweet huckin pics. 

So the 29 front - 26 rear combo worked well for me. The 29 rear was the thing I didn't love but with a little time I'm sure hitting my leg on the tire wouldn't be an issue, but then again I am 6' tall.

I think the reason the smaller tires on a 29 feel like they get more traction is two fold. 

One: The biggest reason is the approach angle being able to roll up objects without as much tendancy to spike into it and bounce the tire out of contact. Like a rearward wheel path, how it releases the energy more effectively than a forward wheel path. The geometry allows it to maintain contact with the ground with less translation of the energy to the rider. More control = better grip.
Also a 29er will span the gaps between bumps better. Think about a washboard road, you go the normal speed and it super bumpy and hard to maintain good traction but if you 10 mph faster, all the sudden it smooths out conciderably. Not exactly the same but the analogy works. 

Two: Not a large factor but a tire is always deformed where it touches the ground. Like the flat tire comment, with equal tire pressure, a larger diameter tire will have more contact than a smaller tire. I don't have the calculation but it's a percentage of the circle that will deform with a given pressure thus large dia = larger patch. As far as a 2.5 x 26 compared to a 2.2 x 29 tire I really don't know. 

Might make getting your bike to the trail a little harder if you shuttle like this guy!


----------



## MtnBikerDan (Aug 9, 2005)

*concept is proven - needs refinement*



chainsuck said:


> So I searched and found 26 vs 24 inch wheel threads. But how about 29er wheels for DH? 29 front and rear? Just front? Not stiff enough? Faster through the rock gardens? What do you think?


I watched a guy at the SOC in the Expert DS make it to the semi's on a Van Dessel 29er HT with a rohloff hub. EVERY other bike in the elims was F/S and he ran neck and neck all the way to the last 3-4 races... Pretty good testament for 29ers in Gravity events.

He had a distinct advantage in traction, momentum and overall speed - there where definitely wheel rigidity issues.

I think if the Hub spacing would increase 5-10mm the resultant symmetry and triangulation will make for a stronger more laterally rigid wheel.

With the stronger wheels, DH 29ers are feasible. a 69 is where I would go, for the roll over and traction for the front which always tend to be light. a 26" rear for strength and accelleration.

MNSHO


----------



## acdcfan1283 (Mar 20, 2004)

heh that f1 is insane. very different. cool idea :thumbsup:


----------



## dirtydownhill (Aug 11, 2006)

I would say that a 29" rear wheel would be too tall for most downhillers, but a 29" front might be good in the right application if the forks sag is set correctly it would leave the front a little higher for steep downhill sections


----------



## Fulton (Feb 6, 2004)

MtnBikerDan said:


> I watched a guy at the SOC in the Expert DS make it to the semi's on a Van Dessel 29er HT with a rohloff hub. EVERY other bike in the elims was F/S and he ran neck and neck all the way to the last 3-4 races... Pretty good testament for 29ers in Gravity events.
> 
> He had a distinct advantage in traction, momentum and overall speed - there where definitely wheel rigidity issues.
> 
> ...


If he had a rohloff rear, he had wider flange spacing and better spoke symmetry than the 26'er's.


----------



## speeder3800 (Dec 13, 2006)

*Down Hill 29er wheel set*

How about this wheel setup?
Kenda Nevagal tires on Stans rims, Hope Big'Un hubs. 
Wide hub + tall rim + shorter spokes + strong wheel. Right?

( I swear I saw a Stans Downhill/freeride rim before, it was taller and a little wider, but can't find it now??? )
You could run tubeless to get back some of the weight lost on the heavy hubs.


----------



## Manmountain Dense (Feb 28, 2007)

WOW. Y'all need to chill.


