# What do you think about 36" wheels?



## Tall Sam (Sep 29, 2013)

Hey Clydesdales,

I wrote an article about 36ers and thought I'd share it with you all. I'm hoping these things catch on, as it seems wheel size is the main remaining hindrance from a bike becoming truly proportional for a tall rider. The article: Proportional Bikes for Tall People: The 36er

How do you feel about 36" wheels? Overboard, or brilliant?


----------



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

Doesn't seem like your link is working. 

As a 6'7" dude though, I love the idea of a 36" bike. I'm not sure they could be made short and light enough to be useful mountain biking, but I'd certainly buy one if they were getting good reviews and the geometry, etc, were right for my style of riding.


----------



## iscariot (Oct 24, 2006)

Does this mean we need proportional trails and trail features for really tall people?


----------



## Tall Sam (Sep 29, 2013)

I fixed the link, but here it is again: 36ers

It's true the 36er won't be able to go some places 29ers can go, but the opposite would be true too
; bigger wheels can get over bigger rocks, etc.


----------



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

I think a 36er on a trail designed for 26" bikes might get boring. Pretty much the only thing that would slow you down would be your turning radius.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

At 6'3 I'm barely tall enough to build an 36'er that handles properly. The idea excites me out of sympathy, but i wonder if a 36'er is even the best option for you REALLY tall guys; most of you don't have an equally proportionate stance, weight, or power output to match your height. Makes me think that, with a few exceptions, a custom build on smaller wheels is gonna work better.


----------



## Joules (Oct 12, 2005)

Tall Sam said:


> It's true the 36er won't be able to go some places 29ers can go, but the opposite would be true too
> ; bigger wheels can get over bigger rocks, etc.


watch some trials riders (i.e., danny mcaskill) get up something 6-7' tall on 20" wheels and tell me you think that's true. Getting over stuff is a matter of skill, not wheel size (or equipment at all)


----------



## Tall Sam (Sep 29, 2013)

Joules said:


> watch some trials riders (i.e., danny mcaskill) get up something 6-7' tall on 20" wheels and tell me you think that's true. Getting over stuff is a matter of skill, not wheel size (or equipment at all)


Perhaps it has been too long since you last rode your tricycle 
This is starting to sound like the old proportional crank length debate... As people scale, the objects they interact with should scale similarly.
Take a look at Yao Ming on his 29er in the post. He would be way better off with a 36er, you can't seriously debate that he wouldn't. He is the extreme, yes, but it proves the point that objects we interact with should scale as we scale.


----------



## todwil (Feb 1, 2007)

36er's are fun to build and ride I've got the weight done to 31.24lbs
on latest one here are a couple pics of ones I built and ridden!! They ride just like a bike they roll everthing tight switchbacks are the only thing that you have really watch your line!!













Happy Motoring


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

Joules said:


> watch some trials riders (i.e., danny mcaskill) get up something 6-7' tall on 20" wheels and tell me you think that's true. Getting over stuff is a matter of skill, not wheel size (or equipment at all)


We're not all Danny MacAskill - but just for reference, he rides 26" wheels (or even 700c) Road Bike Party 2 - Martyn Ashton - YouTube

Bigger wheels do roll over certain terrain better than smaller wheels. If that wasn't the case we'd all be riding BMX, and we're not.


----------



## Bikin' Bric (Sep 7, 2003)

todwil said:


> 36er's are fun to build and ride I've got the weight done to 31.24lbs
> on latest one here are a couple pics of ones I built and ridden!! They ride just like a bike they roll everthing tight switchbacks are the only thing that you have really watch your line!!
> View attachment 900902
> View attachment 900903
> ...


Those look awesome. Where do you get the rims and tires?


----------



## todwil (Feb 1, 2007)

*36.6*



Bikin' Bric said:


> Those look awesome. Where do you get the rims and tires?


 The rim and spokes from Unicycle.com and the tires from Waltworks or Unicycle.com the rest is bike and now with the 1X stuff coming out gearing isn't a problem anymore my current setup is a 1X10 the front ring is a 28t XX1 and a 42t Oneup with a standard XT cassette out back


----------



## Surfdog93 (May 30, 2005)

It's never gonna happen mainstream. 29ers took forever to catch on and now the trend towards 27.5. Look at all the disadvantages…weight, cost, availability, strength, acceleration, maneuverability. I'm 6'8" and ride hard fast XC. I don't see any reason why I would want larger wheels.


