29/26 Hybrid Update
November 6th, 2006 by Tim GrahlRecently I finished building the Carver 96er. I’ve gotten several rides in now and have finally organized several of my thoughts.
In the past week as I prepared to write this post I exchanged some emails with Davis Carver, the man behind Carver bikes, about some questions/concerns I have. I also discussed it with Guitar Ted, editor here at TwentyNineInches.com and all-around gear head. All of this information will be included in this lengthy post.
My first few rides on the 96er were approached from an attitude of getting the over-all feel of the bike. I wasn’t trying to compare it to any other specific bike, I just wanted to get a feel for how it rode. I was pleasantly surprised by how comfortable the bike was. I was afraid it would having me sitting more upright that I was used to, but that was not the case. I was completely at ease on the bike and had no glaring problems while in the cockpit.
Once I had gotten accustomed to the bike I began taking note on how it performed in different situations. I took it to trails I knew well and began paying attention to how it rolled over obstacles, cornered, maintained momentum, etc.
Comparing it to a 26 inch wheeled bike, it had the definite advantage of rolling over obstacles easier with the bigger front wheel.
However, when comparing a 96er to a 29er, I felt it was lacking in many areas. Yes, the rear wheel will “follow” the 29er wheel up front, however it was often with a fight. On several log crossings my front wheel would roll over nicely and then the rear wheel would smack the log and feel more like it was yanked over.
Also, the advantages of cornering and momentum were both decreased with the smaller rear wheel, just as it would perform on a 26 inch bike. The only advantage that I can see is that the bike does accelerate faster than a standard 29er.
Below is part of my email exchange with Davis Carver (he gave his permission to post it) and then Guitar Ted’s response to a few of his points:
Tim Grahl:
After riding it for awhile I guess my question is why would someone buy a 96er over a 29er?
I can def see the benefits from moving from a 26er to a 96er with the easier rolling over objects and less likely to do an endo. But I can’t see why someone would buy a 96er over a 29er. From what I can tell I am losing out on all the increased momentum and cornering you get with a 29er, however the easier acceleration can be made up in just gearing down lower on a 29er.
I guess in a singlespeed, you would get the easier acceleration with a 96er over a 29er, but if someone is buying a geared bike, what is the major advantage?
Let me say now that I haven’t tested the whole gearing down theory out yet. I’ll be taking our [geared 29er] out along with the Carver and ride them to see if it works the way I am imagining.
Davis Carver’s Response:
Here’s my take on the whole 96er versus 29er thing.
They’re both great.
It’s a little like tires… No one ever says “hey, the Panaracer XC is THE best tire” . The same thing is true of bikes. The 96er and the 29er both have their advantages in certain terrain.
The 29er offers better rear wheel traction, because the rear tire has a longer contact patch. It also offers a smoother ride, because the rear wheel is bigger and the wheelbase is longer. The longer the wheelbase, usually, the more flex there is in the frame, yielding a more comfortable ride.
The 96er offers some advantages as well. The wheelbase (and chainstays) are generally 1 1/2 ” shorter than an equivalent 29er. Consequently, the handling is quicker, and since the rear wheel is closer to the cranks, it climbs more like a conventional 26″ wheel bike.
The other advantage over 29ers is that the 26″ rear wheel is lighter and stronger than a 29″ wheel. The gearing has very little to do with it. There are plenty of gearing options for both wheel sizes. It’s really more a matter of weight and momentum. It’s easier to swing a 1 pound brick in a 3 foot circle than a 2 pound brick in a 4 foot circle.
That said… momentum is a good thing too. 29er’s have a harder time getting up to speed, but that stored momentum in the bigger heavier wheel can be a good thing if you can stay off of the brakes.
SO, what does this all translate to?
If you ride in tight twisty singletrack with a lot of short steep uphills and downhills, the 96er can offer some advantages over a 29er.
If you ride a lot of rollercoaster terrain where you can keep the momentum going, the 29er is a beautiful thing.
It’s a big world, and as long as you’re riding and having fun, that’s all that really matters.
Guitar Ted:
Great stuff! I see alot of the traditionally used arguments here. I’ll give you my point by point take…
Misconception #1. Wheelbase. This is a generalization and has proven to be false many times over. Several examples of 26 inch bikes with wheel bases longer than that of 29″ers can be provided. Yes: hardtails included. It doesn’t matter where wheelbase is concerned. It’s got more to do with wheelsize, (smaller wheels handle bumps worse)
Misconception #2. chainstay length (shorter) makes a better climber, and makes the bike handle quicker. First of all, the front end of a bike makes it handle quicker, not the rear. Secondly, the chainstay length is only one of several factors that can make or break a bikes climbing prowess. Things like front center, seat tube angle and handle bar height all have to be factored into the equation.
