Talk:29er (bicycle)

Language
This means that tire, caliper, center, and fiber are all correctly spelled in this article. Please do not change them without discussion here first. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Inclusions
Are you going to also include  MTB races won on road bikes and cyclocross bikes (can't find an example at the moment, but I'm sure they're out there)? Might be best to put them on a seperate list if you do find any, or to note parenthetically on the list any wins that came on road or 'cross rigs. --Cosmo the third 15:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Include cross/road? Those races and dirt crits won on cross bikes and road bikes seem to be less about 29er2 and more about innovative MTB racers. Well that and poor course choices by race organizers. --Ray 09:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Gyroscopic effect
Removed from list of advantages. There are plenty of published articles about how gyroscopic effects do not matter (Jones in Physics Today and Klein at the University of Illinois, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering), and without a supporting reference, this claim should not be listed -AndrewDressel 16:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sections
Any opposition to deleting the "Proselytizing" section as, at best, speculation? Also i think the Online debate section should be deleted and the one line of useful information, if that, incorporated elsewhere. Goodnightmush 20:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No objection here. I just changed the title because "Prophetizing" isn't really a word. However, I think it might be worthwhile to keep some mention of the zeal with which 29"er fans defend and promote their wheel size choice. Cosmo the third 04:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Rolling Resistance
Wouldn't rolling resistance at a given tire width be increased with 29" tires, due to the longer, but identically wide contact patch? Cosmo the third 04:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * From the rolling resistance article:
 * "Smaller wheels, all else being equal, have higher rolling resistance than larger wheels. "


 * -AndrewDressel 13:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

angle between hub flange and rim
First it was
 * Longer spokes and decreased angle between hub flange and rim result in theoretically weaker wheel.

And now it is
 * Longer spokes and increased angle between hub flange and rim result in theoretically weaker wheel.

Perhaps if the "angle between hub flange and rim" were more clearly defined, we could know for sure which is correct. Is there a reference with a picture showing which angle is being talked about? Otherwise, this should come out. -AndrewDressel 13:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How about this, from Jobst Brandt's "The Bicycle Wheel" 3rd Edition, page 38:
 * "For a give hub width, lateral stiffness increases with smaller diameter rims. And, if the number of spokes remains the same, they become more closely spaced along the rim. Through these effects, a nominal 26 inch rim on a standard front hub is laterally about 10% stiffer (and stronger) than an identical 27 inch rim."
 * -AndrewDressel 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"i believe cannondale is larger than Gary Fisher "
This doesn't sound very encyclopedic. However, it may be impossible to get real numbers because 1) Gary Fisher is simply a brand of Trek and 2) Trek is privately held. What I did find is Trek reported about $600 million for 2006, and Cannondale reported $156.66 million for 2002 (before filing "a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11" in 2003).

I suggest instead that the article read something like this: "Both Cannondale and Gary Fisher, two of the largest US brands, offer 29ers." -AndrewDressel 14:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. For lack of numbers gotta advocate ambiguity. Thanks. Goodnightmush  Talk 20:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

29er (bicycle) → 29er – Primary topic. Page views: 11,983, 1,530. Relisted, also see discussion GB fan 13:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)  Marcus   Qwertyus   04:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - there has been no notification on the dab page which would be moved if this page was moved. Pam  D  09:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

cleanup
The Origins section contains: "Gary Fisher Bicycles, then a stand alone firm, now a division of Trek Bicycles, became the first of the major manufactures to offer a line of 29" bikes." This is misleading since Gary Fisher Mountain Bikes was owned by Trek since the early '90s.

Also, in the Tires section, the statement "A tire with a tread width of less than 2.0 in (51 mm) is considered a cyclocross tire by 29" enthusiasts, even though in cyclocross, any tire wider than 1.5 in (38 mm) is not a cyclocross tire" either needs documentation or should be removed. 206.83.48.110 (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I also removed the sensational language of the debate "raging" about the advantages/disadvantages. There is no need to paint such a violent picture. 206.83.48.110 (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