----------



## todwil (Feb 1, 2007)

Surfdog93 said:


> It's never gonna happen mainstream. 29ers took forever to catch on and now the trend towards 27.5. Look at all the disadvantages&#8230;weight, cost, availability, strength, acceleration, maneuverability. I'm 6'8" and ride hard fast XC. I don't see any reason why I would want larger wheels.


I seem to have read this same quote when 29er's were boutique but now 26in wheels are obsoleting quickly. O I'm 6' and 300# and I too ride fast hard XC and even faster harder DH trust me these bikes can take it.


----------



## Realslowww (May 17, 2011)

To much rotating mass?


----------



## DennisF (Nov 4, 2011)

Surfdog93 said:


> It's never gonna happen mainstream. 29ers took forever to catch on and now the trend towards 27.5. Look at all the disadvantages&#8230;weight, cost, availability, strength, acceleration, maneuverability. I'm 6'8" and ride hard fast XC. I don't see any reason why I would want larger wheels.


29s aren't going anywhere, and I would argue that 26 is giving way to 27.5. If that's the case 27.5 trend is actually towards larger wheels, not smaller.

I can see it now. 36 eventually catches on. Then Giant is going to come out with 32.5, which will be heralded as the ideal size for all people in all riding conditions


----------



## tundra277 (Apr 21, 2010)

*36 for tall dudes*

So I'm 6'9" and would love a 36" tire on a "cruiser" style frame. Think black sheep, or trek sawyer or old style Schwinn retro look. Even on a 29er I feel like a adult riding a kids bike.

Guess it's time to start saving $$ for a custom frame.


----------



## BikeDamnit! (Jul 9, 2014)

DennisF said:


> 29s aren't going anywhere, and I would argue that 26 is giving way to 27.5. If that's the case 27.5 trend is actually towards larger wheels, not smaller.
> 
> I can see it now. 36 eventually catches on. Then Giant is going to come out with 32.5, which will be heralded as the ideal size for all people in all riding conditions


I really think Giant should give you a job.


----------



## davidfrench (Jan 25, 2011)

Quick update on that thread to let you know guys that we have a KickStarter campaign up for producing the DirtySixer here in California. Fabrication done by Ventana btw.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

I'm not tall enough even closely justify a 36er, but I think a 36er mountain bike would be cool and fun. Fun like a fat bike.


----------



## Agwan (Feb 16, 2011)

As a bike shop mechanic, I need to ask.

Have you solved the problem of the excess leverage tearing the hubs to pieces? Because 36ers snap axles and fry bearings/cups/cones like crazy.

Because almost everything 36 that rolls into the shop has a standard 135/100 OLD spacing. And It's not just the cheap ones either. If 29'er needed Boost, then you'll need a newer, stronger hub design to counter it. I'd push for fat-bike hubs, but while the flanges are wide, they're neither tall nor substantially reinforced.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

davidfrench said:


> Quick update on that thread to let you know guys that we have a KickStarter campaign up for producing the DirtySixer here in California. Fabrication done by Ventana btw.


Wow, Ventana makes good stuff, these things are going to be built solid.


----------



## todwil (Feb 1, 2007)

Agwan said:


> As a bike shop mechanic, I need to ask.
> 
> Have you solved the problem of the excess leverage tearing the hubs to pieces? Because 36ers snap axles and fry bearings/cups/cones like crazy.
> 
> Because almost everything 36 that rolls into the shop has a standard 135/100 OLD spacing. And It's not just the cheap ones either. If 29'er needed Boost, then you'll need a newer, stronger hub design to counter it. I'd push for fat-bike hubs, but while the flanges are wide, they're neither tall nor substantially reinforced.


Really? Im raising the BS flag on this 29er don't need boost and since there are only a hand fool of three foot wheeled bikes out there and Ive only ran into one other than my own, just how many have you seen in person? I run King and I9 hubs and have had ZERO issues. 
in the wild


----------



## Matterhorn (Feb 15, 2015)

I'd give a 36er a try but am skeptical that it would out perform my 29+ in the dirt. My buddy is all about it. Trouble is I may never get the chance to try one. 

If I was 7 feet tall I'd be sold. At 6'5" my XXL ECR is fine. A custom 29+ is next on the list.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Cleared2land said:


> I'm not tall enough even closely justify a 36er, but I think a 36er mountain bike would be cool and fun. Fun like a fat bike.


