[brant]

mbr magazine (I used to be editor a long time ago) are doing a head to head with our 26in and 29in Scandal's (geared, carbon rigid fork), and fitted with Ergomo power measuring BB's...

They're also using Garmin GPS's to measure speed.

First results back are very interesting - surprising on all sorts of levels.

I can't divulge here, but will post when I can.

 

[MMcG]

Okay keep us posted.

Are they testing for speed only? What specifically are they searching to find.

My unscientific comparison for my personal riding is that riding the 29er wheels (with a fork like your 47mm offset rigid fork) makes for a more fun ride for me than 26" wheels. And after all that's what it is all about right? Have the most fun with the limited amount of time guys like me (two kids etc. etc.) have to get out in the woods and rip it up a bit.

Cheers,

Mark

 

[douglas]

the scoop is you cant tell us anything?? hahaha!

 

[mud'n'sweat]

Tease!

 

[syadasti]

I think an Australia magazine did the same thing about a year ago or so with pro racers on the same course. There is a video posted somewhere, but I don't remember where or who made it.

 

[peter6061]

I noticed a smoother ride on the 29er allowing for faster speed, but a harder time getting around tight switchbacks. That's about it. I ride both.

 

[mud'n'sweat]

I noticed my 26" bikes have a thick layer of dust on them

 

[Westy]

I noticed a smoother ride on the 29er allowing for faster speed, but a harder time getting around tight switchbacks. That's about it. I ride both.

I've only spent a short amount of time on a 29er but it seems to me some trails would be faster/more fun on the big bike and others on a regular one. But big wheels do seem to be the better idea for you nutbags on the fully rigid SS.

 

[MMcG]

My first two 29ers were slightly slower around switchbacks, but I find that with the offset on the On One fork that my current Inbred 29er does a might fine job of handling them - and other tight turn situations picking lines through rocks and whatnot. I think it is partially the fork and partially the fact that I've been out riding more on the Inbred this season compared to the amount of times I rode last year. the Fork definitely helps things out, but so does more time on the dirt by the rider.

 

[Guitar Ted]

My first two 29ers were slightly slower around switchbacks, but I find that with the offset on the On One fork that my current Inbred 29er does a might fine job of handling them - and other tight turn situations picking lines through rocks and whatnot. I think it is partially the fork and partially the fact that I've been out riding more on the Inbred this season compared to the amount of times I rode last year. the Fork definitely helps things out, but so does more time on the dirt by the rider.

I especially agree with your last statement. Nothing like trail time on any mtb to sharpen the skilz!

That said, you can gain an advantage with an offset like On One uses.

Then again, the AM riders with those rediculously slack head tube angles don't seem to have any problems going around that sort of stuff, so what do I know!

 

[MMcG]

Yes the On One offset does help - and again yep - I see guys around here on big heavy 35-38 pound bikes riding up the short steep twisty stuff like bats outta hell. But then again most of those guys have been riding since little kids in the BMX scene - so they've got the legs and the skills to pull if off on any kinda bike I bet!

 

[hitekrdnk]

I am sure that it will help them sell magazines but in the end who in **** gives a ****? I get my arse handed to me all the time but younger fitter riders on 26" wheeled bikes, but I can usually stay ahead of any less fit than myself riders on 26" or even 29" wheeled bikes. At the end of the long day it is the rider, not the machine and when everyone finally realizes that perhaps we can get on with it. You know, the beer drinking part. Which those chaps should be doing more testing on obviously like in what is better dark or light beer?

Thanks for keeping us in the loop though because many here wander around lost without guidance from others on important matters such as this.

 

[brant]

Article is out, but is somewhat swathed in %ge this, per sec that, watt what?

They do say the 29er went up hill faster, but then in the summary said it was "no slower"... I am reading and trying to interpret.

 

[MMcG]

so it is a "technical" analysis? Do they calculate in the "fun factor?"

 

[mud'n'sweat]

so it is a "technical" analysis? Do they calculate in the "fun factor?"

I suppose they could measure it in degree's of riders smile angle

 

[næstep]

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?p=3357478#post3357478

 

[particle bored]

re the linked 26 v 29 test reprinted at Empty Beer --

I don't think I've ever seen such a ridiculous piece of non-science posing as a "scientific test."

They didn't use any controls.

To test something as they are, you need to make EVERYTHING ELSE constant.

By using two different riders, they screwed the pooch.

The riders aren't the same size, they aren't the same fitness, they aren't the same skill level.

Merely saying "hey riders, keep your power output constant" is not a control.

What a bunch of pseudo-science.

And they simply assigned one rider to a 26 and the other to a 29.

At least they could have made the riders BOTH ride each bike.

