# 29er... the 1991 way !



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Everyone I'm sure remembers our thread awhile ago on performance hybrids from the early 90s... the diamondback overdrives and miyatas and so on back when hybrids were actually mountain bikes with 700C wheels and not like today when they're touring road bikes with flat bars. My girlfriend was given an all-original 1991 Specialized Crossroads by a fellow at her kickboxing school who pulled it out of some trash (he's a sanitation engineer) and other than rusted chain, cracked tires and seized cables/housing it was in decent enough shape to do a rebuild on.

When pulling it apart I found the stock tires were 700x41C Specialized Nimbus with lots of clearance for mud around the frame and fork... and thought to myself "hmmm... 41mm wide is about a 1.7" width... Bontrager makes some nice Jones XR 29 x 1.8 kevlar foldables with good tread..." and thus a project was born. So with about $250 in parts including the $70 for the tires, this is what has resulted, and as pictured its 25.04 pounds.


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

Excuse my ignorance, but a 29" tire fits straight onto a 700c rim?


----------



## Cabin Fever (Jan 23, 2004)

looks like a pretty quick little ride! Always good to see a bike become salvaged. Let us know how it runs...


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

mechagouki said:


> Excuse my ignorance, but a 29" tire fits straight onto a 700c rim?


Yes... that's why 29ers were so easy to make... they were just fitting fat tires onto an existing wheel size. Same with 650B... its an existing rim size most manufacturers could easily make rims for as many of the remaining rim makers (sun, mavic, weinnmann/rigida, etc) had done 650B's in the past. Look on the sidewall of any 29er tire and the numbers 622 will be stamped into it, that's the bead seat diameter for 700C wheels. 26" mountain bike wheels are 559 and as I recall 650B is either 584 or 587 (and 700D is 3mm more than 650B which is the funny part as back in the performance hybrid era, GT had a couple models with a totally unique wheel size they invented themselves called 700D which was NEVER adopted by anyone else).


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

darn you D8, I saw one for sale locally and ignored it....till I saw yours....I just PayPal'd the seller and I'm picking it up tomorrow  Looks clean and all original, with that nice tire clearance, and it's my size!


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

Those tires are a nice upgrade for that frame they are not 29" tires. Nothing wrong with that as 28" tires are perfectly acceptable and in use worldwide and have been for years and they are all that bike needs. The only frame from that era that I have found that accepts a true 29" tire is the DB Overdrive.

The first 29" wheeled bike that I saw in 1999 was in fact built to accept the largest diameter 622 mm bead tires available at that time which were the Conti Goliaths and they were 45mm's, equivalent to a 1.75" and it didn't have alot of room at the fr. der. either with the 52mm/2.1 Nanoraptors installed which do measure out to almost 29"es. However it was definately a mt. bike geometry because it was made as a mtn. bike by a mtn. bike builder who had ridden 700c offroad for a number of years already.









I believe that most of the bikes that followed this were built under mt. bike geometry guidelines also and not to touring bike specs.


----------



## Slimpee (Oct 3, 2007)

I have something similar to this, although it's much heavier and generally a piece of crap, but this is giving me ideas nonetheless...


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

Bigwheel said:


> I think you have it a bit backwards in that the early 90's efforts by the companies mentioned are the touring road bikes with flat bars? Plus while those tires are a nice upgrade for that frame they are not 29" tires. Nothing wrong with that as 28" tires are perfectly acceptable and in use worldwide and have been for years and they are all that bike needs. The only frame from that era that I have found that accepts a true 29" tire is the DB Overdrive.
> 
> The first 29" wheeled bike that I saw in 1999 was in fact built to accept the largest diameter 622 mm bead tires available at that time which were the Conti Goliaths and they were 45mm's, equivalent to a 1.75" and it didn't have alot of room at the fr. der. either with the 52mm/2.1 Nanoraptors installed which do measure out to almost 29"es. However it was definately a mt. bike geometry because it was made as a mtn. bike by a mtn. bike builder who had ridden 700c offroad for a number of years already.
> 
> ...


So you're saying 29" tires won't fit a 700 rim? I'll have to go tell my 29x2.1's to get off those rims and go back on the rack where they belong. And to think I've been riding them that way, lucky I didn't get injured or killed. Thanx for the headsup :thumbsup:


----------



## kb11 (Mar 29, 2004)

What makes a 29" tire? A 29er MTB with 1.75's would be called a 28er?