Misconception #3. 29″er wheels are weaker and heavier. First of all, the weakness card is way overplayed here. Tons of examples exist that show that 700c wheels can be made to be every bit as strong as a 26 inch wheel. Cyclo-cross wheels, Paris-Roubaix wheels, and the things being done by pioneers like Mike Curiak and BCD downhill 29″er bikes are all examples of 700c wheels taking a whale of a beating and staying true and strong. Secondly, several 29″er wheels exist in the lightweight off roading sector. Industry 9, American Classic, and wheels being built everyday by wheel builders all over the U.S. are coming in at or under 1500 grams for the set.While I’ll grant you that most 29″er wheels are heavier than their 26″er counterparts, the difference is often 10% or less.
[On the momentum thing], agreed. Staying off the brakes is key and the momentum thing is a dead issue after about 5mph.
[On the climbing thing], I would say that the 29″er rear wheel would be a major advantage in steep climbs. It’s no contest on downhills. 29″ers walk away from 26″ers.
29″ers aren’t only good on rollercoaster terrain, but on any terrain where your speeds can be kept up above 5mph.
First off, I think we can all give a hearty ‘Amen!’ to Davis’ last comment.
My take after all this exchange… I still don’t see a situation where I would suggest that a “normal” rider should grab a 96er over a 29er. Sure, the argument can be made that they are better in tight, twisty stuff with a lot of short, steep uphills (and I’ll be testing this as well), however how many people only ride that kind of terrain? I would guess that very few ride that terrain so exclusively that they would need a bike built specifically for it.
I’m still testing it so there will be more to come. And my thoughts from a non-29er specific angle will be posted shortly over at BlueCollarMTB.com.
What is RSS?
Get our articles in your inbox:
i know this will sound like a sexist thing to say, but what about women on 96′ers? i don’t see very many females riding toonieners. i personally think that a bike like the 96er might be a good thing for females in that they would get the benefit of the larger front wheel being able to roll over obstacles easier and the rear wheel accelerating like they are used to.
also, interesting little tidbit on speedgoats blog about gear ratio’s on toonieners recently. has me thinking. i would like other opinions on this. fifth post down at this point:
http://www.speedgoat.com/blog.asp
The riding the 96er was designed to excel in pretty much sums up where I ride. A lot of NE singletrack is comprised of old moto trails - straight up, straight down tight and technical. Newer, MTBer built trail tends to be more flowy but it’s still relatively rare in these part. That said I still feel the 29er rear wheel outshines a 26er going up and down about anything around here - with the exception of super steep rollouts with tech features and drops/gaps that were designed for Freeriding. For all around highly technical XC, including smaller drops and rollers, I’d pick the 29er for the Mo, the smoother ride and the better climbing traction.
The “29ers are slower off the line argument”, while true, is pretty tired. Anyone racing a 29er in the woods will tell you stories of flying up on 26 riders working their asses off in sections we can simply kick pedal and motor through, utilizing the momentum we’ve gained. They are slower off the line but it’s like anything else - you get used to what you ride. If dead start acceleration is your main concern you’d better be racing, and you’d better be faster all around than the guys on 29ers because there’s only so many start lines and hairpin corners to sprint out of in races.
Another misconception : chainstay length difference 26″ vs. 29″.
The difference in wheel radius is 1.125″, so that’s the extra length you’ll need to get the identical BB clearance setup. However, most 29″ers use up less clearance than the typical 26″ers offers. Moreover, the 29″er with it’s 31.5mm greater BB drop has a relatively (slightly) shorter CSL over 26″. Worth a few mm’s, but were counting those now anyway.
HUGE misconception (or we have found a law of nature that’s incorrect): effect on acceleration of rear wheel size.
Let’s count inches :
26″ bike : 2 x 26.5 = 53″
96′er : 26.5 + 29 = 55.5″
29″ bike : 2x 29″ = 58″
Surprize : 96′er is the middle way.
What does one wheel (29″ vs 26″) mean for acceleration?
