36 Inch Wheels: Update Part II
February 23rd, 2008 by Guitar TedLately there has been some excitement regarding 36″ers, the huge wheeled bikes that were first just a novelty. In fact, the first 36″ers widely known were Coker cruiser type bikes. Now there is a “new breed” tramping the trails and back roads with a hint of more to come.
Twenty Nine Inches presents a brief history now of the 36″er for off roading with pictures. (Because really, what’s a story without pictures, right?)
Arguably the first off roadable 36″er came from the mind of Ben Witt of Faribault Minnesota. (There are rumors of a Kansas 36″er, but only hearsay, no real evidence has come forth) The bike made it to The Big Wheeled Ballyhoo where Ben put it to the test on some single track. From that effort, Ben went back to the drawing board and produced a better, more refined 36″er, which resides at his shop to this day.
Inspired by Ben’s 36″er creations, Blonde Fabrications was the next to produce this stunning 36″er. It wasn’t just for show either.
The bike was ridden in the Fat Tire 40 event during the Chequamegon Fat Tire festival in 2007. This raised a few eyebrows in the racing community.
Enough interest was raised that this effort was produced for an attempt at the 24 Hours at the Old Pueblo in 2008. Sporting 180mm OD hubs and dual front disc brakes, this version of a 36″er attempts to address the issues involved in making a truly strong off road 36″er wheel.
Are there more 36″ers coming? The obvious answer is yes. As far as a “trend” or any mainstream acceptance is concerned, it is doubtfull that 36″ers will ever become something you will find at your local bicycle shop, or will it? Time will tell.
No matter where 36 inch wheeled bicycles go from here, one thing is certain. They are the most smile inducing bicycles this author has ever ridden, bar none.
What is RSS?
Get our articles in your inbox:
Thanks for that wrap-up GT.
I too will one day own one. Whether that’s the next bike in line, or when they’ve hit mainstream, I just will.
I was too broke exactly when someone was so kind to offer me a custom frameset as a gift, I couldn’t even afford the cheapest wheelset option. Buddy to share the bike with (to pay for the wheels), chickened out. He wants one still, a matter of time.
I think it’s just fabulous that a bike dream that seems to have been most vivid on the MTBR 29″ forum, finally resulted in Ben showing up with his first try. It took a lot of conviction to do this, and be the first. Deep respect for that. And each 36″er seems to be built on the experience of predecessors, where-ever ont he world that was.
That last 36″er is just amazing. Those custom super-wide hubs…I want it!
And now with a first wave of better quality rims and tires hitting, availability of spokes improving, I’m sure we’re going to see at least a dozen more off-road 36″ers before the decade is over. Perhaps even a series production version even.
Heavy? These bikes are dropping pounds per year, it seems, <30lb will soon be accomplished. Frame+fork don’t have to add too much over 29″, you know. Ben’s set is really pretty light. Beats a 26″ Surly, I think.
WHOA!! All I can say is this looks like a bike for a circus act. I have completely made the switch from 26er to 29er, and very happy with the change. However, why the MASSIVE increase in wheelsize? Why not go up by 3 inches (like 26er to 29er)? I think it’s enough of a leap to make people want to try it. This bike just looks freakish and I think will be relegated to the fringes only to be ridden to attract attention. No problem with that, but I can’t see anyone taking this seriously. It’s a circus act. Granted, with those big wheels it must be a BLAST to hit the singletrack, but as a SS-only rider I would find it hard to pick the right gear with those wheels. Granted, most people ride geared bikes, but my point is that it would even cut further into the potential market-size IMO. The big wheels would also make any technical trail obsolete, since they would just roll over anything like it does not exist. It would be a blast on smooth singletrack, but would translate to outright cheating trying to ride technical rock-gardens with it. Then again, it would make clearing 3 and 4 foot high logs more do-able…. I know this bike will be a blast to ride, but can’t see it going anywhere. Nice to see something like this out there though. The 650b wheelsized bikes seem to be hitting the market too (I just saw the Haro Beasley..or something and it’s a sweet bike). Now that’s something I’d give a try…but I doubt that the vows I swore to my 29er will be broken.
