Mountain Biking - Can you buy to much bike?

I'm a roadie looking to get into mountain biking (or at least a little off road action since we don't have mountains in WI). When it comes to buying a road bike, I know what to look for and I know what works for me. Most importantly, I know my skill level and what price range that translates to.

I have no experience with mountain bikes and don't really know where to start. Talking with friend and reading forums has me torn between a few first bike philosophies.

1) Buy cheep, wait until you know more, then splurge
2) Buy a good platform (i.e. frame) now with plans on upgrading
3) Unlike with road bikes, unless you get crazy and buy supper high end, its hard to get to much bike

I have a fair amount of money to throw around, so I can splurge now, but don't know if it will be worth it. What do you all think? Is it easy to buy to much bike for a beginner?

My practical side is looking at: Giant Rainier, Specialized Rockhopper, Gary Fisher Tassajara
My non-practical side is looking at: Specialized Stumpjumper, Gary Fisher Big Sur
My super non-practial side is looking at Gary Figher Ferrous 29er, because I love steel and the roadie in me wants a 29er :D

You have to move back a step or two first. The first question is what kind of riding do you intend to do? What kind of trails do you intend to ride? Do you want a plush comfortable ride or are you looking for a racing bike? These questions will tell you what type of bike you should be looking at.

Following that you then decide if you want a hardtail or a full suspension bike. You mentioned having a fair amount of money to throw around so for argument's sake will use $2000 as a reference point. For $2000 you'll get a super hardtail and an okay full-suspension bike.

Once you know what kind of bike you're looking to get then you hit the LBSes around you and start test riding the bikes. Due to the differences in geometry, you may love how a given Specialized feels but hate its equivalent in the Kona line.

So, what do you intend to do? Given your roadie background I will assume you want to ride XC. Do you intend to do any drops? Anything 2 feet and under is still considered XC. Are the trails relatively smooth? Do you want to race?

You have to move back a step or two first. The first question is what kind of riding do you intend to do? What kind of trails do you intend to ride? Do you want a plush comfortable ride or are you looking for a racing bike? These questions will tell you what type of bike you should be looking at.

Following that you then decide if you want a hardtail or a full suspension bike. You mentioned having a fair amount of money to throw around so for argument's sake will use $2000 as a reference point. For $2000 you'll get a super hardtail and an okay full-suspension bike.

Once you know what kind of bike you're looking to get then you hit the LBSes around you and start test riding the bikes. Due to the differences in geometry, you may love how a given Specialized feels but hate its equivalent in the Kona line.

So, what do you intend to do? Given your roadie background I will assume you want to ride XC. Do you intend to do any drops? Anything 2 feet and under is still considered XC. Are the trails relatively smooth? Do you want to race?

XC. The terain in my area is fairly smooth. I have a few friends that race in the area and they say there is no need for full suspension.

Just for a reference point, I like the plush ride of my steel road bike, but have it setup in a very aggressive position.

I plan on stopping at a few different shops this weekend for test rides.

For me, going out for any kind of ride is all about having fun. I stay away from the road racing seen because I know it will turn riding into work. In any fast road ride, if you get dropped 30 miles out, its no fun. I like to push myself, but still have fun if I crack half way through a hard ride and spend the second half at an easy spin.

I have to feel out the mountain bike racing seen in my area. If I feel it will turn riding from fun to work, then I won't do it. If its something I can do casualy and still have fun, then I would like to race.

I think you can buy too much bike if you went for the really high end racer types like the $7000 level carbon FS Specialized that my friend just bought.

I think up to around $2500 to $3000 range (full suspension) you won't get too much bike no matter what. My present bike started at the $1600 range 4 years ago and I've upgraded it to it's present $2600 level. It started out with a great frame (M4 Specialized on a FSR Stumpjumper), but it's so much better (measured lap times on single track) now than before.

If you go too cheap, you won't have as much fun, won't learn as quickly and likely outgrow it very soon.

I see no reason to start with a hardtail if you want to wind up with full suspension. That logic would lead one to start with no suspension which I had to do. I would not go back to those days.

As mentioned, you need to determine out what kind of riding you want to do. I ride road too and can't fathom owning anything other than a lighter, lower suspension travel XC bike as opposed to "All Mountain" or other heavier, more suspension travel bikes.

I ride trails from N Florida, to the southeast mountains regularly and occasionally in Utah and have never felt the need to have other than a XC bike. However, I don't do jumps, preferring to suck-up the biggies to keep my speed up. Plus, being older, I don't want to waste time mending.

