Mountain Bikers , how about 29 inches?

SDA1C

That has very very very very very very very very little to do with the weight of the tire/tube/rim/spokes....it has to do with the rolling resistance of the two different types of tires. To have a good read and better idea of weight differences follow the link on post #11.

gudnoyez

SDA1C wrote: »

Trek bought them in the mid 90's if IRRC. Almost bought one but I'm glad I didn't. They had suspension issues that weren't foreseen. Decent bike ..absolutely! Great bike...debatable.

Thats my point Trek is buying everyone out, Kleins were great bikes, Diamond backs were decent at one time I believe Trek bought them out, and now you see them at sporting good stores, stick with Specialized, Giant, higher end Treks, is Cannondale still in production have not seen any in the bike shops around here?

SDA1C

Being a full sus guy I have issues calling any early full a great bike. The rear triangles and shocks were par at best. The hard tails were of course a great bike but the single beam top tube full sus stopped being great as soon as you got on it. Awesome to look at but flexy and non responsive.

SDA1C

Yes indeed Trek is attempting to buy out the competition. Note. Specialized, Motobecane, and of course the god of all bikes...Cannondale (hehe) arent on the list.

The Trek Bicycle Corporation consists of several brands:
Trek Bikes
Klein Bikes (discontinued)
LeMond Racing Cycles (discontinued)
Gary Fisher Bikes
Diamant Bikes (Germany)
Villiger Bikes (Switzerland)
Bontrager parts and accessories

treitz3

SDA1C wrote: »

That has very very very very very very very very little to do with the weight of the tire/tube/rim/spokes....it has to do with the rolling resistance of the two different types of tires. To have a good read and better idea of weight differences follow the link on post #11.

You are right. I am wrong. There is no way that cycling over a quarter of a million miles on these legs would gain me any experience with cycling.

Look at the facts:

"The total weight of the wheels with tubes and tires is 3,275 and 3,655 for the 26 inch and 29 inch wheels respectively."

That is a big difference in weight.

SDA1C

Thats quite a statement bro! Quite an accomplishment. 380 grams....whew! So on a 25lb bike were talking %0.0334 of the gvw. Not calculating the difference that the riders weight reduces the % to. Yep thats a BUNCH of weight.

Is that as far into the article as you went?

Clipped from the same article......

"If you are going to drag race the two bikes in real life, the 29er should win if both riders weigh the same, have the same energy output, and both bikes are built from similar quality components. The difference between the two is very small. The weight argument is certainly not valid."

I feel like being inflammatory right now towards those that purposely take things out of context and try to spin threads but I'll simply let the facts speak for themselves

1C

treitz3

Well, I must admit. I do not ride a 25lb. bike. That's incredibly heavy to me. My heavily modified Cannondale Delta Killer V mountain bike weighs in at a little over 19lbs in which case, that's a lot of weight [25lbs, that is...]. A 25 lb. bike I wouldn't even consider riding.

gudnoyez

Taking off that extra water bottle off your frame, and that camelback of your back would easily make up for that extra 1 1/2 lb or so if 1 1/2 lbs slows you down that much, honsetly that little extra bit of weight should not hurt your performance if you ride a lot.

treitz3

rayslifecycle wrote: »

There are advantages to both wheel sizes.....when I was younger and more agile - the 26"bike I rode more like a bmx bike with a smaller frame I could throw around - but as I get older, I yearn for a smoother more efficient ride. That is why I am now looking at 29ers. I am a little under 6'.......the toe issue is important - when test riding make tight turns to ensure you will not hit your toes on the front wheel - the smaller the frame - the more likely this will happen. Ride Hard Ray

One can always change the rake of the front forks along with the gearing and crankshaft length to eliminate this issue. There are also pedals and clips that sit the foot back a bit more than others, which can actually yield more power to the pedals with the same or less effort. This is, of course, provided if the user is properly sized to the bike from the beginning.

In extreme cases, the BB length can be elongated to accommodate but you have to be extremely careful of chain angle and stress levels under heavy loads.