My other thought on all these different wheel-sized bikes coming to market is that it seems like mountain biking is running into growth-issues. I have no research to back that up, just a thought? At least it seems that the 29er movement is more than just a fad and is here to stay. I doubt I will ever switch to 26ers again. Long live the 29er!!!!
For super duper tall people who want to ride them on smooth trails perhaps - or as a super duper pot hole eating commuter - perhaps.
Ok, let it be known that I will receive a cut when thirtysixinches.com starts.
If anyone uses that I want my CHEDDAR!
OH! Also 36inches.com.
Those guys at 650b.com screwed me…..
Nice. Any word on whether those hubs necessitate an extra wide bottom bracket?
Art, the longer stays make the cain angle less drastic, I would guess. Also, one can mount a 32t on the outer position, plenty of drive.
@blackbean : the 36″ size was established by the unicycle industry. Then it was used for cruiser bikes, and now this. If a cyclist would come up with a new size, 32″ would indeed be a popular choice. I’d ride it, quite possibly as main ride.
29″ is only big if you look in the past. If you look at the size of the average rider, it’s only a start.
I started next to that “thing” in the Chequamegon 40. Not only is it a big ride, for a big guy, but the rider had a busted wing. Not sure about his overall time, but at least there are people out there pushing the envelope. I don’t care what kind of biker you are, you will never be satisfied, so here’s to you mister 36″ man, RIDE ON!
Does anyone know the weight of Big Blue?
I am assuming dual front disks means a rotor on each side of the hub. I would have thought this was excessive stopping power that would induce excessive stress in the long spokes. GT in his first report said the flex when braking was disconcerting and suggested smaller rotors. Any thoughts?
Art
The wide hub bike has a 122.5 mm bb axle that is spaced to the right 3.5 mm.
The two chain rings run right of the spider. The chain just clears the crank arm on the 34 tooth ring. Chain line is stright to the rear to better then +/- .2mm. The chain stays are 20″ long , short ish for a 36″ bike, still not long enough to forgive bad chain line on a single speed.
MudSpot
The two rotors shair load better on the hub and spokes (IMHO). Braking loads are limited by tire friction. No flex has been reported in the wheels from my self or other test riders.
I have some fun with what people think the 36″ is good for, or not good for. As people get more seat time these things will work them selfs out. Right now the 29 is getting dusty as I have a new bike. And nothing rides like a new bike!
Bryan Keener
Thanks for the details Bryan. That thing’s got to be a blast to ride. I agree with the dual disks. A 36″ wheel is going to take about 38% more hub torque to put the same traction to the ground as a 26″ wheel. That gives a single 203mm rotor on the 36″ about the same stopping power as a 140mm on the 26″. Throw in some extra weight and a nearly endo-proof wheelbase that lets you brake right up to the traction limit and you’re just asking that single disk to overheat.
Thanks for those answers Art and Bryan. What about this for a theory. The big wheels are going to rotate slower (relative to a 26 inch wheel) at the same speed so the rotor is rotating slower and therefor producing less friction heat when braking, which offsets any additional heat that Art has mentioned. Another way to look at it is your braking the same mass (rider plus bike) irrespective of wheel size, so brake demand dosent change, and rotor heat dosent change. Dunno, getting a little to scientific for me, but love to question these things.
In the process of getting a 36er built, hence the interest in these discussions. I am 6′7″ so big wheels wont look so freakish. (less freakish than me on 26″ wheels)
I kind of get where you’re going. The amount of heat generated is going to be the same. You are still decelerating the same mass at the same rate. On one hand, a given piece of the rotor will have more time to cool off before it gets back to the caliper, but it also had more time to pick up heat energy when it went through the caliper in the first place. That might even be worse in terms of making the rotor warp, but that’s a lot of calculation I haven’t done yet.
I got to ride a prototype 36er singlespeed (built by Jeff Anderson - kiwibikes@xtra.co.nz) in the weekend, and will give it a good off road test in a couple of weeks. Then will get one made for myself. Im 6′7″ and keen to put some 200 or 210 cranks on it. It already has a high EBB and plenty of wheel clearance. Can anyone tell me who makes cranks of that size. If I find single speed too difficult I may 1 x 9 speed it later.
I will post more details and photos soon. It does have extra wide custom hubs which are beautiful
Off for a weeks riding on the small wheeled 29er.