Like acceleration a 150g wheel. Or take a track tubular tire. I happen to have one of those here, at 145g. The flick of a hand has that thing spinning at easily 20mph. That’s the effort difference between a 29″er and a 69′er, spread over the time between standstill and hitting 20mph.
The bike will be less flickable when accelerating standing up, “feel” heavier, but the resistance to tilt over is increased by (say) 10%, while the actual acceleration net is reduced by only (say) 0,4%. The sense we have of the bike is like a microscope. The stopwatch is like applying nature’s laws. Saturday (me : ill, painkillers applied) won the sprint to the first corner of (notoriously) the fastest starter of our national -18 racers. He on a 26″ Scott Scale, me on my 29″er. That’s zero to 25mph in about 10s for you. I wish I had used a 96er, I would have travelled a fot further in stead of those 80+ yards. But then, I’d have had 6% more rolling resistance and lots a couple more feet for that.
So, per the laws of physics (others can explain and calculate better), the acceleration theory is just that, a theory. But I believe and know that the mind will make you think smaller wheels are faster.
Oh, my own theory : the more tilting 26″er/96′er, less resistant to tilting and saloming due to lighter weight, will soak up more energy being put towards that tilt we like to “feel” to know we’re accelerating hard, that feeling faster actually means slower right there.
Lots can be said about cranklength by itself, let alone in conjuction with wheelsize. There’s two sides indeed : heavier wheels (mostly between the ears as it is) ask for longer cranks. Higher speeds (who speaks against larger wheel going faster?) ask for shorter cranks to not spin out that same gear (same disctance travelled per revolution).
I am now having good results from training (commuting really) with 5mm longer cranks than I race, and I’m starting to become a believer of this.
Remember that everything with wheels and cranks takes getting used to. Cranklength even requires a muscular adjustment, which can take weeks of months for a bunch of mm’s.
It’s time for a 32″er. If someone has the dough, I’ll make it happen, and I bet it will be way better than anyone expects, with much smaller disadvantages than anyone expects. It just needs to be done properly.
OH and no, 69′ers are not better or ladies, as ladies tend to give more for comfort than for milliseconds of acceleration gains vs. Watts of rolling resistance.
i can count the number of women i’ve seen on big wheels on one hand, so there as to be something they don’t like about them. i know i had one of my riding friends try my fisher and she didn’t come away and sprout for a new tooniener.
The one woman I’ve seen trying a 29″er clearly felt it more confidence inspriring. If you’re not the dare-all type, a very good thing IMO, to be faster and especially enjoy the riding more. I saw her rolling carelessly off drops she’d have freaked out over on her own 26″er.
RE: the speedgoat gear ratio blog. Thanks for posting that. That was a good read and I think it just exlpained to me why I really like running 165mm cranks on my Surly KM (not just for clearance, although it’s a huge plus). I also run 165s on my On One Il Pompino - 39×16 or 18. I’ve been debating putting 170mm cranks on my Waltworks 1X8 since Jenson has the LX crank/BB set for $85. The only thing is Sheldon Bown makes a great point about 5mm being so slight a change as to not really offer any advantage. When I switch between crank lenghts I can’t really say I pick up on any noticeable difference in going longer (maybe the gears diffuse some of this). Shorter cranks on the two SS bikes have been noticeably more comfortable however. I’ve been doing this for about 1.5 years now with no bad side effects (ride about 8 - 10 hours a week). I’m sure someone will tell me my knees are going to explode or something…. Anyway all this gear talk made me wonder if the 96er is supposed to get it’s own gearing as well??
Crank length article by Mr. Brown -
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/cranks.html
Remember to adjust your saddle height approriately when trying new lenghts. Up when going shorter, lower when going longer by the difference in you normal height. Then check fore aft as it will be affected by the up/down movement as well.
Hey Tim great article, I just have one question has Guitar Ted ridden the 96er for an hour on any terrain?
I just think Davis has given his opinions on this bike based on his experiences in designing, researching and developing it and its very easy for us lounge chair experts to throw up all sorts of hollow arguments and theories, it seems a little biased.
I have recently gotten into all things 29er, and prior to my first purchase did some research and rode as many as i could.
When I first saw the Carver I was extremely sceptical, but I had to try it. I’m glad I did its a great bike comfortable and confidence inspiring, yet still nimble around the tight stuff.
Now I’m not going to say they’re any better than anytheing else, but lets just say my new 29er doesn’t see much action these days. I now have a rigid single speed 96er and a geared front suspension version I race with.Its a great platform in any variation.