----------



## bcd (Jan 27, 2004)

thanks for coming in to hear more views on 29's in DH walt and lance.

sorry i forgot about you walt, don't know how. 

lance i lowered my uppers over my lowers to where i only have 6.25 
of the sliders showing to keep my uppers from my knees. don't have 
to mess with the damper side, but i ttok out the bottom out spring 
and its push rod in my lowers then added a spacer to kkep them 
from exstending out so far. also removign the spacer for making
room for the aditional spring for the 8'' travel. my total leg height now
dropout center to top is 28'', if i could get the uppers re threaded for 
the caps i could get them 1.5 more lower o think. 

i just wish that WB fork had more offset for better trail numbers

here are some trail numbers. any slack dh bike is going to have long trail, its what we want too let loose. 26x2.5 is 27'' tall
boxxer fork rake is 42mm, 888 is 43.5, fox 40 is 44 so i averaged.
my 29 fork offest would have to be 2.125 to have the same trail numbers as 43x27''

HA---43mm 27''------43mm 29er-----my WB is 31mm!! 29er. 

63---5-----------------5.5--------------6
64---4.7---------------5.2--------------5.7
65---4.4---------------4.9--------------5.4
66---4.1---------------4.6--------------5.1
67---3.9---------------4.3--------------4.8


----------



## bcd (Jan 27, 2004)

Godzilla said:


> Personally, I'd be interested in trying one. Like everyone else, I get tired of hearing the "29 inch wheels make your cock longer" bit coming from the 29er forum, but hey, if there's a possibility that they really _are_ faster, why not try one? Maybe I can con BCD into letting me roll his around if he's hitting the MSC this year - it couldn't be too hard to find a guy riding a 29" equipped BCD.
> 
> .


i am shooting to have a demo bike at the races i go to this year. maybe not AF b/c i'll
be lucky to finish by then, but the first two are for just that. me and demo. i'll ride up with 
you and let anyone who will leave there bike locked up @ expo try one out.

stop me anytime and say hi.


----------



## bcd (Jan 27, 2004)

RickyD said:


> I gotta say, a 29er would be primo at Angel Fire. I mean the first mile of that course is basically nothing but basketball sized rocks. No super big air. Not to many twisty's. I'd definitely love to try one there (hint, hint BCD).
> 
> .


thats b/c i cut the upper rock section in the trees 8 years ago. b/f it was a MSC race
when it was my local new mexico series. it just keeps getting harder and harder.

se my above post, def have to try one out. feeling is believing.


----------



## flowtron (Nov 17, 2006)

Hmmm, some good points made here. The issue I can't out of my head with a smaller 29" tire is on really high speed off camber stuff. A 2.2 would be terrifying up front. 

I understand the contact patch and rollover benefits arguments for xc/trail riding, but in DH the wider tires really seem to come into play because there are way more things going on than just bumps coming straight at you. Off camber rocks and trail sections cause lateral tire deflection, but with lower psi and wider tires (2.5/2.7) the tire deforms and maintains traction on a more lateral plane. Even with a DH casing, I have a hard time visualizing a 2.2 having enough room to deflect enough to stay hooked up (despite the longer longitudinal tire patch). Yes, I haven't ridden a 29"DH bike, and I'm very interested to do so. Walt, I'm sure we'll cross paths up at Keystone this summer, I'd love to trade bikes for a run or two (I like single pivots ta boot). 
Finally, last summer I finally switched from a 2.7 DHF up front to a 2.5. The improvement in flickability, manualing, quick direction line/change and acceleration was very noticeable. That experience is a tangible hangup I have in considering 29" DH eqiuipment, but again, I am interested to give it a try.

A question for 29" riders.....I've recently heard that manualing or even lifting the front end up is considerably harder on 29ers? Is this true?


----------



## BikeSATORI (Mar 20, 2004)

flowtron said:


> Hmmm, some good points made here. The issue I can't out of my head with a smaller 29" tire is on really high speed off camber stuff. A 2.2 would be terrifying up front.
> 
> I understand the contact patch and rollover benefits arguments for xc/trail riding, but in DH the wider tires really seem to come into play because there are way more things going on than just bumps coming straight at you. Off camber rocks and trail sections cause lateral tire deflection, but with lower psi and wider tires (2.5/2.7) the tire deforms and maintains traction on a more lateral plane. Even with a DH casing, I have a hard time visualizing a 2.2 having enough room to deflect enough to stay hooked up (despite the longer longitudinal tire patch). Yes, I haven't ridden a 29"DH bike, and I'm very interested to do so. Walt, I'm sure we'll cross paths up at Keystone this summer, I'd love to trade bikes for a run or two (I like single pivots ta boot).
> Finally, last summer I finally switched from a 2.7 DHF up front to a 2.5. The improvement in flickability, manualing, quick direction line/change and acceleration was very noticeable. That experience is a tangible hangup I have in considering 29" DH eqiuipment, but again, I am interested to give it a try.
> ...


