# 29+, Full Suspension Bike for Geezers?



## kaBLOOnie (Sep 22, 2017)

I just bought a Trek Full Stache bike, full suspension, with 29 X 3" tires. Although the bike is marketed towards rugged backcountry trails and bike-packers, I think the bike is great for geezers in general.









I am not interested in breaking bones or being injured on technical trails. I like having big tires that just roll over stuff. Even when riding dirt roads, this bike does well on washboard.

Another possible trait for geezers is that they got interesting in biking before mountain bikes were even invented. But there were half as many cars on the road back then, and most drivers actually looked out their windshields, instead of playing with their gadgets inside the car.

Therefore they might "mountain" bike just to get away from cars, that is, ride on dirt roads. I haven't found the Trek Full Stache to be handicapped on dirt roads at all. It just makes the road seem smooth.

So there it is for what it is worth: my endorsement of this category of bike for geezers who just love healthy, safe pedaling. The kids can break their necks on technical trails if that is what they want.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

29+ doesn't preclude breaking your neck on technical trails. You can do that with any wheel size. The bigger they are, the harder they fall?


----------



## kaBLOOnie (Sep 22, 2017)

I wonder if you are thinking of "moral hazard." I will be careful not to let these big wheels suck me into MORE TECHNICAL trails than I am used to doing.


----------



## DeadGrandpa (Aug 17, 2016)

kaBLOOnie said:


> I wonder if you are thinking of "moral hazard." I will be careful not to let these big wheels suck me into MORE TECHNICAL trails than I am used to doing.


 I'm a geezer less than a year into off pavement riding, for exactly the reasons you posed.
Those big wheels on my 1120 (rigid 29+ cousin to Stache) have gotten me through technical trails I wasn't prepared for, but I went SLOWLY. You just need to concentrate and don't be ashamed to push the bike through tough sections. Alright, be ashamed, but better shame than fractured bones and off your bike for months. Frankly, I enjoy the gravel on both my 1120 and my Tallboy (27.5x2.8) better than white knuckle bombing down unfamiliar singletrack that can turn sickeningly dangerous without warning. Is the FS overkill on washboard or rutted gnarly gravel? Maybe, but who cares? Comfort and stability are more fun than a trip to the ER when you get to my age.


----------



## Galeforce5 (Jun 7, 2013)

kaBLOOnie said:


> I just bought a Trek Full Stache bike, full suspension, with 29 X 3" tires. Although the bike is marketed towards rugged backcountry trails and bike-packers, I think the bike is great for geezers in general.
> 
> View attachment 1202948
> 
> ...


What about speed? How is it on smoother stuff? Do you notice a letdown in speed, harder to pedal, etc.?


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

About the only thing I found limiting in a bike like the Full Stache is the long wheelbase, such as riding steep technical rock gardens (Mr Toads, Capy Ahab) but if you're riding terrain like that, you have other things to worry about 

Every wheel size has pros and cons, the size you choose should based on the terrain you ride.

The Full Stache is a fast as the person riding it. It is a bulky bike, 3" tires and a big frame take some additional energy to motivate, it just depends on what you want from your bike. A carbon or aluminum framed hardtail Stache would suit most people, the Full Stache is more suited for "bumpy suiff".

The Trek Fuel EX 29 is likely a better choice for most folks, it won't take a 3" tire, but it'll take 2.8"; which is a more multi use tire. I ride my Full Stache with 2.6/2.8 tires.

I'm not a big box bike guy, but Trek has the rear suspension dialed on their bikes.



Galeforce5 said:


> What about speed? How is it on smoother stuff? Do you notice a letdown in speed, harder to pedal, etc.?


----------



## kaBLOOnie (Sep 22, 2017)

What smoother stuff!? I never find anything smooth...

OK, just kidding. Sometimes the road/trail surface is smooth. But when that happens, it is a brief miracle that any bike is good at handling. Small performance differences just don't matter to me.

