Just built a 29'er. Will I ever ride on 26" wheels again?

Re: Re:

JamesM":3ukf7xyh said:
How about the fact that the tyre will sink a little way into the soft ground? Not all of the contact patch may be load bearing and so a tire with a larger diameter and hence a flatter arc may contact more of the soft ground?
My previous comments and calculations relate to shock absorption on rough but relatively solid terrain.
On soft going, the rules are indeed different.

When a tyre sinks into soft ground the contact patch lengthens to include more of the circumference and so the weight is distributed over a larger area. In this circumstance the larger the wheel diameter the less it will dig in and theoretically the lower the rolling resistance. However, if the ground is very soft with a firm layer below, like with soft snow or sloppy mud, then a narrow tyre that will cut through to the grip below may be more efficient as all that a wider tyre will do is cut a wider trench across the landscape.

Using very low air pressures and large diameter fat tyres on semi soft surfaces, like moist soil, can prevent the tyres from digging in. And in such situations the wider, softer and larger diameter the tyre, the softer the ground that can be efficiently ridden.

However the danger of 'snakebite' punctures on tree roots etc, increases the lower the pressure used. One solution is to use high volume tyres like the Fatbikes. Another is to have suspension to soften any impact, or to use heavy duty tyres and tubes, where the total thickness of the compacted rubber between rim and pinch point harmlessly absorbs the shock.
 
When we need to cross the side of a mountain we use a huge four wheel drive tractor. When we want to get in about the terrain, into and out of features we use an Argo, for general round the tracks light work we may use an old Fergie.

Horses for courses.

Seems for most applications 'mountain' bikers encounter the larger wheel does the job as well or better.

For the twisty gnarly abrupt stuff on some trails I know really well I have actually been happier on a BMX than a full size bike.
 
Re:

highlandsflyer":33yqnlxu said:
Seems for most applications 'mountain' bikers encounter the larger wheel does the job as well or better.

Depends on your definition of better. At the end of the day that's what it all boils down too.
 
highlandsflyer":9jt2n4eg said:
When we need to cross the side of a mountain we use a huge four wheel drive tractor. When we want to get in about the terrain, into and out of features we use an Argo, for general round the tracks light work we may use an old Fergie.

Horses for courses.

Seems for most applications 'mountain' bikers encounter the larger wheel does the job as well or better.

For the twisty gnarly abrupt stuff on some trails I know really well I have actually been happier on a BMX than a full size bike.
In 1984 I took an FW Evans ATB and tried to modify it to be as good on road as off-road.
But it soon became clear that it was a compromise, a jack of all trades and master of none. Since then I have always seen mountain bikes as either the equivalent of rally cars, designed to go as fast as possible. Or the equivalent of 4x4s, dependable and designed for long distance comfort.

Today, I have 20" 26" 27.5" and 29" off-road bikes and match my choice of bike and wheel size to the type of riding I intend to do. It is wonderful that no two of my bikes are the same, and that each has known strengths and weaknesses.

For me a world where one particular type of bike was better than all others would be a much duller place.

So I celebrate the difference between bikes, and have no intention of riding only one size of wheel. No matter how much the cycle trade tells me that they have come up with the perfect 'compromise', that makes all other wheel sizes redundant.
 
Back
Top