ed 

I applaud MBAction for their silver tongues. I think MBAction has been one of the more influential forces in mountain bike marketing over the last 10 years. You can really tell which magazines people are reading and blindly believing by what you see on the trail and in the shops. I remember the trail tire shootouts. When the Nevegal was touted #1 so many times, Nevegals began instantly finding their way onto 1/2 the bikes on the trail. I can't complain about the tire because I still use it as a rear tire, but it's pretty-much just an average choice for front end rubber. Funny that the Excavator hasn't graced the High Torque pages, because it's far superior. I can almost guarentee you that when it does...they won't be able to keep them in stock.

The same can be said with Specialized bicycles...the Stumpy in particular. I'm not sure what happened with Titus b/c the Motolite was one of the more fondly mentioned trail bikes in the mag, but it's really sickening how influential a magazine can be on a market.

I remember when all XC racers were using hardtails. When platform suspension came to the table, it no longer became "how quickly you can get to the top"...it became "just pick a comfortable gear and spin your way to the top." At this point, climbing efficiency became moot. The first time I read that I laughed my butt off. Sitting down spinning your granny up the hill is so much slower than an 80mm hardtail standing and honking in your middle ring, but apparently that was no longer a way to gauge a bikes ability to perform.

29'ers have been on the market for years, but when Fisher started mass marketing them in the 1k range, MBAction tried to jump on the 9er train. I remember there being an article with a 26'er vs 29'er shootout using two virtually identical bikes. Both were ZR9000 Fishers with similar builds. The consensus was that since races are won on the climbs, 26'ers win. 29'ers don't accelerate or climb as well as a similarly spec'd 26'er. It's comical how the tune has changed. I think the boys down at Hi-Torque are getting older, more timid, less gnarly and more XC oriented. It seems that more and more these days, they tend to recommend XC oriented 29'ers than anything.

This months MBAction is a complete 180 from these earlier proven head-to-head tests. Though the tests were slightly subjective...they were at least somewhat scientific. It seems now that they're offering somewhat of an excuse as to not sound hypocritical with their new 29'er heavy preaching. The article starts out with "The Early Years"...explaining why they thought 26'ers were still superior and giving Gary credit for pioneering yet another "standard".

It goes on to explain how making a steeper head angle with a shorter stem and wider bars makes up for the bikes sluggish trail mannerisms. Yet there are still little snippets in the articles that say things like:

"In fairness to the 26-inch wheels, they were still more fun for accomplished riders. The larger hoops couldn't pump the trail with the same liveliness, and the 26ers culd still out-accelerate the 29ers out of a corner if the conditions were right."

If the conditions were right? I'm still firmly planted in the theory that bike for bike...bigger hoops can't hang on climbs or acceleration out of corners. They're saying that 29'er wheels are so much lighter now days that it's barely noticeable, but if you're making a lighter 29er wheel...then the 26 inch counterpart made equally will be just that much lighter. Add the weight of rubber and tubes...(yes...I said tubes)...and you still get a more sluggish ride.

"The popularity of the 29er, once thought of as a fun alternative to 'real mountain biking' the way singlespeeds or snow bikes are labeled, could no longer be denied. They were not only accepted by the hardcore enthusiast (the rider who owns one of everything), but beginners who had no preconcieved bias toward any wheel size."

It goes on to say "Today, a rider, especially a new rider, who walks into a shop looking for a mountain bike will be steered toward a 29er more often than a 26er."

They also admit that there are still areas where the 29er can't compete (for now):
1. Long travel bikes can be a challenge to keep laterally rigid.
2. The ideal 29er drivetrain has yet to be defined.
3. In pure flick-it-around, pop-it-off-the-lip-fun, the 26er still has an edge.

Point number three is said to be the "biggest sticking point for experienced riders thinking of making the move to a 29er. The 29er is easier to ride, but is it more fun? For a rider raised on 26-inch wheels, probably not."


They wrap it up by saying that the 26er is by no means dead, but it's being overtaken by 29er sales over the $500 mark.

Whether you agree totally, or it pisses you off to no end...the 29er is making mountain biking more accessible to new riders and offering a new experience for all of us.


What I take away from this article is:

"We at Hi-Torque publications apologize to our sponsors by dogging on your efforts to create a new market that will hopefully cause the current 26er hold-outs to finally go out and spend some money on a new bike. It's obvious that the media is powerful therefore we will try from now on to pimp your products in a confident manner whether it's true or not just as we did the Kenda Nevegal."

Alright, so I'm not going to get all cynical and be grumpy anti 29er guy again. I think it's just obvious that the majority of mountain bikers are XC riders looking to sit'n'spin over XC terrain and the 29'er makes that a little easier to accomplish. Steep, out-of-the-saddle climbs where tractions isn't necessarily the pitfall? 26 inch hardtails will always reign supreme. Throw in traction issues or really bumpy ascents and of course...suspension or larger hoops with a bigger patch will aid your way to the top. I also doubt slopestyle will ever take on the new trend. Heck after watching all that stuff done on a 20"...26inch slopestyle bikes look clumsy enough. Let alone a 29er.

