Intense 29er DH bike
- Thread starter iRider
- Start date
-
- Tags
- e-speculativequeers.
You really should ask Mommy and Daddy for permission to use the computer before posting such idiocy.
The "taller distance" is negligible. I realize Bench Racers like you hear 29er and think there's a 3" difference but the real difference is much smaller because 29" refers to wheel + tire whereas 26" refers to rim. Add the 26" tire to the rim and the difference shrinks. It's about 1.25" to 1.5" overall height difference. Divide that in half to get the triangulation factor relevant to hub width for wheel building. The difference is negligible.
Last edited:
i can see the concept as viable for bigger riders for sure. big guys make 26" wheels look like 24s under the more normally proportioned. if chassis size isn't a hindrance (my old large v10 was close to 48" w/b, and was never an problem in the tighter stuff), i have no doubt that a big rider could be faster on a big wheel bike. cool to see someone like intense dabbling with the concept. alex morgan should be stoked.
Agreed. I would love to have a 26" 951, but 29" DH bikes just seem like change for the sake of change to me and yet another sizing standard for companies and shops to deal with. To each their own, not saying I could do any better.
Reminds me of how I feel about singlespeeds. I think a variable-mechanical advantage system is an awesome thing and one of the coolest aspects of a bike, why willingly impose restrictions?
Ah lose the hostility man, it's not necessary. 26" refers to rim + tyre anyway (standardised with a 2.0" tyre IIRC). Not sure what tyre size 29" is standardised with but I'd guess it's a similar one, so yes there is going to be a legitimate 1.5" difference in wheel radius for comparable tyre sizes.
For those of you who don't like it, don't buy one. Nobody's saying it's a substitute for existing bikes, it's just testing out new stuff. Full credit to Intense for trying it anyway, if it flops or is unviable they'll drop it and move on eventually.
Well said, I never thought a 29er DH bike would get people so up in arms. Nobody said the 29er monster was going to come in the middle of the night and steal everyone's 26" wheels and replace them with horrible 29" wheels.
I'm not old enough to know but I'm sure people were equally as heated about change when bikes started having disc brakes, more than 4" of travel or slacker than 70 degree frames.
I hope one day you overcome your anger problems, it will really help you in life. Where are your results from this year, i won overall in my class and undefeated in slalom. Maybe you are the benchracer
Last edited:
But over all, you have no class.
I think the bike looks good. 29er for DH I don't know. I find it cool that it is being built to see if it works good/bad.
Its entirely dependent on the trail. It wouldn't prove anything (to me, or anyone with an education) unless he was consistantly faster on the bike after doing the same test on a variety of different trails in widespread locations. I know someone who has done this test with 29 and 26 xc bikes and had the 29er be slower every time, but I take it with a grain of salt because I know it was carried out in one location. Anyone who has actually pedaled 29er bikes knows that steeper angles handle like 26s that are 2-3* slacker. What you would do with a 64.5* 29er with a 48" wheelbase besides be slow as **** accelerating and losing speed in tight turns is beyond me. A back-to-back test in so-cal would mean as much to me as this bike does now, nothing. A scientific test carried out over the course of a year on a variety of trails and locations with the 29er being consistantly faster would be much more feasible.
Then I could look at the bike for 3 years while the rim, tire, and suspension manufacturers catch up.
Last edited:
Oh you should have seen the uproar back when people were experimenting with 2.5" tires!
If the bike business innovation were driven by the forums, we would all still be riding modified beach cruisers down Mt. Tam.