It's definitely an intriguing idea. Not like a fat bike though. Fat bikes have definite advantages in specific situations, I haven't seen much evidence that 36ers are better at anything in particular save being a bit more suitable for taller riders.


----------



## Agwan (Feb 16, 2011)

todwil said:


> Really? Im raising the BS flag on this 29er don't need boost and since there are only a hand fool of three foot wheeled bikes out there and Ive only ran into one other than my own, just how many have you seen in person? I run King and I9 hubs and have had ZERO issues.
> in the wild


Doesn't, not don't. and handful, not hand fool.

And four. In six months. two of which were cheap, two were not. All of them had the same problems.

I agree 29er "Don't need no boost" but it sure does benefit from it. As would anything that could benefit from increased triangulation.

I do believe the two cheap ones could have been 32" bikes. not that it matters. all 4 of them were for people of average height. and all four of them handled comically poor.

I love the idea for tall persons, when it has geometry optimized for that purpose. but when I see a Shimano XT and Hope hub respectively fried, (Both QR, too. such a terrible idea, especially since I'm pretty sure these were both custom builds. Such a great application for thru-axle! ) I feel like something needs to be done in the long term.

I'm not talking about whether or not it works. lots of bad ideas work a lot of the time. I'm interested in optimization that can be standardized and legitimized for those people who need it. There are specialty bike parts for paraplegics. I don't see why we can't do the same for the very tall.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Agwan said:


> I love the idea for tall persons, when it has geometry optimized for that purpose...
> 
> I don't see why we can't do the same for the very tall.


There's no doubt this is feasible. And, it's available. But it will most likely be custom built and expensive. It's all about demand. And the demand is low. But it's available for those willing separate themselves from the fruits of their labor.


----------



## davidfrench (Jan 25, 2011)

Agwan said:


> I don't see why we can't do the same for the very tall.


Please tell me you guys have seen the DirtySixer right?



Cleared2land said:


> There's no doubt this is feasible. And, it's available. But it will most likely be custom built and expensive. It's all about demand. And the demand is low. But it's available for those willing separate themselves from the fruits of their labor.


What I was quoted at the ER when I (6'6") crashed on a poorly designed 700c was a lot of $$. That's why I started the DirtySixer bikes. Yes it makes more sense when you're my size and taller. Most of my customers are around 7f yes.


----------



## Agwan (Feb 16, 2011)

Yeah, I've seen it. It looks very solid. 

With your VERY limited customer pool, I am not confident a tall rider experiencing a solid bike for the first time will have a good baseline for a stiff, compliant wheel. your wheels appear to be made from quality components, and may even last a very, very long time. But I strongly doubt any amount of optimization has gone into engineering a wheel with the same handling characteristics an ideal wheel would have under an average size rider. 

I've ridden flexy wheels before. They were properly built and tensioned, but flexy. And I've changed those out for stiff, compliant wheels I built myself. and it was a world of difference. Even on a 26 inch wheeled bike.

My concern again is NOT whether or not it works, It's whether or not it works ideally.

If you ride a Boost 29er wheel vs a regular 29er wheel. It's different. It's not very different. It won't blow any minds or change any lifes. But there is a subtle improvement that I don't mind experiencing. Would I be fine without it? yeah. Yeah I totally am. I have two 29er type bikes in my home (technically one is 700x38c) neither are boost and neither have spontaneously become un-ridable. But I work on enough bikes, test ride enough bikes, that I won't say it doesn't make a difference.

That same optimization will be exponentially more important the further from the hub the rim becomes. So it is not something I am willing to dismiss. 

If we all accepted the status quo we'd still be riding Penny-Farthings.


----------



## davidfrench (Jan 25, 2011)

I agree with you, it's all about subtleties. Devil is in the details they say.
The idea of a proportional sized bike, I got it again, after crashing poorly designed 700c. By scaling up not only the wheel diameter but all components, with what is available to a one-man operation with very limited budget is... well... not easy. Thanks to the fat bike movement, good contacts with machinists around the Bay Area we have been able to test multiple options, solutions. None of them failed. We are refining. At our pace. For example we got Rohloff to make a specific hub shell for us. Hey that's not small achievement. 
Also remember that the experience you and I have riding, hard, a lot of different bikes (well for me I guess way less bikes than you) is not the experience of most of my tall riders. They have been away from cycling for a long, long time. This means I make stuff way sturdier than it should because they forgot the skills that save a wheel when a pothole presents in front of you for example. 
There is room for improvement. Always. We are working on it.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

^^^^ Good luck moving forward. I'm impressed with what you have.