Al

santiago and Al.canoe

Thank you both for your responses, they have been very informative.

I plan on staying away from some ultra light all carbon FS machine. They are fun to look at, but I don't want to ride anything that expensive. (Although my current dream road bike is a custom Moots.)

If the other outdoor sports I participate in are any example, If I leave the ground I will end up on my a$$. Fast and planted is what I like.

I don't plan on ending up with full suspension. I think I will be happier with a higher end hardtail at the same price point.

I was hoping the responses from this thread would guide me towards spending less, but you make the argument that it would be worth making the investment now.

You certainly can buy too much bike. If you do get into mountain biking you will see it all the time at trailheads. There's nothing wrong with having the best components or the newest bling in frames and if you have the cash go for it.

Your non-practical side is pretty smart, by the way. I would definitely take a test ride on a Stumpjumper. That bike consistently gets good reviews from riders and writers alike and with the different versions you can go from lunch bucket practical to super cool bling. I wouldn't mind riding the Stumpy with the Brain suspension myself. That bike will do just about anything you want it to do.

Also, you can search the forums and find story after story of people who bought a low end bike and spent more money on upgrades that if they had simply bought the bike they wanted in the first place. There is certainly nothing wrong with buying a bike that has the frame you want with low end components and then upgrading them as they fail but that may mean many months of riding a bike that isn't quite what you had hoped. If you're going to drop some cash on a bike I would prefer to get the best components I can afford on the frame that I want and have fun with it from day one.

Was just at a shop looking at what they had and discussing the advantages of 26 vs 29, particularly for a newbie. The guy I was talking to is a big 29er fan and said there would be no issue with a 29er as long as I don't want to do tight technical hopping from rock to rock, and that a 29er would be great for fast planted riding. They suggested I stop back later next month to check out the new 29er Rockhopper and Stumpjumpers they will be getting in :eek: :D

There is no such thing as too much bike!

I was hoping the responses from this thread would guide me towards spending less, but you make the argument that it would be worth making the investment now.

Actually, I didn't argue one way or the other. Since you intend to do XC style riding and are leaning towards a hardtail, what is your budget? How little and how much do you want to spend?

For the 29er thing, I'm not really sold on it. From what I understand this works well for larger people who would prefer having momentum to run over things. From a price perspective I think you could spend more to get a comparable 29er over an equivalent 26" bike. That's just my speculation, do your own research to confirm or deny this.

In your shoes I'd opt for a 26" XC rig. I'm 5'9" and weigh 160lbs so wouldn't look at any 29er. If I had $1500 for a bike, it would definitely be a hardtail and I would be looking at one of the Kona Kula bikes, Specialized Stumpjumper (not sure of the Stumpy's pricepoint), Trek and Gary Fisher equivalents. Actually for that kind of money and for trails that are very smooth, I'd probably look at a cyclocross bike.

Your second or third philosophies are the ones to listen too, I think. Personally, I would go for the 29er, but thats because I already know I love mountain biking :)
The difficulty for you is you don't want to buy a really nice bike then not use it. Mountain biking takes a whole new set of skills compared to road riding, so it may take quite a while before you feel really adept at it and for some people this makes them dislike the sport pretty quickly. If you're one of those people who has to been good at something quickly, then take a look at the stumpjumper. If you're the kind of guy who can spend a while trying something new, and be persistent with a new endeavor, go for the 29er :) You'll love it.

I personally would never get 29" wheels. To much inertia. I got a major boost in the fun factor and average lap times when I got a new set of wheels which were much lighter at the rim. The greater the wheel diameter, the more the inertia because of the greater distance the weight is from the axle and the greater the weight at the rim due to more metal and rubber.

Compared to road, trail riding is constant acceleration/deceleration. Light wheels are a big payoff. Accordingly, I don't use tubes or tubeless tires preferring to convert tube type tires with Stan's NoTubes.

Al

Look at the C'dale & SalsaCycle 29" bikes, too. Sounds like a hardtail would do you fine.

Actually, I didn't argue one way or the other.
Your right. I drew conclusions from your comments :o


Since you intend to do XC style riding and are leaning towards a hardtail, what is your budget? How little and how much do you want to spend?
I was looking in the $800 - $1200 price range, but could push it to $1600 if I found something that seemed spectacular.


