# What would you think about a 29er DH bike with carbon fiber rims?



## ride_nw (Jan 12, 2010)

Oh yeah, you thought I was just stirring the pot, didn't you?

https://www.vitalmtb.com/photos/fea...ce,1369/Chris-Canfield-CheezIt,7953/sspomer,2


----------



## screwyouguysimgoinghome (May 20, 2009)

you cant make tacos in a pot, so I actually didn't think you were "just stirring the pot"

ha!


----------



## his dudeness (May 9, 2007)

Well, in theory it'd be pretty badass as long as the wheelbase wasn't the length of a freight train and the wheels were built up to have retard strength. I've enjoyed just about every 29er I've ridden, as far as xc and general trail riding go they're pretty neck and neck with 26ers.


----------



## trailadvent (Jun 29, 2004)

has to be said, std mtbr response!

Sounds Flexy

:thumbsup:


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2010)

Can it be adjusted to 178mm of travel?


----------



## gollub01 (Mar 24, 2008)

Chris hucked the **** outta that bike this weekend....If anyone can do it the Canfields can


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

Fuggin rad. If they feel they can put out a bike that is worthy, they will do it, and if they do, it will be good. If they do it, the bike will also have proper 29er geometry, which is NOT the same as 26er geometry. Can't wait to see what comes of this.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

It'll be awesome, we need more DH bikes that won't be able to turn.


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

Jayem said:


> It'll be awesome, we need more DH bikes that won't be able to turn.


I've never had any particular trouble with turning a 29er. But I do all my riding in socal and sierra/norcal, where there are no rocks 

People are turning pretty hard with high bottom brackets (v10, anybody?). The axles will be a little higher, but the traction benefits might be worth it, even in corners. I know most of the time I'm taking corners, the only reason I'm not going faster is because my tires are starting to slide a bit, especially in choppy corners - better weight distribution and trust and bike setup would make me into sam hill, but I don't have that, so I'll take every advantage I can get. I'd be very very interested in riding one.


----------



## Freerydejunky (Sep 21, 2006)

Still ghey, with a pinch of carbon now.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

William42 said:


> I've never had any particular trouble with turning a 29er. But I do all my riding in socal and sierra/norcal, where there are no rocks
> 
> People are turning pretty hard with high bottom brackets (v10, anybody?). The axles will be a little higher, but the traction benefits might be worth it, even in corners. I know most of the time I'm taking corners, the only reason I'm not going faster is because my tires are starting to slide a bit, especially in choppy corners - better weight distribution and trust and bike setup would make me into sam hill, but I don't have that, so I'll take every advantage I can get. I'd be very very interested in riding one.


I have, and I have a 29er. They just don't move like 26ers. On some of our fun jump-trails I don't even like a full on DH bike, but the manueverability of 29ers can be quite a hindrance in some terrain. It's feels like I'm riding drunk sometimes  The real question becomes, if these bikes take hold, will they be ridden in the same terrain as before, or will courses and trails be designed for them? I don't care what the geometry is, I wouldn't take a 29er DH bike down a lot of the DH trails I do.

Of course people are turning with high BBs, a high BB is more unstable and makes it easier to turn, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the wheel size and gyroscopic force.

I also think a lot of people fail to appreciate that there are no 29er DH rims/wheels/tires yet. When you equip a 29er DH bike with the necessary rubber to prevent flats and grip, the rim, the spokes and so on, you have a lot MORE gyroscopic force. This isn't going to be like your 29er hardtail, or the XC 29er you own, it's going to be another level altogether. My DH bike already has some burley wheels and tires with a lot more rotational mass than a 26" XC bike, so if you increase the wheelsize significantly, well it's not going to be comparable to anything that currently exists in that sense.

Then of course there's the travel limitation, around 7" absolute max. Unfortunately, 29ers do not smooth out the terrain more IMO, nothing can replace suspension in that case. They can go faster in some cases, but that doesn't mean better suspension/more comfortable. 7" of well controlled travel is not much of a disadvantage obviously, but that's pushing it to the extreme in terms of tire/seat tube clearance and everything else.

650b has a far greater chance of some day taking the mainstream for DH/FR.


----------



## antonovc (Jun 29, 2004)

I have no experience with edge wheels on the mountain, however, on the road, being to run spoke tension that is almost double what a regular aluminum rim will take makes for an incredibly stiff rim, and carbon fiber has a higher strength to weight ratio than aluminum, therefore can be built stronger than aluminum... and whoever said 29ers have a higher center of gravity needs to learn at some geometry... Yes the axles are higher, but with a bb at the same height it makes for a lower overall center of gravity... I dont think 29ers are the wave of the future for DH mostly because of the variety of courses, but they will have their place on courses without lots of technical turns....