More idiocracy for all of you, on a 24" bmx they use a 110 rear hub with a 24 inch rim. A generic mtb uses a 135 for a 26, downhill 150. The roughest wheel set it is the one with the widest hub compared to rim. You would not use a 26 inch rim on a bmx rear hub. (and thats only 1 inch smaller) So y would you necessarily use a 29 on a 150 (unless you feel a 135 wheel is fine for DH)
Not sure if this is the correct way to measure this so feel free to chime in
24/110 is .22
26/110 is .24
26/135 is .19
26/150 is .17
29/135 is .21
29/150 is .19
All decimals are rounded***
A generic DH wheel right now has a ___ of .17(the stiffest)
A Generick 29er wheel right now has a ___ of .19-the same as a generic DJ/XC wheel. (although most 135 singlespeed hubs[drivers] have wider flanges)
Not sure how much it matters but it is not as stiff as a current DH wheel.
Correct on this thinking?
Not sure if this is the correct way to measure this so feel free to chime in
24/110 is .22
26/110 is .24
26/135 is .19
26/150 is .17
29/135 is .21
29/150 is .19
All decimals are rounded***
A generic DH wheel right now has a ___ of .17(the stiffest)
A Generick 29er wheel right now has a ___ of .19-the same as a generic DJ/XC wheel. (although most 135 singlespeed hubs[drivers] have wider flanges)
Not sure how much it matters but it is not as stiff as a current DH wheel.
Correct on this thinking?
zerode
29er wheels need larger flange hub and taller rims which will keep the spokes as short as possible. which will be less likely to taco or what not.
id def throw a leg over a 29er DH bike, why not? man im sure all your girlfriends hate you for not willing to trying something new
dennis
id def throw a leg over a 29er DH bike, why not? man im sure all your girlfriends hate you for not willing to trying something new
dennis
I think the way you're trying to calculate it is the right general idea (more or less, spoke angle essentially being the critical part), however flange spacing is more important than actual hub width - BMXs don't have a wide freehub body or disc brake mounts, so the flange width is a larger proportion of the actual dropout spacing. Also for the comparison to be relevant you'd have to compare the ERD of the rims rather than the outer diameter of the tyres, because if you have the same size tyre and same rim profile on a larger wheel, the spokes are going to be even longer than the outer diameter suggests, since the tyre/rim combined profile aren't increasing at the same rate.
Also, larger diameter rims will inherently be easier to taco (since you simply have more leverage on them) as well as easier to flatspot (since their radius is larger) for a given rim profile, even if you got the spoke angles to be equivalent. This is my personal biggest reason against 29" wheels on a DH bike - we kill wheels easily enough as it is. Whatever though - this is all just speculation, Intense are the guys who are actually trying this stuff in the real world (you know, that place us forum nerds sometimes go when we're not on the forums). I suspect that they'll find it's better in some places, worse in others, and at the end of the day the difference - whether that is better or worse overall - will end up being too small to justify actually putting 29" DH gear into any serious production. Again though, they're actually out there testing it rather than just e-wanking about it.
Someone on MTBR suggested something actually that I thought was a pretty cool idea - 29" front wheel with 26" rear. Would let you get the front wheel over/through stuff it currently won't go, without needing such severe geometry changes (such as 18.5" chainstays or whatever it is that the 2951 has). Many motorbikes use different diameter wheels, doesn't seem to be any particular reason why bicycles *need* to have the same diameter front and rear, other than for the sake of convenience (which I will admit is a pretty huge factor really).
Last edited:
well that's what I was implying, i'm just lazy. They could just give both to me and I could ride them at whistler for le scientific analysis. Fast to gnar there's at least a bit of everything.
Actually I think the hate would drop if 2/3 of the 29'' community stopped behaving like they were on a holy crusade to convince 29'' is the way to go. RM fads are nothing to how some of them are dedicated to their idea.
Personaly I like the looks but I prefer more agile bikes so it will take a lot to convince me to 29'' though I'd like to try one.
Personaly I like the looks but I prefer more agile bikes so it will take a lot to convince me to 29'' though I'd like to try one.