In your shoes I'd opt for a 26" XC rig. I'm 5'9" and weigh 160lbs so wouldn't look at any 29er. If I had $1500 for a bike, it would definitely be a hardtail and I would be looking at one of the Kona Kula bikes, Specialized Stumpjumper (not sure of the Stumpy's pricepoint), Trek and Gary Fisher equivalents. Actually for that kind of money and for trails that are very smooth, I'd probably look at a cyclocross bike.
I am a little heavier, 5'11" and 190lbs. There are no Kona dealers in my area. (At least the Kona web sit does not have any listed). I have a cross bike. The trails I want to ride are just a little to much for it, and I don't want to trash my cross bike.

Your second or third philosophies are the ones to listen too, I think. Personally, I would go for the 29er, but thats because I already know I love mountain biking :)
The difficulty for you is you don't want to buy a really nice bike then not use it. Mountain biking takes a whole new set of skills compared to road riding, so it may take quite a while before you feel really adept at it and for some people this makes them dislike the sport pretty quickly. If you're one of those people who has to been good at something quickly, then take a look at the stumpjumper. If you're the kind of guy who can spend a while trying something new, and be persistent with a new endeavor, go for the 29er :) You'll love it.

I will stick with it as long as I get to fall down a lot in the beginning :D

Seriously, you make an excellent point, and that is why I started this thread. Just trying to collect as many data points as possible before making a major purchase. I know I love to ride, and there are plenty of times I want to ride, but don't feel like hitting the tarmac. Getting a mountain bike will open up more terrain and riding opportunities.

Did he ever mention how he intends to ride or did i miss that part?

Did he ever mention how he intends to ride or did i miss that part?

XC

1) Buy cheep, wait until you know more, then splurge
2) Buy a good platform (i.e. frame) now with plans on upgrading
3) Unlike with road bikes, unless you get crazy and buy supper high end, its hard to get to much bike

I recommend #2. Since you are new, you don't know exactly how you want to ride or even if you will like it. Buy a good frame and then if you get hooked you can upgrade as you wear stuff out.

I was looking in the $800 - $1200 price range, but could push it to $1600 if I found something that seemed spectacular.

I am a little heavier, 5'11" and 190lbs. There are no Kona dealers in my area. (At least the Kona web sit does not have any listed). I have a cross bike. The trails I want to ride are just a little to much for it, and I don't want to trash my cross bike.

With $1200 you'll end up with a great hardtail. Don't even think about a full suspension with that budget. Looking at the Specialized line-up, the Stumpjumper is very nicely spec'ed for $1400.
http://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?a=b&minisite=10029&spid=22280&language=US

The Specialized Comp comes with Juicy 5 disk brakes at $1700. All prices are MSRP so factor in the discounts and you have some pretty nice bikes at your budget.

The top of the line Rockhopper comes in at $1100 and it also is nicely spec'ed but not as nice as the Stumpjumper. It would be a great bike.

I am not sold on the 29er and I don't think it really should be a first mountain bike. It is less 'flickable' than a 26" and I think if one were to start with a 29er, you'd pick up bad habits. I'm just thinking out loud here and pretty much talking out of my ass, but that's the feeling I have of a 29er. If I weighed more, I would probably add a 29er as a 2nd or 3rd bike to my fleet but not necessarily make it my main ride. For an opposing view got to the MTBR.com forums in the 29er forum. Those guys will tell you the 29er is the second coming.

So, I'm ready to answer your original question. I think going with a Rockhopper/Stumpjumper/equivalent would be a solid first bike. It will NOT be too much bike for what you want to do and as things wear out you can replace them with nice bits. The bikes already come with nice bits but with the budget you have, you can go a long way with the various hardtails.

Jamis Dragon is one of the last production steel mountain bikes. The base model comes with hydros at $1235. Personally I'd take it over the $1200 Stumpy.

I think that buying something that can take more than your current skill level give is a good thing. It allows you to grow as a mountain biker without outgrowing your bike too quickly. It sounds like you are already an avid cyclist, so you have a strong base to begin with. You should be able to get plenty in an XC hardtail for the pricepoint you are quoting.

I've decided to recommend #3. Get the 29er. You'll have lots of fun, and I have a feeling you'll love mountain biking. Those bikes really are just fun...

al.canoe, you've obviously never ridden a 29er. yes, they don't accelerate as quickly, but they also do not decelerate (is that a word?) as much when going over bumps. They are more comfortable and roll exceptionally well compared to 26" wheels. For most riding, they are really nice to have, and are NOT slower.

al.canoe, you've obviously never ridden a 29er. yes, they don't accelerate as quickly, but they also do not decelerate (is that a word?) as much when going over bumps. They are more comfortable and roll exceptionally well compared to 26" wheels. For most riding, they are really nice to have, and are NOT slower.

