The Sweet Spot: An Editorial
October 30th, 2009 by Guitar TedEditor’s Note: This week we let Grannygear loose on the subject of what is the perfect amount of travel for a 29 inch wheeled bike in “The Sweet Spot”
There has been some loud clamoring for bigger travel 29ers lately, and in some cases, the response has been the development of five, six, and even seven inch travel bikes, the Dissent and Kodiak tires from WTB, and wider and stronger rims like the Salsa offerings including the Gordo. At the other end is the huge following of riders who have found 29ers to be the perfect platform to enjoy a rigid approach to off road by eschewing any suspension at all besides knees, elbows, and aired down tubeless tires.
I am no luddite, so if you want to ride a big travel 29er and you can talk some builder into making one, then buy it and go ride happy. But, as with 26” bikes which seem to have settled on 5” of travel as the point of balance for that wheel size, and as frame and suspension technology has been refined to the point we have today, 5” of travel could be argued as being the ‘sweet spot’ for 26ers. Even if manufacturers are able to produce a 6” travel bike that is as light and pedals as well as last years 5” version, the issue gets to be that very few average Joe riders need 6” of travel. There are exceptions, so don’t get all innerweb vicious here. I know that some parts of the globe are rough and tumble or you just love to huck off of whatever is in your way. But most riders in most parts of the nation on most trails that are not made from boards nailed to tree stumps ending in 8’ drops are well served by a 5” travel bike in a 26” wheel. They still climb well, all things considered, they are fairly light, and they are not too costly. It works. It is a bike that you can take nearly anywhere and it will get the job done.
We found this Santa Cruz Tall Boy to be a representative example of “The Sweet Spot”.
So it is with 29ers. I have said it before and I will say it again. One of the best things about 29ers is that they do more with less, not more with more. Look at all the hardtail and rigid riders flocking to the big wheels, in fact, many are new converts who would not be caught dead on a rigid 26” bike. I would not ride a hardtail 26” bike. Go even further and take away the suspension fork and on small wheels it is a beat down of epic proportions. The big wheels make it fun again. So, if there is a sweet spot for 26ers, is there one for 29ers? I think there is.
So where is it? I am making a case that 4” is that sweet spot. Depending on the way the bike is set up or tuned, you can have a Superfly 100 or a Big Mama. That is quite a range of bike performance and feel going on there. Recently I have found myself drawn to thoughts of a 120mm fork on a 120mm rear suspension 29er. But recent rides on the Tall Boy and the Epic Marathon 29er (not quite 100mm of travel, but close), along with time on the Rumblefish and the GT Sensor 29ers on that same day, got me to thinking that I likely will not go that direction. A 4” 29er can still climb well and be decently light. The 4” Lenz Leviathan is a standout frame for its weight vs. performance. The new carbon stuff is even lighter. A 100mm fork is still a fighting weight and, with a 15mm or 20mm axle, is stiff enough for trail work.
It has been said that 29”wheels are worth 1” of travel compared to a 26er, so that would make a 4” 29er the equivalent of a 5” travel 26er. I think that is somewhat true, the exception being true drops and jumps where the diameter of the wheel cannot save you any grief. But for stoking down a trail, over and around things, the big wheel does feel very capable with 100mm of travel. If I could have one bike and it was an FS, I would point my wallet at the 4” mark. I could go to Moab with that bike and have a good time. I could race a 24hr on it. I could easily run with my buddies on their 5” 26ers.
If I rode like some of the Rocky Mountain “long travel ambassadors“, I would choose otherwise, but that is no different then making that same decision for a 26er. It does depend on where you live and what you ride and getting the right tool for the job. But in this Editor’s opinion, the tool for the average everyman 29er rider looking for full suspension is very well served by 100mm/4” of travel. And bikes in this range are getting very good indeed. If, in a few years, 29ers evolve to the point where 120mm or 5” is no more of a penalty to overall performance than 4” is now, I may re-think that a bit. Until then, there are some amazing bikes out there that will give you a great riding experience with relatively little suspension. Don’t get caught up in the more is better mindset. Sometimes more is just that…more.
Four inches of FS travel and 29” wheels; in the words of Ralph Kramden, “How sweet it is!”
grannygear
What is RSS?