What I care about is the bumpy stuff. Can the bike make that stuff seem semi-smooth? Can I take my eyes off the crappy rocks and bumps 10 feet in front of me, and enjoy the glorious scenery off at a distance.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

It makes it smoother than s shorter wheelbase bike, but you don't get scenic views unless you stop to smell the ?



kaBLOOnie said:


> What smoother stuff!? I never find anything smooth...
> 
> OK, just kidding. Sometimes the road/trail surface is smooth. But when that happens, it is a brief miracle that any bike is good at handling. Small performance differences just don't matter to me.
> 
> What I care about is the bumpy stuff. Can the bike make that stuff seem semi-smooth? Can I take my eyes off the crappy rocks and bumps 10 feet in front of me, and enjoy the glorious scenery off at a distance.


----------



## roadkill401 (Mar 14, 2017)

I have been riding full suspension for the past 20 years, and have seen in evolve dramatically from what it was like in the beginning to what they have now. It was not until this year that i finally made the jump to a new wheel size. I didn't find that there was much that my 26" could not ride over. I never really saw the desire to go to 29" and picked up an XC geo bike, the 27" Anthem2. For me the biggest difference I get is fallen trees as I have more bottom bracket clearance than I had before. The argument of roll over has never been anything that I have experianced as a limitation. The art is choosing the path that you can take and making a choice based on what you and your bike can handle.


----------



## kaBLOOnie (Sep 22, 2017)

roadkill401 said:


> I have been riding full suspension for the past 20 years, and have seen in evolve dramatically from what it was like in the beginning to what they have now. It was not until this year that i finally made the jump to a new wheel size. I didn't find that there was much that my 26" could not ride over. I never really saw the desire to go to 29" and picked up an XC geo bike, the 27" Anthem2. For me the biggest difference I get is fallen trees as I have more bottom bracket clearance than I had before. The argument of roll over has never been anything that I have experianced as a limitation. The art is choosing the path that you can take and making a choice based on what you and your bike can handle.


The bigger the wheel, the better. Look at jeeps, tractors, construction equipment, etc.


----------



## tm3 (Dec 17, 2005)

kaBLOOnie said:


> I just bought a Trek Full Stache bike, full suspension, with 29 X 3" tires. Although the bike is marketed towards rugged backcountry trails and bike-packers, I think the bike is great for geezers in general.
> 
> View attachment 1202948
> 
> ...


You've just described my type of riding. After some auditioning, I have been leaning towards the HT Stache (while wondering if even less suspension, ie a non-sus fat bike, might be even better).

What advantage do you see the rear suspension of the Full Stache having when it comes to dirt/gravel roads, and washboard (which is what I ride almost exclusively)?


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

I rode hard tails, Muni, and rigid until I was ~47 yo, then one day I was flying down a Jeep road at speed and I was getting bounced around so hard on my Honzo that I decided it was ridiculous to "live" that way, so I sold my Honzo and bought my first FS bike (Devinci Atlas).

FS bikes do everything better, there are no disadvantages other than cost, weight, and complexity. I have a hardtail (Wozo) that I ride on occasion, it's going to be replaced with a Stache carbon for use on mellower terrain. I don't mind riding a hardtail, but no tire diameter or tire width can make up for a lack of suspension; don't let anyone bullshite you otherwise..

If you're coming from a non plus hardtail, you're wanting more comfort, and you're looking at a 29+ like the Stache, at "our age" I'd skip the plus hardtail and get something like Trek Fuel EX 29, then run 2.6-2.8 tires and call it fine.

I would suggest a Full Stache, but it's heavy and it's sole benefit over a Fuel EX 29 is the ability to run 3" tires. I run 2.6/2.8 on my Full Stache. I have ridden 29+ as long as they've existed, it's a big tire and for most folks it's overkill.



tm3 said:


> You've just described my type of riding. After some auditioning, I have been leaning towards the HT Stache (while wondering if even less suspension, ie a non-sus fat bike, might be even better).
> 
> What advantage do you see the rear suspension of the Full Stache having when it comes to dirt/gravel roads, and washboard (which is what I ride almost exclusively)?


----------



## tm3 (Dec 17, 2005)

Nurse Ben said:


> I rode hard tails, Muni, and rigid until I was ~47 yo, then one day I was flying down a Jeep road at speed and I was getting bounced around so hard on my Honzo that I decided it was ridiculous to "live" that way, so I sold my Honzo and bought my first FS bike (Devinci Atlas).
> 
> FS bikes do everything better, there are no disadvantages other than cost, weight, and complexity. I have a hardtail (Wozo) that I ride on occasion, it's going to be replaced with a Stache carbon for use on mellower terrain. I don't mind riding a hardtail, but no tire diameter or tire width can make up for a lack of suspension; don't let anyone bullshite you otherwise..
> 
> ...