Correct, never ridden one. I have to decelerate for turns, rock gardens etc. Momentem to keep rolling is not an issue for me, but acceleration even up steep climbs on the technical sections is what I care about. I would speculate that on the rough straight stuff, my low presure 26" tires already do very well in that reguard. Light weight/lower inertia wheels/tires are more fun.

One could even argue that a 40 lb bike has less tendancy to decelerate than a 17 lb bike. I'll take the 17 as would most folks.

I didn't bite for the All- Mountain hype either; not to disparage those who like that kind of bike. Too heavy and "springy" for me. Three inch fork travel is fine.

Al

Thanks go out to all those that have responded.

Spent several hours test riding bikes. Road almost all the hardtails in the Gary Fisher line (including a 29er), Jamis, Kone, and a Scott Scale 70. These were just sidewalk/parking lot rides, so I cam only hope my impressions will transfer to real CX riding. I tried to venture onto the grass and over a few curbs/roots when possible.

Of all the bikes, I like the fit and ride of the Scott Scale the most. It put me in a much more aggressive position than any of the other bikes, which felt more natural and comfortable to me. Every other bike seamed sluggish and unstable when I tried to turn with a little speed.

I am pretty set on the Scott Scale, now it's a question of which version to get.

The Scale 70 ($930) seemed fine to me, but is equipped with lower end fork, wheels, and rim brakes. I was thinking of stepping up to the Scale 50 ($1220), which comes with disk brakes and a better fork. If I really step it up and get the Scale 40 ($1740), I can get a Fox F100 RL shock. The next step up gets into a carbon frame and is way out of my price range.

Although I liked the ride of the Scott, it has a Shiman drive train, and I liked the Sram drive train with X.9 shifters on one of the other bikes I rode MUCH better. I am going to ask the LBS what it would cost to switch out the Shimano drive train to a SRAM X.9 drive train. If they won't do it, I may get an upgrade kit online, swap the parts, and ebay what I pull off.

Once again, thank you all. Any more advice you have from here would be greatly appreciated.

Nice choice, I'm sure you'll like the bike.

Here are my thoughts on the brakes. It's easier to upgrade a bike that comes with lower disc brakes over a bike that has rim brakes. The wheelset needs to be disc ready, the frame and fork need to be disc ready as well.

From the pics, the Scale 70's fork definitely look disc ready. The frame looks like it might. The wheelset definitely are not.

I think the 40's fork is definitely better but other than that the 50 is very well spec'ed. I do not think that there is $500 value in going from the 50 to the 40. You'll be more than fine with the 50 and you can always upgrade stuff later on.

I'm not familiar with the Juicy 3 brakes on the 50, but they are the lowest level hydraulic from Avid.
Anyone have any experience or thoughts on those brakes?

The bike shop can help you with the swap. I would leave the Shimano front derailleur and cassette, and only swap out the rear derailleur and both shifters.

Keep us posted.

I too live in WI and you can buy too much bike. Forget full suspension we have little or no need for it here in WI. Get a decent hardtail frame with front suspension with the amount of travel you feel you will need for 80% of your riding. Probably 80-85mm in WI. All that extra money you would have spent on some high-zoot FS frame and 4" plus travel fork you can put into better frame material and better components, accessories and decent shoes and clothing.

No way would I spend $1740 on a hardtail. Then again, neither would I spend $1200 on one. Not when there's

http://www.performancebike.com/shop/profile.cfm?SKU=23849&subcategory_ID=3050
and/or
http://www.rscycle.com/s.nl/it.A/id.8098/.f?sc=2&category=-113
out there. There are others out there for even less if you're willing to mail order or lucky enough to have a Performance near you.

The Iron Horse might be a good one for you. It's not a big travel bike, just 3" in back, what they'd call an XC race full suspension, just enough to keep you from getting battered. These bikes are stacked with XT and the Mongoose has Fox suspension front and rear (RP3!). The Mongoose might not be as proven, but I'd bet it's similar to GT's I-Drive (same company, different division), which is. The Iron Horse suspension design is well proven and gets good reviews (the 06 MKIII is the only exception).

One more thing. If you join Team Performance ($20), you get 10% of all purchases in a year back in store credit (you need mtb stuff anyway). That knocks off $175 from the Mongoose. Then, use one of the links & coupon codes from this site and save another 10% off the purchase price. So, this bike realistically ends up costing you about $1400 plus shipping.