Get our articles in your inbox:
Well put. I couldn’t agree more. …But here in America, I still see dudes commuting to their job at the mall driving lifted diesel F350’s with mud tires and smoke stacks.
There are 2 kinds of 5″ travel 26″ bikes out there these days. The 120mm and the 140mm. The latter becoming much more common than the former. So I would argue that 140mm has become the 26″ sweet spot. That said, I think that 120mm is the 29er sweet spot for me and I suspect in 2-3 years that is how it will play out for most people. I will admit that I ride in very rocky conditions with extended high speed descents so I need a little extra suspension that people in other parts of the country likely won’t need.
But my take on what a 29er wheel can do is this… any bump the size of a curb or smaller becomes very minuscule with the bigger wheels. Bumps or drops bigger than that are the same as on a 26″ bike because wheel travel is wheel travel no matter what size the wheel is. To me the advantage of 29er is that you can have a little less travel and get better performance from a more stable suspension platform and feel more connected to the trail 95% of the time on a given trail. Not to mention all the other advantages but this discussion is focused on travel only.
Just my 2 cents.
@shopmechanic – The 120/140 thing makes sense to me. But right now, any 120mm 29er that I can think of, like the RIP9 or Sultan, for instance, are a bit heavy and over the top for a long XC day andI sure would not want to race one. I would race a Tall Boy or maybe even a Big Mama if it was built selectively, especially on an endurance type event.
I see your point on the wheel size vs. bump size, but keep in mind that anything you roll into will continue to feel smaller with a bigger wheel, so even a log twice as high as a curb will be less mussed by the 29r wheel. Drops are drops. No magic there unless I am missing something.
It is focused on travel, but….it is more than that because as travel increases, so does the weight and design of many other parts, head tube angles, shock leverage ratios, etc.
I think you are right on track though, getting more performance with less travel is something 29ers are very good at.
grannygear
I have an 09 Stumpjumper FSR with a 105mm of rear travel, and would not want any more. I think it would almost be better with less travel, say 3″ to 3.5″ of travel for the sweet spot.
If I am going to ride suspension at all, 100mm is not enough. I think it has alot more to do with where & how you ride than wheelsize…personally. I rode the 100mm Sultan for 2-1/2 years & now have a year on the 120mm version and there is no way I would go back. Is it a XC racerboi bike? No…of course not. However, it is the epitome of the modern day trail bike tho, for sure.
Very efficient 29er would Trek Fuel EX 120mm with full floater to reduce weight and more plushness and ABP. I touted for that but Trek seems to be deaf. I personally surmise that a 11.5 kgs 120mm FS 29er carbon or scandium (no aluminium) would be the perfect weapon for very long and rocky marathons and light to medium AM rides. something a liek a do it all bicycle.
36×4 wheels for stiffness. Tapered or 1,5″ HT with light 1,5″ carbon stems etc.
I ride all out rigid. I think for me the sweet spot will be a 32″ bike.
The jump to 36″ (which I tried for a short spin) is going overboard.
I want my wheels just a bit bigger.
I pretty much agree on the 4″ 29er zone. I am retiring my 5.3″ Ventana 26er for a 1st generation RIP9. The newer RIP9 just feels “big” to me, the older one feels more XC and more my cup o tea. I can’t tell a “quality of travel” difference between the (rarely seen) 4.5″ rear on the RIP and the 5.3″ of the Ventana. The climbing and cornering traction difference is big though. The RIP steadily walks away. Any drop or little jump I am going to do is well within 4″ 29er capability.
One more comment on this and I will let it be. We need to be honest with ourselves here. 29ers haven’t been adopted by the aggressive riding crowd yet. Just go to any dh website and search 29ers to see what a joke that crowd thinks they are. That is the same crowd buying 6″ travel 26ers which is a really fast growing segment in mtb. The point that I am making is this. Getting feedback on what constitutes the suspension “sweet spot” from a segment of riders that can be generally described as not aggressive will always result in underestimations of what that suspension “sweet spot” is. Once the 29er has gained broader appeal/been accepted by the more riders I think that the demand for many longer travel options will grow immensely. While I will likely never buy a dh 29er or any other dh bike again, I really encourage any move in this direction because I think there are some real advantages offered by that format for a large number of riders. Additionally, the tech developed for that segment will certainly trickle down to the shorter travel bikes just as they have with 26ers.
