A couple of months ago I wrote this piece on the history of the modern 29″er. Through comments I was given a list of questions and asked to comment on a couple of things that readers are curious about. This post is then the followup to those comments where I will give my thoughts on those subjects that you, the readers of Twenty Nine Inches have brought up.
Our first subject is brought up courtesy of “Willie” and he writes: “…please talk about how “standard” 29?r geometry has changed in the last 4 years and the effect 29?r specific forks have had.”
Well, it can be argued that 29″er geometry changed because of the change in fork offset for 29″ers. Previous to the move to longer offsets, builders and manufacturers were trying steeper head angles and were limited in their ability to make a bike without severe toe overlap issues in smaller sizes while using those head angles. The longer offset forks, (44-46mm), and especially Gary Fisher’s G2 forks, (51mm offset), opened up the geometry to a point where much more was possible. Bikes handle better, smaller sizes are no problem, and the suspension forks actually work better due to this change.
This is big. The change in offset for 29″er suspension forks was foreshadowed in the rigid fork arena with On One’s 47mm offset fork which showed that designers need not fear a radical change in front end geometry for a 29 inch wheel. The stability of the wheel itself helping to make the geometry work where a smaller wheel would not behave as well. This in turn helped point the way for a longer offset in suspension forks, which Gary Fisher Bikes helped make happen in 2007. Has this lead to a “standard” geometry for 29″ers? I wouldn’t go that far……..yet. But we’re getting closer every day.
Our next question from the Historical Perspective article comes from “John B” who writes: “If you were being hired by a bicycle museum to do an exhibit on 29ers, what models would you want to display as the “Top 3? for importance and impact on the movement? And of the models currently being sold, which do you think best represents the direction that 29ers are heading?”
Well, I wouldn’t put a bike in as my #1 pick, I would put in a tire! The WTB Nanoraptor. Without this tire being made back in 1999, we wouldn’t have the modern 29″er and none of this would matter. Yes folks, there were “big wheeled”, or more correctly, “700c mountain bikes” previous to the Nanoraptor. However; none of these bikes had a tire larger than 45mm and none of these bikes were very good beyond purely XC trail use. (If that) The WTB Nanoraptor blew the doors wide open for real 700c mountain biking, and because the nominal diameter worked out to be about 29 inches, the moniker Wes Williams dubbed the tire size with has stuck. It all begins with “The Tire” and that should be at the center of “the museum”, if ever a thing is built someday.
Beyond this major point I would nominate one of Gary Fisher’s personal prototypes which eventually led to the line of 29″ers being introduced by Gary Fisher Bikes in 2001. The first production mountain bikes with 29″er wheels widely available in North America. (Honorable mention goes to Nishiki’s “Big Foot”, which appeared about the same time as Fisher’s bikes.)
Number three would definitely have to be one of Wes Williams early Willits “29er” rigs that he made in Crested Butte in 1999. As I have alluded to already, Wes gave the wheelsize its name, and Wes was a huge proponent of big wheeled mountain biking long before the Nanoraptor. He along with several other key figures pushed WTB’s Mark Slate to design and make a two inch wide, 700c bead tire to make big wheeled mountain biking work like it should. Based on Wes’ early efforts alone, one of his bikes deserves top billing for sure. But factor in that he was making 29″ers from the get-go, and gave the wheelsize its name, then you have no choice, I believe, but to have a Willits in the group.
Finally, to answer the last part of the question is really difficult. 29″ers are headed in several different directions. Let me lay out a few current models that I believe are pointing, or have pointed, the way to where things are headed now.
In terms of XC racing, you have to acknowledge that Gary Fisher’s Superfly hardtail has really been at the forefront of a movement towards changing the attitudes of Pro racing towards big wheels. In terms of full suspension bikes, we have to break it down now into short travel/XC, Trail, and AM/FR bikes. On the short end, Titus did the Racer X, and now with Gary Fisher’s Superfly 100, I feel we will start to see even more of this sort of XC bred FS machine. On the Trail side, Niner really set the standard with the R.I.P. 9. Finally, in terms of long travel, AM/FR type rigs, Devin Lenz is single handedly dragging everyone else into the long travel 29″er ranks with his outstanding Behemoth, Lunchbox, and now with the PBJ models. Finally, I have to credit Giant with really setting the sub-grand 29″er category straight with their excellent 2011 line up which will be bringing more riders a chance to check out big wheels.