Was just at a shop looking at what they had and discussing the advantages of 26 vs 29, particularly for a newbie. The guy I was talking to is a big 29er fan and said there would be no issue with a 29er as long as I don't want to do tight technical hopping from rock to rock, and that a 29er would be great for fast planted riding. They suggested I stop back later next month to check out the new 29er Rockhopper and Stumpjumpers they will be getting in :eek: :D

on the trails i ride, on many DH sections there are tight turns and SEVERAL narrow areas that i could not see how a 29'er could make it through in half of the speed. Also realize that when u lugging the 29 up hill, ur lugging a bigger frame and wheels. Ive never ridden one, hell ive never seen one at the trails i ride.

Most people go for a hardtail first because they dont have the money to drop or want to drop if they dont like the sport. If you think u will like it, and seeing that your into cycling already, go with an FS bike. going from smooth road to hardtail mtb is like riding a shopping cart down a set of stairs. if go FS.

One more thing. If you join Team Performance ($20), you get 10% of all purchases in a year back in store credit (you need mtb stuff anyway). That knocks off $175 from the Mongoose. Then, use one of the links & coupon codes from this site and save another 10% off the purchase price. So, this bike realistically ends up costing you about $1400 plus shipping.

Thank you for pointing these out. They do seem like excellent deals. Although, my past bike buying experiences have taught me that going with the best deal doesn't always get the right bike. Also, I will not buy a bike unless I get to ride it first. I already have a cyclocross bike I bought based on the specks and deal. It sits unused. :o :(

I have a 2,000 dollar hardtail and am 48 years old. Okay, so I can afford to buy it but it has been wonderful (F900 Cannondale). I ride a lot of miles on it in all sorts of conditions. The brakes are hydralic disk. Now, to be honest, I suspect 1,200 would do just about as well, but I am not suffering from having a very nice bike. Usually the higher price equates to better components - which should mean smoother shifting, riding and stopping.

If you can get disk brakes, they sure are nice when you are riding when it is wet.

Most people go for a hardtail first because they dont have the money to drop or want to drop if they dont like the sport. If you think u will like it, and seeing that your into cycling already, go with an FS bike. going from smooth road to hardtail mtb is like riding a shopping cart down a set of stairs. if go FS.

Everyone I have spoke to that rides in my area has said there is no need for a FS bike. There is even a post in this tread (thanks gm1230126) saying there is no need for FS. Maybe, some day, if I start traveling to mtb destinations, I may want a FS. Until then, hardtail will work just fine.

People who have not ridden, seen, or had any experience with 29ers STOP GIVING YOUR OPINIONS ON THEM!
thats like me offering my opinion on the latest golf club when I've never played a round in my life. You have no idea how they ride, NONE!

29ers are just and maneuverable as a 26" bike in all normal circumstances. They roll better 90% of the time. Yes, they do not accelerate as quickly, but for most applications (ie not 100% racing) you this disadvantage will be far outweighed by the advantage.

That said, the Scale is a great bike for someone coming from a road position because it is similarly aggressive. I would go for the Scale 40 personally - the better fork alone is worth it.

People who have not ridden, seen, or had any experience with 29ers STOP GIVING YOUR OPINIONS ON THEM!
thats like me offering my opinion on the latest golf club when I've never played a round in my life. You have no idea how they ride, NONE!

29ers are just and maneuverable as a 26" bike in all normal circumstances. They roll better 90% of the time. Yes, they do not accelerate as quickly, but for most applications (ie not 100% racing) you this disadvantage will be far outweighed by the advantage.

That said, the Scale is a great bike for someone coming from a road position because it is similarly aggressive. I would go for the Scale 40 personally - the better fork alone is worth it.

I gave the rationale for my opinions which are physically sound. You my friend are a BS artist. If you weren't you wouldn't claim 90% with out some justification. Also, how much better ---- 2%? Far outweighed? Apparently for only the believers.

You must work in advertising.

Oh, another thing, the same physical reasons that they are slower to accelerate also make them slower to turn.

Just some more opinions, based on simple physics and experience (heavy wheels and tires) rather than BS for your consideration.

Al

Lets keep the 26 vs 29 flaming to a minimum :). I am sure both formats have advantages and disadvantages given various terrain and riding styles. Thats part of what makes biking great, so many opportunities and flavors: road, mountain, cx, downhill, touring, crits, track, single speed, fixie, 26er, 29er, hardtail, full suspension, etc...

