Is this sarcasm? I feel like I'm in some alternate universe in this thread. There's plenty of full-suspension 29ers already.

Now, there's not many on the shop floor when BCRider goes to the LBS, but there's not many tandems or utility bikes either. There's a difference between '29ers don't sell a lot' and '29ers are no different than touring bikes (!) or some clapped-out hybrid, it's just a term made up to make people think there's a difference'. I can't even fathom this idea from people who are remotely knowledgeable about bicycles (that's not directed at you, HillRider).

The only absolutely unique distinguishing characteristic of a so-called "29er" as a product line is a label on a tire that is actually a 700c spec tire. That is literally it...

The other 99.99% comes from the MTB, Road, Hybrid, Touring, BMX, Track/Single/Fixie markets period!!!

26+ years in the bicycling industry has taught me pretty quickly that the majority of product line changes that occur are marketing-driven - i.e., a smart marketing type identifies a "trendy" trend and corrals it early and quickly pushes it - or they make it up out of thin air.

Rarely does a change occur due to an identifiable engineering or utilitarian need.

The biggest change that I've seen in the last decade or so that truly addressed real issues and needs from an engineering or utilitarian standpoint was the combo aheadset and removable face aheadset stem. Even I as a hardcore classic steel and old tech lover like many others of the same admit the system works, is flexible and has scaled well. I'm glad to have it on my classic steel Tommasini.

Too often when a discussion of something "new" comes along, there is someone who pipes in, usually an old-timer: "Been there, done that, seen it all...old news!"

What's the real consequence of this "29er" label? We've already covered it in a previous thread:

Another tire size standard that we don't need in an already very confused and complex tire size collection of standards - many of which already reside in a dust bin of sorts. I pity the poor customer who has just wrapped their head around Schwinn, the decimal sizes, the fractional sizes, the various 650x's, the 27 x1, the 27 x 1 1/8 and the 27 x 1/1/4 (folks do get confused with those three) and then your 700c's.

Now they get to hear "29er"? Then they get to hear people note that 29er is 700c? Enough already...

As a side note, as a wheelbuilder I've seen the heavy v light v aero v box v doublewall v triplewall v younameit cycle come full circle at least 3 times since 1984.

Yes, at 42, I feel like an old-timer already.

=8-)

Not at all. I don't follow the MTB scene so I assumed from BCRiders posting that full suspension and 29er were mutually exclusve at this point. I'm not surprised that FS 29ers are available, I just didn't know they were.

I challange you to find me a hybrid/cross/touring bike that can take 2.3" tires and has suspension corrected geometry. Sure, there is always some overlap between bike genres, but if you insist that the "29er" bikes on your LBS's showroom floor are really just last years hybrids with new stickers, I'd have to believe you've never seen one. If you have a chance to ride a 29 inch wheeled mountain bike on the terrain it's intended for, your confusion will disappear. I assume you're insistance on this point is, in part, to show that you've been around for a while and you aren't impressed by this "next new thing" but, frankly, you risk confusing folks new to the scene by insisting there's no difference between two very different kinds of bikes (that happen to share a wheel size).

Hillrider, there are quite a few full suspension 29ers available but I don't see them gaining huge popularity for the reasons BC laid out; terrain that works well with big wheels doesn't usually require rear suspension and terrain that requires big travel is usually better suited to 26" wheels.
One group of riders that has taken to FS 29ers is the endurance (>8hours) racing crowd. Salsa has a few neat lightweight, racy squishy, 29ers for that purpose.

That's pretty nice...and I like the rigid fork. Suspension is nice - but I actually prefer rigid setups on my MTBs and Hybrids. My wife is the softie.

=8-)

I have no idea what you are arguing. '29er' denotes a distinct subset of bikes and the distinction is clear and useful.

The one actual problem is the stupidity of 'renaming' the 700C wheel size. It has caused quite a bit of confusion... actually incredulity when you try to explain it to people and they wonder why there are two names for the exact same thing.

It would not have been complicated to call the bikes '29ers' and simply state that they have 700C wheels, instead of pretending 700C mtb tires are something completely unique.

I also get tired, however, of ignorant people constantly referring to them as 'hybrids.' They have as much in common with hybrids as 26" wheel mtbs have in common with the 'balloon tire bicycle' that my grandfather* delivered newspapers with in the 1940s.


(*actually, my grandfather did not ride a balloon tire bicycle. He rode an ordinary bicycle and once told me that him and his chums thought the boys that rode balloon tire bicycles "sat down to pee." :))

Exactly my point...the new label wasn't necessary...toss it in MTB or Hybrid, or hell even Balloon Bike...I don't care...and just reference the tire size as 700c with the extra width as its distinguishing characteristic. Nothing more was needed...

That Salsa you found is exactly what I've been considering the past few months. I like my Tommasini, however it it for the most part a Dining Room Queen for about 6 months out of the year.

- Don't want to ride it in the wet.
- Worry about it getting stolen or damaged. It ain't cheap. It's current value is about $3000.00

So I've been planning to build up a Hybrid/Cross style bike just shy of a $1000.00 so that I can ride year round and also know that if it does get stolen or damaged - I'm not going to have a heart attack because of it.

So thanks for the link - it gives me another bike/frame to consider.

=8-)