2manyoranges
Old School Grand Master
- Feedback
- View
yep I agree - always worth fiddling with things. Although some things do need to go into Room 101 after they prove to be a nightmare.
26 ain't dead - ARRRGH but 32 is ALIVE - the FrankenHoop now rolling near you ....
- Thread starter 2manyoranges
- Start date
Then stick with what you ride. 32 isn't going to be pushed the same way 29 was, except maybe for xc racing. For that it may be the best option on certain course. This site is a perfect example that you can ride whatever you like and still have fun.
On the other hand...... some of my friends in a photo. Can you honestly tell me that they should all be riding the same wheel size? Bear in mind that the tall guy's bike has 26x3" tyres and still looks like a bmx!
And Gandalf spoke unto the Hobbits:
Jamie
Jamie
- Feedback
- View
They were talking about this on the Pinkbike podcast the other week. They seemed pretty certain it wouldn't become mainstream, mainly because of smaller riders and would stay in it's own niche. Now 29" has seen of 27.5" I can't see a big swing away from it any time soon.
But as a cynic...this is exactly what the industry wants. .....a good reason for all your 29ers to be old hat/ obsolete toot. Then you will need to buy your bikes all over again.
The article said "at a time it seems development has stalled".....should read "a time industry desperate for a new standard to upsell to"
Yes it may "only be used in racing at present " but then so was 29ers.....look where 26 ended up....children's bikes....even if your a 5'1" female, you still get a 29er..??.!
As for rotating mass, interesting work by swiss1 (i think it was them) has proved its a bit of a misnomer. Yes more weight is bad in general, yes slower to spin up, but the flywheel effect balances the equation at the other end if the cycle. So in a non stop/ start continious effort, no real effect.
Think some recent articles about their research are on one of the cycling channels.
The article said "at a time it seems development has stalled".....should read "a time industry desperate for a new standard to upsell to"
Yes it may "only be used in racing at present " but then so was 29ers.....look where 26 ended up....children's bikes....even if your a 5'1" female, you still get a 29er..??.!
As for rotating mass, interesting work by swiss1 (i think it was them) has proved its a bit of a misnomer. Yes more weight is bad in general, yes slower to spin up, but the flywheel effect balances the equation at the other end if the cycle. So in a non stop/ start continious effort, no real effect.
Think some recent articles about their research are on one of the cycling channels.
Damn, that's why nobody wants my old wheels, they are all after those performance enhancing inches.
I was always under the impression it wasn't what you'd got but what you did with it....no?
2manyoranges
Old School Grand Master
- Feedback
- View
Then stick with what you ride. 32 isn't going to be pushed the same way 29 was, except maybe for xc racing. For that it may be the best option on certain course. This site is a perfect example that you can ride whatever you like and still have fun.
On the other hand...... some of my friends in a photo. Can you honestly tell me that they should all be riding the same wheel size? Bear in mind that the tall guy's bike has 26x3" tyres and still looks like a bmx!
And Gandalf spoke unto the Hobbits:
Jamie
sorry it was a bit tongue in cheek
I am 170cm on a good day
I have 26 jump bikes
27.5 enduro
29 enduro and FS
I really appreciate the use of 29 and proper proportional geometry for taller people - I recently built an XL 29er Ragley Big Al for a 6' 4" friend and it was perfect in a way which was not possible a few years ago - very impressive and a Very Big Bike in an entirely suitable way. 32 may also be promising (particularly for Dutch people) in getting properly proportional builds for taller folk.