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

Chris has been playing around with 29ers for at least 3 years...I am still not converting for DH...XC another story


----------



## ride_nw (Jan 12, 2010)

Jayem said:


> I also think a lot of people fail to appreciate that there are no 29er DH rims/wheels/tires yet.


What about these?
http://www.wtb.com/products/tires/29er/dissent29/
http://bike29.com/catalog/kodiak-29er-tire-p-407.html


----------



## MqtRider (Mar 22, 2004)

It's just the beginning...in 5 years they will be common place. Guys like Steber have been at the forefront of so many things that, at the time were against the grain, are now common place. This likely will be one in the same.


----------



## Lelandjt (Feb 22, 2008)

Jayem said:


> 650b has a far greater chance of some day taking the mainstream for DH/FR.


Agreed. I wonder why manufacturers are focusing on 29" instead.


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2010)

MqtRider said:


> It's just the beginning...in 5 years they will be common place. Guys like Steber have been at the forefront of so many things that, at the time were against the grain, are now common place. This likely will be one in the same.


Guess you didn't read the interview where Steber said that 2951 was an experiment and nothing more... And if you watch the video of his pro's test riding it, it sure didn't look easy to maneuver, especially in the air.

People need to stop believing marketing hype or soon we'll all be riding these.


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2010)

sixsixtysix said:


> Guess you didn't read the interview where Steber said that 2951 was an experiment and nothing more... And if you watch the video of his pro's test riding it, it sure didn't look easy to maneuver, especially in the air.
> 
> People need to stop believing marketing hype or soon we'll all be riding these.


I want one

How long before Doodoo gets one of those Canfields? Right after he sells the Jedi?


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2010)

Mike-e said:


> I want one
> 
> How long before Doodoo gets one of those Canfields? Right after he sells the Jedi?


Wonder why it's so hard for the rider to keep his feet on the pedals. Maybe because it doesn't turn?






The Prototype Intense 2951 - More Mountain Bike Videos


----------



## ride_nw (Jan 12, 2010)

*Turning and Jumping*

Chris Canfield, creator and pilot of the bike in this thread, recently added a comment to a related thread in the 29er forum:
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?p=6981489&mode=threaded#post6981489



cSquared said:


> Hey everyone- That frame is a old Balance frame I mod-ed for 29er wheels-
> The BB is 14.1- and it needs to be about 13.5 or so.
> The HA is 65 and I think 64 would be better.
> But the stays are at 17.25 with the slide back option to 17.75.
> ...


----------



## Lelandjt (Feb 22, 2008)

That video does make them look awkward in the air, the pro rider looks like a beginner. Maybe he just needed time to get used to it though or maybe he's short. I always thought big wheels make much more sense for the 6'+ crowd.


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2010)

Lelandjt said:


> That video does make them look awkward in the air, the pro rider looks like a beginner. Maybe he just needed time to get used to it though or maybe he's short. I always thought big wheels make much more sense for the 6'+ crowd.


Bigger wheels = higher rotational mass + Higher Speeds = greater gyroscopic effect. Its simple physics.


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

Given that the OD of 2.6"+ tire is just as big or bigger than a 650b combination I think it's safe to say no one's going to bite on that.

That bike in the video looks unruly. As if the rider is saying "If you think I look awesome now, just give me a 26"...

Just because something works great in one situation doesn't mean it needs to be used in all situations. I don't think 29ers will ever catch on in DH. But hey, it could be the best thing ever so it's cool that Canfield/Answer/Intense are experimenting.


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

asin said:


> Given that the OD of 2.6"+ tire is just as big or bigger than a 650b combination I think it's safe to say no one's going to bite on that.


no offense, but that's a stupid comparison since you aren't looking at equivalent tire sizes. Once a 650b x 2.6" tire comes out then we can properly compare


----------



## ride_nw (Jan 12, 2010)

asin said:


> That bike in the video looks unruly. As if the rider is saying "If you think I look awesome now, just give me a 26"...


I wonder how much time this guy had on the bike before they started filming? It takes a while to get used to the difference in wheel size.

Take a good bmxer and put them on a 26" for the first time, it will probably take a while before they can rip. I remember the first time I jumped on a 24" cruiser after only ever riding 20's... it was weird, the bike felt huge, stable, not so flickable... but it didn't take long before I preferred it.

Speaking of wheel sizes: There are plenty of people who think 26" wheel bikes have no place at the dirt jumps, they are sluggish and difficult to maneuver, etc. And now, some of us 26ers are saying that about 700c wheels. So it's all relative, right?