There are other worthy candidates, but there are my thoughts on that question without writing a book on it!
Our final question comes from reader “jimmythefly” who writes: “Hmm. Where does the Panaracer Smoke, Diamondback Overdrive, and Bianchi Project bikes fit in here? Ritchey MT. Cross (30/44 double…now where have I seen that recently..?) Wasn’t it Bruce Gordon who advocated for fat 700c off-road very early on?”
These bikes are what I referred to earlier with the “700c mtb” comments. There definitely was a movement towards using a larger diameter wheel to go off roading with. Bruce Gordon believed so strongly in this that he had his own tires made! However; the movement, largely centered in the early 90′s, sputtered out due to a couple of reasons. First of all, suspension forks for 26 inch wheels became widely available at that time. Trying to convince a rider that the latest, greatest thing was to ride a rigid fork in 1993 was a tough sell. Somehow it became to be that a “real” mountain bike was a 26″er and that the 700c based off road machines were “hybrid bikes”. That was the nail in the coffin for the wheel size then. The other problem was that no one brought a truly big, fat tire for the wheel size. 45mm tires just were not big enough to ward off pinch flats and get enough traction in dirt and rocks. Without a real mountain bike worthy tire and the “modern” suspension fork of the era, 700c mtb just never really caught on with the public.
It wouldn’t happen for another five years or so, and then when it did, it grew in a very grassroots sort of way. Not marketed as “the next best thing” by bike companies, but largely ignored in the beginning, 29″er mountain bikes were truly a “ground up” sort of bike idea. Helped along at key moments by bigger companies, yes, but really a bit different deal than most mountain bike changes I’ve witnessed over the past 22 years.
Thanks for the questions and for reading Twenty Nine Inches.













26″ wheeled bikes will be a small niche market in 5-10 years! Now that Europe is “drinking the KoolAid” and Australia has bitten the bug…29′rs will dominate the market!
Imagine the day when 26′rs are as common as V-brakes! Has any rim manufacturer released a 29′r rim with a machined side wall in the last 5 years??? No!!!
Other than long travel AM bikes, 26′rs are unneccessary(I think 4-6 inch travel works better with the smaller hoop).
GT-what does your crystal ball say????
Excellent as usual GT!
Of note is that the steep head angles the manufacturers felt necessary (be it factual or not) to get “proper” handling with the still short -offset fork available, got them to also adopt Fisher’s normally regarded as “extreme” Genesis Geometry caracteric of long top tubes. Fisher already had the Genesis geometry to get some sort of tracking stability into 26″er, and the long top tubes helped keep the front tire away from the rider’s toes.
It should also be noted that Fishers originally came with 43mm offset forks. The most we’d see for years, as Marzocchi effectively quite the 29″ market when Fisher upgraded (their bikes and the rest of the 29″ world) with a Rockshox deal. At 71.5deg head tube angles on the larger sizes and 43mm offset forks, albeit flexy ones, the handling geometry actually wasn’t bad at all. Better than the 72d/39mm standard that emerged for a fe years, lead by big sellers like the Redline Monocog. The 29″ version of this singlespeed bike ot thousands of people their first 29″ bike, and a singlespeed at that. A worthy candidate for the museum, especially due to its price point and non-mainstream use of heavy steel to make for a really well riding bike. I ride mine with a Surly 43mm offset fork to spice the handling use just a bit for our tight local trails.
Jeff Jones bikes with 55mm of fork offset, earlier models even 65mm, show us that great handling doesn’t require middle of the road geoemtry figures per se.
Classic city bikes, like the millions of decades old bikes cheering up the strees in The Netherlands, actually have 70mm fork offset. Who rode them, knows that they turn on a dime, and allow for no-hands riding even in hostile traffic. Heck, even with a passenger on the rear baggage rack, no-handing is not that hard to do.
Finding a sweet spot in geometry may be less about exploring, and rather more about re-learning. The same goes for handlebar geometry, and Jeff Jones is a great leader in that respect as well.
@Willie: Well, I still think the DH realm will be the hardest nut to crack for 29″er wheels. Yes: It is being done, but I think that to pack in all of that travel into a package a small person could ride will be a huge challenge. Here is where a 26″ wheel still makes sense.
