29ers on the podiums more and more?

[DirtyWorks]

"Colnogo has a 29er. game over"

Orbea has had a carbon 29er for 3 or 4 years. Maybe Colnago has theirs made in the same chinese plant. game..... still a game.

For a brand like Colnago, it's not that expensive to at least attempt to make a dent in another bike segment by ordering product from an OEM. If it doesn't sell out quickly, then not too much lost.

I don't know how much of Colnago's line is outsourced, but their 29er is alloy. OEM could easily be Italian to keep the now ancient 'Italian bikes are better' myth alive. If it was carbon, there are fewer choices, most of whom are in Taiwan or China. That bike in particular could be made anywhere. Asia is the most likely place. There's an OEM doing alloy bikes in Portland, Oregon USA as well as other countries so it's not just about price.

 

[TourLeTour]

I notice Specialized doesn't even have a 26" epic showing on their UK page at the moment...

http://www.specialized.com/gb/gb/bc/SBCBkFamily.jsp?sid=12EpicFSR&scid=1100&scname=Mountain

 

[ColumbusSL]

Science v Religion

In the scheme of engineering and physics a bicycle is neither expensive, nor complex, nor difficult to find power input. So it is suspicious that the amount of published power data regarding the 26 v 29 wheel is small in comparison to the debate. For whatever reason bike companies do not give out their figures. Never have. Even when the HT v Dually debate was going on Specialized never gave out power figures for their dually v ht… They just bought the best mtb rider around at the time to ride for their team. To their credit the marketing strategy worked as Specialized is one of the big brands in mtb’ing.

The two sets of even somewhat relevant figures that are available are from Dave Harris (pro endurance racer) which most observers would agree, while from a (24hr) race which is good, the amount of data wouldn’t normally make it a considered test in the engineering world. To be fair it was never meant to be – the guy just wanted some objective analysis on two bikes he wanted to race in enduro’s. But he gave details of bikes, most of the data and the method he used to analyse it. The figures are all posted on his Healthfx site. The analysis for that series of data (175w v 188w) came from a 24hr race ridden by a pro rider returned a 7% advantage to the 26in bike. He used a Salsa softail 29er v a Trek Fuel 26er (pre equi-link)

The other is from AMB magazine. Their published figures do not give much background in the analysis of data collected and the same thing goes - the data set itself does seem to be larger. However it did take the data from multiple riders and they did multiple runs over a few days. They returned these figures … 26in 234w and avg speed of 13.9km/h: the 29er 238w and 12.9km/h…. so a little less power used by the 26in yielded a 7.7% increase in speed. They used identically spec’ed Giant FS bikes.

While far from ideal they are the only pieces of objective analysis going.

Many people here seem to be commenting on the enduro scene which has different criteria to the short course XC races. The smaller approach angle of the 29er would change the perceived/real comfort/control and therefore perceived and real speed especially after longer enduro type rides for some riders.

As yet there is no published power data from a 29er HT v a 26FS which many of the enduro/marathon racers would probably like to see.

As a foot note I am rather taken aback by the attitude of some folks towards the science. This data does not say you personally will not have more fun on your 29er full suss or that you personally will be not be fast on an enduro or marathon course riding a 29in wheeled bike.

 

[Boeing]

All I know is I can't manual a 29er

 

[durianrider]

you can slap on a 30kg backpak and your wattage is not going to change but your speed sure will.

how does riding a FS or a 29er effect you av watts?

I train with a power meter. Watts is constant regardless of how much you weigh or what your tyre pressure is. What changes is your speed for your effort.

Having bigger wheels with hard tyres means your watts wont change but your speed will increase at the same watts on a 26er bike of the same weight etc.

Example, I can ride at 5watts per kg for 20mins on my mountain bike or road bike for 20mins but will be faster on my road bike as it has bigger wheels, smaller tyres and less weight.

Ive riden a 29er and rate em as a faster all round bike for the long stuff.

 

[ColumbusSL]

These 2 tests with multiple riders over multiple courses with equivalent bikes except for wheel size provided a data set that showed the 26in wheel to be around 7% more efficient for the riders and tracks they were on.

If you can provide a data set that is extensive, analysis showed, bikes and equipment shown - then post it all up so we can all see it… until then all the hype and huffing by guys with new bikes on 29er forums won’t change physics - not on this planet anyway.

 

[Boeing]

until then all the hype and huffing by guys with new bikes on 29er forums won’t change physics - not on this planet anyway.

well well the driving force for your posts and point proving is all about the people on the internet and not the process after all. fail

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

my 10 000$ Sworks carbon epic super bling.