----------



## JMH (Feb 23, 2005)

I am stoked on guys out there riding new stuff. The bike scene gets quiet and boring for a few years, then it picks up with all kinds of cool experiments. Some of them catch on, some don't. 

29" wheels are here to stay. Whether or not they get far in DH is anybody's guess, but there are a lot of guys excited about them that know a lot more about racing than most of us ever will. 29ers ARE a bit awkward in the air for sure. But if the bottom line is about speed and if your style suits the big wheels, you will go faster. If it doesn't, you won't.

Laugh all you like, but sooner or later a guy on big wheels is going to roost you on your favorite DH trail and you are going to have one less argument against a bike you have never tried.  

JMH


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

ride_nw said:


> Speaking of wheel sizes: There are plenty of people who think 26" wheel bikes have no place at the dirt jumps, they are sluggish and difficult to maneuver, etc. And now, some of us 26ers are saying that about 700c wheels. So it's all relative, right?


I wouldn't say so. There are plenty of dirt jumps where smaller than 26 wheels are better. It depends on the specific dirt jumps. Sometimes you can ride a 26er on dirt jumps, sometimes it's just not the right tool for the job. This goes back to what I said before: are the trails designed for the bike, or is the bike designed for the trails?


----------



## trailadvent (Jun 29, 2004)

JMH said:


> I am stoked on guys out there riding new stuff. The bike scene gets quiet and boring for a few years, then it picks up with all kinds of cool experiments. Some of them catch on, some don't.
> 
> 29" wheels are here to stay. Whether or not they get far in DH is anybody's guess, but there are a lot of guys excited about them that know a lot more about racing than most of us ever will. 29ers ARE a bit awkward in the air for sure. But if the bottom line is about speed and if your style suits the big wheels, you will go faster. If it doesn't, you won't.
> 
> ...


I laugh all the time when I read this BS!

Tech and moving fwd and chit is all good, but trying to create classes within classes is stupid!

Why don't NFL, NBA, Baseball hockey all use bigger sticks bigger balls? why don't Nasar Indy and F1 run bigger wheels.

Because apart from the huge increase in costs to all in sundry it also devalues the sport/s over time, sports is about tech! its also about history, its also about SKILLs, most of all..........

When ya can't compete ya don't throw out ya bath water and start something new and then try to call it something new but still part of the same thing!

Its why ya dot see 20" combined with 26" racing they are different sports within the same context, they weren't stupid enough to mix it up!

I don't care what people ride, I will ride anything anywhere, but I also stay true to the sport.

If someone wants to race me on a 29er I have no issues on it don''t give a rats arse! Ride whatever floats ya boat!

What I don't want to see though is it at competitive level.. dumbing down of our sport! competition should come down to tires suspension shoes whatever,bike improvements, but within a base level of stds for the sport, like most other semi credible sports.

Moto realised this way long ago, When will MTB learn or Americans always trying to use tech to try to stay on top or win instead of improving ya base level of racing riding and trails where people will improve! Thats why the UIS once dominated, now everything is manufactured e.g not made, people are mass produced in one bubble!

Best advice I ever got was form Bob Hannah

I don;t need no f**************g Gym or private tracks I ride out in the dirt and in the desert

If I want to improve I ride my f************g riding on my bike, I RIDE!!!!!!!

Not all that other BS the e -experts tell me to do!

Now F off and let me go ride I got training to do! 

Never forgot it, dam legend, the JT of Moto, JT roked too on anything anywhere on any trail he didn't need no big wheels another due that rode his Bike, that's why they are legends!

Big wheels pfft, good for road riding get skillz stop dumbing **** down and ride ya BIKE !



Jayem said:


> I wouldn't say so. There are plenty of dirt jumps where smaller than 26 wheels are better. It depends on the specific dirt jumps. Sometimes you can ride a 26er on dirt jumps, sometimes it's just not the right tool for the job. This goes back to what I said before: are the trails designed for the bike, or is the bike designed for the trails?


As for building trails!

Agree and disagree, def tracks, courses for disciplines

I don't turn up at a Dirt jump area on my DH bike and wreck the hard work and effort gone into shaping and making DJs for guys on 20" BMXs or 26" dirt jump bikes!

But in the bush I may build a DH trail but as far as I'm conerned ya should be able to ride it on any bike, not need 29ER GHEY wheels or 10" of suspension, the track might be laid out for big stuff, but I'll always try to make it abut the rider!