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Geee.... Bontrager calls them 29 x 1.8s... they're in all the catalogs that way and it says so on the sidewall... kenda karma's come as a 29 x 1.9, WTB offers 29 x 1.85s, and well Panaracer calls it a 700x45C but the firecross is a 29 x 1.8 also. Guess those aren't really 29ers either. Granted the actual inflated diameter IS 28"... but let's see.... shiggy lists axle to tread top distances on his tire site...which you can double to get the outside diameters of the inflated tires, and checking them many are under 29 inches... so... are we gonna rename the wheel size as 28ers because they don't exactly measure up to 29?


----------



## ssmike (Jan 21, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> ... performance hybrids ...


...added to the list of oxymorons.


----------



## ssmike (Jan 21, 2004)

kb11 said:


> What makes a 29" tire?


A tire that is 29" in diameter



kb11 said:


> 29er MTB with 1.75's would be called a 28er?


Performance hybrid


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

ssmike said:


> Performance hybrid


LOL


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

D8, as I said 28"ers have been in use worldwide for years and there is way more history behind them than 29"ers. Zoom in on the top tube of that orange bike and you will see that it is branded 28 Mountie. What the difference is in a 29" versus a 28" tire is the volume of air in the larger diameter 2.1 tire which allowed for the use of lower tire pressures, 30 psi or less as compared to 40 psi or more, offroad. 

Anyway believe what you want. I have been trying to get this point across for too many years now and am over it. 29er away.

And Stan, not sure what your statement is about, as usual.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Except most tires labeled 29 x 2.1 AREN'T 29" diameter either !!! 29er is just a goofy mountain biker way to refer to fat tire 700C wheels in the first place. Its like the folks who label 650Bs now as 27.5s when the first ones out were actually about 27.7" (Pacenti Neo-Moto 2.3s). Most of those worldwide 28" tires you mention for that matter are less than 28" also. But the TIRE industry has decided to label all 700C tires with knobby patterns wider than about 40mm as 29ers so that's good enough for me.


----------



## Lutarious (Feb 8, 2005)

*Yes.*

I'm running WTB nanoraptor 29x2.1 on my Open Pro 700c rims. I run the exact same tire on my Salsa Delgado Disc 29er rim. On the Open Pros, I run about 38-42 pounds of air, and on the Delgados, I run em a bit lower, but never less than about 33-35.

What am I riding?


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

The recommended range on the side of these jones tires is 35 - 65... I've got them set at 41 front and 44 back for my gf right now and that's for a pavement ride tommorow.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

To be fair, we really need to start using more "standard" size conventions. Bikes with 26x2.1 tires are 26ers. Bikes with 26x2.5 are 26.5ers. My cx bike is a 27.25er, unless I'm using my "big knobiies" then it is a 27.5er.

My 29er is a 29er, until I sit on it, then it becomes a 28.75er, unless I increase the air pressure, then it's a 28.9er.


----------



## ssmike (Jan 21, 2004)

Lutarious said:


> What am I riding?


A bike.


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

So, I've got a 1999 Waterford RSE-11. It fits 700 X 38C tires with canti mounts. Is it a road bike or a pseudo 29'r. It's sporting a Campy Veloce/Mirage triple group now. I was thinking of changing to Deore XT and flat bars. Don't know if it would make it a 29'r or not. 

Tim


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Does it have room for more tires is the question... will a 29 labeled tire fit? I think the RSE was a touring or CX model wasn't it ?


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

CS2 said:


> So, I've got a 1999 Waterford RSE-11. It fits 700 X 38C tires with canti mounts. Is it a road bike or a pseudo 29'r. It's sporting a Campy Veloce/Mirage triple group now. I was thinking of changing to Deore XT and flat bars. Don't know if it would make it a 29'r or not.
> 
> Tim


Top 10 best threads ever!


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Top 10 best threads ever!


That's 10er to you mister!


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

LOL. 

I don't quite feel the build, but can respect the effort. D8 you should post the before shot again.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

This is how it was given to her three months ago...


----------



## 82Sidewinder (Jun 28, 2006)

DeeEight said:


> This is how it was given to her three months ago...


Nice work Dee Eight, and thanks for the inspiration. I have a '91 Trek 750 that currently has 700x38's with clearance to spare. It should be a good candidate for a 29'er.

Craig


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

DeeEight said:


> Does it have room for more tires is the question... will a 29 labeled tire fit? I think the RSE was a touring or CX model wasn't it ?


Good question, it had some SKS 45mm Big fenders on it. Looked like it would fit tires a lot bigger than the 700 X 32C's on it now. Waterford says it I'll fit 37C width tires. Is that big enough to be a 29'r?