The 29ers that I've ridden were mostly that early to mid generation geometry. Until recently, I don't think any 29er had been invented that would catch my eye. I'm still intrigued by the Kona Honzo, Canfield Yelli, Yeti SB95, and the Transition Bandit 29. I'd like to check those guys out. I have a feeling that the only one I'd really be comfortable on would be the Kona due to it's really short stays. The stays are actually shorter than my Komodo.

I remember how crappy some early technology was. I'd try it and dismiss it, only to adapt it to my riding 5 years later.


Is the 29er taking over? Lord, I hope not. Is it getting better? Sure.

D-Fuzz

I read that article as well. It seems that 29ers were initially met with skepticism due to the fact that the bikes were basically 26" bikes with bigger wheels mounted under them, so the geometries and ridability was all screwed up. Over time, things have continued to become more refined and the 29ers have improved overall. I do agree that a lot of the hype about 29ers is coming from marketing departments who are trying to sell more bikes. There is very little on a standard 26" MTB that can be improved in order to generate bike sales, so manufacturers are looking for the next big thing to boost sales. For the amount and type of riding I do, I likely wouldn't notice an appreciable difference between the two, but it is becoming increasingly more difficult to find decent 26" bikes, at least in my part of the world.

Daspydyr 

Ed, thanks for the well thought out, reasonable editorial. I am a long time XC rider. I don't have any real technical experience on a 29er, but the switchbacks in my part of the world make me fearful. Compact is helpful. I wish the marketplace and racers would just go out and prove what works for them.

Hype at the end of the day just smells like, well, HYPE!

ed 

Yah man...according to his highness King Cunningham...switchbacks are now no problem with the new geo.

Again...I'd like to try out a Honzo the most. Heck...the Bandit has looooong stays compared to what I'm on. Even compared to the Parker. I'm not sure what the geo on the Yeti is. It looks nice, but not on the market yet.

Hou-Tex

MBA sucks!

gavo

I already have a 29er. It's called a cyclocross bike.
A while back I was considering getting a fisher 29er. Finally got to test ride one and found that I take a 17.5" Unfortunately, it almost castrated me, given the atrocious standover. The trails by me are fairly choppy and tight so I just wouldn't want to take a big wheeled bike out on them....I'm already struggling as it is with my crappy abilities and lack of fitness. There are a lot of variables in choosing a bike, of course, but I have to admit that the constant shoving of 29ers down my gullet in every publication I pick up is starting to piss me off. They just aren't for everyone, no matter how many times the industry shouts about it. Nice one Ed.

Zephyr11

I'll pick up a 29er when they make one with 26" wheels.

I guess I just don't see how it wouldn't feel a little bit clumsy. Heck, if I ride my 24" for a while and then jump on my 26", even that feels like a step down in agility. And as Ed pointed out, look at the magic that guys on 20's are working. (There is, of course, a point of diminishing returns, and I have no plans of going out and buying a kiddie bike with 16" wheels). I'm not a super aggressive rider. Especially going up...I do a lot of sit n' spin on ascents. But I like that agility going down (and the ascent is only there so you can go down, right?!). I like how small wheels feel cornering...take a 20" and a 26" to a BMX track, throw them both into a berm, and you'll see what I mean. And in the air, little wheels are king (well...I'm more stable on the 24" with its longer wheelbase than the 20", but the 20" is easier to get up there, and if I didn't suck, I bet the 20" would be easier to toss around and do tricks with, and they both beat the crap out of the 26"). I guess it's not fair to judge not having tried one. And it probably wouldn't work since for the bike to fit me, they'd be working with a really little frame built around big wheels and trying not to have toe overlap or throw off the geometry too badly. But even if it did work, I guess I just can't picture it.

AsanaCycles

zines being in the occupation of marketing
and of course bicycles being dubbed Sporting Goods, of course any sporting goods rag is as if a precursor to an array of product catalogs

I've been on mtb's since around '86, and I admit that I never hucked a bike, rode north shore, heck... or even raced a DS or DH course.
but I've put in many years doing the XC thing, and in those days (think farmer johns, tomac, onza, etc), a NORBA race was more of what a rider would encounter in a natural setting, which is very different from today's sporting events set up in parks, and now classic venues.

everything changes
evolves if you'd care to call it that.

heck, my stopping grounds have become smoother and smoother every year. the lines are always changing, and they reflect what people are riding.

yes... I ride a 29er
a custom Hunter 29er

why?
well, mostly for diversity
the bigger wheels typically roll over things easier
tubeless, lets me run a wide range of psi <--- of course this is not specific to 29ers
the 700c rim lets me use a huge range of tires from 23c to 2.4"
which of course effectively changes gear inch.