What I hate is someone who builds hucks where it a XC trail or a DH trail made for XC bikes with big gap jumps in it, F******G stupid **** that cause no end of problems for access, for riders, for injury and more importantly for the trail where massive erosion is caused by idiots who build B lines above the transitions to wash away the tranny's on take off on tranny's on landing! or just don't think about erosion full stop!

Bike dosen't come into it, pre injury I could ride any trail on my DJ HT that I could do on my DH bike and thats how it should be!

About skill the rider, not about the bike!

I love technology as much as anyone, and mostly have been an early adopter but never of BS I hate BS shitters and BS :thumbsup:

why I have eyes in the back of my head I can feel the knives now.


----------



## Nick_M2R (Oct 18, 2008)

Me personally?
Id say..
No No and more No.....


----------



## Ray Lee (Aug 17, 2007)

I really wanted to see 650b go in this direction but seems like its going the rigid, steel, fixed gear rout 



boomn said:


> no offense, but that's a stupid comparison since you aren't looking at equivalent tire sizes. Once a 650b x 2.6" tire comes out then we can properly compare


----------



## Thor29 (May 12, 2005)

You guys are pretty funny. You almost seem AFRAID of the big wheels. If mountain bikers were always as conservative as you guys, we'd still be riding rigid bikes with cantilever brakes. For XC and AM, 29er wheels are generally an improvement over 26. For freeride and DH, I think it will be a toss up. In chunky, rocky, rooty stuff, a 29er will be smoother. The extra gyroscopic effect will make the bike more stable at high speed. The downside is a slightly higher risk of wheel bending and limitations on maximum travel. Turning ability is affected a lot more by geometry than wheel size. Overall wheelbase will likely increase 1 or 2 inches. Big deal.

I've ridden my 29er singlespeed hardtail at Northstar and had a blast jumping the tabletops on Livewire. It was sweet in the air. You get used to the different wheelsize pretty quickly. 

I really don't believe that 26 is the magical number. It's a total accident of history and is due to the rim size available to the dudes in Marin back in the old days. I think you could build a series of freeride bikes with different wheel sizes - 24, 26. 27.5, and 29 and you'd find that each one of them had their advantages and disadvantages.


----------



## HTFR (Jan 11, 2007)

Yeah these stoopid wagon wheels are stoopid. Give me 24's. 

But seriously the comments on how the 29rs dont look as responsive in the air is getting away from the point of the bike. It seems the bike is designed for speed and STABILITY. If you want to play in the air man up and get a 20 inch or stick with a more FR oriented bike and dont go as fast.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2010)

HTFR said:


> Yeah these stoopid wagon wheels are stoopid. Give me 24's.
> 
> But seriously the comments on how the 29rs dont look as responsive in the air is getting away from the point of the bike. It seems the bike is designed for speed and STABILITY. If you want to play in the air man up and get a 20 inch or stick with a more FR oriented bike and dont go as fast.


Yeah, cause DH bikes never get air time...


----------



## Pslide (Jul 3, 2006)

sixsixtysix said:


> Yeah, cause DH bikes never get air time...


Are you suggesting that 29er wheels are slower in the air?  Or are you just concerned about how good your whip looks?



sixsixtysix said:


> Wonder why it's so hard for the rider to keep his feet on the pedals. Maybe because it doesn't turn?


Or maybe because the corners were mega loose?

I'm not taking sides actually. Although this does kinda remind me of the resistance to carbon fiber, and now look where we are...


----------



## Archi-Magus (Feb 22, 2010)

Trailadvent, moto NEVER stopped advancing technologically, you are SORELY mistaken as the sport keeps advancing and changing at an incredibly rapid pace. Aluminum frames and 4 stroke engines being the latest developments/trends, and they've both been introduced in the past 10 years. The aluminum frame y Honda on the Cr250 in 2000 and the 4 stroke by yamaha on the yzf400 in somewhere around '02. Since then both have been developed to the point of competency, but the first introduction of these ideas was very rough. Honda lost a TON of power on the CR when they first introduced the aluminum frame and they were ridiculed to no end for it. Now every bike out there is using aluminum. 

Also, comparing team sports to extreme sports is completely fallacious as you don't spend 8k on a hockey stick and another 4k in replacement parts for a race season. The technology going into these bikes is a GOOD thing, not bad as you're making it out to sound. We want to advance and try new things. If everyone had your attitude we would be riding bmx bikes down hill. In fact we would still be starting fires with pieces of wood and living in caves if everyone had your attitude.


----------



## Lelandjt (Feb 22, 2008)

Archi-Magus said:


> Honda lost a TON of power on the CR when they first introduced the aluminum frame and they were ridiculed to no end for it. Now every bike out there is using aluminum.