I've never ridden any type of 29er that was even close to a FR or DH machine (or street/dj bike for that matter!) but the wheelie tests and manuals were not a thing of glory on that end of the spectrum. I'm a relatively short dude (5' 8"), and have an open mind on progression and trying new things, but I just don't think the 29'er is for me, which is fine, I'm not going to hate on it as it's obvious to see its advantages for others. (just fyi, for street, dirt, park, I like to rock the 24's and sometimes even the 20's, so when I come back to my 26" FR/DH or 4X bikes, they feel a bit larger, although not awkward or hard to get used to as I've been on 26" a good part of my life.)

It'll be interesting to hear what those dedicated riders have to say about it though.


----------



## bcd (Jan 27, 2004)

i think people have had trouble getting the front end up b/c 
the bikes they were riding had front der that really need 17.5+ CS.

I have seen my friend manual for road bike with in the drops.
the reports have more to do with the *general* 29er skills.
could they manual a 26er?

as short as it can go IMO is best. my 29er has 16''.


----------



## BikeSATORI (Mar 20, 2004)

bcd said:


> i think people have had trouble getting the front end up b/c
> the bikes they were riding had front der that really need 17.5+ CS.
> 
> I have seen my friend manual for road bike with in the drops.
> ...


I'd agree with everything just said there.

But, I can manual a 26" pretty good, but just felt pretty high on the 29'er, but like you said, it was an xc bike with probably 17.5+ cs's...

and HOLY SMOKES 16" cs's on the 29'er!!  incredible!  My Sinister SplinterMX has 16.7 and same with my old Turner Rail (just sold) and I love it, feels very short for what it is, but I didn't even think 16 was possible with the larger tires!


----------



## bcd (Jan 27, 2004)

BikeSATORI said:


> I'd agree with everything just said there.
> 
> But, I can manual a 26" pretty good, but just felt pretty high on the 29'er, but like you said, it was an xc bike with probably 17.5+ cs's...
> 
> and HOLY SMOKES 16" cs's on the 29'er!!  incredible!  My Sinister SplinterMX has 16.7 and same with my old Turner Rail (just sold) and I love it, feels very short for what it is, but I didn't even think 16 was possible with the larger tires!


not total final frame profile but here is the geo


----------



## MDJ (Jan 21, 2005)

KennyO's lame arguments and BCD's great responses just made me a 29er fan. Bring 'em on.

I actually did an XC ride this morning with a guy on a 29er. He's a 5'6" XCer and I'm a 6'2" DHer. We rode side by side on a few sections and I was amazed at how he easily rolled throughs some of the rocky sections. I was thinking about how beneficial that could be on a DH bike but thought there'd be too many downsides. In reality, I think I was just afraid of becoming one of the 29er crowd. BCD and the other couple of guys made some great arguments. I'll stick to 26 for now but I'll be watching the 29 development. I hope BCD rips it up this year.


----------



## LarryFahn (Jul 19, 2005)

I'm not against progression, but I thought Mountain biking in general and including DH/FR was to be "technical"? I don't see the point of a bigger wheel to make a trail easier when I'm seeking a challenge on my bike. I'm thinking of trails like BMW and Ripper at Diablo. Big, out of place boulders that make me have to become better to ride it. Why go bigger, to make it easier, to build trails that are more technical, to raise a challenge?

Fahn


----------



## MDJ (Jan 21, 2005)

LarryFahn said:


> I'm not against progression, but I thought Mountain biking in general and including DH/FR was to be "technical"? I don't see the point of a bigger wheel to make a trail easier when I'm seeking a challenge on my bike. I'm thinking of trails like BMW and Ripper at Diablo. Big, out of place boulders that make me have to become better to ride it. Why go bigger, to make it easier, to build trails that are more technical, to raise a challenge?
> 
> Fahn


I think the point is to go faster, not make it easier. Racers want to go faster. FRers want to go technical.