Something for everyone :D

I gave the rationale for my opinions which are physically sound. You my friend are a BS artist. If you weren't you wouldn't claim 90% with out some justification. Also, how much better ---- 2%? Far outweighed? Apparently for only the believers.

You must work in advertising.

Oh, another thing, the same physical reasons that they are slower to accelerate also make them slower to turn.

Just some more opinions, based on simple physics and experience (heavy wheels and tires) rather than BS for your consideration.

Al


I don't even race on a 29'er. I'm not advertising for them, i'm saying don't make comments about them when you've never ridden one. I've ridden them extensively, and they are fun to ride and QUICK. not sluggish at all. So don't YOU put your BS out there when you have no first hand experience.

Your riding interests and experience sound similar to mine. I currently ride a Kona Kula Deluxe (HT) and it is exactly what I hoped it would be: nimble, fast, climbs like a rocket, well spec'd and excellent value for the coins paid. I don't do big jumps or fast downhill anymore; more technical riding on quality gear is what interests me.

I have a friend with a 29'er. He seems to have difficulty in tight switchbacks, which I've attributed to the large wheel size (perhaps that is not the case).

In any case, I would suggest not cutting corners on (especially) the fork or other components whether you go with the HT or FS. Not that it has to be SOTA but, for relatively little money, the riding experience can be majorly improved with good gear. The ultimate test is that it 'feels right' but I've never bought a bike that felt that way from the first spin. Sort of like buying new hiking boots or an audio system; there's always some acclimation involved but you'll know instantly if you're dealing with quality, or not. The trick is to differentiate 'better' from 'different' ; )

Have fun!

Stopped back at the LBS today to discuss the differences between Scott Scale models and prices. They only had the Scale 70 and 20 in stock, and could only offer msrp on a special order. After discussing my plans with their very knowledgeable mechanic, he suggested I just get the 70 and upgrade as planned/needed.

I already ordered Race Face Evolve XC Sram '07 X9 Upgrade Kit upgrade kit and plan to ebay all the take off parts, or rebuild a very old cannondale frame my brother has.

As the bike gets used, I will upgrade the other components.

People who have not ridden, seen, or had any experience with 29ers STOP GIVING YOUR OPINIONS ON THEM!


Get used to it. I hear it all the time. I have 4 MTB's 2 29ers and 2 26ers. You would be amazed at all the negative feedback i receive (unsolicited) at the beginning of group rides when I show up on a 29er.

it can't do this, it can't do that, etc..

All the BS that was mentioned above and more. I have learned to never say a word about it. But those that ride them know different.


For the OP: You claimed you liked your steel roadbike. For all the reasons you love the feel of steel on the road, you can multiply it x2 on the trail.

Check out Jamis, Marin or Rocky mountain for complete bikes. They make relatively affordable steel bikes. Check out the dragon line at jamis, the Marin Pine mountain or the Rocky Hammer.

I personally would never get 29" wheels. To much inertia.

Al


:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Flip a bike upside down. Grab a chainstay with you thumb and flick the wheel with your pinkie, watch if fly. Try a similar trick of propelling your body while seated in a rolling chair, use just your pinkie. It's not nearly as easy.

Their is a penalty to having a slightly heavier wheel. When compared to a lighter wheel it can seem significant. When compared to the overall energy required to propel your body mass and the non rotating portions of the bike, its insignificant.

If you think that you can tell such a subtle difference using the most powerful muscle groups in your body, you're kidding yourself. An endurance racer would rightfully be concerned about such small amount due to multiplication. But if you're not going to be on a bike for a VERY long period of time, the fact that 29er wheel roll more instead of bouncing over uneven terrain more than makes up for it.

Yes, we'll be sure to remove the spare tires from our cars to provide better acceleration and fuel mileage. The value of all things is a cost vs. benefit analysis. You could provide much better acceleration on your bike by not bringing along water. But that water has a purpose.




Oh, another thing, the same physical reasons that they are slower to accelerate also make them slower to turn.

Just some more opinions, based on simple physics and experience (heavy wheels and tires) rather than BS for your consideration.


29ers do NOT turn slower. They don't accelerate slower. People hop on 29er, the set their customary gear and they say, OMG the wheel is harder to turn. It's DIFFERENT GEARING. The larger wheel means you loose about three teeth in the rear. Downshift, then try.

The "slow steering" jab is just madness that you haven't justified in any way or shape whatsoever. My 29er steers way better then any of the 26" bikes I've had. Most people report the same phenomenon.