I've come to really like WTB Vulpines 29x2.1" the are under 600gm, and roll fast for a mtb tyre. slimed up with the likes of stans or cafe latex they almost self heal, and I rarely flat.

I've used this bike from touring Portland to Ventura
a bunch of rides up and down the california coast
some xc races
12hrs of humboldt, 12 laps, 96 miles and over 16,000ft of climbing
california triple crown (3 double centuries)
my daily commuter/trainer/favorite club ride bike (dirt or paved, nanos or vulpines) heck... I put 20hrs/wk on this bike for at least 3 years now.
touring, with or without racks/panniers
and even a shot at the 2010 Tour Divide, where I rode Banff to Butte, MN in 7 days

mtb's being what they typically are
and road bikes being what they typically are

and the years of cycling experience

I'm glad to have the product development come to fruition in a 29er.

I've changed to a 48t big ring to give about 127 gear inches in the 11t with a 2.1" tyre.

I do have a road bike a new CAAD10, it has just over 1,000 miles.
and I do have a 26" wheeled MTB... a Surly Big Dummy.
I don't own a car, so the dummy is my truck.
shod in DH rims, and the vast supply of 26" mtb tires, its the perfect choice for cargo duties.

ed 

NCMTBIKER

Nice article..29er's rule!

Mr IGH

What kind of person reads advertisements for validation? (MTB mags are just a big series of ads.) Ride what YOU like and smile at the others on the trail. That's what grown-ups do :thumb"

Gummee

I've been itching to try a 29er for an extended time. I ride my cross bike off-road and like the feeling better than my 26" wheeled bike. I can only hope that the bigger rubber = more better.

...We'll see...

M

M_S

Sure you do

ed 

Isn't a scrawney little cross tire O.D. about the same as a burly 26" tire?

shiggy

Are you sure RC had anything to do with the article? He left MBA nearly a year ago.

Daspydyr 

I knew it, switchbacks are no problem. Its me that's the problem, I'm just a stinkin hack.

ed 

Good call...I have research to do. They probably fired him because he decided he liked 26" wheels better

born2bahick

Teddy Rosevelt and his rough rider took san jaun hill pulling gatling guns with 29ers!

ed 

RC removed until I research some more.

dminor 

Switchhacks unite!

matttheknife

projection Ed, projection....

Kidding aside, I have a 29er hardtail and like it, but I will probably get a 26" trail bike for next season. I want something with longer travel that is more flickable. The big bike is great, but my preferences for riding terrain is changing.

ed 

Yah...I know. I just thought it was a bit hypocritical of them to flip like that.

electrik

My turn to put grumpy guy hat on.

When it comes to thinking about 29r it is important to ask what was wrong with 26in and to remember what companies do - Sell the sizzle, not the steak. There are few things going for 29r and none of them are about the steak - or at least none of them were. What do i mean by that you ask, well around here courses are now being turned into some sort of parking lot crit. These polished MTB race courses are all about speed and "flow" but this flow is the kind any amateur can figure out. This is being done to accommodate 29rs and perhaps roadies too scared to ride the road. I guess this is what it means when a new product makes waves, it rocks the boat of everybody else. These course changes are the only bit of steak 29r owners can actually eat, but it's going to be bitter because it comes at a cost. ****. I am going to miss slow and challenging, it's getting harder to find.

Why do people constantly talk about 29r like they're sooo great? Why can't they just shutup and ride? We have all met somebody, the kool-aid drinker, doing this. It has nothing todo with the actual performance, but with the person's desire to reinforce what the marketing has told them is true and that they've spent their resources properly. It is funny because all these 29r riders parrot the same little toolkit supplied by gary fisher for dealing with mr big bad 26in guy who is stuck in the past yet nobody has actually evaluated them in a meaningful way to determine a difference. You see, when comparing apples to oranges anything goes and all of it is horse ****.

I have tried 29r, yes. I feel like i'm driving a bus when i ride one, i can't imagine doing anything trials or urban related on it by choice. Technology is attempting to ammend the inequalities of skill and fitness among riders, but it's making a mess and ruining my local courses. I don't ride my 26 on the 24 guys dirt jumps, you keep your damn 29r of my sweet 26r course!

gavo

@M_S
Well, I've got 2. A fuji Cross Comp and an On One Pompino. I've ridden both on trails a good few times, but prefer my mountain bikes on proper trails. I don't know, I think the big pisser for me is that a short arse like myself is being shafted by the industry. Long torso, short legs = no 29er. Unless we're talking full sus, which has a nice dropped top tube and which I cannot possibly afford. Maybe I'm turning into an old codger but why fix something that wasn't broken? Yes, I understand profit margins, new business models and the fact that big wheels work great for tall riders and all that oul ****. But why alienate a sizeable part of your target demographic?

Daspydyr 

Some folks like the Hummer, I still like a good little Wrangler.