That's one of my gripes with the current 29er supporters. I have a 29er myself, but the 29er supports are usually comparing XC or AM 29er setups and saying things like "it's not too sluggish" or "it can change lines fast enough". I experience plenty of times on my 29er where I'd like it to turn faster or be able to change lines easier, but it's ability to "hold" a line is pretty good too. The thing is that people aren't comparing apples to apples, they are forgetting the rim, tire and spoke requirements for a real DH machine, and while a 29er might be "somewhat more sluggish" than a 26er, a DH 29er is going to be a whole new level. Take your big DH tires and add a few inches of circumfrence, take your rims and add the necessary material/strength, add a few more spokes. We're going to be talking about MASSIVE gyrocscopic stability, too much IMO. Stability is the opposite of maneuverability.
There ARE places where 29ers are faster, on both the uphills and downhills. (I passed people like crazy on my 29er hardtail on a 1500 vert downhill in an XC race for a 7th place finish), but I don't think this is really all that well thought-out by a lot of proponents. It's not just about getting manufacturers to make this stuff, is it really practical and would 650b be far more flexibile?
I think some people should be on a 29er DH bike to have something that fits their body-size. I think that some 29er AM/light FR bikes are going to be pretty good.
I've also ridden quite a few 29er FS bikes and there is no substitute for travel. Yes, 29ers might roll over stuff better (and while "faster", sometimes it ain't fun), but more travel is more travel. I backed to back the DWL spot and sultan and the spot felt like it had an extra inch of travel and was much more plush overall, whereas the Sultan used it's travel effectively and was not "harsh", but it had 20mm less travel and that's exactly how it felt on the trail. Going down a rocky chute I'd want the spot with a slack HT angle, even though the Sultan would roll down "easier".
Last edited:
There's plenty of street mtb/dj frames that are 26'' specific and they have a 110X14 spacing in the rear...
that bike with 29er Flows, would be sweet.
http://www.notubes.com/product_info.php/cPath/679/products_id/345
~2000g wheelset with ProIIs, alloy nips, tape and valves?
http://www.notubes.com/product_info.php/cPath/679/products_id/345
~2000g wheelset with ProIIs, alloy nips, tape and valves?
Wow, super sick I have to say. Good to see Jeff and Manitou pushing new ideas and doing what they can to support them. I will be testing a 6 29er next week. Why not try it. I know a lot of you say 29ers will never make it in the DH world. I remember when motor crossers back in the day said 4 strokes would never be used for racing. Well I guess time will tell
..
Cecil
Cecil
You're not gonna all of a sudden taco a 29" wheel where a 26" would have been fine. How many of you taco wheels anyways? I would assume most people's wheels die from cracks/dings/dents/shredded spokes/general banged-uppedness before people taco them anyways.
29 inches probably wouldnt make sense for most people, but for us tall guys it MIGHT be nicer. It probably wouldn't be as fast, but then again, most of us are competitive racers anyways. I'm just curious if it would be a more comfortable bike, that can hit **** easier/is easier to ride. I'd sacrifice a few seconds on my daily shuttle/lift runs for a bike that's safer to ride and more comfortable (if that's the case, not saying it is). I'm just saying, realisticall there's LOTS more factors than just the "theoretically fastest bike design" for people to consider when buying a bike. That being said, all those things that make the bike feel better might make it faster too, who knows. I for one welcome the pointless speculation.
29 inches probably wouldnt make sense for most people, but for us tall guys it MIGHT be nicer. It probably wouldn't be as fast, but then again, most of us are competitive racers anyways. I'm just curious if it would be a more comfortable bike, that can hit **** easier/is easier to ride. I'd sacrifice a few seconds on my daily shuttle/lift runs for a bike that's safer to ride and more comfortable (if that's the case, not saying it is). I'm just saying, realisticall there's LOTS more factors than just the "theoretically fastest bike design" for people to consider when buying a bike. That being said, all those things that make the bike feel better might make it faster too, who knows. I for one welcome the pointless speculation.