Just couldn't let a slip-up like that go by. The problem with the first aluminum CRs was that they were too stiff. Had nothing to do with engine power but made the suspension work like s***. Not all current MX bikes are aluminum. KTM frames are steel and lighter than any of the aluminum frames.


----------



## rmb_mike (Jun 12, 2007)

MqtRider said:


> It's just the beginning...*in 5 years they will be common place*. Guys like Steber have been at the forefront of so many things that, at the time were against the grain, are now common place. This likely will be one in the same.


By that logic, the 26" 3,5 and 6 spoke plastic/polymer 'mag' (i.e. Aerospoke) wheels should already be commonplace. Those wheels are strong, durable and don't need truing. Why doesn't everyone have a set of those?


----------



## m-dub (Apr 22, 2005)

Thor29 said:


> You guys are pretty funny. You almost seem AFRAID of the big wheels. If mountain bikers were always as conservative as you guys, we'd still be riding rigid bikes with cantilever brakes. For XC and AM, 29er wheels are generally an improvement over 26. For freeride and DH, I think it will be a toss up. In chunky, rocky, rooty stuff, a 29er will be smoother. The extra gyroscopic effect will make the bike more stable at high speed. The downside is a slightly higher risk of wheel bending and limitations on maximum travel. Turning ability is affected a lot more by geometry than wheel size. Overall wheelbase will likely increase 1 or 2 inches. Big deal.
> 
> I've ridden my 29er singlespeed hardtail at Northstar and had a blast jumping the tabletops on Livewire. It was sweet in the air. You get used to the different wheelsize pretty quickly.
> 
> I really don't believe that 26 is the magical number. It's a total accident of history and is due to the rim size available to the dudes in Marin back in the old days. I think you could build a series of freeride bikes with different wheel sizes - 24, 26. 27.5, and 29 and you'd find that each one of them had their advantages and disadvantages.


:thumbsup:


----------



## Archi-Magus (Feb 22, 2010)

Lelandjt said:


> Just couldn't let a slip-up like that go by. The problem with the first aluminum CRs was that they were too stiff. Had nothing to do with engine power but made the suspension work like s***. Not all current MX bikes are aluminum. KTM frames are steel and lighter than any of the aluminum frames.


Actually they had to make the air box significantly smaller to fit the massive aluminum frame, reducing air flow as well as power. Their was a mod for the 01s where you could use a cbr head on the cr and it would add a bunch of power. Then for '02 honda used a similar head and made more room for the air box, honda was back. Handling was never an issue. In fact the '01 was renowned for being able to get amazing starts regardless of the lack of power because of the frame and the bikes ability to accelerate while keeping the front end down.

The weight isn't the primary advantage of using aluminum. The ktm's don't use aluminum, they don't use fancy linkage either, they also never get bike of the year awards or win any major championships.


----------



## EDizzleVR6 (Oct 4, 2007)

MqtRider said:


> It's just the beginning...in 5 years they will be common place. Guys like Steber have been at the forefront of so many things that, at the time were against the grain, are now common place. This likely will be one in the same.


those look big but are they 29?


----------



## homeless junkie (Jun 3, 2009)

I don't care if the whole world ends up riding 29er DH rigs. I waste enough time truning and tensioning the wheels on my XC 29er. I'm not messing with a other set of wheels every week.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Jayem said:


> I also think a lot of people fail to appreciate that there are no 29er DH rims/wheels/tires yet.
> 
> Then of course there's the travel limitation, around 7" absolute max. Unfortunately, 29ers do not smooth out the terrain more IMO, nothing can replace suspension in that case.


Your ignorance is not just impressive, it's legendary. Truly.

Every year I think to myself, "Wow, he just gets more impressive". And then you knock my socks off yet again.

Educate yourself. In the future it'll keep you from sounding sillier than you already do.

MC


----------



## Renovatio (Nov 22, 2007)

mikesee said:


> Your ignorance is not just impressive, it's legendary. Truly.
> 
> Every year I think to myself, "Wow, he just gets more impressive". And then you knock my socks off yet again.
> 
> ...


I saw that you commented on this and you've surpassed my expectations. A good mix of condescending and politeness.

As for 29ers in DH. Its bound to happen and they will be fine for riding 99% of riders. Whether or not they should be on the WC circuit...debatable.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

mikesee said:


> Your ignorance is not just impressive, it's legendary. Truly.
> 
> Every year I think to myself, "Wow, he just gets more impressive". And then you knock my socks off yet again.
> 
> ...