You may need to ride a 29er for a while to know what you're talking about. I think you should also consider the notion of relative magnitude. There is a difference in ALL things. I can walk into any gym and show you that there are no two 10lb dumb-bells that weight the same. It's a matter of precision. When compared to the energy required to propel the rider/bike system, your wheel weight issue turns into an insignificant quantity.

BTW, I didn't see the "increased radius, increased inertia" argument here. But that one is a big red herring as well. It is based on the notion of accelerating the two wheels to the same RPM. It ignores the fast that the larger wheel has a quadratically greater linear speed along its edge then the smaller wheel. The radius drops out when you consider to wheels travelling the same linear distance. All that's left is the greater mass, which is again insignificant when compared to the mass of the entire system.

I'll consider a 29 when the XC racers are convinced by it's over whelming superiority and the winners are riding them. Otherwise, let the buyer beware.

Al

there really should be a sticky thread for 26 vs 29ers, Shimano vs. Sram, and hardtail vs.dualie. this has been one of the most imformative/interesting 26 vs 29er threads i have read yet

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:


The "slow steering" jab is just madness that you haven't justified in any way or shape whatsoever. My 29er steers way better then any of the 26" bikes I've had. Most people report the same phenomenon.

You may need to ride a 29er for a while to know what you're talking about.

I don't know about "justification", but I've posted my rationale above. What's lacking of course are the calculations, the numbers that prove it one way or the other. While I could dig up the weights and dimensions and run the numbers, I could care less about doing so as I presently have the perfect bike for what I like to do. Besides, these emotional rant's from the 29 owners are too much fun. Could it be a sign of remorse?

Back when I was riding motorcycles, designers often used a thinner/lighter/smaller wheel for the front. The rational was that it's easier to turn. I'm talking about functional cycles,like a BMW and some Hondas and not those abortions intended to project images.

Turning a motorcycle quicly at speed requires vigorous counter-steering. On a twisty road like the blue Ridge Parkway, counter-steering will wear out your upper body before the end of the day. You feel like your shoulders/arms are going to drop-off. Of course, that's riding far in excess of the speed limit and with a passenger.

Bigger, heaier wheels make a two-wheel more stable. That's pretty much known by most folks. Therefore they are harder to turn. That's just the way it is.

Counter steering is used with bikes, particularly those that have lax head tube angles like on my friends $5000 Kona. He went to the $7000 stumpjumper (mentioned previously) to get away from having to counter-steer. I use it some times on my bike.

I don't need to waste my time riding a 29, even if one existed in my area, before I know what I'm talking about. I also know that I value quick handling and acceleration above else, so it would be really be dumb for me to go to a 29. That could change if the winners in XC races are riding them. No evidence of that yet though. Nor do I expect any soon.

To really know what YOU are talking about you need to realize that we all don't think of the world as you do. Some actually have different requirements than you. I know that's a shocker, but it's true.

Also, those who disagree are not necessarily mad. You need more tolerance for others and a far more convincing argument. If you had one, you wouldn't have to resort to insults and I would think you knew what you are talking about. If you can't explain it in simple terms, you don't understand it.

Al

That could change if the winners in XC races are riding them. No evidence of that yet though. Nor do I expect any soon.

Are you saying no official races have ever been won on a 29er?

Are you saying no official races have ever been won on a 29er?

Not at all. If there are some XC races, It'd be interesting to know.

Al

Adding to my previous post on "harder to turn", when I was 14 in Miami, I delivered newspapers on a motor scooter. These things had tiny wheels, may be 18"(?) including the tire. Lots of kids had them. There would be periodic articles in the newspaper that they were less safe than motorcyles since the bigger wheels made the motorcycle much more stable. Never mind that the cycles were twice as fast.

If something is more stable, then it's harder to change it's direction meaning harder to turn. I didn't have to own a motorcycle even as a kid to know that. However, I did want a motorcycle and soon had one. I probably used the "more stable" thing to convince my dad to get permission. Sure enough it was much harder to turn. That's when I learned to counter-steer.

Interestingly, few motorcyclists today have a clue about counter-steering, yet it will save your life.

Al

I don't know about "justification", but I've posted my rationale above. What's lacking of course are the calculations, the numbers that prove it one way or the other.

No calculations are necessary. It's like asking about the acceleration difference of a bicycle vs the same bicycle with a couple of bottle carriers. The problem here is that the claims your making a technically correct. There is a difference. But it's effectively misleading as my claim (and an accurate one) that no two 10lb dumb-bells in a gym weight the same. In practice neither fact amounts to much.