When i first got the 96er i took it to the local trail with the 29er and 26er and did a comparrison just to see for myself.
I feel the 96er is quicker to accelerate, but the 29er is better at holding fast sweeping single track, the 96er is the bomb when decending rough rock gardens though.
Clear your mind, Ride one You’ll love it
Great site guys keep the big wheel faith!
Cheers
Why can’t they just be two different experiences and let it be at that? I don’t think Davis ever says that a 96er is superior to a 29er. I like his explanation just fine. I think it (the 96er concept) just adds another variation to keep things interesting for riders, and that can be a good thing.
Axeman: I have done up a “ghetto” 96er, but I will not comment on it because the next thing I’ll read is that, “Well, that’s not a proper 96er, so you aren’t valid in my opinion.” Nuff said……
I just want someone to explain to me how a 26 inch rear wheel becomes something other than a 26 inch rear wheel when it’s on a 96er. I just have not heard a good explanation for that. I can not see any advantage to keeping a 26 inch rear wheel when most of the benefits of having a 29″er are derived from the rear wheel being larger. For me, it’s the thing that seals the deal. I cannot imagine that a 96er would change that thought any.
Your mileage may vary.
Ted, not to be mean or overly critical but you came off a little grouchy like the 26er’s are about 29er’s. I don’t have either a 96er or a 29er but I’m totally interested. I sure as hell don’t like 26er’s which I’ve been riding since 1993.
I think at this point that I’m more likely to choose a 29er because of it’s ride quality. I don’t race and I don’t even like to compete with my friends so I value comfort the most. True, there are probably places on a trail that would favor a 96er but I’ll bet there are more places on that same trail that would favor a 29er. You’d be compromising more of the time on a 96er than on a 29er.
About crank length. An easy way to effectively shorten your stroke is simply to move your cleat on your shoe. The slot on the bottom of my shoes is approximately 25mm long. For example, if your cleat is in the middle and you have 175mm cranks move your cleat backward 10mm and it will be similar to riding 165mm cranks. Personally, I’m a stroker, which means my body likes a long stroke. My cleats are all the way forward which means that with my 172.5 cranks my stroke is 182.5. It is not a subtle difference, I’m a much better peddler set up this way.
George: Hmm…..grouchy? Really? Just asking a question….or maybe more correctly, putting out a challenge to anybody out there to explain how the 26 inch rear wheel is different on a 96er. That’s all.
So far, no one has brought a convincing argument.
I may sound grouchy, but I’m still waiting……
Hey MMcg you have it exactly….. bravo….ride more talk less!!!
Guitar Ted, I just don’t see how over annalising a concept for a bike platform and using ths laws of physics till they run out our ears actually proves anything…. Ride a carver be nice and neutral forget about the physics lesson and you’ll see they are fantastic, just like a 29er, fantastic.
Anyway ted if you don’t recognise the 96ers and won’t accept us into the twentynine inch family where are we going fit into the scheme of things and hang out? maybe at http://www.almostatwentyninerbutnotquite.com or wwwihopethebackwheelgrowsup.com
whadda mean size doesn’t matter?? bigger the better
cheers
Axeman: {QUOTE}Guitar Ted, I just don’t see how over annalising a concept for a bike platform and using ths laws of physics till they run out our ears actually proves anything…. Ride a carver be nice and neutral forget about the physics lesson and you’ll see they are fantastic, just like a 29er, fantastic{QUOTE}
Axeman: Hmmm………again, you aren’t giving me an answer. I’ve ridden off road on 26 inch wheels for eighteen years, so the nuances of the 26 inch rear wheel are well known to me. At the risk of repeating myself, how does putting a 29 inch rear wheel in front of that change the rear wheels performance? I don’t have to stick my hand in fire to know that it burns, ya know what I mean?
I can not agree with your assesment that it’s going to be, “…just like a 29er, fantastic.” It’s not going to be like a full on 29″er and it is going to feel like you’ve got a 26 inch rear wheel.
Some people actually like that. Great! Ride on, brothers and sisters! And to agree with the sentiments stated earlier, isn’t that all that matters in the end?
Sign me: Ridin’ and Smilin’!