There being two DH tires? Yeah, relatively nothing. Same with rims. Sorry, but I just don't see it. Show me how you can have more than 7" of travel without some crazy wheelbase. Please.


----------



## Renovatio (Nov 22, 2007)

Jayem said:


> There being two DH tires? Yeah, relatively nothing. Same with rims. Sorry, but I just don't see it. Show me how you can have more than 7" of travel without some crazy wheelbase. Please.


I'm pretty sure he was referring to



> Unfortunately, 29ers do not smooth out the terrain more


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Renovatio said:


> I'm pretty sure he was referring to


Then just wow...goes fast/faster/keeps speed better is not the same as "smooths out terrain". I don't find that having big wheels smooths out the terrain, it just helps you go faster in some situations.


----------



## wormvine (Oct 27, 2005)

Archi-Magus said:


> Aluminum frames and 4 stroke engines being the latest developments/trends, and they've both been introduced in the past 10 years. The aluminum frame y Honda on the Cr250 in 2000 and the 4 stroke by yamaha on the yzf400 in somewhere around '02. Since then both have been developed to the point of competency, but the first introduction of these ideas was very rough. Honda lost a TON of power on the CR when they first introduced the aluminum frame and they were ridiculed to no end for it. Now every bike out there is using aluminum.
> .





Lelandjt said:


> Just couldn't let a slip-up like that go by. The problem with the first aluminum CRs was that they were too stiff. Had nothing to do with engine power but made the suspension work like s***. .


The YZF400 was introduced in 1998. Yamaha came out with the YZ426F in 2001 and the 450F in 2003. 
I have read many reviews and shootouts when the Honda aluminum frame came out on the CR250. The complaint was always about the frame being overbuilt and it was too stiff. This stiffness caused rider fatigue AFAIR. I clearly remember reviewers liking the bike at first until they rode it for longer. 
I do not recall reading anything during those reviews about weak power or poor suspension. I would be interested to read any reviews you guys can find about those issues.


----------



## Renovatio (Nov 22, 2007)

Jayem said:


> Then just wow...goes fast/faster/keeps speed better is not the same as "smooths out terrain". I don't find that having big wheels smooths out the terrain, it just helps you go faster in some situations.


I disagree. 29ers smooth the terrain in the same way that putting 35" tires on your 4x4 a better ride off-road (and better grip). Roll through a pothole on a bmx and a mountain bike and then talk about smoothing out terrain.


----------



## frorider (Apr 2, 2005)

Jayem said:


> There being two DH tires? Yeah, relatively nothing. Same with rims. Sorry, but I just don't see it.


well you should have said 'just a couple of DH tire and rim options' rather than 'none', and this misunderstanding could have been avoided. :nono:



> Show me how you can have more than 7" of travel without some crazy wheelbase. Please.


i agree, show me a slack-angled 29er with 7 inches of travel, and the WB will be looong. i'm trying to remain open-minded on this. the world of 26er DH bikes has room currently for plow bikes _and_ nimble bikes; personal preference and terrain dictates which way someone wants to go. given time, and continued product development, the 29er DH might evolve into the ultimate plow bike. that won't mean it's 'right' for everyone but it also doesn't mean it has no reason to exist.

as for what is 'correct' wheelbase, it is a strong function of rider size and style. there are more and more DH bikes with 63 HAs that have long WB when compared to most bikes 2 years ago, and plenty of riders (not all) seem to like this modern geo. all else being equal, a 29er doesn't need as slack a HA as a 26er to feel stable on steep techy trails (speaking from my experience in the short travel category), so who knows, maybe this WB issue w/ 29er DH bikes is not as extreme an issue as many of us would think.

personally, i continue to believe that the DH market, if allowed to choose technology objectively (rather than be limited by market forces i.e. very few compatible forks / tires / rims etc), would evolve to 27.5 rims rather than 29er rims. Northstar has some rocky trails that i think i would like even more fun on a DH 27.5er. unlikely that i'll ever get to find out. but at least there's a chance i'll be able to try a 29er DH bike on those trails some day. Not in any rush...my front tire of choice these days is a 1500 g Octopus, which already feels heavy to me when rotating...i shudder to think how heavy a 29er octopus would be.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

*Backpedal any further and you'll end up in the Hudson.*



Jayem said:


> There being two DH tires? Yeah, relatively nothing. Same with rims. Sorry, but I just don't see it. Show me how you can have more than 7" of travel without some crazy wheelbase. Please.


I bet it's hard to see anything with your head that far up your hole.

Two tires now, one more already in production. 5+ rims. 3 ready-to-go out-of-the-box forks. Who knows how many frames by the end of the year?