You paid $10k for a Specialized?

LOL.

 

[ColumbusSL]

well well the driving force for your posts and point proving is all about the people on the internet and not the process after all. fail

blah, blah, blah… I don’t like the results of the available science so I will have a go at the messenger … blah blah

once more…

two separate tests where numerous people doing numerous runs over a variety of courses returning reasonable data sets producing real world evidence that for the same power in 26in wheels will produce approx 7% more speed over 29in wheels. i.e. If you are racing short course XC and you are deciding between a 26HT and a 29HT, you will need to provide approx 7% more power to get the same speed from equivalent bikes… If you are racing enduro’s and you are deciding between a 26FS and a 29FS, you will need to provide approx 7% more power to get the same speed from equivalent bikes …

 

[Boeing]

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...6er&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

 

[Boeing]

Dude you blast banana man and your only input to the data you offered was you dont like 29er guys. chill it with the laundry list of likes and dont likes

Horses for courses. Like Slalom and super G.

Or rider size and fit

As much as I preferr my 29er ss hard tail and XC Fully. there is no way I ride a 29 for DH type shuttle runs even if I had the travel. I have no data but I hate the big wheel gyro effect with both wheels off the ground or going into a corner and mach 90. nothing worse that the bike wanting to straighten up in both situations. and I still cant manual sections on a 29er. That alone make me slower than on a 26. but that is me and my skillset or lack there of

however my size and weight benefit from the 29 for XC and SS. the fact that I can carry more momentum and offer a larger tire surface area helps me roll slow technical sections especially climbing. that makes me faster in that situation

nevertheless i think we can start calling them both mountain bikes and stop beating chest on both sides of the argument

btw I love me some fixie too so deal

 

[ColumbusSL]

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...6er&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Is that a link to Matts article from Singletrack! BWAHAHAHA!! ROFLMAO!! You are joking right?!! Even the MTBR 29er forum zealots realised that was a joke!

Did you bother to check the inset ad (for the kiddies – an inset ad looks exactly like a picture that would normally illustrate the article – however the link goes to an add – in this case to Fisher, Salsa, and Niner bikes!) that was paid for by 29er companies

To be fair to Matt (the journo who did the testing) he did say up front that it was a semi-scientific test. And if you ride your bike like Matt did (he did not include power data from his races) ie

…. They were ridden in the same smooth-pedaling manner; riding out of the saddle … was therefore avoided. …
… Climbing was limited to 300 watts and flats limited to 250 watts. …. Downhills were all ridden at zero watts, simply coasting, and we abstained from pedaling out of corners…

... then these are relevant figures to the extent of the rigour that the testing allowed...

The rigour of the testing brings up the 2nd point His testing returned a 2.3% spread across the 3 bikes. Which is statistically significant - but on the border of statistical significance for the powertap hubs (+/- 1.5%) without calibration. No figures were printed showing calibration or the way the raw data was utilised. Though this is not surprising, nor probably relevant, given the context of the article.

An example of the context being... Quoting that a factory team won on their factory bikes and seems to infer by omission that factory riders can choose their bikes. (Factory teams are employees and ride what the marketing department tell them to ride)
And also that ‘There is now very little disadvantage — in terms of weight and tire technology — associated with 29ers.’ Where as carbon rims for the 29 format have been around for many years now (certainly before 09 when his 1st article was written) and the difference in weight between 26in and 29in wheels has been around 15% since 2009. Where that extra weight lies ie a collective approx 3in (11.5%) further out from the axis of the wheel also has not changed. This and similar comments in the article seem to seek to muddy the physics surrounding the two formats.

there is no detail on bikes, wheels or data examination ... and the manner in which the trial was conducted did not in anyway try to find the speed of a bike.

AMB magazine data has been posted. The Harris power figures (175w v 188w) came from a 24hr race ridden by a pro rider. Matt’s data was collected from 1 rider with no analysis methodology described, nonexistent ‘fit for purpose’ criteria as admitted by his ride descriptin, and a tiny data set… basically the three 29er companies that did an ‘inset’ advertisement in Matts article would be happy to call this ‘objective’ but you would have a hard time catching any engineer saying so – 29er forum posters excepted.



Mate, I see you have a lot of posts on this forum - fair... and you certainly show more intelligence than the vegetarian...

but what you have been smoking when you wrote your next post? it has little to do with our frielndly conversational points that I can figure...

 

[Boeing]

Dear ColumboSL

check yourself. you are arguing against a people who exist in your imagination

and fYI the tires are the things on your bike that make contact with the road.