Last edited:
I can't decide whether or not this would be good on the east coast. The trails are tighter here. I think I will stick to my 26. Beside, I don't want to be doomed to a year of a dorado.
I don't think manitou is pushing anything here. People modified the Dorado forks independant from Manitou. Manitou may pick up on this, but they aren't "pushing" anything, just selling a few extra units.Wow, super sick I have to say. Good to see Jeff and Manitou pushing new ideas and doing what they can to support them. I will be testing a 6 29er next week. Why not try it. I know a lot of you say 29ers will never make it in the DH world. I remember when motor crossers back in the day said 4 strokes would never be used for racing. Well I guess time will tell ..
Cecil
69'er does sound interesting. just happen to have an old whitebros kicking around that's easily shimmed to 7". hmmm...
do it! and let us know how you like it.
You know that turn that Sam Hill tried to take at 60mph and crashed at Worlds 08? Tell me this thing won't have traction for riding like that???
OK i'm 5'4" and can barely ride an 26" er 8" bike cuz the tire pulls my shorts off.
OK i'm 5'4" and can barely ride an 26" er 8" bike cuz the tire pulls my shorts off.
TMI Kris.
If you would like a look at my ass, at the 30 minute mark of Double Down my Karpiel Armegeddon pulled my shorts off and then 'THE END' rolled across the screen...11" travel, 24" wheel. Classic.TMI Kris.
I remember switching to FOES in 2002 and going back to 26" wheels, the tire hit my ass off a 30' step down so hard it joted my neck form the wrong end!!! I remember seeing stars. I tried a 24 just on the back but it was just too slackered. Freeride 4 eva.
There is no other company that is as synonymous with downhill racing as there is with Intense. Every new downhill frame that they have released has been put through its paces by WC riders at the highest level of racing before being released to Joe Public.
Seems pretty simple to me. If Intense's WC riders are not using this frame, it's because of 1 of 2 reasons. It doesn't make the riders faster or Intense knows that it will hinder their racers performance.
Seems pretty simple to me. If Intense's WC riders are not using this frame, it's because of 1 of 2 reasons. It doesn't make the riders faster or Intense knows that it will hinder their racers performance.
I think it has more to do with reason #3: Jeff was just messing around seeing what he could make and just finished it. So there's only one made right now and none of the Intense WC riders have had a chance to try it out.
anybody remember how moist BCD got over his 29er bastard child? Thing was ugly as sin, had minimal clearance F and RR (for minimal wheelbase changes) and he qualified for the world cup in Mt. St anne or something.
His (real world) problems with the bike were that tires were not suited to DH and rims/wheels were not strong enough for DH. IIRC, he raved about bump absorption and the ability to carry speed over rough sections. Didn't comment much on handling.
His (real world) problems with the bike were that tires were not suited to DH and rims/wheels were not strong enough for DH. IIRC, he raved about bump absorption and the ability to carry speed over rough sections. Didn't comment much on handling.
oh this thread is gold...i say good for intense for putting another choice out there for the fast open courses...
I doubt i would ever ride one because i am only 5'10, like my 26" wheels, and dont race much...
innovation is good ppl, if it tanks so what intense will live to see another day.
I doubt i would ever ride one because i am only 5'10, like my 26" wheels, and dont race much...
innovation is good ppl, if it tanks so what intense will live to see another day.
Yeah, this same idea was commented on in the thread about the new Lenz 29er DH bike on MTBR. Until someone makes/tests/races a bike that's fully spec'd with 29er specific DH componentry, we'll never know how well it works. I'll never say I'm "for" or "against" something like this, simply because it's a pretty petty thing to treat as if it's a "cause" of some sort. However, I AM in favor of people trying out new things. That's how progress happens.
I hope everyone in this thread that's whining about how our race courses are going to change, and that it'll never work all ride rigid bikes. Since, you know, change is NEVER a good thing.
sounds like something that doesn't really want to turn at high speeds unless you really work it.