Tim


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Well I think the definition as far as tire makers go isn't just the width but the presence of large tread knobs. Kenda makes their CX tires up to a 38mm (1.5") for example but they're 700C, but they label the 48mm wide Karma's as a 29er. Continental is particularly annoying in that they don't label their fatter 700C tires as such, but as that 28" size with the width in a fractional measurement like 1 5/8. This is particularly stupid because there was an actual 28" british wheel sizing, that used a 635mm bead-seat diameter.

What amuses me in this thread is I posted almost the same initial message in the 29er forum, but there not one person has posted any sort of challenge than a 29 x 1.8 ISN'T a 29er. Instead I have people who keep suggesting going 1x8/9 as a way to solve the front derailleur tire clearance issue even after I explained that it'd compromise the gearing range needed by my gf for the kind of riding she'll be doing on it.


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

Ultimately, the problem here is that the primary change on the bike is 
the wheel diameter, but the name 29er refers to the tire diameter. It's really just a point of confusion. To me, the wheel is the critical element; but disc brakes would throw that off, and, of course, the frame must be built to accommodate the tire diameter, too.

None of it really matters, but it is a bit obnoxious that there's no real standard in the tire industry. I can imagine some noobies getting 29er bikes and not realizing any 700c tire of compatible width will fit... There's no real confusion on "26-inch" tires, generally speaking, but I imagine there is as much variance among actual tire 26" MTB tire diameters as there is among actual 29" MTB tire diameters.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

cegrover said:


> There's no real confusion on "26-inch" tires, generally speaking, but I imagine there is as much variance among actual tire 26" MTB tire diameters as there is among actual 29" MTB tire diameters.


Hmmm... today things are pretty clear, but in the past 26" meant a lot of different things.

Today, a 26" wheel means rims that have a bead diameter of 559mm. In the past, 26" cruisers used 597 and 571 mm bead diameters for Schiwnn S-6 and S-7 rims. There are also several other more "obscure" (at least in the US) 26" wheels as well - including the 584mm 650b and 571mm 650c (same as the Schwinn S-7 rim) siezed rims.

Like you said, using the outer tire diamater of the tire to describe a wheel's size, which is really determined by the tire's and rim's bead diamter, really makes little since. Roadies got one this one right (assuming you ignore the US marketed bikes of the 1970s), since they ride either 700c or 650c wheels. These values actaully mean something, unlike mountain bikes who use things like 26" and 29" (which is a 700c rim).


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

We have had cross bikes, commuter bikes, 700c bikes that take fatter tires for years. They are not 29ers. 

29er means a mountain bike made around 700c rims that fits 2" - 2.7" mtb tires on it. Do you ride your mtb around with 1.6" tires on dificult, sketchy trails? No, because the high pressures required feels terrible and you pinch flat and cant corner well.

A cross bike, hybrid bike, or comfort bike with 38c tires on it dont make it a 29er. In name maybe, yes, but in ride and feel, no. This thread is cracking me up.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

laffeaux said:


> Hmmm... today things are pretty clear, but in the past 26" meant a lot of different things.
> 
> Today, a 26" wheel means rims that have a bead diameter of 559mm. In the past, 26" cruisers used 597 and 571 mm bead diameters for Schiwnn S-6 and S-7 rims. There are also several other more "obscure" (at least in the US) 26" wheels as well - including the 584mm 650b and 571mm 650c (same as the Schwinn S-7 rim) siezed rims.
> 
> Like you said, using the outer tire diamater of the tire to describe a wheel's size, which is really determined by the tire's and rim's bead diamter, really makes little since. Roadies got one this one right (assuming you ignore the US marketed bikes of the 1970s), since they ride either 700c or 650c wheels. These values actaully mean something, unlike mountain bikes who use things like 26" and 29" (which is a 700c rim).


29er is a spirit. a vibe. means you despise everything and anyone else not riding whatever it is a 29er..


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*Ooo, Ooo, Ooo*



Fillet-brazed said:


> 29er means a mountain bike made around 700c rims that fits 2" - 2.7" mtb tires on it. Do you ride your mtb around with 1.6" tires on dificult, sketchy trails? No, because the high pressures required feels terrible and you pinch flat and cant corner well.