@shop mechanic I think I am being honest. Pretty darn sure, cross my heart and spit type of honesty.
In any case, my point is that the 4″ range, at least at this point in time, is a place where a bike can pretty much be considered to be near do-all bike, obviously within limits. It is still fast and efficient enough to be raced and still can be trail ridden pretty aggressively.
I agree that there are great reasons for someone to want a 5-6″ travel 29er with Dissents or some other big, aggressive tire, especially if the area they live is very demanding and chunky. They just do not make for an all around bike for most folks in this country. So even though the padded, armored and typically (but not always) shuttled approach to riding is a growing market, it is not the sweet spot as I am laying out.
You argument could just as well be made by someone lobbying for hardtails or rigid bikes. But they are too far in the other direction IMO.
The sweet spot is a bit of swinging target for sure. I am aiming for the middle of the arc.
Are not editorials fun? Hmmm? It is, after all, my opinion and not the last word.
grannygear
@Grannygear you missed my comment about Trek fuel ex 29er option – what do you think about it? Would be so eager to make it come true as to contact Trek bikes in person?
Grannygear
It would be interesting to go back about 10 -15 years and see how many editorials one could find stating that the state of the art mountain bikes and most mountain bike trail riders only need 2, 3 , 4 (pick any number) inches of travel. Do you prefer ketchup or mustard when you eat those words a few years from now…?
Of course I own a Sultan, so what do you expect. For me it’s the perfect amount of travel for a non-racer 195lb trail type rider. Don’t forget not everyone is 150 lbs. soaking wet. Good Discussion. Keep up the good work. Oh if forgot Specialized new 29er Stumpy 130mm. Interesting.
@davidcopperfield Well, DC, I think that you have Trek’s ear just as much as I. However, I see your idea of a 29er version of the current ABP Treks and it has some merit. It seems that Trek is letting GF be the big wheels guys though.
grannygear
Interesting discussion here. One thing I would throw out there is that at Interbike, Grannygear and I were discussing suspension travel with a highly respected manufacturer of long travel 26 inch bikes. The word we got was that even in the 26 inch world, the trend was to go away from the 6 and 7 inch travel bikes back towards the 5 inch travel realm. At least they are getting that feedback from their dealers. Basically, we heard that over 5 inches was starting to be seen as “overkill” in the 26 inch wheeled world.
Of course that is just one brand, (albeit one of the most popular 26 inch brands in FS in North America), and may not reflect the way things are everywhere.
That said, I do see longer travel 29″ers as something that will exist in greater numbers in the future- of course- but in my mind, it won’t be the “core” of the 29″er FS sales in the years to come. Will that be 4 or 5 inch travel? Probably somewhere right in there. That’s my opinion.
Finally, there is a certain “disconnect” in mountain biking and in 29″er freaks desires. I see this a lot. It seems everyone wants their cake and to eat it too. “Sideup” brings up a great point. It took 10 to 15 years for suspension designs, materials technologies, and the market to get to the point where 5 inch travel and 6 inch travel 26″ers actually work, don’t weigh a metric ton, and don’t require near daily maintenance. 29″er riders want this to happen overnight, with tires, forks, and rims/wheels to go along with it.
It will take time, and maybe…..just maybe it won’t work all that well because 29″ers are a different set of challenges. Already we see grousing about the weight, width, and volume of the WTB Dissent, for an example, and how it isn’t acceptable because it doesn’t give the same percieved benefits as the wide, tough 26″er tires. (Read wider, lighter weight, and tubeless) We don’t have tubeless rims that are wider than 28mm, and forks that don’t go beyond 120mm in the “popular brands”.
So, all that to say that maybe it won’t take 10-15 years to cover the same ground as 26″ers, but it will take time.
And then you have to have a market when it does come around.
So, for the time being, there are a lot of “ifs”, and at least in the near term, 4 inch travel 29″ers seem to be the “sweet spot” to me too.