Warm Retards

B

 

[ColumbusSL]

...
btw I love me some fixie too so deal

?!!! ... Nothing wrong with your imagination that’s for sure… I am guessing with the lack of prepositions and nouns in your posts you must be one of those hip funksta types that wears your cap on sideways…

 

[durianrider]

You paid $10k for a Specialized?

LOL.

I worked in the industry way too long to ever pay retail for a bike.

I ride an sworks epic with all the **** tank but I didnt pay the newbie price.

 

[Boeing]

?!!! ... Nothing wrong with your imagination that’s for sure… I am guessing with the lack of prepositions and nouns in your posts you must be one of those hip funksta types that wears your cap on sideways…

The deviation in an informal fallacy often stems from a flaw in the path of reasoning that links the premises to the conclusion

To attack the person is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition "the Person", and refuting them alone, without ever having actually refuted the original position. Hence we have nothing from you again but a laundry list of your personal likes and dislikes.

word to your mother

 

[ColumbusSL]

My original post was about putting some science into the debate. The hype has been too embarrassing of late. (see above)

Two tests using power meters to determine how much power (the rider) puts in to get measured speed over a variety of tracks. One test was a professional athlete in a 24hr race. .. The other a variety of riders on a variety of tracks over a number of days. ... (go back a page for my original post for details) a clear winner emerged. The 26in bike format was around 7% more efficient in both tests.

The original post commented about 29ers on podiums. Of all the top XCO riders only Maja chooses to ride a 29er - all the others are factory riders. Have a look around and you'll notice the amount of Giants ridden by sponsored riders in the lower level XC races. Giant is currently offering all its riders cheap bike deals to ride 29ers - same goes for the Fisher and Specialised.

All the teams test on power. Everybody in those teams know the results. The tests that do get published are unequivocal - a 29in wheel takes a lot more energy to go as fast.
Of course if you are just looking for a trail bike or you are looking at a dually for more speed in tech sections or longer races then maybe look at a 29erHt. I did.

 

[Boeing]

Memo to ComumbineSL 29ers are mountain bikes.

allow me to suggest that from this point forward it is best to discuss the different bikes if you have experience on both rather than shop talk and google hate.

I pushed the front on my 29er cornering and went town again. Just can't float into a tight section and counter like on the 26. could be the tard in me. That has to be slower right? Strange relationship i have with my 29. love rolling and climbing and the bike fit but I just can't get it to do what I want on the back side of a mountain line a 26. Maybe 29ers are more for the fit guy and less for the skills guy.

anyone with experience riding both feel the same?

 

[ColumbusSL]

I have been asked for more information on the AMB test – Australian Mountain Bike Magazine printed the test in its Sept 11 edition. Unfortunately they don’t do a web version. So here are more details.

They used identically specc’ed Giant Anthem X duallies hooked up to speed and cadence sensors, GPS, timing devices and SRM powermeters – they are the crank version not the less accurate hub version. Tyres were inflated to 32psi on all bikes. They had multiple riders so as to negate the criticisms of using a single rider with skills that might favour one type of wheel. Multiple courses were used around Adelaide SA. The courses were a variety of quite rocky, quite steep sections, some sandy and some more open fireroad. The test done over the course of a week. After all of the testing the ave power for the 26in bike was 234w to get an ave speed of 13.9km/h. The ave power for the 29in bike was 238w to get an ave speed of 12.9km/h. Which is 1.7% less power from the 26in bike - but that same bike gives 7.7% more speed.

Two things were noted that was interesting. All the testers FELT the 29er was faster. It was not until the data was in that the facts revealed the 26in bike was indeed the fastest though less comfortable.
Also the testers gave some climbing data. It should be noted a 1min 30sec slice of data is a very small set and it was only included as interest. The power figures were 260w ave to give 11.8km/h for the 26in bike and 386w and 11.5km/h for the 29in bike. So the same rider on the same short climb had to work nearly a third more on the big wheels.

These figures may come as shock if all you have read is forum comment. They are quite within expectations for the industry though. Dave Harris produced similar figures nearly 3 years ago. And all XCO race teams use power meters which is why, mostly, the only 29ers used in world cup XCO are some factory teams who are instructed to use 29ers by their marketing departments.

 

[Boeing]

the figures do not include rider bios

 

[durianrider]

Thats total BS that you have to crank out 380 watts on a 29er up a climb to get the same speed on a 26er that only would take 260 watts lol!