That said, I do not see 26 inch wheeled bikes going away, or becoming an oddity. Not anytime soon. What I do see is a time when the wheel size will be irrelevant. When 29″er wheeled mtb bikes will be “just a mountain bike”.
@Cloxxki: You bring up a most excellent point in the human element and how we can adapt. I was actually thinking about Joe Breeze’s experiment in the late 80′s with a zero offset fork which he learned to ride just as well and as quickly as the bikes his buddies were riding with traditional geometry.
Oh, I will just throw this out.
The future of 29″ is as the established optimal wheel size for a rider betwen 5’0″ and 5’6″.
But, more practically: the future of 29″, will be….32″!
The 32″ size doesn’t exist today, but it should. Exactly 3″/76mm larger rims than 700c, to be used for especially L, XL, and larger frame sizes. S sized riders now have an edge over taller riders by sharing the same wheels, and for this reason, 32″ would be great.
The 36″ mountain bikes in existence (search this website, and be propared to have your mind blown) are excellent proof of concept. Tall wheels are a handfull, but not by much. A wheel size closer to 29″ than 36″, would still be further away from 29″ than 29″ from 26″ (which is only a 63mm rim diameter difference). Makes the 650B (25mm more than 26″) look like an even more marginal difference.
If wheels were sized to a frame size, a 2″ frame size increment would be accompanied by a 2″ wheel size increament as well. Look how an optimized wheel size is close to the rider’s inseam. Frame sizes reflect mostly rider inseam differences, although proper fit is all about how the bars are positioned relative to the preferred seat setup.
With a World Champs Bronze won on a 29″er, size S by 5’1″ (29″ inseam) Willow Koerber, let’s start there.
S- 29″
M- 31″
L – 33″….
See, 32″ isn’t that big. All perception.
The future of 29″ is as the established optimal wheel size for a rider betwen 5’0″ and 5’6″.
Chew on that.
Until 32″ finally happens (it seems the bicycle industry is waiting for me, 2 left hands and no cash, to hand craft them first until they make a better bike)…fatter tires would be great for 29″.
Elevated chainstays to make it all fit a bit nicer.
Fatter tires, with that I mean 2.8″ and more, on 700c 35mm+ wide rims, based off low-weight tires. Think of a Small Block eight, in 3.0″. Same size knobs, just spread out more. Same suptle casing.
Larger rims call for lower tire pressures, which face us with increased chance of rim hits. Wider tires mounted to wider rims help keep the rim away from trail object and street curbs.
A <600g 35mm rim exists (Velocity P35), and such a 3.0" tire could be in the 800g range. All in all, little worse than a sturdy 24mm trekking rim and steel bead Nanoraptors, in the early days of 29".
What also still awaits to be addressed, is a better wheel standard. Being, the width of the spoke flange spacing. Current narrow hubs make for flexy wheels. No-one is prepared to use 4 more spokes (20-25g) to compensate (12.5% added stiffness according to the late Sheldon Brown) the loss from larger wheels on the existing hub standard. Perhaps wider hubs could allow for lighter rims, with lower spoke tension, and possibly even fewer spokes, to work.
@Guitar Ted
Indeed, we can get used to any kind of geometry. Some will just slightly improve potential performance of the bike.
Most important of modern 29″ geometry (G2 being where it all comes together) may be how easily riders pick it up. Like Willow Koerber, she started riding 29″ a few weeks before her Worlds medail. So much for a break-in period, and she really should if anything be undersized for the S sized bike as well, logically adding to any break-in period. Yet, not so, life time best performance right off the bat.
Being an overly tall rider myself (10″ more inseam, and therewith centre of gravity than Willow), and learning to ride on 26″ bikes, I got used to under steer, endo and backslip situations. I have to deal with those things, sometimes all within the a few seconds, trailing a shorter rider (racer) that was having none of it. I eventually learned to nearly match other riders’ pace. On 29″, it was just easy and natural, and my practice proved to now move me up the ranking within my riding groups, what technical riding was concerned.