If technical is all that it is about, then we would be riding 20" BMX bikes


----------



## LarryFahn (Jul 19, 2005)

MDJ said:


> I think the point is to go faster, not make it easier. Racers want to go faster. FRers want to go technical.
> 
> If technical is all that it is about, then we would be riding 20" BMX bikes


Increase your workout, lift weights, lose weight, ride more, *let off the brakes*... If someone reinventing the wheel is the only way you can become "faster" then let me ask you this... Is riding that boring to you that this is the only way to have fun?


----------



## MDJ (Jan 21, 2005)

LarryFahn said:


> Increase your workout, lift weights, lose weight, ride more, *let off the brakes*... If someone reinventing the wheel is the only way you can become "faster" then let me ask you this... Is riding that boring to you that this is the only way to have fun?


Huh???

Reinventing the wheel is what MTB is all about. Remember when DH bikes were the same as XC bikes - hardtails and 2" forks? Did you make the same argument back then? Just because the technology is where you like it, does that mean all development should now stop??

Racers do whatever it takes to become faster, including what you mentioned. They also constantly update equipment to get an edge on the competition. That's why Sam Hill's bike is supposedly only 36 lbs. If 29ers make racers faster, it will catch on. If not, it will stay with the skinny dudes with shaved legs.


----------



## NoManerz (Feb 10, 2006)

LarryFahn said:


> Increase your workout, lift weights, lose weight, ride more, *let off the brakes*... If someone reinventing the wheel is the only way you can become "faster" then let me ask you this... Is riding that boring to you that this is the only way to have fun?


I agree 100 percent. It just a band-aid for SOME of the slower riders.


----------



## Godzilla (Mar 31, 2005)

NoManerz said:


> I agree 100 percent. It just a band-aid for SOME of the slower riders.


I disagree, if this line of thinking made sense, the more technically minded among us would find gratification in riding roadbikes down DH courses

Racing is all about going faster. Sure, superior gear will help matters along - but the truth of the matter is that no one invention / bike configuration is going to let you go faster than you will let yourself go - ie: the biggest obstacle to becoming faster is the rider himself. Why not start with the best tool for the job so that you can focus your energy on increasing your skill level?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Yo Flow -

You'll just have to see for yourself. There's a chance that there will be some, cough, new tires available by then that will be comparable to 2.5" 26er tires, too. I can't say any more than that, though. The stuff that's out now is not too bad (the 2.2" Nevegal actually measures 61mm knob to knob, which is bigger than some claimed 2.5s out there). Glad you like single pivots - 'cause I'm an XC framebuilder by trade, and one pivot is all my feeble mind can design for.

Manuals can be harder on 29" setups because, as BCD said, of the longer stays. This is less of a problem for bigger guys with a high COG and more weight to throw around, obviously. My personal bikes hover around 17" in the chainstay length department, which is comparable to most of the 26" offerings out there (I think a V10, for example, is around 17.5"). To be honest, though, I can't ride a "real" (meaning, actually maintain indefinitely) manual, even on pavement, so when I say manual, I really mean just loft the front wheel for 15 or 20 feet to clear some obstacle.

-Walt



flowtron said:


> Hmmm, some good points made here. The issue I can't out of my head with a smaller 29" tire is on really high speed off camber stuff. A 2.2 would be terrifying up front.
> 
> I understand the contact patch and rollover benefits arguments for xc/trail riding, but in DH the wider tires really seem to come into play because there are way more things going on than just bumps coming straight at you. Off camber rocks and trail sections cause lateral tire deflection, but with lower psi and wider tires (2.5/2.7) the tire deforms and maintains traction on a more lateral plane. Even with a DH casing, I have a hard time visualizing a 2.2 having enough room to deflect enough to stay hooked up (despite the longer longitudinal tire patch). Yes, I haven't ridden a 29"DH bike, and I'm very interested to do so. Walt, I'm sure we'll cross paths up at Keystone this summer, I'd love to trade bikes for a run or two (I like single pivots ta boot).
> Finally, last summer I finally switched from a 2.7 DHF up front to a 2.5. The improvement in flickability, manualing, quick direction line/change and acceleration was very noticeable. That experience is a tangible hangup I have in considering 29" DH eqiuipment, but again, I am interested to give it a try.
> ...