I train with a power meter and 260w up a climb is talking tempo pace for me where as 380watts is my max for 5 mins at 64kg.

Ive riden both 29ers and 26ers up this one climb and I was 1minute slower on the 29er but in way less shape than when I had riden it on the 26er. No way was I producing 260watts on the 26er and 340watts on the 29er lol!

Both times I was well over 300watts and busting my nutz up TT'n up the 15min berg.

What a joke test. They even had the cheek to say 'the 29er felt faster but the data says the 26er was faster with an average watts of 260 vs the 380 for the 29er for the same speed..'

LMAO! Thats like when I train Muay Thai here in Thailand my sparring partner hits me with a foam roller vs a base ball bat and I say 'well the foam roller felt harder but actually the base ball bat was softer when we looked at the data...'

If 29ers required an extra 120watts to ride the same speed as a 26er then how on earth are people getting podium results on em?

 

[Boeing]

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but
in practice there is a great deal of difference.

 

[ColumbusSL]

If 29ers required an extra 120watts to ride the same speed as a 26er then how on earth are people getting podium results on em?

Have another look at the post and then read it.

the climbing data is for a 1m30sec climb - a very short burst of power needed over an uneven and undulating surface - the wheel would be constantly needed to be accelerated... so the rider is constantly accellerating a mass that is around 15% heavier and 11% further out from the rotational centre.
Have a go at putting DH tyres on your bike and then sprint up a short hill - it would be similiar

The overall advantage from the week of testing by these multiple riders, using identical bikes is around 7% - not 120w.

Podium results are easily got at local races when the good young riders are grabbing whatever sponsorships they can get ... and those sponsorships are from Giant and Specialised ... and those riders are induced to ride a particular bike because it is offered at half the price of another type of bike.

On the XCO elite level apart from Specialised and the occasional Fisher most others are riding 26. Except for this year mens was all 26, Womens XCO and Marathon (orbea and Fuji) the 24hr stuff is all 26 (Cube, cannondale,) though Andrew whatshisname (Fellows?) is sponsored by a 29 company this year so who knows

 

[Boeing]

Have another look at the post and then read it.

the climbing data is for a 1m30sec climb - a very short burst of power needed over an uneven and undulating surface - the wheel would be constantly needed to be accelerated... so the rider is constantly accellerating a mass that is around 15% heavier and 11% further out from the rotational centre.
Have a go at putting DH tyres on your bike and then sprint up a short hill - it would be similiar

The overall advantage from the week of testing by these multiple riders, using identical bikes is around 7% - not 120w.

Podium results are easily got at local races when the good young riders are grabbing whatever sponsorships they can get ... and those sponsorships are from Giant and Specialised ... and those riders are induced to ride a particular bike because it is offered at half the price of another type of bike.

On the XCO elite level apart from Specialised and the occasional Fisher most others are riding 26. Except for this year mens was all 26, Womens XCO and Marathon (orbea and Fuji) the 24hr stuff is all 26 (Cube, cannondale,) though Andrew whatshisname (Fellows?) is sponsored by a 29 company this year so who knows

what type of data do you have to support the theory presented above which reads to me like nothing more than a conspiracy theory?

if you are suggesting that the fastest riders are only riding 29ers because the major mfgs are paying them to? otherwise they'd be on 26ers because the rather small sample survey you present proves so?

really, you have piles of evidence proving 26ers are faster therefore the major bike companies are bribing the public to sell more bikes. come on bro

if you are paraphrasing form a study you read stop now; you've said all you can. If you conducted the study refrain form simplifying you potential counter arguments

 

[MTBrider]

At the world cup level very few is racing 29er tires like the ones that most people ride. Anybody racing a WC with any kind of success (with two exceptions) on a 29er is using a very light, skinny tire, with quite high air pressure.

If you look at the wheel set-ups you have three primary types at WCs.

(1) A large 26inch tubeless tire. This is most popular in the women's field, most of the top girls are running 2.2 or larger tires.

(2) Small Tubular MTB tires. Most of the top men are using Tubulars, for some reason the women aren't. I don't know why, maybe the top women are on teams which don't have tubulars available.

(3) 29ers with super light skinny tires.

There is a couple of riders running 29ers tublars who have had success, Maja and Vogel come to mind although both have had greater success on 26inch bikes. But many who have switched are struggling Craig, Brodrick, and McConneloug (the last two are not on tubulars) for example.

All three of the main set-ups come in about the same weight. Actually the 29er wheels are typically the lightest. But with the exception of Kulhavy and Wells most of the riders on 29ers struggle on the technical bits because of their tire choice.