You can't see it because it already passed you by.



MC


----------



## frorider (Apr 2, 2005)

mikesee, can you remind me what the 3 compatible forks are?

and what do you predict will be the standard rear hub dimensions in this category?


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

frorider said:


> mikesee, can you remind me what the 3 compatible forks are?
> 
> and what do you predict will be the standard rear hub dimensions in this category?


Dorado 29, WB 180, and WB 200 are all ready to go out of the box. Lots of others can be macgyvered or otherwise made to work, but these three require no fiddling.

150 rear seems like plenty. Although I have/had a few 165 bikes through the years, there isn't much point or increased benefit, especially as that standard continues to wither.

All of the talk about wheelbase kinda makes me scratch my head. Pick any one geo number from any DH frame on the market and any of us could find ten trails where that single number was less than ideal. But somehow we all make it work, at least those of us that don't have a different DH bike for every trail that we ride.

Case in point--the V10 has a 14.8" high BB. Holy WHAT?! Somehow, someway, Peaty and Minaar manage to get down the hill and around corners OK, despite the local wizards claiming that that's over an inch too high.

And, FWIW, the wheelbase on my 7 x 7" Lenz is 45.5", with a 17.25" CS, 64.7* HTA, and 13.9" BB.


And yeah, *it rips*.



MC


----------



## Amazing Larry104 (Aug 19, 2005)

29ers are retarted. they look ugly as fuk cuzz and the tires would proabably rip to shreds cause theyre so big


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Amazing Larry104 said:


> 29ers are retarted. they look ugly as fuk cuzz and the tires would proabably rip to shreds cause theyre so big


Ladies and gents, I present to you the poster-child for the 26" movement.

:thumbsup:  

MC


----------



## Amazing Larry104 (Aug 19, 2005)

mikesee said:


> Ladies and gents, I present to you the poster-child for the 26" movement.
> 
> :thumbsup:
> 
> MC


calm down ow now. I never advocated 26 inchers. I am just smart enough to know that 29 inch wheels make no sense


----------



## Thor29 (May 12, 2005)

Amazing Larry104 said:


> calm down ow now. I never advocated 26 inchers. I am just smart enough to know that 29 inch wheels make no sense


I bet a lot of things that the rest of us take for granted don't make any sense to you. That's okay. Your language skills indicate that you might have suffered a traumatic brain injury at some point, so I won't make fun of you.


----------



## screwyouguysimgoinghome (May 20, 2009)

oh wow


----------



## Amazing Larry104 (Aug 19, 2005)

Thor29 said:


> I bet a lot of things that the rest of us take for granted don't make any sense to you. That's okay. Your language skills indicate that you might have suffered a traumatic brain injury at some point, so I won't make fun of you.


ahhhhh. the typical "your language skills suck, so therefore your argument is invalid" response. This is very typical of someone who has no valid reply.


----------



## HTFR (Jan 11, 2007)

Big wheels roll over **** better.


----------



## Jim311 (Feb 7, 2006)

Everybody shut the hell up and go for a ride. The market will dictate what the companies build, and there seem to be more and more burly 29er options every day. Chumps on the internet trashed 29ers for XC applications for years and now they're all the rage. Do they have their downsides? Sure, but like anything else, there are tradeoffs. It's up to you to decide which benefits are worth the tradeoffs.


----------



## Pau11y (Oct 15, 2004)

...a just because bump 

A buddy described it as going from straight skis to shaped skis. If you don't ski, you might now have a clue what I'm talking about. But if someone can seriously say this to me, considering the source, I'm gonna give 29's a chance. Worse case, I go back to 26. Best case, I go faster. Not much to loose IMO.


----------



## Hellav8ted (Aug 26, 2009)

@ Downieville DH this year:
Jared Rando 47:41 
Greg Minnaar 46:30 on a carbon Nomad
Carl Dekker 46:40 on an Anthem X 29er

just sayin


----------



## Lunchbox362 (Jun 27, 2009)

trailadvent said:


> huh


I don't understand what you were saying


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Hellav8ted said:


> @ Downieville DH this year:
> Jared Rando 47:41
> Greg Minnaar 46:30 on a carbon Nomad
> Carl Dekker 46:40 on an Anthem X 29er
> ...


Downieville DH, not really a DH run. Even before they invented 29ers you didn't want a DH bike on it.


----------



## Energetik (Feb 7, 2008)

Haters need to go ride one and then decide. All this talk without any real world experience is just stupid. Go ride it and then decide it you like it and if it works for you. 