Necessity is the mother of invention.


----------



## todwil (Feb 1, 2007)

Agwan said:


> Doesn't, not don't. and handful, not hand fool.
> 
> And four. In six months. two of which were cheap, two were not. All of them had the same problems.
> 
> ...


 Wow.....SO two of the 36ers with broke hubs were really 32in bikes I'm
guessing these are Wally world bikes, these beauties came with coaster
brakes or freewheel 7sp so these are out. 
Now lets talk smoked hubs....you do realize.....you being a Mech and all the larger the diameter the wheel the slower it spins to achieve the same speed. So lower RPM less friction less heat no smoke as it were!
So BS flag still stays raised!!
:rant: Rant over go troll elsewhere O and thanks for the Grammar class!

Todd


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

Look. David is trying something new here. He's tall enough to have shared all our frustrations with bikes for the little people. He's got enough gumption to get out there and give it his best shot and has worked with some of the best in the business along the way (which has been a long time). He's not making big box bikes for novelty. He's not making slopestyle-shredding gnar-alls. He's making well thought out bikes for big people who want to ride bikes that make proportional sense.
Once I save up enough money, I'll support him too!


----------



## Agwan (Feb 16, 2011)

Two things. 

First Todwil is one of those people that doesn't realize that adults can discuss a topic with differing points of view and come out the other side both better for it. He is definitely infected with that age old "Forum-itis" where he feels every thread needs to be a circlejerk of agreement. But seeing as this is a thread entitled "What do you think of 36 inch wheels" I'm gonna share what I think of 36 inch wheels. This knee-jerk, defensive response from people who think that nominally decreased rotational friction will have any effect on the strain exerted upon a hub by a lateral force.

Second, David and I had a conversation in PM where we talked about the very issue I brought up here. His bikes are currently using a 150mmx15 front axle and a 170mm rear. He has been doing exactly what I asked about earlier. He's using fatbike hubs to improve triangulation. One of the questions I had, Which was "While the flange spacing is better, does the flange itself need to be taller/more reinforced to handle the increased leverage?" David's bikes are bespoke and not mass produced, So he doesn't have thousands of test subjects to reference, but it seemed that the fatbike hubs are up to the task. Which is great to hear.

Now that those hubs have proven themselves, at least in a small sample size. I do wonder what can be done to improve tire selection. Maybe find a tire factory willing to do low number production runs, then network together some sort of Kickstarter thing for people to buy in and offset the initial costs/ make sure they get the kinds of tires they want sooner?


----------



## todwil (Feb 1, 2007)

Agwan said:


> Two things.
> 
> First Todwil is one of those people that doesn't realize that adults can discuss a topic with differing points of view and come out the other side both better for it. He is definitely infected with that age old "Forum-itis" where he feels every thread needs to be a circlejerk of agreement. But seeing as this is a thread entitled "What do you think of 36 inch wheels" I'm gonna share what I think of 36 inch wheels. This knee-jerk, defensive response from people who think that nominally decreased rotational friction will have any effect on the strain exerted upon a hub by a lateral force.
> 
> ?


 Really? SO you come here and interject "YOUR OPINION" as fact then you make up a Streeeeeeetch of a back story to try and validate it. I have no problem discussing at great detail three foot wheeled bikes and
there short comings perceived or real. I like to hear what people think and listen to their opinions then I hand them my 28lb 36er and that usually washes most of that away. The reason I use standard hubs is quite simple there isn't much option for 36h drillings so its either super cheap or super expensive. I have a fat bike and "I" don't like the wider bottom bracket it makes me feel like Im waddling, if I road it more that feeling might be manageable. So putting wider hubs without a wider BB may cause heal strike to CS/ST problems. I have had ZERO hub bearing and axle issues with my 4plus years of use. The first 36er I built I used a super cheap Shimano Deore hub and broke the driver but I believe that was gear reducted force that got it. Troll on Punkin:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## davidfrench (Jan 25, 2011)

TooTallUK said:


> (...) He's not making big box bikes for novelty. He's not making slopestyle-shredding gnar-alls. He's making well thought out bikes for big people who want to ride bikes that make proportional sense.
> Once I save up enough money, I'll support him too!