Thanks for the comments! I'm having trouble sorting all this out as there are a LOT of options.

Isn't the Fuel EX more of an "enduro" style (130mm travel)? Wouldn't 110-120mm be more in line with the type of riding we're talking about in this thread?

For perspective, my current ride is a 26" HT with suspension stem and 2" tires. The sus stem is fine, but I would like a little more cush in the rear. Also, at "my age" I'm trying to do some "future proofing" if that means full sus. Although I will say that on test rides the full sus didn't wow me -- I didn't like the pogo effect and the FS just didn't seem to accelerate like the Stache or my HT. But I'd probably get used to it.


----------



## xseal (Feb 25, 2018)

I have a Farley 9.6 with a Mastodon, 29x3.0 Carbon wheelset and find it mostly perfect for most of my riding, which is some gravel roads and lots of tight singletrack. Swapping wheel sets takes 3 min. Don’t see advantage of Stache HT over Farley with Mastodon. 

Having said that, I’m considering a Fuel EX 29er with 2.6 tires as a FS option. Been really happy with FB.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

xseal said:


> I have a Farley 9.6 with a Mastodon, 29x3.0 Carbon wheelset and find it mostly perfect for most of my riding, which is some gravel roads and lots of tight singletrack. Swapping wheel sets takes 3 min. Don't see advantage of Stache HT over Farley with Mastodon.
> 
> Having said that, I'm considering a Fuel EX 29er with 2.6 tires as a FS option. Been really happy with FB.


You're interested in what I found to be the ultimate, and what several of my Trek associates ride.

I'd love the Full Stache for some uses but our Fuel EX and Remedy with SE4 and at times SE3 rear tire have quickness and a light feeling the big wheels never have on our Farleys.

Trek's engineers and product managers ride at trails I manage and some are friends. I see and often try this stuff before it's on the market. There's a whole lot I like about the 29+ but the tire models can be too light or too heavy if you do one bike in a lot of riding types. I ride a late model Fuel EX, and my wife a Remedy 29. We just did 11 days between Summit County and Fruita. At home we have little bits of all that terrain. SE4 29r (not Plus) are surprisingly fast on hard and smooth trails. If only I had such tires years ago, and for the bike.... My Fuel EX worked for bike park, epic XC rides, and about anything encountered.

I'm in a circle of associates who have 140 Pikes or Fox with SE4 tires. The head engineer for the Slash has repeated he rides that unless it's true serious mountain or bike park riding.


----------



## Len Baird (Aug 1, 2017)

I have been riding a YT Jeffsy 29 which has 140 mil of travel front and rear, and climbs and pedals better than the Specialized FSR I rode 20 years ago. The FSR had half as much travel! Downhills of all kinds technical or not feel like cheating. Love it. 
I have 2.4 tires on it, but the next set will be 2.6 which I think is the limit of its clearance, although it might barely fit some 2.8's.
If I was young and more energetic I'd love to ride a hardtail, but all the hopping and standing and getting bounced is too much these days.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

roadkill401 said:


> The argument of roll over has never been anything that I have experianced as a limitation. The art is choosing the path that you can take and making a choice based on what you and your bike can handle.


Sounds like your trails don't need the increased rollover that bigger wheels give.

Many do.


----------



## tm3 (Dec 17, 2005)

bitflogger said:


> You're interested in what I found to be the ultimate, and what several of my Trek associates ride.
> 
> I'd love the Full Stache for some uses but our Fuel EX and Remedy with SE4 and at times SE3 rear tire have quickness and a light feeling the big wheels never have on our Farleys.
> 
> I'm in a circle of associates who have 140 Pikes or Fox with SE4 tires. The head engineer for the Slash has repeated he rides that unless it's true serious mountain or bike park riding.


Which SE4 width are you referring to -- 2.4, 2.6, or 3.0?


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

tm3 said:


> Which SE4 width are you referring to -- 2.4, 2.6, or 3.0?


Mostly the 2.4 but some associates have the 3 on plus wheels.