Nope, they didn't want to be scientific. They just wanted to LOOK scientific.

Using "boffin" dweebs to play with computers and other data analyzers doesn't change the very lame test protocol, doesn't make it scientific, doesn't legitimate it.

 

[particle bored]

There is no distinct "advantage" to a 29er. It's simply a different way of riding the same trails. It's like going from geared to SS, or from front suspension to rigid.

The biggest difference is noticed on a SS bike riding on rocky terrain, I think. If the terrain's got big enough rocks that the spaces in between the rocks create "holes" for wheels to drop into, you can notice that the 29" wheel doesn't drop as deeply as the 26" wheel. Whether that makes you faster is a matter of rider technique and ability. Highly skilled 26" wheeled riders can go through rock gardens faster than intermediate-skilled 29" wheeled riders, so it's not just the wheel.

Like any other development in mechanical devices for consumer use, there will be zealots who try to preach the gospel of their great new revelation. There's a very outspoken bunch here and at Empty Beer who seem quite eager to play the role of 29er e-Evangelist.

I find those folks pitiful and embarrassing -- embarrassing themselves, mainly.

And yes, I have a 29er. Two of them. And a 26er. And a 20er. They're all just different rides.

 

[næstep]

I don't think I've ever seen such a ridiculous piece of non-science posing as a "scientific test."

And they simply assigned one rider to a 26 and the other to a 29.

At least they could have made the riders BOTH ride each bike.

Without directly addressing your reading comprehension , I'll agree with your "psuedo science" label, but suggest you read the article again... in its entirety.

The bigger problem is the article is poorly written; the results of the "tests" are poorly laid out. Face it, it's confusing, missing data, and doesn't really strive to make a point (even an ill-conceived point).

As an example, you wrote, "And they simply assigned one rider to a 26 and the other to a 29." That's very clear and very easy to understand, but it's wrong.

They wrote, "blah blah blah..." Well, a whole lot of words, without summarizing the words in a easy-to-digest chart.

Each rider does in fact ride both bikes, except, apparently, in the first test (the downhill coast).

Scientific? Not exactly. Interesting reading? I'd say "Yes!"

 

[Guitar Ted]

The thing is, it's all about the rider and a combination of that rider and machinery. Some combinations click, and some do not. Science will not be able to predict which combination will work for you. "You" are an individual, and "science" can not account for the vast number of variables between individual riding styles, to say nothing of the differing trail situations, or the different lines you could take on any given trail.

Science can not decide which wheel size is good for you, but you can. That means that you'll have to research, test, and come up with your own conclusions. You will discover for yourself what works best for you, not some goofy science/journo exercise created to boost subscription rates.

 

[næstep]

All these tests aren't worth dookey

Ted, isn't that like saying that what you write on your blog isn't worth "dookey", because it applies only to you and the people you write about, but for everybody reading, it's going to be different?

Why so absolutely dismissive?

 

[næstep]

Blah...

Look, bored, I've got no horse in this race. I like 29"ers, I ride 'em, but I don't force them on my friends, and don't proselytize "the movement" in my posts.

I do suggest taller riders give 'em a shot, and being the curious sort that's been on a 29" bike since '02, I'm interested in how this wheel size develops and is portrayed in the popular media.

Note: "Popular Media." Not "Scientific Journal." Get a clue.

This MBR article goes out of its way to make no judgements. Hey, reader, decide for yourself. I find that interesting, especially coming from a mag which (reportedly) has been very anti-29" in the past (also for very "non-scientific" reasons).

Please, everyone, read the article for what it's worth. If you're not as intelligent as Mr. Particle, perhaps it should be noted -- again -- that it is NOT a product of bonefide scientific research.

 

[douglas]

Mr Estep,

I don't think you understand my quarrel. You made a big deal of one point -- that they switched bikes in every part but the first test -- but the fact remains that they didn't use any controls. Even if I'm wrong about them not switching bikes on the test after the rolling speed test, they failed to use controls. They used NONE.

NONE.

Are you some kind of scientist? If you are, you should be ashamed of standing up for that trashy, no-quality, unscientific "scientific" test.

And I'll tell you why I'm dismissive, Mr Apologist.

It's because they pretend their test is logical, accurate and scientific. And they draw bold "conclusions" from a very uncontrolled test.

So their conclusions are crap. Horse manure. Doggie doo.

And they're in a magazine designed to influence buying.

Do you think most buyers are scientifically astute?

I don't.

I think most will look at their pictures of the "boffins" using their "technogadgetry" and think, "HEY, MBUK did a legitimate scientific test! THE PROOF IS IN!"

Yes, the church of 29er is open. Please check your 26" wheel experiences at the door, and genuflect when you pass the Cloxxki.