SDA1C

Length be elongated? WTF are you smoking? Change the rake angle and the entire geometry changes. Don't you s'pose clipless pedals are designed to keep your foot in the optimum position? Why in the name of mike would you need to move your toe position back to gain power and efficiency? Ummm maybe its put in the right spot to begin with? I appreciate your effort but with "cycling over a quarter of a million miles" of experience your sorta talking out your ****.

treitz3

SDA1C wrote: »

Once you get the mass moving its seems to be easier to attain and maintain faster speeds with the same effort.

Alright, I missed this one before. You just clarified my point in your own words. Note that which is in bold. The heavier the tires, wheels, rims and spokes, the more energy needed to get the ball rolling. That was my point.

You may consider the weight negligible, I do not. Let's just agree to disagree on the weight issue. The point that the article was talking about was [from what I gathered] the weight issue did not matter on a flat surface. Key words, "On a flat surface". When I go off road, most surfaces are not flat....hence my comment about...

Just the added weight of the extra rim, spokes and tire would sway me away from a 29". It's not much, I know but it's on the one part of the bike that you want to remain the lightest.

Sure, once you are going, the kinetic energy will keep you going but it's getting you going that exerts much force and effort. It is that effort that I consider wasted energy that you could use elsewhere in your journey. It is also the energy required to keep that kinetic energy that will slow you down going uphill. Flat surfaces are one thing. Mountain biking is another and while I do appreciate your arguments and the claims to be had by the author of the article, I must take real life and real scenarios and add them to the equation.

SDA1C wrote:

I feel like being inflammatory right now towards those that purposely take things out of context and try to spin threads but I'll simply let the facts speak for themselves

Well, let's play tennis. It's your serve.

treitz3

SDA1C wrote: »

Length be elongated? WTF are you smoking?

treitz3 wrote: »

One can always change the rake of the front forks along with the gearing and crankshaft length to eliminate this issue.

Where did I say anything about elongating the crankshaft?

SDA1C wrote: »

Change the rake angle and the entire geometry changes. Don't you s'pose clipless pedals are designed to keep your foot in the optimum position? Why in the name of mike would you need to move your toe position back to gain power and efficiency? Ummm maybe its put in the right spot to begin with? I appreciate your effort but with "cycling over a quarter of a million miles" of experience your sorta talking out your ****.

Hey now, I'm as serious when it comes to cycling as when it comes to audio. I was rebuilding hubs and truing wheels on bikes you have probably never even heard of by the time I was 10 years old. If you would knock off the defense and open yourself up to some real, first hand knowledge and experience? Then so be it.

Until then? I think I have better things to do. I was really hoping that this could turn into a real discussion about cycling to where folks could learn from it. If and when you are willing to discuss things as an adult concerning this subject, I'm more than willing to share what I have learned. Until then, I'm out as far as you are concerned. Please have a nice day.

SDA1C

gudnoyez wrote: »

Taking off that extra water bottle off your frame, and that camelback of your back would easily make up for that extra 1 1/2 lb or so if 1 1/2 lbs slows you down that much, honsetly that little extra bit of weight should not hurt your performance if you ride a lot.

It doesn't hurt performance one single solitary bit!:rolleyes:. 380 grams is .8 lbs. When it comes to actual effect on the bicycle its even more of a joke as half of that weight is below the level of the axle at all times and is rotating weight to boot. If you were to take .8 lbs of the frame you might feel a slight difference in the ability to toss the bike but that is still reaching. When ever a weight weenie tries to argue this point they start with wheel weight to quickly pass over the fact that rotating weight is in a lot of cases advantageous. Also were dealing with a Mtb turned Rb with the idea that we are all fog headed enough to believe the greatest difference in feel is the mtb tires vs. road slicks. Any idiot knows that a knob tire has 10 fold the rotating resistance on pavement vs. a road slick.

What I'm trying to figure out is how can someone with that many miles not know it was the tread change and not the minimal weight difference that caused the bike to roll easier up hill on pavement.

This debate is argued in detail on MTBR.com. Take it over there if you want to continue beating a dead horse. There's plenty of folks that believe the view of the WW.

To the OP. Sorry to be such a ****. I get tired of out of context stabs about things clearly misunderstood by the stabber lol.

I think a 29er is a great bike. Keep in mind some of the concerns stated by most in this thread and I'm sure you'll be a very happy 29guy.