26" is not 26" with MTB tyre
There's a factual error in the sentence The typical 26" rim has a diameter of 22.0 in (559 mm) and an outside tire diameter of about 26.2in (665 mm). I just measured my new wheel with a Continental Race King Supersonic, and it is ~70cm across, meaning ~27,5". This is a bit wider than most wheels, but 27" is normally said to be the standard, 26" plus a lot of MTB tyre… Rkarlsba (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what your point is, but the fact remains and the references agree that the current convention is to call an ISO 559 rim and tire on a mountain bike "26 inch", no matter what the tire width, and to call an ISO 622 rim and tire on a mountain bike "29 inch". -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

To reduce the confusion the article needs to cross reference to ISO tyre sizes - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_5775. I have added this detail for the "29-er", but the author claims a typical 26" MTB tyre has a 660mm outer diameter. I can find evidence of 559 mm tyres (ISO) in the following (ISO) widths: 25, 32, 40, 47, 54, 57. In US (inch) notation these come out at 26 x 1.0, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, tbc, 2.125. There is a 32-597 tyre of 661mm external diameter, but this is an Imperial (ie British) size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.89.77 (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Drawbacks (to this page)
These two statements suggest that nobody here really understands bicycle wheel sizes, let alone 29er (which is typical of WP considering anyone citing experience will eventually be accused of OR or something similar):
 * 1) Longer spokes and decreased angle between hub flange and rim result in a more laterally flexible wheel...
 * 2) Many types of bicycle tires, rims and forks do not come in 29"-compatible versions...

So far, I have gotten all my parts from other bikes, or parts left for others on the street, so sizing was never an issue. But now I am buying so I am attempting to understand the sizing. For now I am using [http://sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html Sheldon "ISO/E.T.R.T.O." Brown's tyre sizing page]. (The rest of you might benefit from looking at this instead of just guessing.) A far as I can tell, the only "offical" difference between 700c and 29er is rim width, and that being marketing terminology. Both are 622cm diameter as measured from the inside (or bottom) of the gap that the tire bead fits into (ISO). This makes the second statement sound like fraud.

Rim width is relative; it can be normal 700c width, 26 in width, or newer 29er widths, whose dimensions I have not yet found. This latter hub obsoletes the first statement (source. --John Bessa (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * First, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, and congratulations on your resourcefulness and frugality. Second, perhaps you made a typographical error, but 700C and 29er wheels have a 622 mm bead-seat diameter, not 622 cm. Third, the current article already cites the Brown page, with a long quotation, in reference 2 at the end of the first paragraph, so it is unlikely that there is much guessing going on. Fourth, allow me to provide the complete sentences, in quotation marks, with which you seem to have issues.
 * "Longer spokes and decreased angle between hub flange and rim result in a more laterally flexible wheel (all else equal)."
 * "Many types of bicycle tires, rims and forks do not come in 29"-compatible versions, though the expanding popularity of the size is reducing this problem."
 * I cannot see where you explain the problem with the first one, but I was trivially able to find a reference that quotes Mavic engineers giving an exact number for how much more flexible 29er wheels are than the equivalent 26" wheels. As for the second one, I think the last part of the sentence covers the issue pretty clearly. What is fraudulent or hard to believe about the assertion that there are fewer wide, knobby tires or full-suspension forks for wheels with a bead-seat diameter only recently used on mountain bikes, but that the numbers are increasing? Lastly, rim width matters a lot, for weight, strength, and tire compatibility and performance, and so it is not merely "marketing terminology." Even the article to which you provide a link quotes experts that explain "The bigger diameter naturally carries with it increased mass and inertia, more wheel flex, and longer and more flexible frame tubes." "Tires need to be different, too." "Side knobs that might grab on one might not on the other." -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Advantages not scientifically verified, but no similar disclaimer for disadvantages
Calling out that "most of these claims have yet to be objectively investigated" in the Advantages section, but not the Disadvantages section makes it sound like the advantages are suspect where the disadvantages are not. This cannot be true, especially as increased inertia of 29er wheel is listed as both an advantage (". . .they lose less speed to obstacles and rough sections. . .") and a disadvantage (". . .makes the wheels harder to accelerate and harder to brake."). It would be better to move the paragraph that starts "most of these claims have yet to be objectively investigated" below (or perhaps above?) the advantages/disadvantages section and make it clear that it applies to both. Objections? Jamesfett (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)