----------



## LarryFahn (Jul 19, 2005)

MDJ said:


> Huh???
> 
> Reinventing the wheel is what MTB is all about. Remember when DH bikes were the same as XC bikes - hardtails and 2" forks? Did you make the same argument back then? Just because the technology is where you like it, does that mean all development should now stop??
> 
> Racers do whatever it takes to become faster, including what you mentioned. They also constantly update equipment to get an edge on the competition. That's why Sam Hill's bike is supposedly only 36 lbs. If 29ers make racers faster, it will catch on. If not, it will stay with the skinny dudes with shaved legs.


You win! I quit. I'm going to enjoy my 26" Cro-mo HT and 47lb, 26" DH rig without ever winning a race. Go win a race for me! Wheels have been 26" on mtn bikes for 20+ years. There's no need to reinvent the en-tire (haha) system to roll over stuff easier. Fahn
Be back on Monday. Let's go ride.


----------



## sriracha (Jun 23, 2004)

Walt said:


> Manuals can be harder on 29" setups because, as BCD said, of the longer stays.-Walt


given the same chainstay length, i think a 29" rear wheel is easier to balance once you get up there in a manual/wheelie...it's not as twitchy on the balance point as the smaller wheels.
fwiw, i think a 69'er dh bike would be fun.


----------



## bcd (Jan 27, 2004)

LarryFahn said:


> You win! I quit. I'm going to enjoy my 26" Cro-mo HT and 47lb, 26" DH rig without ever winning a race. Go win a race for me! Wheels have been 26" on mtn bikes for 20+ years. There's no need to reinvent the en-tire (haha) system to roll over stuff easier. Fahn
> Be back on Monday. Let's go ride.


hi, i understand where you are coming from. i do the same in my dirt jumping, 
i ride 24's not b/c its easier but b/c its more tech, not like a 20 but it makes 
it more fun for me. so, if you like your 26's b/c they are more fun for you i 
understand.

for me, 29's are just like a super tire/suspension. its not that you
feel like you are riding over everything to make it easy. it feels more like 
a great working shock and a killer tire compound.


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

it ain't going to happen or be profitable in DH.......

overall the 29 inch takes longer to get to speed but pedals easier (easier to maintain speed)....goes over rocks easier so less travel is needed

the big thing is added weight of the rim....longer spokes have to be thicker to support weight (add to rotation weight)

bottom line.....DH is about accelerating quickly and the 29 can't


----------



## bcd (Jan 27, 2004)

hahahahhhaaaaa..............so naive.


----------



## Cornwall (Mar 28, 2007)

wow...........

that got dull, I think i'll go ride my bike


----------



## MichaelW (Jul 10, 2006)

KennyO said:


> Isn't it sad when all you have to argue for your 29er is a bunch of subjective, non-quantitative points?
> 
> You want to rub PRO all in my face? I've never heard of you. I've never heard of you smoking all of those other pro DHer's on the world cup circuit either. In fact, I suppose that if 29er's were everything you claim, then the greatest minds in DH bicycle development would have known what you know at least a couple years ago. The real pros would already be ripping the Worlds and World Cup on them, I'd think.
> 
> ...


I think I will chime in on this.

Kenny, when you can ride with Alex you can start to talk. I have seen him race as well as I have known him personally for the past 6 years. If you look at a bike mag in the past 5 years there has been many an article on him and his bike.

YES I RIDE A 29ER ALSO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

XOXO kenny

And yes Kenny on your beach cruiser you would lose that race too!

Michael


----------



## rryyddeerr (Oct 4, 2005)

people cling to ideas in a very odd way sometimes. when people talk about their bicycles it often times sounds like a combination of their favorite baseball team and their favorite teddy bear. i kind of feel bad for folks that are so sold on an idea that they completely refuse to try something new. and there are folks like this on both sides of this particular fence. 
that said, i think its really cool that this discussion is even happening. sometimes i just really love the internet. nowhere else can i find people that give a crap about this kind of stuff. i get to feeling like im way out in left field. 

give me a break. i just had coffee and im feeling warm and fuzzy.