1C

SDA1C

"In extreme cases, the BB length can be elongated to accommodate but you have to be extremely careful of chain angle and stress levels under heavy loads."

Would you please explain this to me as I clearly don't have the expertise in elongating the length of something as you seem to.

Also if you could explain how changing the length of the Seat tube or downtube (which is what I'm guessing your talking about when you say elongate the bb) could cause chain angle(?) issues. Never heard of a "chain angle " issue lol

Another, When (now that we have clarified off road) have you climbed a hill off road with street race slicks?

treitz3

SDA1C wrote: »

What I'm trying to figure out is how can someone with that many miles not know it was the tread change and not the minimal weight difference that caused the bike to roll easier up hill on pavement.

Well, because the tread that actually hit the ground never changed. Go figure? :eek:

SDA1C

OK lets say you change the rake, Lengthen the forks, Change your stem angle and length. What did that do to your atack angle? Now your sluggish in and out of turns. If you turn too sharp (which is now much less sharp than with the steeper angle) your sidewall digs and over you go.

You cant just change one thing like that and not affect the rest of the geometry. That's the whole design behind the 29er and eventually the 36er. To have a larger lower rolling resistance contact patch and not give up the optimum geometry.

Sorry I said talking out your ****. Better yet, Some of the things you have eluded to as far the ease of geometry modifications are in left field.

SDA1C

treitz3 wrote: »

Just the added weight of the extra rim, spokes and tire would sway me away from a 29". It's not much, I know but it's on the one part of the bike that you want to remain the lightest. If you don't agree with me, just try swapping your knobby off road tires with a set of high pressure, lightweight racing tires and tell me how ridiculously easy it is to go fast uphill now.

That's a lot of extra effort and wasted energy.

The tread that hit the ground never changed?


I am finding it incredibly difficult to figure out exactly what your position is.

Also, now your not just speaking of the nominal difference in matching set 29 vs. 26 now its a clod knobbie vs. ultra light race tires. At this point the weight differences could as great as 1.5 lbs per axle. please don't confuse the discussion with subtle changes that may not be caught by others.

treitz3

SDA1C wrote: »

Would you please explain this to me as I clearly don't have the expertise in elongating the length of something as you seem to.

The BB length can be expanded just a bit. When fixed pedals or clip-on pedals hit the tire and the measurement is within a 1/8" or so with all other adjustable parameters changed to extreme measures, the bottom bracket can be altered to expand.

SDA1C wrote: »

Also if you could explain how changing the length of the Seat tube or downtube (which is what I'm guessing your talking about when you say elongate the bb) could cause chain angle(?) issues. Never heard of a "chain angle " issue lol

When you change the length of the bottom bracket, the chain angle changes. In layman's terms, the front transmission is now at a different position than it was previously. This changes what type of chain you can use and the force exerted upon such a chain.

SDA1C wrote: »

Another, When (now that we have clarified off road) have you climbed a hill off road with street race slicks?

It's the type of tire used in my case. Michelin [I'm sure there have been others] made a tire that had a center "ground contact area" that was 4mm wide and that was the only thing that hit the ground under full tire pressure. When the tire pressure was released, more surface contact area was achieved along with more drag and grip. Tires such as this typically had a psi of 100-120psi.

treitz3

SDA1C wrote: »

OK lets say you change the rake, Lengthen the forks, Change your stem angle and length. What did that do to your atack angle? Now your sluggish in and out of turns. If you turn too sharp (which is now much less sharp than with the steeper angle) your sidewall digs and over you go.

You cant just change one thing like that and not affect the rest of the geometry. That's the whole design behind the 29er and eventually the 36er. To have a larger lower rolling resistance contact patch and not give up the optimum geometry.

Sorry I said talking out your ****. Better yet, Some of the things you have eluded to as far the ease of geometry modifications are in left field.

This could be fun. You have much to learn and I admire your enthusiasm. I wish I had you as a fellow cyclist back in the day. We would be the best of friends today. Carry on...

SDA1C

OK...I'm getting a headache lol...

What you refer to on the BB is the width correct. Somewhere between 68 and 73 generaly and can be shimmed. Yea...Thats a total difference of 5mm so 2.5 mm either side. Wow gained a boatload of clearance there.

