Comments on: A Historical Perspective: An Editorial

By: Guitar Ted

Guitar Ted — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:25:54 +0000

@Mark: I’ll refer you to my response in comment #13 here.

By: mark

mark — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:00:05 +0000

i’m certainly no expert on mtb history but i always understood that diamondback was among the earliest companies to really sell 29ers with their overdrive model10 yrs ago. i understand they’re not that well thought of nowadays but don’t they deserve a lil credit?

By: QueSera

QueSera — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:50:35 +0000

I think the current year (2010) is very important. Bigger players are testing the waters as we speak with Scott being the latest example.

Personally I would not start holding my breath starting today though. I am pretty sure there will be a much stiffer competition in this segment over the next couple of years, which will eventually result in lower prices and better specifications.

Cheers!

PS: Thanx for all the info you provide!

By: Cloxxki

Cloxxki — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:27:55 +0000

Although I’m a Fisher fan, history obliges me to add:

When Fisher presented their two 29″ hardtails at Eurobike, Sept 2001, Nishiki was also there, with a 125mm FS bike, and their own-labeled carbon suspension forks. 29″ may have been reason for their decline. Nice trekking bike brand.

By: Guitar Ted

Guitar Ted — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:46:34 +0000

@jimmythefly: Certainly those are prototype ideas and products for what we now know as the 29″er. There were tires and bikes and ideas floating around that were near the mark then, but nothing like we have today with true 2 inch wide and wider tires. The Nanoraptor, introduced in ’99, was what I consider to be the dawn of the “modern 29″er”. Let the arguments rage about “who was first”, or “this was a 29″er”. I am not interested in that really.