Thanks Brother! We will be here when you're ready for your big DirtySixer bike! I don't plan on taking a day job anymore. I want this to be my day job now. 



Agwan said:


> (...) David and I had a conversation in PM where we talked about the very issue I brought up here. His bikes are currently using a 150mmx15 front axle and a 170mm rear. He has been doing exactly what I asked about earlier. He's using fatbike hubs to improve triangulation. One of the questions I had, Which was "While the flange spacing is better, does the flange itself need to be taller/more reinforced to handle the increased leverage?" David's bikes are bespoke and not mass produced, So he doesn't have thousands of test subjects to reference, but it seemed that the fatbike hubs are up to the task. Which is great to hear.
> 
> Now that those hubs have proven themselves, at least in a small sample size. I do wonder what can be done to improve tire selection. Maybe find a tire factory willing to do low number production runs, then network together some sort of Kickstarter thing for people to buy in and offset the initial costs/ make sure they get the kinds of tires they want sooner?


True: I PM'ed Agwan to know more about the hubs that failed that he witnessed. I didn't want to expose brand names here in public. Seems that it was a pretty small sample that does not correlate with my testing.
On the flange height: yes I'd love to test taller flanges but it's not a vital technical point because: 1- Does higher flanges really help or does it induce a tighter angle at the nipple? I consulted several machinist (one used to work with Chris King) and answers were not always the same! 2- The reality is I need production hubs, not one-off. If that was that simple I will follow Keener route and CNC my own (front) hub to 200mm OLD. Rear hubs are more complicated. But the truth is that potential customers need to be reassured they can find a replacement hub if need to (which in reality does not happen often, same fear with spokes, I never broke one spoke on my DirtySixer bikes after more than 3 years of hard riding for thousand of miles).
Yes to producing wider tire selection. This is REALLY expensive and our discussions with VeeRubber are still on going. Thanks to Matt and Walt we had a first batch of these made.



todwil said:


> (...) So putting wider hubs without a wider BB may cause heal strike to CS/ST problems. I have had ZERO hub bearing and axle issues with my 4plus years of use.


Yes to that too. Because I make bikes for taller riders, the wider BB (100mm) makes more sense as usually taller people have wider hips. This allow the chainline to accommodate a 170 o 190mm rear hub AND up to 220mm cranks (that's where the chainstay madness happen!).


----------



## Agwan (Feb 16, 2011)

Todwil, you're behaving like an ignorant child and I've grown bored with you. You're also one of those technologically oblivious people who uses "troll" as a knee-jerk response to just about anyone you disagree with. I'll do what I can to steer people away from you.

Davidfrench, you've proven yourself intelligent and professional. with a real passion for what you do and a brightness that tells me you will succeed. I'd be happy to point anyone I meet who is looking for a taller bike your way.

Have you ever looked into the more, road aspect of all this? I know Zinn has some options there (I am running a pair of those Chinese 48cm bars he sells.) 

While I definitely don't need the dimensions of a 36er, I've got very broad shoulders and a high weight. (We jokingly call it the "Gimli" build. 48.4 bony protrustion to bony protrusion. 290lbs for weight. simian index is similar to that of a 6 foot 5 male when compared to hip pivot, but I have very short legs so the end result is 5'9.)

The only reason I bring this up. is that I've had to do a great deal of research to actually make a road bike not only fit, but handle normally. Even a 28c tire holds a line in a corner VERY poorly at my weight. It generally tries to break loose. it regularly succeeds.

I can't imagine what the higher center of gravity on a customer near my weight would do to road handling. Have you ever considered it? Do you know of anyone other than Zinn that is doing a solid job with big and tall road?


----------



## todwil (Feb 1, 2007)

Agwan said:


> Todwil, you're behaving like an ignorant child and I've grown bored with you. You're also one of those technologically oblivious people who uses "troll" as a knee-jerk response to just about anyone you disagree with. I'll do what I can to steer people away from you.
> 
> Once again you come here and lie and I even missed one you even said they handled poorly SO once again name the "handled comically poor" broke axle smoked bearing 36ers. I raise the BS on your statement and instead of PROVING me wrong you go right to grammar class and name calling....thanks. If that makes me a "ignorant child"
> so be it if makes you feel better so be it when most people search a forum on a topic of there choice they are looking for truthful answer or best advice not the "TROLLATHON answer" so name call all you like.
> ...