And then you say that 2.5 mm spreads the front sprocket wider eh? I must wonder how much 2.5 mm is going to do when the chain is 14mm wide and travels over 35mm left to right from the large to the small sprocket in the front and nearly 60 mm in the rear from low to high gear??? Nope that one don't fly either bro.

I use a set of Continental Travelcontact

http://www.rei.com/product/709110/continental-travel-contact-tire-26-x-175

I am sure this is the style you are referring to so I do have a bit of experience with them as well. Again this is not what you had eluded to with the "swap your knobbie tire" statement. I appreciate your trying to have this as informative as possible but lets keep it real when it comes to technical shifts that non mtb folk may not catch. Its been difficult for me to figure out what you are saying at times so I am guessing many have been scared off by the discussion.

SDA1C

Hey treitz3, is your name Dave or Chuck? Hehe

treitz3

PM sent. I can answer your questions 10X faster over the phone. Look, you and I have the same passion with the same thing. My name is Tom and you will not be scared once we get talking. Cycling and the aspects involved can get very complicated.

SDA1C

No worries man! The way I see it you could like Busch Light and I'd still call you a friend. Cannondale riders are a different breed. The passion don't stop when the wheels stop turnin. I have your # to be sure. I'll definitely give you a ring in the future if the offer stays open?

SDA1C

I asked about the Dave or Chuck thing as 13.9 mile daily average over 50 consecutive years is something for the record book and all I could find was a pair in NC rode 250,761. Thought you might be one of them. A friend of mine just rode the transcontinent this past feb mar. I'm looking at the transcendental on MTB in the next few years if I can get away and get the logistics figured out. (AKA...if i can afford 3 months of work lol)

treitz3

SDA1C wrote: »

No worries man! The way I see it you could like Busch Light and I'd still call you a friend. Cannondale riders are a different breed. The passion don't stop when the wheels stop turnin. I have your # to be sure. I'll definitely give you a ring in the future if the offer stays open?

It's open, though I am normally extremely busy. That said, I looked to see the type of tire I was talking about and apparently they have been discontinued. F'n figures. Look, I'm not meaning to talk you down or "spin" things. I just want the truth to be told so that folks like Mantis do not get swayed. Yes, he wants a front suspension that may eliminate parts what we may have discussed or what has been mentioned but conversations like we have had has got to yield thought and comment by those who are in the same market. For that? I thank you.

SDA1C

if the pedals hit the tires you got serious problems. :biggrin:

The BB length can be expanded just a bit. When fixed pedals or clip-on pedals hit the tire and the measurement is within a 1/8" or so with all other adjustable parameters changed to extreme measures, the bottom bracket can be altered to expand.

SDA1C

I couldn't find it either but I'm sure it's the same or similar to the TC. I was astounded by the performance of the TC. In dry sand you may as well belly crawl. On 3/4 gravel and larger wear your skin pads lol. But ALL other terra firma I have never had a better all around performing tire. Even mud strangely enough. They will get you through.

I'd post a pic of my bike but you would just laugh hehehe....

treitz3

SDA1C wrote:

if the pedals hit the tires you got serious problems. :biggrin:

The BB length can be expanded just a bit. When fixed pedals or clip-on pedals hit the tire and the measurement is within a 1/8" or so with all other adjustable parameters changed to extreme measures, the bottom bracket can be altered to expand.

Alright, "technically" you got me there. You know what I meant.

treitz3

SDA1C wrote: »

I couldn't find it either but I'm sure it's the same or similar to the TC.

Actually, It's nothing like it. It's more like on the ground contact area, a pencil eraser from a #2 pencil wrapped all of the way around the surface area of the tire with off road knobby on all other sides of the tire. It was more than a bit weak on serious off roading but for multi-use purposes, it was fantastic. The best of both worlds, if you will. Except the price. I believe the last set of tires like that I purchased was around the $60-65.00 mark. Each.

SDA1C

Ahh I see. The contact area was narrower. I alternate with a set of these http://www.amazon.com/MICHELIN-26X2-20-MOUNTAIN-BLACK-FOLDING/dp/B001CSVGFM when the going gets really rough or I know if exclusively off road for an extended period of time. I do believe though with the performance of the Conti's that my next set of OR tires will be Conti as well.