I haven't ridden one so I won't comment. Simple enough.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Energetik said:


> Haters need to go ride one and then decide. All this talk without any real world experience is just stupid. Go ride it and then decide it you like it and if it works for you.
> 
> I haven't ridden one so I won't comment. Simple enough.


I have a 29er, but do I need to go drive a yugo to know it sucks? Do I need to fly in a ford trimotor to know it's loud and slow? Do I need to ride a 29er DH bike to know it's not as nimble and accelerates slowly?


----------



## Dougie (Aug 29, 2004)

http://theteamrobot.blogspot.com/2010/11/29er-downhill-bikes.html


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Jayem said:


> I have a 29er, but do I need to go drive a yugo to know it sucks? Do I need to fly in a ford trimotor to know it's loud and slow? Do I need to ride a 29er DH bike to know it's not as nimble and accelerates slowly?


Do I need to meet you to know that you're a tool?

Oh wait--that's beside the point.

29" and DH, together, aren't for everyone. It gives me great pleasure to hear the repeated bashing of it by the 14 year old girls that frequent this forum and never ride *any* bikes, much less DH, much less 29".

Carry on.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

mikesee said:


> Do I need to meet you to know that you're a tool?
> 
> Oh wait--that's beside the point.
> 
> ...


Yes, as if no one in this thread has ridden DH bikes. Way to go, try to claim that I'm attacking it, and in the process attack everyone in this thread with a differing viewpoint as "14 year old girls" and that they never ride "any" bikes. And you claim that you are not a tool?


----------



## frorider (Apr 2, 2005)

Jayem said:


> I have a 29er, but do I need to go drive a yugo to know it sucks? Do I need to fly in a ford trimotor to know it's loud and slow? Do I need to ride a 29er DH bike to know it's not as nimble and accelerates slowly?


just to play devil's advocate...

some of the most highly regarded 26er DH bikes have wheelbases in the 48-49 inch range (for a guy my height). If a 29er DH bike had a 48 inch WB and a 64 HA, wouldn't it be nimble enough to ride the same trails being ridden well on 2011 DHRs etc?

Have you ridden Chris' carbon fiber rim 29er DH wheels? When you rode those wheels, was the acceleration noticeably worse than some of the burly 26er DH wheelsets many of us are riding these days?

How do you and I know that a Yugo sucks? we know it sucks because someone with credibility has driven a Yugo and told us they suck. Or legions of Yugo owners have reported reliability issues. So, which 29er DH owners have you spoken to that told you 29er DH sucks?

btw I'm not a 29er DH fanboi by any means. But the weaknesses in your arguments invite comment.


----------



## NWS (Jun 30, 2010)

Bigger is not better.

In fact, the future of downhill is all about 24" wheels. By 2015 all the pros will be on 24" wheels, and there will be threads like this about 20" wheels. By 2020, we'll see 20" wheels on the podium consistently. Mark my words.

Especially this word: trolling.


----------



## Hellav8ted (Aug 26, 2009)

24"s with 3.0 Gazzaloddis. Bigger is more better


----------



## Trail-Shredder (Mar 13, 2010)

Amazing Larry104 said:


> 29ers are retarted. they look ugly as fuk cuzz and the tires would proabably rip to shreds cause theyre so big


Best quote ever...sums up 29'ers 100%.

They have their purpose in the XC market, but why fix what isn't broken in the DH/FR market? All these years of innovation to make these bikes ride how they do today, to just start over and start from scratch because 29'ers are suppose to be the new in thing? WTF!


----------



## Ray Lee (Aug 17, 2007)

Same thing was said about suspension vs. ridged, disk brakes vs. rim, steel vs. aluminum.... thank goodness you guys dont own bike companies or we would still be rocking coaster brakes

So there was something "broken" in the XC market? It was OK to throw all that innovation for 29ers?... just not for DH/FR This stuff is always changing... lower, slacker,more travel, less travel, stronger, lighter... they are not throwing away any of the innovation just adding larger wheels to what we have.

I am looking for a park bike and if the Intense 29er DH was available I would give it a shot



Trail-Shredder said:


> Best quote ever...sums up 29'ers 100%.
> 
> They have their purpose in the XC market, but why fix what isn't broken in the DH/FR market? All these years of innovation to make these bikes ride how they do today, to just start over and start from scratch because 29'ers are suppose to be the new in thing? WTF!


----------



## Cable0guy (Jun 19, 2007)




----------



## Ray Lee (Aug 17, 2007)

Sorry didnt bother to watch it.... they where kinda funny a year ago but got old fast.



Cable0guy said:


>


----------