I like 26 x 1.5 tires and 700x32 tires for trail riding :thumbsup:

but, alas, most of my riding is confined to, sigh, WI :madman:


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

cegrover said:


> Ultimately, the problem here is that the primary change on the bike is
> the wheel diameter, but the name 29er refers to the tire diameter. It's really just a point of confusion. To me, the wheel is the critical element; but disc brakes would throw that off, and, of course, the frame must be built to accommodate the tire diameter, too.
> 
> None of it really matters, but it is a bit obnoxious that there's no real standard in the tire industry. I can imagine some noobies getting 29er bikes and not realizing any 700c tire of compatible width will fit... There's no real confusion on "26-inch" tires, generally speaking, but I imagine there is as much variance among actual tire 26" MTB tire diameters as there is among actual 29" MTB tire diameters.


oh yeah.. some people ask for 29er "street tires". :thumbsup:


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

Shayne said:


> I like 26 x 1.5 tires and 700x32 tires for trail riding :thumbsup:
> 
> but, alas, most of my riding is confined to, sigh, WI :madman:


Yeah, I knew I was going to get myself in trouble with that statement. But I do agree, it can be fun, but its different from a 29er. Here's me on some 25c tires in the dirt on a recent lunch ride. (I recently put 28c tires on it so now its an "almost 29er")


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

*29er....the original*

Good idea + internet + industry marketing hype = mass stupidity

Sail away laddies!


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

cegrover said:


> There's no real confusion on "26-inch" tires, generally speaking, but I imagine there is as much variance among actual tire 26" MTB tire diameters as there is among actual 29" MTB tire diameters.


I have 26" MTB tires who's inflated diameters vary from 24.25" (in the case of a 26 x 1.0) to nearly 28" (in the case of a 26 x 3.0). The 26-inch size was specific to the lower knob height balloon tires in the 26 x 2.125 size on old schwinn paperboy bikes like excelsiors and the like.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Do you ride your mtb around with 1.6" tires on dificult, sketchy trails? No, because the high pressures required feels terrible and you pinch flat and cant corner well.


You've never ridden with Conti cross country 1.5s have you? I have... they work fine on sketchy stuff.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Bigwheel said:


> Good idea + internet + industry marketing hype = mass stupidity


So why is it nobody in the 29er forum whined about the tires not being 29ers then genius ?


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> So why is it nobody in the 29er forum whined about the tires not being 29ers then genius ?


They're not so smart?


----------



## azjeff (Jun 3, 2006)

Fillet-brazed said:


> We have had cross bikes, commuter bikes, 700c bikes that take fatter tires for years. They are not 29ers.
> 
> 29er means a mountain bike made around 700c rims that fits 2" - 2.7" mtb tires on it. Do you ride your mtb around with 1.6" tires on dificult, sketchy trails? No, because the high pressures required feels terrible and you pinch flat and cant corner well.
> 
> A cross bike, hybrid bike, or comfort bike with 38c tires on it dont make it a 29er. In name maybe, yes, but in ride and feel, no. This thread is cracking me up.


So you're one of "them"


----------



## ssmike (Jan 21, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> So why is it nobody in the 29er forum whined about the tires not being 29ers then genius ?


Because most of them don't realize that a 29" wheel is a 700C rim with fat tires, with threads like "what slicks can I use on my 29er."


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

DeeEight said:


> So why is it nobody in the 29er forum whined about the tires not being 29ers then genius ?


They're blind and deaf.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

ssmike said:


> Because most of them don't realize that a 29" wheel is a 700C rim with fat tires, with threads like "what slicks can I use on my 29er."


Ah-hahahaha! That's funny sh!t. :lol:


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

laffeaux said:


> Hmmm... today things are pretty clear, but in the past 26" meant a lot of different things.


Good points, I should have said there's no confusion about 26-inch size, when referring to mountain bikes...

As it will do mostly town duty, I put 700c/40 IRC CX/slick tires on my 1993 Diamondback Overdrive yesterday. Did I change the type of bike I have?


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

*curse you DeeEight !!*

Well, I had to try it after seeing yours. Picked up this clean CrossRoads today for $20.00 and had to see what would fit tirewise. 40's fit with lots of room to spare soooo....I had this set of 7 speed, 29er/700 wheels with 29x2.1 MotoRaptors already mounted and you can see the results.

The bike is bone stock with all Suntour components. Clearance on the front is perfectly livable and will improve after I take the reflector mount off. Rear is a little tighter but will work fine if I trim the outboard tire nubs about a 1/16" on each side  (a 2.0 tire would be great or I may massage the rear dropouts with my Dremel). I did take it around the block as is though, it is ridable  .

So according to a definion above by Fillet-brazed.."We have had cross bikes, commuter bikes, 700c bikes that take fatter tires for years. They are not 29ers. 29er means a mountain bike made around 700c rims that fits 2" - 2.7" mtb tires on it."...although it says "cross" in the name, the tires are within the above specs for a 29er :thumbsup:

I really don't care what it's called, it will be fun to play with.