YMMV
Just to clarify, by aggressive I am not referring to shuttlers. Just people who pedal up and ride back down fast and aren’t afraid to jump doubles. And I am not implying that Grannygear is dishonest just that it is important to acknowledge what segment of the riding niche we represent without assuming that most others ride in the same style. Plus, I think it is important to realistic about how many people actually race and the truth is that most people don’t, so I think it is safe to say that for the majority of riders needing their everyday trailbike to be raceable is unnecessary so it shouldn’t have any bearing on what bike you choose to buy. Finally, I only see a need for 29er tires with dh casings for people who ride hard on very sharp rocks (again, extremely limited group here), guys who are accident prone/consistently choose bad lines or can’t stand the idea of a flat, super clydesdales, or true 29er dhers riding the one dh 29er currently in existence. I for one don’t see myself ever needing the Dissent but if there was one with a lighter casing and tubeless I would strongly consider it, although what I really want is a 2.4 highroller in tubeless but I know that will never happen.
I like that tire so much I would run it no matter how much it weighed.
@sideup Well, I like ketchup, thank you. Quoted from my editorial: “But in this Editor’s opinion, the tool for the average everyman 29er rider looking for full suspension is very well served by 100mm/4” of travel. And bikes in this range are getting very good indeed. If, in a few years, 29ers evolve to the point where 120mm or 5” is no more of a penalty to overall performance than 4” is now, I may re-think that a bit.”
I am way ahead of ya.
@others: Certainly my bias is tuned toward XC type riding, not gravity based riding. That is my world. I come from a time when you could take a bike, one bike, and race the XC, DH, and trails all in one event in one weekend. The bicycle was less niche then. So, while I understand the desire for longer travel bikes (and would own one if I lived where it truly called for one) I still feel that there is a point of balance overall for the majority of riders across the country that this level of bike performance best serves.
I invite you to disagree. Well, you already have!
Ack…I meant ‘TRIALS’. not trails in the racing context. Drat.
grannygear
Having been a mountain biker since the 70’s I’ve done my share of riding rigid. I was so done with hardtails until 29er’s came along. Now they are enough for almost everything I do, but there are Those Days when the ol’ back prefers some cush for the XC riding and racing I do. Having ridden several flavors of full sus 29ers including owning a Jet 9, what I’d really like is something like a classic Santa Cruz Superlight in 29 format.
Simple, durable, inexpensive and just enough.
The beauty of my old Superlight was riding it for a decade without ever having to do anything to the pivot- try that with any recent bike! Plus the elevated stays allow for a shorter and stiffer rear triangle and no chain suck. Sure, it’s not as posh as the more complex modern designs, but what it gives up in posh it more than makes up in reliability. And on a 29er it would cover rough terrain better than the 26 ever did. Taking that classic simple Superlight design and beefing it up slightly for more rear triangle rigidity would be my sweet spot.
And I’d build it to run 100 mm @ both ends, with a simple easy to flick lever on the shock for lock out. More than 100 gets into the mush zone.
++ at least 2 water bottle mounts. Probably as a result of being a wool shorts era roadie, I wear a Camelbak only when there is absolutely no option- so my sweet spot frame design requires at least 2 locations to mount water bottles. Those locations are of course also great for batteries as well as a bottle of sticky Cytomax so 2 is my minimum requirement. Mentioned because I hate the trend toward one or no cage mounts!
I think the best example of the sweet spot being hit is looking at the differences between the Fisher HiFi and RumbleFish. They both have the same rear travel (100mm), but are very different bikes because of the front end. By changing head and seat angles and top tubes, the two bikes handle and behave differently. I think the geometry defining will be the biggest growth soon. As for waiting for development of technology to work with 29er’s, I think that’s a cop-out. Last years HiFi’s had the same suspension between the 26 and 29 models,and both were awesome, the biggest issue is manufacturers waiting to see where the market is going before they put up the cash for manufacturing and development.
IMHO: 100mm can make a great all-around bike that will go anywhere, but since I don’t get a lot of chance to ride else where than my Northern Colorado area, the RIP9 is the best bike for me and my conditions, and I wouldn’t trade it for anything, plus it glows in the dark.
@DavidCopperfield – the new fishers use the ABP system, but not the Full Floater, and from my discussions with my rep, Trek is leaving 29ers to Fisher while they focus on 26′ bikes. The biggest reason seems to be brand strategy, not a lack of interest in the market.
I think the 4″ 29er is the sweet spot too.