----------



## bcd (Jan 27, 2004)

rryyddeerr said:


> people cling to ideas in a very odd way sometimes. when people talk about their bicycles it often times sounds like a combination of their favorite baseball team and their favorite teddy bear. i kind of feel bad for folks that are so sold on an idea that they completely refuse to try something new. and there are folks like this on both sides of this particular fence.
> that said, i think its really cool that this discussion is even happening. sometimes i just really love the internet. nowhere else can i find people that give a crap about this kind of stuff. i get to feeling like im way out in left field.
> 
> give me a break. i just had coffee and im feeling warm and fuzzy.


lol thats funny. i still like riding, but i have been married to it for 20 years
yet it still surprises me with new ideas, designs to keep me interested.

A bicycle, a simple machine

A simple machine made modern


----------



## Godzilla (Mar 31, 2005)

I was thinking about this thread when Alex came ripping through the finish line at Angelfire the other day with a stupid-fast 5:06 (or something) - sure there were some in the pro class who were "more stupider fast" - but not a whole lot of them, given that the Pro field had 80+ riders.

It'll be interesting to see how this discussion pans out in the long run.


----------



## mtnbykr06 (Mar 22, 2006)

Godzilla said:


> I was thinking about this thread when Alex came ripping through the finish line at Angelfire the other day with a stupid-fast 5:06 (or something) - sure there were some in the pro class who were "more stupider fast" - but not a whole lot of them, given that the Pro field had 80+ riders.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see how this discussion pans out in the long run.


Word. I was watching the PRO practice on Sunday before my runs, and noticed even though Alex was on a 6" travel fork, he and his bike seemed flawless over the rocks. Just seemed to flow so much more. I saw him talking to the Littermag journalist, and went over to check out the bike. Alex knows what he is talking about, and has a persuasive point to back up the 29'r. Honestly, I would try a 29'r just from that weekend alone, but only until someone starts to produce one.


----------



## Huck Banzai (May 8, 2005)

passion blurs the truth. Do you still rock suntour thumbshifters and a hite-rite?


29 will never go anywhere in this arena. Ripping DH, FR, DJ all put a lot of load on wheels, best in the world often land off camber and hipped; changing direction so fast and hard that rims and tires get wrecked from that 'alone' and you promote adding more leverage? If Im rockin the Mammoth fire road shuffle I'll consider 29's.....

Anyway - the truth usually emerges in the end, unless stifled by significant investment (WinTel - great example) so if Im wrong -- go ahead and prove it, I'll be giggling until then!


----------



## IndecentExposure (Sep 25, 2006)

I have a feeling once the 29 inch gig hits long travel DH bikes it will be a huge advantage.


----------



## bcd (Jan 27, 2004)

mtnbykr06 said:


> Word. I was watching the PRO practice on Sunday before my runs, and noticed even though Alex was on a 6" travel fork, he and his bike seemed flawless over the rocks. Just seemed to flow so much more. I saw him talking to the Littermag journalist, and went over to check out the bike. Alex knows what he is talking about, and has a persuasive point to back up the 29'r. Honestly, I would try a 29'r just from that weekend alone, but only until someone starts to produce one.


i am going as fast as i can to get production bikes done. could be this fall i 
will have some to sell.

the bike was so fast its hard to describe. the fast rocky road b/f the wood deck/downramp.

it was like i was skipping across that juat gaining more and more speed.

the bike late brakes so much better too. i was pushing that aspect this weekend.

late brakeing to 19th my best finish at a NAT yet. can't wait for MSA world cup

end of the month.

good to talk to you, alex VIVA 29er dh!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## DWF (Jan 12, 2004)

Godzilla said:


> I was thinking about this thread when Alex came ripping through the finish line at Angelfire the other day with a stupid-fast 5:06 (or something) - sure there were some in the pro class who were "more stupider fast" - but not a whole lot of them, given that the Pro field had 80+ riders.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see how this discussion pans out in the long run.