EDIT 4-03-08..I returned it to "stock" with the 40's that came on it. It eas just an experiment to see how big of tires would fit.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

well there ya go. I always wondered if one of those would fit the big tires. Thats about as close as you can get I think without a real bike designed for that. Just dont bend your rims or go through any sticky mud. Show us some pics of the tire clearance. I kinda like that color.


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

before I start swappin...wider rims will "shorten" the tire and make it wider, whereas narrow rims will make the tire taller and thinner, correct?


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

Looks good, Stan! Is the vehicle in the background the Seattle bike kidnapping van?


----------



## azjeff (Jun 3, 2006)

That just ain't right, it looks like he washed the frame and left it in the dryer too long. Forget toeclip overlap, that almost has pedal overlap.:skep:

Yeah Stan, surprising you'd publish a pic of the Hooverwagon


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

azjeff said:


> That just ain't right, it looks like he washed the frame and left it in the dryer too long. Forget toeclip overlap, that almost has pedal overlap.:skep:
> 
> Yeah Stan, surprising you'd publish a pic of the Hooverwagon


Thats the problem I see too. Not enough cockpit room with the short top tube. The newer 29ers definately have taken that into account.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Crossroads sport eh? thats the next model up from my gf's. Ohhhh a suntour X-1 group... nice cranks those. Its where shimano stole the idea for an glossy-black off-road group from when they did Deore LX revision.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

*tube overlap*



stan4bikes said:


> Thats the problem I see too. Not enough cockpit room with the short top tube. The newer 29ers definately have taken that into account.


looks like with a steep hill and some hard braking you could almost get that front tire to rub on the down tube.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

stan4bikes said:


> before I start swappin...wider rims will "shorten" the tire and make it wider, whereas narrow rims will make the tire taller and thinner, correct?


thats a hard one. a medium width rim will give you the tallest tire. Both real wide and real narrown will make it a smaller diameter... As for width, probably the widest rim would give you the widest tire. All the differences are pretty minimal though. you could always just get a real 29er frame.


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

stan4bikes said:


> Thats the problem I see too. Not enough cockpit room with the short top tube. The newer 29ers definately have taken that into account.


Well, the Overdrive definitely does not have this problem - it's got a very long cockpit, including a MUCH longer stem than I normally ride. I think I have a shorter T-bone I can swap on and them it should be good. It is on the larger side for me - need to measure the seat post and see...


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Bare in mind that specialized ALWAYS had short top tubes until recently. This might explain why they had so many short team members too. The 18" size crossroads that started this thread has a 21.5" actual and 22" effective TT lengths (hooray for sloping top tubes to require two measurements).


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

DeeEight said:


> Crossroads sport eh? thats the next model up from my gf's. Ohhhh a suntour X-1 group... nice cranks those. Its where shimano stole the idea for an glossy-black off-road group from when they did Deore LX revision.


So...the Suntour X-1 group was good? I know nothing about it, is it equal to the Deore LX ?


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

stan4bikes said:


> So...the Suntour X-1 group was good? I know nothing about it, is it equal to the Deore LX ?


Depends what you mean by "good"


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

*Ok...*



bushpig said:


> Depends what you mean by "good"


I mean what quality level was it? was it dependable? was it widely used? Like I said, I know nothing about it. Looking for opinions from knowledable people :thumbsup: ...certain people need not reply


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

stan4bikes said:


> I mean what quality level was it? was it dependable? was it widely used? Like I said, I know nothing about it. Looking for opinions from knowledable people :thumbsup: ...certain people need not reply


i had an X1/ xcd/ xce bike. the finish is above lx. the design is better taste. it could be lighter than the same era LX. x1 is equivalent to LX in hierarchy but better. much nicer to look at.
some people say suntour never shifts like shimano. i never had a shifting problem w/it. maybe i wasn't paying attention.
things is i always thought it was perfect.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

All the suntour groups were lighter than shimano, when I just updated a Schwinn CrissCross I replaced its suntour xcm drivetrain with a shimano one, but as I pulled it off, I weighed the XCM rear derailleur... 270g... that was Deore XT weight at the time.


----------



## Fred Smedley (Feb 28, 2006)

I have a Miyata Quickcross ,given that its steel fork is pretty narrow I thought it foolish to make a almost a 29er out of it. I put on road handlebars , suntour barend shifters, and fenders, a much better rain/utility bike with 28c tires , than trying to make a dirt bike out of it imo.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Not all such good hybrids had such good clearance... the schwinn's (crossfit, crisscross, crosscut) maxed out around a 40C tire for useful width (that is that ones allowed some mud past the tires and didn't crowd the front derailleur in some manner).


----------