My son rides a 5″ 26er at Mammoth, and I ride a 4″ 29er from the same manufacturer. We both slap on heavy tries – Nevegal 2.3 for him, Stouts tubeless for me on Flows. He does more than I, but we both ride the diamond stuff like 7 Bridges and Shotgun, and do well enough to deserve our beer at the end of the day. The true DH stuff would take a whole ‘nother bike and skill set.
Both our bikes are 2007-2008, and have more flex than the current offerings in their travel range. Grannygear has it right.
Great article, great replies as always. Four to five inches does seem to be the sweet spot if you pedal uphill. Grannygear, I agree, and think the “one bike for the whole weekend” is the holy grail of bike design. Thankfully, 29er riders are finally able to have several really great options.
I recently tried a Rumblefish II at the Trek/Fisher demo at Palos Woods near Chicago. It was lighter than I expected, was great at speed, gobbled up rocks, roots etc. It appeared to be very beefy, a confidence inspiring design. Overall, a very good bike. However, it did not pedal as well as I would have liked, and did not quite feel “spot on”. Could I reduce the travel on the stock Fox fork to 100mm, to approximate the HiFi race geometry? (and my picky tastes)?
The ABP, dual chamber rear shock, and the through axle in front are all game changing developments in one easy to order package, IMHO. Everyone who reads this forum should try to get on one of these at a demo.
@bikedaddy29: The Rumblefish got a similar complaint from Grannygear in terms of pedaling in the saddle, but I think I recall him saying it felt great out of the saddle………hmmm…..
As to your question, the Rumblefish might be similar in terms of steering with a shorter fork to the HiFi, but this shouldn’t affect pedaling performance.
My thoughts were that since the DRCV damper on the Rumblefish is set for plush, smooth action, the bike really doesn’t come “alive” until things get rocky, rooty, and rough. Here is where I felt the Rumblefish come into its own. On smooth, buff trails, I thought it was a bit of a chore to pedal too, but hopefully I’ll be able to ferret out more in terms of the Rumblefish II here soon as we are to get a test bike for review from Fisher any day now.
Stay tuned!
That said, a HiFi may be more up you alley. Higher Boost Valve pressure gives a lot better pedal feel and the ABP, tapered steer tube, and nicer frame attributes all cross over from the Rumblefish. The only thing you miss is the thru-axle fork with the HiFi.
So is Grannygear having a Curtlo made for him. Is it going to be a softtail design I think it is called the Epic? Anyway just curious what he currently rides and what type conditions he rides in rocks, roots, mud. etc. I ride fully rigid here in Bellingham,WA and find it works fine for me. I did try a White Bro carbon fork and actually did not care for it as much as the steel for. I guess whatever makes one happy and you are out riding then that is the sweet spot.
Have a great day.
@john903 No, no CURTLO for now. Maybe later. Right now I ride a hardtail Jabberwocky SS and a 3.0 Lenz Leviathan. The So Cal area is pretty much made of long climbs and fast descents, with rocky and rough singletracks and old double track ridgelines.
However, I will disagree about the sweet spot being individually defined, or at least, that was not the point of my article. I was making a broader statement based on what the capabilities of a 100mm 29er at this date in history.
grannygear
How do you think how would 120mm versions of Tallboy and Superfly handle? Woutd they be the sweet spot? What sort of weight penalty are we bound to pay?
@DC Well, we can only wait and see!
@Rubberboy,
Where do you get a hold of a 36er ride? I’ve been trying to find who can build one ready to ride and haven’t had any luck with googling. I think bigger wheels is the key.
Just demo’d six different full suspension bikes during a trip to Moab. Had the opportunity to ride a Trek Fuel EX 8 and a Pivot Mach 429 on the Amasa Back trail (and nearby side trails up top) during the same ride. Some observations. Trek surprised me with this one. The bike is sweet. Its light, handles well, climbs well, and descends well. Very plush. However, same noisy “creaky” rear end as the last Trek I owned (2001 Fuel 98). Now for the Pivot 429. Holy cow! I’ve never ridden a bike that climbs this well. I should admit this is my first 29er ride. I though it was a little harsh on the downhill though, compared to the Trek and three other bikes I rode last week. My point…I’m with DC above and am looking for a 29er full suspension with 5″ of travel for all terrain (one ski quiver) mountain biking. For bigger riders with long legs, I think anything else is going to be a compromise. Can’t stop thinking about 29ers…..