----------



## Sasquatch1413 (Nov 6, 2008)

Finger pointing aside, I'm a 6'4" 300+ lb guy on a steel 36er custom designed for me. I use standard hubs 100 QR front, 142 TA rear, mostly because that was the easiest to build around. My next 36er will most likely be on fat bike hubs (if I can find 36h hubs readily available) for a stronger rear wheel. Front has been holding up fine but I've had issues with the rear wheel holding up. I build my own wheels and keep them tensioned often but the rear wheel started breaking spokes after about 300 miles. Not sure if this is due to the crap spoke quality or lack of triangulation. In my opinion though, the wheels aren't flexy. Bike tracks well and corners well. Wagon wheels do handle differently than a 29er but you just aren't going to get the snap of a smaller wheel. 

I have had issues with my rear hub. Started with a Hadley 72 POE and sheared the tip off a pawl within 10 rides. Switched to the 36 POE freehub and its worked great ever since.

I love my 36er and agree that it doesn't really do anything better than 29er (other than amazing roll over and ridiculous momentum), but it sure is a **** ton of fun to ride.


----------



## todwil (Feb 1, 2007)

Have you had a chance to relace your rear wheel with the Sapims spokes yet? I got about two hundred miles on the Alex rims and I think these are going to be keepers
we have a call in to them to try and get 32h drillings this would free up a shithe ton of hub options!!


----------



## davidfrench (Jan 25, 2011)

Ok, let's chill out a bit and refocus on the topic... 
-Yes to road 36er, I'm working on it with a twist in the material. It will undergo a lot of testing because at first I wasn't going for this material but hey, I want to try.
-I'm going to try AlexRims too, even if I do believe they are too narrow. But for really tall AND light riders that are going to take the new road DirtySixer bike version, it might work. More once we have tested it all thoroughly.
-Zach (Sasquatch141) you know what you need? A DirtySixer! 
-Todwill sorry if I didn't reply specifically to your offer in testing the new upside down fork version: we will be at the Sea Otter Classic with it. Of course take it for a spin!


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

*Agwan and todwil - Take Note*

We realize you guys have some differences, but you need to relax a bit or take it to PM before this thread gets locked.


----------



## Agwan (Feb 16, 2011)

Hey, I'm happy to see this thread return to the discussion at hand. I long ago tried to stop talking to that guy, he continues to troll. 

I have no interest in acting like a religious zealot about this topic, as Todwil has.

I had some concerns, asked about them in the right place, the right way. And got an answer from someone with greater experience. (David. Clearly not Todwil.)

I have two customers who are both over 7 feet tall. And I feel like pointing both of them in David's direction next time I see them. If they don't already know about him!


----------



## Sasquatch1413 (Nov 6, 2008)

davidfrench said:


> -Zach (Sasquatch141) you know what you need? A DirtySixer!


If nothing, you are persistent  I'm actually very surprised that the rohloff hubs have held up on the dirtysixer, didn't think those were very reliable under lots of torque.

Todwill, I did get the rear laced with the Sapim spokes. Haven't been on the bike much lately though. Only have a few rides on it.


----------



## davidfrench (Jan 25, 2011)

Sasquatch1413 said:


> If nothing, you are persistent  I'm actually very surprised that the rohloff hubs have held up on the dirtysixer, didn't think those were very reliable under lots of torque.


No problem with Rohloff hubs, even if we did gladly go from 135 OLD to the 170 OLD. Rohloff even made a special shell with 36 spokes available for us, after a lot of negotiation and with Neil's help (owner of CycleMonkey). Yes I'm persistent because I know what works. It's been more than 3 years of R&D, thousand of hard miles testing with 6'10" (in average) strong riders... I want all my tall brothers on a safe bike!


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Wow, I missed out on this thread. 

I've built a couple dozen 36ers over the last decade or so. They can be very fun, and can even be the best *performance* choice if you're tall enough and ride appropriate terrain for the limited tire and suspension choices. That's a pretty small slice of the population but it's not zero. Even for folks well under 6' tall, a 36er can be a fun bike to ride on all sorts of trails (or roads) just for the novelty factor. Not everyone wants to ride their fastest setup all the time, and there's nothing wrong with riding around on a 36er when you're 5'8" tall if that's what makes you happy. 