My preference for 29 x 2.4 is the overall versatility and my going to 27.5 x 3.8 Hodags for some riding. I ride a wide array of conditions and often ride 2 mi to trailhead. I ride with different style riders where some are race or Strava oriented and some are session the difficult features types.

I don't mean for any of this to be a cut on the plus tires or bike. I'd like the Full Stache for one particular trail area alone but I just finished almost 4 weeks of travel and can't imagine being more happy with a single bike or setup than I am. I can't have it all and also like to ride in winter so I'll keep riding the incredibly versatile trail bike and fattie.

Yesterday I was on some trail I've ridden for about 30 years and a few tight turns are a pain for a big modern bike but big wheel rollover capability is best overall. My prior complaints about big wheels disappeared with the modern geometry bikes.


----------



## armii (Jan 9, 2016)

What's a Geezer?


----------



## tm3 (Dec 17, 2005)

bitflogger said:


> Mostly the 2.4 but some associates have the 3 on plus wheels.
> 
> I don't mean for any of this to be a cut on the plus tires or bike. I'd like the Full Stache for one particular trail area alone but I just finished almost 4 weeks of travel and can't imagine being more happy with a single bike or setup than I am. I can't have it all and also like to ride in winter so I'll keep riding the incredibly versatile trail bike and fattie.


Thanks! I like the HT Stache better than the FS 29er's I've ridden (2" tires?) but keep wondering if the "sweet spot" for a geezer like me on dirt roads might be as Nurse Ben said ie a Fuel Ex 29er with sub-3" tires.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

armii said:


> What's a Geezer?


Evidently a degree of feebleness is involved.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

No, no, that's a wheezer.

A geezer is a non wheezing wheezer who tells kids to "get off my lawn".



bsieb said:


> Evidently a degree of feebleness is involved.


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

Thanks kaBLOOnie for this thread and all contributors. I have a light hardtail XC 29 and i do not mind walking a few sections but i turn into mosquito food. I will have to do some testing. Being about 140 pounds i think a full suspension 29+ might be a bit too heavy for me with a bit too much drag. I was thinking maybe a 29+ hardtail to save on weight and maintenance, maybe a 27+ full suspension or like written here a full suspension on 29x2.4 or 2.6. I started 2 years ago and at 60 i do not focus on speed nor jumps. I enjoy climbing.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

A 27.5+/29-2.4 hardtail is what I would do. Well actually, I would do full rigid. Much less hassle, light as a feather. Simple is good as we age.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

bsieb said:


> A 27.5+/29-2.4 hardtail is what I would do. Well actually, I would do full rigid. Much less hassle, light as a feather. Simple is good as we age.


I agree with the sentiment entirely. But man -- I think we must live in different places. Rigid riding sucks in my neck of the, um, desert.


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

I agree with rigid, simple i appreciate for our 4 winter months my fat is 26x4.8 studded. But for 8 months i will set up a 29 hardtail with 2.6/2.35 to keep it light and save my wrists. I am not a strong man.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Agreed, simple is a wonderful idea in theory, but riding rigid sucks where I live!

When I ride off road, I want comfort, traction, and forgiveness. Rigid bikes are none of the above when it comes to riding off road.

Perhaps a hardtail or rigid would work if I rode smoother surfaces, rode more out of the saddle, or did shorter rides, but that's just not my riding style.

I rode fifteen miles last night on mixed surfaces, old jeep road, groomed single track, rough single track, and as I flew down the trail on my full suspension 29+ I was reminded of how nice it was to be comfortable while riding.

I embraced FS bikes late in life, got my first only five years ago, had been stubborn, refusing to "give up", but one day as I was hammering down a rough jeep road; and getting hammered in the process, I decided that I'd had enough of being abused.

I still have a hardtail, but it's not my go to for anything but short rides and goofing off; and my hardtail is also a plus bike.



mikesee said:


> I agree with the sentiment entirely. But man -- I think we must live in different places. Rigid riding sucks in my neck of the, um, desert.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^You all are still young. I don't ride much chunk or gnar, and the Zuni Mountains single track is pretty smooth overall. I have a 29er fsr, but don't use it much, makes a great loaner. My hands are happier with low tire pressure vs. mechanical suspension. The rigid bike allows more finesse at lower pressures.


----------