And he ran that 5:06 on 2.35" single ply 850-gram XC'ish tires (Panaracer Rampages)! With some proper DH tires that don't require so much air pressure and some decent casings, there is no telling how fast he could push it. The fact that he was 20-seconds off the fastest pro on a rough & rocky azz course like Angel Fire with single ply tires is saying something! Better than that, he did it all on a bike he built himself! Rock on, Alex!!! You da' man!


----------



## Ojai Bicyclist (Nov 4, 2005)

I really want to hop on a 29er DH bike. For what I do I can't see a disadvantage.


----------



## bcd (Jan 27, 2004)

for those who want to try a 29er on the front. 

i need my wb gone so i have money to get to 

slovainia world cup.


----------



## rryyddeerr (Oct 4, 2005)

bcd said:


> for those who want to try a 29er on the front.
> 
> i need my wb gone so i have money to get to
> 
> slovainia world cup.


alex,
they messed up your pictures on ebay. when you click on the fork pics, you get big shots of your dj frame. good luck.


----------



## bcd (Jan 27, 2004)

rryyddeerr said:


> alex,
> they messed up your pictures on ebay. when you click on the fork pics, you get big shots of your dj frame. good luck.


thanks fixxed


----------



## Monohan (Jun 28, 2007)

26 to 29 sounds like too much of a jump in size.

I think it would be better to try going 27 first, but that requires actually building them and having tires made.

on the other hand, why change? 26 is the perfect balance of strength, size, and rolling ability.


----------



## freerider_07 (May 13, 2007)

26 both.. =]


----------



## Davidcopperfield (Jan 17, 2007)

What about 32 inchers in DH 180mm hubs tall flanges, 48 spokes 1kg rims 203mm of suspension on both ends. For a guy like 200cm tall it would be the best option, istn't it?


----------



## Djponee (Dec 20, 2006)

> 26 all around or 26f/24r...Who really wants to be associated with the 29er crowd anyway


haha, good call. Take the lycra somewhere else.


----------



## Pistol2Ne (Apr 2, 2006)

this thread is old as balls


----------



## Rover Nick (Jul 13, 2006)

Davidcopperfield said:


> What about 32 inchers in DH 180mm hubs tall flanges, 48 spokes 1kg rims 203mm of suspension on both ends. For a guy like 200cm tall it would be the best option, istn't it?


Again, whats with the ressurection? Especially when you're trolling


----------



## Nut! (Nov 2, 2007)

Why not 25 inch? Or 27? Why is it only 26 or 24 or 29?
sorry for the noob question


----------



## flymybike (Jan 6, 2004)

650c?


----------



## BikeSATORI (Mar 20, 2004)

Nut! said:


> Why not 25 inch? Or 27? Why is it only 26 or 24 or 29?
> sorry for the noob question


make yourself a 25inch rim and it can be an option. Until then, seems logical to stick with what is already manufactured in readily available quantities.


----------



## buckoW (Feb 7, 2007)

25" rims exist as well as Schwalbe 25" tires. Saw them at Eurobike but don't remember the name.


----------



## buckoW (Feb 7, 2007)

A pic of BCD's bike with the modded 40 would help the haters understand better, I think.

I remember seeing Alex ride the DS in Durango at Chapman Hill in maybe 1997? and he was fast then so I can only imagine that he is killing it these days.

Innovation is cool.


----------



## MikeyOrange (Feb 25, 2005)

flymybike said:


> 650c?


Lance, I think that you might mean 650B. C is for road bikes if I remember correctly.

To BCD: what do you think about 27.5"/650B wheels? I know there's huge lack of tire/rim selection but it could possibly be a great intermediate for downhill applications... Also, it's good to see someone question the status quo and try something new. Keep it up and best of luck.


----------



## flymybike (Jan 6, 2004)

Thanks MickyOrange, I stand corrected.


----------



## BikeSATORI (Mar 20, 2004)

buckoW said:


> 25" rims exist as well as Schwalbe 25" tires. Saw them at Eurobike but don't remember the name.


wow, that's new to me! 