I've not heard any reports of blown up hubs, but the extra torque is certainly worth thinking about.

-Walt


----------



## todwil (Feb 1, 2007)

Now I think I know why the 36er Alex rims came about Focus bikes just released there version I thought at first April fools but its on there web page 36er Big Bird with the alex rim and the VEE tire they're calling it Sperm Whale


----------



## davidfrench (Jan 25, 2011)

todwil said:


> Now I think I know why the 36er Alex rims came about Focus bikes just released there version I thought at first April fools but its on there web page 36er Big Bird with the alex rim and the VEE tire they're calling it Sperm Whale


Saw that last night. Pretty funny. Def. look like they rushed the whole thing, but got to admit they were committed. And hey, got love the PR stunt and exposure.


----------



## todwil (Feb 1, 2007)

And Sperm Whale is a great name for the Tire. There video says they're Pro is racing it this season


----------



## davidfrench (Jan 25, 2011)

todwil said:


> And Sperm Whale is a great name for the Tire. There video says they're Pro is racing it this season


Good luck to them racing that one... :-o


----------



## Matterhorn (Feb 15, 2015)

Is the jump to 36" based solely on available rims and tires?


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

I find 36ers intriguing and would like to try one, although I think 32" would have more potential to gain some popularity as the next size up.


----------



## asollie (May 13, 2014)

Even if the industry starts making 36ers, I'm sure they'll continue to slam stack heights lower and lower. Pretty soon we're going to start bashing our knuckles on the ground.


----------



## Matterhorn (Feb 15, 2015)

asollie said:


> Even if the industry starts making 36ers, I'm sure they'll continue to slam stack heights lower and lower. Pretty soon we're going to start bashing our knuckles on the ground.


You sound grumpy like me. Maybe more so since you are selling your ICT.


----------



## davidfrench (Jan 25, 2011)

asollie said:


> Even if the industry starts making 36ers, I'm sure they'll continue to slam stack heights lower and lower. Pretty soon we're going to start bashing our knuckles on the ground.


That's because they are trying to make a mass product out of it. Good luck to them. It will bring more tire choice maybe. To me it is still the most logic thing to do... for my fellow tall and very tall riders.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Matterhorn said:


> Is the jump to 36" based solely on available rims and tires?


It is based on the idea that bigger riders need bigger bikes for some and simple novelty for others.

Between Kickstarter enabling funding of projects like this and the accessibility of inexpensive custom fabrication, projects like this are likely to be more common. Kind of cool.

Maybe next will be the penny farthing trail edition.


----------



## Matterhorn (Feb 15, 2015)

Ogre said:


> It is based on the idea that bigger riders need bigger bikes for some and simple novelty for others.
> 
> Between Kickstarter enabling funding of projects like this and the accessibility of inexpensive custom fabrication, projects like this are likely to be more common. Kind of cool.
> 
> Maybe next will be the penny farthing trail edition.


Sure, but none of that necessarily means 36". I'd be more curious to try a 32". 
Still glad it 36ers are happening and would try one if I could.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

Matterhorn said:


> Sure, but none of that necessarily means 36". I'd be more curious to try a 32".


Well make one! That's what David decided to do, and now 36ers are a far better thought-out thing than they ever were.


----------



## Matterhorn (Feb 15, 2015)

TooTallUK said:


> Well make one! That's what David decided to do, and now 36ers are a far better thought-out thing than they ever were.


If you love it so much why don't you marry it. Sorry, still love the playground classics.

Sure David did decide to make a 36er and his looks quite nice. My question though is still why 36? My guess is because that wheel size already existed. Starting from scratch and making new rims and tires would make the process much more difficult. No?

Certainly not knocking DirtySixer. I'd ride one in a heartbeat. I'd also ride a Unicorn. 
Only meant to say 32" might also be nice, especially for mtb applications in my area.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Wally World sells a 32" bike. Or at least they used to. Could spend the $200 and take the rims/tires, throw the rest out, and build a frame/fork around it...

But yes, 36" was chosen because it's an existing unicycle size. Kind of a no-mans-land between 29 and 36 which makes it harder to get over the rim/tire hurdles.

-Walt


----------



## Matterhorn (Feb 15, 2015)

I'm satisfied with 29+ really. Curious about other wheel sizes but if I spent any money it would be on a B Fat.


----------