Even if a good rider can deal with the 73d/39mm offset of some Salsa and especially VooDoo 29″ers, there will be traits to be had for them in the 70d/51mm of G2. Let alone for a novice, that would prefer a bike that handles like a computer game with intelligent steering help. “Boring!” the shaved leg racer boys may cry. Yet, the energy not used to keep a bike on the trail at high speed, will now be used to simply attain higher speeds.
For excitement, we can also take a 20″ bmx with welded shut steerer to the trail. We ‘ll get around, and it will be exciting. But how many will actually prefer it over a G2 bike that just works?
My prediction:
Within 5 years 29ers will take over the XC market space and be a dominant player in all mountain.
Reason: manufacturers will market a “new bike” to already existing bike enthusiasts to drive bike sales.
BearSquirrel,
I like your prediction and it’s a good one. Shape ski’s did the same thing for the ski industry in the mid 90′s. My first 29er brought me full circle back into mountain biking in 2005 and inspired me to stay in half way decent shape.
This is a very exciting time, as some have said “biking is the new golf”. I think 29er’s can be compared to that oversized driver that came out many years ago.
I hope all manufactures benefit from this and consumers alike.
Ride and Smile, then ride some more.
I think the next level of jump in 29ers will be with wider axles, greater prevalence of tapered forks and thru-bolt/axle hubs.
I say this as the leap to a thru-bolt hub on my rigid bike made such an incredible difference in the perceived nimbleness and stability of the bike. Yes, I put those two words together. When a bike does exactly what you wish it to without any funny business, one can ride faster and harder through the rough stuff.
Riding the above noted bike (post-thru-axle installation) with the same friends (on their same bikes) on the same trail makes me realize, now, how noodly my old bike was and how much faster I am now. The only difference was the installation of a 10mm Hadley thru-axle on the rear and a DT-Swiss 9mm thru-bolt on my I-9s. Same wheels, tires, frame and engine.
To take this idea a bit further, I think this is the future of 29ers: http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=599236&highlight=Vertigo
Hi-I am using a G1 Paragon 07 – I think about moving to a nice steel frame or possibly one of the less expensive Ti s -I watched your articles and comments pretty close-In this article the offset discussions has me wondering if there is a generally a safe set up-my riding is in Utah- you have to climb sometimes technical to get where its good-so I guess a XC and Single-track riding style-any guidance for a future frame set up and any comments about if 80mm vs 100 etc.-I prefer hardtail or very close to it-Thanks
Thanks for the answer GT. A great addition to your first posting. I’ve got this image of The Tire in a glass case in the center of your hypothetical museum, revolving like the Hope Diamond.
Good stuff.
I liked your comments on the “proto-29ers.” Isn’t funny that each of those companies dropped thier attempts at 700c mountain bikes after a little bit of market setback, but now each of them are tripping over themselves to claim they had the “first” 29er. At least I’ve seen Diamondback and Bianchi both make that claim in various forums. Hmmm.
@Cloxxki: To each man or woman his own wheel size!
I think to the average rider or bike shop, two wheel sizes is plenty to overcome confusion about selection and stock issues. Add BMX, trekking and road bikes to that.
No doubt a bigger wheel size will appear (and sell), but It will stay exotic. But hey, after 29ers have gotten too mainstream, we’ll need a new bike minority to be enthusiastic about on sites like this.
If 29ers are going to take over a segment, it will be the HT segment.
I did a 12hr race here in GA last weekend, and was blown away by how many riders were on 29ers. I’d say nearly half the field was on a 29er, and half of those were Niners (including one of the new carbon bikes – SICK). Even saw one of the SS Superfly’s.
Cloxxki wrote:
“With a World Champs Bronze won on a 29?er, size S by 5?1? (29? inseam) Willow Koerber, let’s start there.
S- 29?
M- 31?
L – 33?….
See, 32? isn’t that big. All perception.
Why the heck the perfect wheel size should center around the croutch? Why not around navel?
I could imagine the Willow on a 36 but for knee overlap and insufficience of crank arm lenght and therefore the power applied on the cranks. Imagine a 220cm NBA player making use of a 220mm crank and take into account the power multiplied by crank arm and what power he generates jaxtaposed with a 150mm crank arm.
To ensure a swift acceleratioan we need long cranks, yet longer crank arms damage our knees- no way around it.
150mm cranks on a 36er wouldn’t propel it suitably, whereas it’s enough for a 24er, isn’t it?