G-Ted,
I enjoy your perspective and your writing, and check your blog and twentynineinches almost daily. But I have to echo what a few seem to be are saying here. Both you and Cloxxki are some of the most vocal advocates that defend the 29 inch movement from anyone who attacks it with comments that they are heavier, slower, sluggish, etc. Many times you both challenge the science/physics behind the 29er criticism, but ultimately it comes down to the fact that you really have to RIDE a 29 inch bike to find out for yourself if these things are true, and bottom line is that 29ers are more fun, and that is what it is all about.
But I don’t understand how you and Cloxxki can’t see the irony in the fact that you both almost never fail to attack the 96er concept anytime it is mentioned. It sounds like you both have tried the ghetto 96er, but haven’t ridden the bikes that are most often the target or your criticism - like the Carver and the Trek. In fact, you sound almost exactly like someone attacking 29 inch bikes.
I guess I don’t understand the motivation. Isn’t all about what works for the individual rider, for their individual tastes, riding styles, trails, etc. and what puts a smile on their face when they ride?
Let me weigh in at this point before everybody burns G-Ted at the stake. The point he is trying to make, and I agree 100% with him, is that a 96er will ride just like 26er in that it has a 26 inch rear wheel. You absolutely DO lose most of the advantages that a full 29er brings to the table, just as I mentioned to Davis in the email.
As G-Ted has said, if you are running a track where a majority of the time you can hold momentum, you are better off riding a 29er. And this has a ton to do with how the rider uses the bike. From personal experience it takes awhile to “trust” the bike when cornering at higher speeds and hitting rough terrain at higher speeds.
If you are riding a track where 90% of it is short steep uphills and very tight and twisty singletrack, then sure, you may be better off riding a 96er. My point is, and I think G-Ted would agree with me, do you really want to drop the cash on a bike that is useful in such a small set of trails? For my money, I’ll take a 29er that is gonna give me the biggest benefit on the majority of the trails that I’m riding.
I 96er is simply a 26 inch wheeled bike that rolls over things easier, that’s pretty much it IMO.
Tim: Thanks for explaining that. And to all those who think I am “attacking” 96′ers, please re-read my posts. I am asking a question. I am challenging anyone out there to convince me otherwise. I do not believe in the 96″er concept. There……is there any “attack” there? I don’t see one.
Look, you can ride it if you want, and you just might like it. Sure, I’d love to try one out too, but as I’ve already stated, I don’t have to put my hand in fire to know I’m gonna get burned. Believe me though when I say that I will ride one if the opportunity presents itself.
And I’ll probably have some fun………..
………it is a BIKE after all!
I’m just here to call BS on “quick acceleration” kind of remarks, for which no scientific explanation exists, just a mental one. And I concur that smaller wheels FEEL faster. Just science and practice say otherwise. Bring out the old crono, see what happens.
Also, if smaller were better, then by all means go slow. 36″ front for all the reason of 96, then 20″ in the back for all the same reasons. The bike will fly! Never endo!
Ted you say you need to be convinced…..well ride them both and be honest! I own both and as i said was very sceptical since, i have done many comparrison rides to see if i was just kidding myself and I just like the concept especially single speed. You don’t need 3hrs of physics lessons to ride and enjoy it.
And you are right it doesn’t feel like a full 29er and never will because ITS NOT. test it and ride it for what it is. a great idea!
And if you want to your more than welcome to come down south enjoy the sun and great single track we have to offer….oh yeah you’ll need a ticket to Sydney, Australia I’ll pick you up at the airport!
PS the beer is also great down here!
And thers no fires here at the moment so you won’t get burned!
Tim you come to and bring the carver
Hell your all welcome!
Aaron, great post I was wondering the same thing
Cheers
I’ve said it before so here goes again, the opinion of a mechanic from Iowa and a beach rider from the Netherlands versus The editors at MBA and DirtRag, the test manager at DirtRag, and Travis Browne,(along with all off-road motorcycles for the last 20 years). Hmmm. I think maybe some of these guys spend more time riding and some spend more time squawking on the Internet. I think the opinions of the second group would hold more water then me.
As for the 26″ wheel magically becoming something else? It doesn’t and no one said it did.
And this sentence calls into question any kind of crediblity you may have:
“Misconception #2. chainstay length (shorter) makes a better climber, and makes the bike handle quicker. First of all, the front end of a bike makes it handle quicker, not the rear.”
This is flat out untrue. I’ll prove it to you in a hurry. I’ve got 2 bikes with identical frames from the seat tube forward, one is a basic 71/73 mountain bike, one has an Xtracycle attachment bolted to the back extending the chainstays about 15″. I bet you would notice in a hurry that one was a bit different then the other in the handling department.
