Taken from mtbr:
"I think my actual words were: "29-inch wheel bikes are an evolutionary dead end."
My reasons for saying this are not because I hate 29-ers. They are superior in many ways to 26-inch designs. It was in reference to the fact that, for people below five-foot, six-inches, the concept falls apart. Toe clip overlap, too-tall handlebar heights, too-long chainstays, and no stand-over clearance are the drawbacks for anyone that size or shorter--and that's over half of the population if you include women. Those folks will have to make more than reasonable compromises to join the 29-inch club, so it's a dead end for them.
For them If you are of above average height, however, most of these issues are self canceling, and the performance benefits of 29-ers encourage most riders to overlook any minor shortcomings.
Designers are using shorter cranksets to minimize overlap on medium-sized frames--and if you add the taller gearing that is created by a three-inch larger wheel, you can see that this is a double drawback. Still, Shimano and SRAM could increase the chain take-up of their rear changers and sell 12 X 38 tooth cogsets to settle this little glitch. It could happen.
If you don't mind a bad chain line and a massive "Q" factor, 29-er designers can get by with a wider DH bottom bracket shell. This will settle the cramped quarters where the tire, bottom bracket, chainstays, crank arms and three chainrings have to share space--something that took 26-inch designers and parts makers ten years to settle. The difficulty that can't be easily remedied is that the tail of a front derailleur lines up with the fattest part of a 29-inch tire. The changer can't move in to catch the granny gears if the tire occupies that same space--It's a brick wall.
So, I am sure that the popularity of 29-inch XC bikes will grow briskly for more than performance reasons. The concept is fresh, and thus is attractive to bike sellers. The 29-inch wheel revived the dying titanium bike market, so we should see a marketing boost from them, and there is a large faction of riders who wanted the simplicity of a hardtail and now have a chance to own a version that is superior to its 26-inch rivals--suspended or not.
Now, if everyone wanted a 29-inch-wheel mountain bike, would everyone be happier? I think this is where the concept reaches the end of the line. Does a 52-CM roadbike with a 72-degree head angle, a 74-degree seat angle, and a saddle height level with or below the stem pedal and handle like a 58 CM with a 74 head and 73 seat angle, with its bars in the correct, aero position? Not in a million years.
Custom builders can cheat the rules and make a decent performing bike, but production maker can't. Big-brand bike makers, like Trek must comply with CPSC guidelines to sell bikes in the US and the CPSC prohibits toeclip overlap. This means longer top tubes, steeper seat angles, shorter crank arms and slacker head angles will be used to move the pedals back and the front tire forward. A smaller-than-average frame will perform like a whole different design, and not all that sharply--but it WILL be made and sold, because sales, not necessarily performance drives big bike makers.
So, the evolutionary road forks for 29-inch wheel designs. 26-inch wheel bikes are universal, they can be designed to fit just about everyone. 29-inch wheel bikes cannot fulfill this claim, so their offramp leads to a private drive. If you ride 29-inch bikes--share the love with everyone you meet, but don't get religious and demand that we see it your way."
Richard Cunningham
"I think my actual words were: "29-inch wheel bikes are an evolutionary dead end."
My reasons for saying this are not because I hate 29-ers. They are superior in many ways to 26-inch designs. It was in reference to the fact that, for people below five-foot, six-inches, the concept falls apart. Toe clip overlap, too-tall handlebar heights, too-long chainstays, and no stand-over clearance are the drawbacks for anyone that size or shorter--and that's over half of the population if you include women. Those folks will have to make more than reasonable compromises to join the 29-inch club, so it's a dead end for them.
For them If you are of above average height, however, most of these issues are self canceling, and the performance benefits of 29-ers encourage most riders to overlook any minor shortcomings.
Designers are using shorter cranksets to minimize overlap on medium-sized frames--and if you add the taller gearing that is created by a three-inch larger wheel, you can see that this is a double drawback. Still, Shimano and SRAM could increase the chain take-up of their rear changers and sell 12 X 38 tooth cogsets to settle this little glitch. It could happen.
If you don't mind a bad chain line and a massive "Q" factor, 29-er designers can get by with a wider DH bottom bracket shell. This will settle the cramped quarters where the tire, bottom bracket, chainstays, crank arms and three chainrings have to share space--something that took 26-inch designers and parts makers ten years to settle. The difficulty that can't be easily remedied is that the tail of a front derailleur lines up with the fattest part of a 29-inch tire. The changer can't move in to catch the granny gears if the tire occupies that same space--It's a brick wall.
So, I am sure that the popularity of 29-inch XC bikes will grow briskly for more than performance reasons. The concept is fresh, and thus is attractive to bike sellers. The 29-inch wheel revived the dying titanium bike market, so we should see a marketing boost from them, and there is a large faction of riders who wanted the simplicity of a hardtail and now have a chance to own a version that is superior to its 26-inch rivals--suspended or not.
Now, if everyone wanted a 29-inch-wheel mountain bike, would everyone be happier? I think this is where the concept reaches the end of the line. Does a 52-CM roadbike with a 72-degree head angle, a 74-degree seat angle, and a saddle height level with or below the stem pedal and handle like a 58 CM with a 74 head and 73 seat angle, with its bars in the correct, aero position? Not in a million years.
Custom builders can cheat the rules and make a decent performing bike, but production maker can't. Big-brand bike makers, like Trek must comply with CPSC guidelines to sell bikes in the US and the CPSC prohibits toeclip overlap. This means longer top tubes, steeper seat angles, shorter crank arms and slacker head angles will be used to move the pedals back and the front tire forward. A smaller-than-average frame will perform like a whole different design, and not all that sharply--but it WILL be made and sold, because sales, not necessarily performance drives big bike makers.
So, the evolutionary road forks for 29-inch wheel designs. 26-inch wheel bikes are universal, they can be designed to fit just about everyone. 29-inch wheel bikes cannot fulfill this claim, so their offramp leads to a private drive. If you ride 29-inch bikes--share the love with everyone you meet, but don't get religious and demand that we see it your way."
Richard Cunningham