Turning a motorcycle quickly at speed requires vigorous counter-steering.

... snip ...




Yes, this is how we steer single track vehicles. http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_cn-z.html#countersteering. Counter steering. isn't a specific technique. It's just something you do to initiate a turn. We learn intuitively right before dad takes the training wheels off our bikes.


Bigger, heaier wheels make a two-wheel more stable. That's pretty much known by most folks.

Thats a high standard of justification there. The group believes, therefore it is.


Therefore they are harder to turn. That's just the way it is.

I think you're kinda reaching for an argument based on a gyroscopic affect. However, I think you'll find that even really heavy wheels 29er based on Chris Holm rims are quite trivial to turn at bicycle speeds. You should spend more time examining bar width and trail when determining how "hard" it is to turn the wheel. Again, you're argument is "technically" correct. Yes their is an increased gyroscopic affect. But the practical effect is null as it was no impediment to steering to being with.



I don't need to waste my time riding a 29, even if one existed in my area,

Excellent, we don't need you. But it would be nice if you stopped spreading BS about the platform.


That could change if the winners in XC races are riding them.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2007/diaries/nat_ross/?id=nat_ross0703



To really know what YOU are talking about you need to realize that we all don't think of the world as you do. Some actually have different requirements than you. I know that's a shocker, but it's true.

I don't think you know enough about me to know how I think. At no point did I advocate for everyone to switch to 29ers. I don't believe this. But I do dispute people who make spurious claims about the platform.



Also, those who disagree are not necessarily mad. You need more tolerance for others and a far more convincing argument. /quote]

A convincing argument vs. a correct argument is determined by the readers ability to form a cohesive model in their head as opposed to a set of random factoids.

[quote=Al]If you can't explain it in simple terms, you don't understand it.


If you explain it in overly simple terms that are easily defeated with counterexamples, you don't understand it.

This was a nice, and educational thread. I've been considering similar moves. I also am a roadie, but have some off road experience, and had a Scott entry level 26er. I adapted very quickly to off road riding (maybe the dirt bike riding transfers a bit...indeed) and now I'm hoping to go single speeding on a rigid 29er. I've tested the waters and I think I'm hooked, but along the way the 1x9 29ers caught my attention. Redline makes a 1x9 called the D460, it's a rigid 29er and is right at $1000. Another tasty morsel was the Cannondale Caffeine with the Lefty fork. It looked delicious, but that's back to a full set of gears and is hardly simplifying. It think it's more than I'd need. It may be something to consider.

It sounds like the OP has got a good solid direction. I'll weigh in with 'get a solid platform' and give yourself a path to upgrade.

For instance, I started with a Stumpjumper. As I took on harder terrain, I upgraded the brakes from rim to disk. I taco'd a wheel, so I got some handbuilts. As I wore out tires, I replaced them with ones ideally suited to the terrain. As I 'grew', I got the full use of what I originally had, then improved the components that mattered most.

Eventually, I moved on to a full squish, but I did so only because I had moved up to much more difficult rides with a different crew. By then, I knew enough to pick that 'dream bike' right with the first spec.

You can rent at a lot of bike shops. This may help you figure out if you like a Specialized, Fisher, GT, etc. Some are better than others at certain things, like climbing, jumping, downhill, etc. A lot of the feel of the bike comes from the frame. Also how the rear shock pivots will change a ride quite a bit.

Considering how quickly 29ers are growing in popularity, maybe check out one of those too.

Get used to it. I hear it all the time. I have 4 MTB's 2 29ers and 2 26ers. You would be amazed at all the negative feedback i receive (unsolicited) at the beginning of group rides when I show up on a 29er.

it can't do this, it can't do that, etc..

All the BS that was mentioned above and more. I have learned to never say a word about it. But those that ride them know different.

I remember when I got my FS back in '99 there were a lot of people arguing that FS was slower heavier, yada yada. They were right. But the reason they are now the king is because they are more fun to ride. Most people aren't racing their bikes. Most people are riding for longer than what a typical race would last. So you have to ask yourself whether or not getting the absolute fastest setup is necessary. 29er's, if the FS/HT history is any indicator, will be the majority someday.

I don't own a 29er but I definitely see the advantages and disadvantages. I'm presently shopping around for a second bike, and I want something different. Either a 29er or a SS, or both like a Fisher Rig.