Rear center is one of the many things that effect handling along with seat and headtube angles, TT lenght, front center, trail, stem length, handlebar width, tire selection, tire pressure, BB height, suspension setup, lack of suspension, rider wieght distubution, wheel size and on and on and on.
Horses for courses.
e: As to your first point: This just tells the world who you choose to believe. That is your right. It doesn’t mean that any of the people you mention do or don’t know what they are talking about. As for how much time any of us ride, that is merely your opinion.
Your second point: Thank you for agreeing with me.
Your third point: You did this in your first paragraph with the motorcycle reference and you do it again here. Bringing up extreme examples for the sake of making your desired point. Of course an extra cycle is going to behave differently than a “standard” wheelbase bicycle. I don’t think that is even a debateable point. It does not in any way refute my belief that front end geometry has more to do with how a bicycle handles than short chainstays. Of course, all of the pertinent factors that make up a bicycle have to be regarded when considering it’s handling characteristics, with that I agree with you. However; keeping the statement in context, the fact is that the front end geometry is far more important to most trail riders than the length of their chainstays, whether or not they realize that.
Thanks for your comments and for checking out the site.
ok with all this said and done, why stop at 29″ why not 35? then all the 29s will suck.. for the same reasons the 26″ wheels suck now. *L* as for why women dont ride 29ers, well they are generally smaller, IMHO 29ers are a great match for the over 6′ crowd. As for crank length, i run 180mm cranks, i too am a Stroker, it alows me to Torque up the hills. as for the 96er, if it was so great why not make a 69er? for the new “UPHILL” class of races, cause anybody can go down hill fast!! *L*
Back onto the topic of theCarver 96er and its performance
Surely theres more than Tim and I that have ACTUALLY riden one and can comment on its performance?
I just love comments from people generalising about things THAT THEY HAVEN”T RIDEN, backed up with hours of techno babble and physics theories they have’t even tried to prove.
Just check out the MTBR thread on 96ers theres alot of people out ther experimenting with the idea, MBA built one with Titus, Travis Browne, trek, dirt rag liked it.
I’d say its gaining some momentum
blankety-blank: Quote{A good bike handler can make a 65deg HA DH rig corner as quickly as Joe Sixpack makes his “NORBA XC� 72deg HA rig corner.}
Okay, so why aren’t we seeing these geometry numbers in the pro XC ranks then? I’m guessing there is a good reason for that, perhaps? (Hint: yes, there is a good reason for that)
Axeman: So, you won’t be convinced until I have ridden one, eh? Well, that can be arranged. I highly doubt that you will then accept my points any better than today, however.
The biggest difference I find between my 26 and 29″ bikes, is the extra stability with the 29er wheels, does just adding a 29er front wheel add to the feeling of stability? No it doesn’t get around the issues of having the smaller rear wheel, but does it improve the overall way the bike handles?
Late to the show here people. Sorry about that…
I love this conversation. I love this argument, and I love the fact that every single time it comes up, Cloxxi is here with science, and any other 29er Kool-Aid drinkers are there en tandem, saying, “Show me the money!”
Let’s think about all this in a different way for just ONE second (alright, let’s shoot for more like a minute)…
Has anyone ever considered the RIDER? We’re talking about equipment endlessly, but has anyone considered that a person who spends the majority of his/her time on a 29er will feel most comfortable on a 29er? The same goes for the 26er rider.
I’ve seen many an individual adapt easily to a full 29er. I’ve also seen some struggle with the changes in center of balance or BB height or bike length or whatever other difference comes with the change in wheel size.
So why is it so hard for most to accept that this 29/26 might offer an exceptional ride to a particular individual?
I’ll put it this way: I’ve ridden nearly every tire on the market. I know each tire offers a little advantage in a given situation. But I also know that the way a seasoned veteran makes a given tire perform is drastically different than the way a newbie makes the tire perform.
Will Cloxxki and I agree on which tire to select for a given situation? I doubt it. Why? Because like all gear, tires come down to preference, experience and comfort more so than science. (shameless plug here…) That’s the reason Dirt Rag reviews get an author credit, written by someone readers are familiar with. Readers get personal with our authors and understand more than just a single review. They understand what that author likes in/on a given climate, terrain or bike choice…
But back to the 29/26…Think about it like this:
this isn’t auto racing where our engines and test tracks are exactly the same. This is the bicycle we’re talking about, where so much is highly subjective. And that’s why we all need to approach new concepts with an open mind, each time we try them. And consider that, no matter how much we’d like our opinions to be the end of the argument, they’re simply opinions. Everyone’s got them.
michael: Hey, thanks for chiming in here Michael. It’s good to see you commenting here and I hope you feel free to join in any time.