I think I'm all set with my 24 and 26 inchers though... now on the other hand, if they could just bridge the gap between 20's and 24's, haha....


----------



## buckoW (Feb 7, 2007)

The brand with 25" rims and tires is called Urban Cross Cycles and here is a link http://www.urbancrosscycle.com/start.htm

Funny how a new standard rim and tire size, that little to no consumers want, gets done so fast. Maybe Suzuki's involvement helped.


----------



## bcd (Jan 27, 2004)

MikeyOrange said:


> Lance, I think that you might mean 650B. C is for road bikes if I remember correctly.
> 
> To BCD: what do you think about 27.5"/650B wheels? I know there's huge lack of tire/rim selection but it could possibly be a great intermediate for downhill applications... Also, it's good to see someone question the status quo and try something new. Keep it up and best of luck.


650 would be sest on the back. i get plenty of travel on the front 
with low bars, 41'', thats lower than 70% of 8'' fork dh bikes.

right now 29 after 4 years or mor are just now getting a soso dh tire.

thanks, i love the 29s for dh and more people will follow when real tires

come along. just takes time, for the consumer and $$$ for tha mfg.


----------



## BikeSATORI (Mar 20, 2004)

buckoW said:


> The brand with 25" rims and tires is called Urban Cross Cycles and here is a link http://www.urbancrosscycle.com/start.htm
> 
> Funny how a new standard rim and tire size, that little to no consumers want, gets done so fast. Maybe Suzuki's involvement helped.


WOW. didn't expect that when I clicked the link. One of the coolest things I've ever seen in quite awhile. Thanks for that buckoW! :thumbsup: 
For having such a goofy name, I didn't expect they'd have such innovative and solid looking products, I can dig it! 
Just wish I wasn't an idiot and could read multiple languages.


----------



## igotbanned (Oct 20, 2007)

no no no....you all have it so wrong. Here is the prime wheel set up for a dh bike....24 x 10 It is so good for rockin' the dh, but the coaster brake gets annoying sometimes. And with the big wheel up front, you have super dooper traction, but can still toss around the rear end because of the lighter weight. .... here it is...







and if that doesn't work then here... https://s245.photobucket.com/albums/gg58/ian_bergman/?action=view&current=IMG_3773-1.jpg


----------



## Davidcopperfield (Jan 17, 2007)

To BCD what do you think about 32" wheel at both ends or just 32" front and 29" rear?


----------



## bcd (Jan 27, 2004)

Davidcopperfield said:


> To BCD what do you think about 32" wheel at both ends or just 32" front and 29" rear?


its all about tires. they are the key factor on any wheel above 29.

i would try 32 but can't see going any bigger that 29 with 6-7''.


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

when are you gonna start producing these? i've been lusting over a DH 29er for ages, and if you'd make em, i'd buy one.


----------



## GiantGeoff (Jun 22, 2007)

I would too buy one of Alex's frames in a freakin snap.


----------



## bcd (Jan 27, 2004)

William42 said:


> when are you gonna start producing these? i've been lusting over a DH 29er for ages, and if you'd make em, i'd buy one.


slowly working on a affordable alfine bike. 
it will be around 2700 with alfine, shifter,
rear hub and rear shock.


----------



## norbar (Jun 5, 2007)

I agree with some post for and some against the 29 idea. Most of the advantages posted by BCD and flymybike. But the problem mentioned before with shorter riders is in my opinion much bigger than it seems and kinda kills the whole idea as it narrows the marked. There would have to be 2 types of frames for short and higher bikers 26'' and 29'' which is a bigger differance than S vs. L. Plus sometimes on some very tech and maybe muddy (I'm not sure how 29''s would behave in mud. 
Another factor splitting the market is the FR scene. They would probably stick with 26'' as the advantages of 29'' are not so important in FR and doing NS and jumps would be just better on 26''. We already see that the 24'' market is pretty small and you have little choice on it. As 29'' DH would be even smaller (in my opinion at least) it would be even harder to get good tires, wheels. Probably most companies woudn't even try it.

Even though I'm still eager to see what came out of of BCD's head and how it will ride


----------