Good points here and may I say, you are the only person that I have ever seen comment on this issue with a reasoned and well thought out appologetic for the “96er” concept.
You ask,” So why is it so hard for most to accept that this 29/26 might offer an exceptional ride to a particular individual?” Well, it isn’t hard at all to say that, at least for me. I will say that in general, I don’t think it’s a good idea, (96ers), and most folks who think that a 29″er front wheel is awesome will really love the rear wheel as a 29 incher if they tried it. My opinion. Yes, and it is subjective, but that’s what I believe. I never, ever thought it would “end the argument”, as you say. (To wit: this thread) But as you also said, “I love this conversation. I love this argument….”. I just ask a simple question about the 26 inch rear wheel and that’s just a way to find out if there are any other reasonable, well thought out responses out there. So far, I’ve been disappointed, with the exception of you, Michael.
If I don’t ask, I don’t learn. The conversation is a way to bring about debate for the purpose of gaining new insights and knowledge. At least, that’s the way I see it. Don’t you agree? Isn’t that why we “love the conversation…the argument…”?
But I also agree, they are bikes, plain and simple. And if I had to ride a 96er for awhile, I’d still have fun, and I’d still ride as much or more than I do now. We are spoiled, really, and in the end, we have to look at all of this as being rather selfish and silly when you take it all in the proper perspective.
Thanks again, Michael. Hope to hear again from you soon!
Quitar Ted Quote; Axeman: So, you won’t be convinced until I have ridden one, eh? Well, that can be arranged. I highly doubt that you will then accept my points any better than today, however.;quote
I’m sorry to say this Ted but with one statement you have in my eyes ruined your reputation for being a fair and unbaised voice of reason on all things MTB.I don’t think anyone can shake the chip on your shoulder that you have with this concept and it makes me wonder if anything you print or report on in the future will hold any credability.
Your level of sarcasm in the last post pretty well sums that up!!!!
Ride more talk less
Cheers
Axeman: 1. I don’t believe for a second that you were sorry to post that.
2. I never said I was a “fair and unbiased voice of reason on
all things mtb”, you did. I am certainly biased, ( I like
29″ers) and most certainly not fair in everyones eyes.
(to wit: yourself) I do not appologize for that. At least
you know where I’m coming from. I can’t say that for a lot
of people.
3. Certainly you are not going to “shake the chip” on my
shoulder, as you say, since you haven’t brought any
convincing arguments to support your posistion. As for
others, I did point out that Michael had convinced me of
one situation where 96ers are better. Perhaps you did not
read that.
4. And finally: Your doubt that anything I print or report on in
the future will hold any credibility supports the very quote
of mine that you used in your post. Excepting that it’s not
sarcasm at that point, but rather the truth. Assuming that
it was sarcasm, which it wasn’t by the way. You are certainly
free to your opinions.
“Ride more talk less”…….Likewise!
Guitar Ted
Quote guitar Ted; I did point out that Michael had convinced me of
one situation where 96ers are better. Perhaps you did not
read that. Quote
1. And what was that? I’ve read it a few times and can’t quite make it out.(now thats sarcasm!)
2. As i thought Michael was echoing the same theme as most others here.
Quote; I never said I was a “fair and unbiased voice of reason on
all things mtb�, you did. Quote
3. Correct.. I did as this was my impression of your work and reporting on the web.
Quote; And finally: Your doubt that anything I print or report on in
the future will hold any credibility supports the very quote
of mine that you used in your post. Excepting that it’s not
sarcasm at that point, but rather the truth. Assuming that
it was sarcasm, which it wasn’t by the way. You are certainly
free to your opinions.quote
4. I don’t understand this at all….. my head hurts (attempted humour to lighten the tension)
Hey Ted if I have offended you in any way I am sincerely sorry, I was trying to point out your bias on this subject.
Ride more Talk less
Cheers
Trek and Carver ought to put more powers into proiliferating 29ers instead of silly 96ers. I would rather have a Santa cruz 29er than new 96er ideas.