but would you be riding that if they weren't giving it to you for free?Definitely!!!
I would think that's not a very bright idea. Different diameter wheels have different cornering radii for any given lean angle. You've got your front tire trying to do something different from the rear tire. In theory at least.Ok, I'm hearing guys trying 26" rear wheels and 27.5" and 29" front wheels. What is up? Are people really trying this?
What about the old bighits with 24/26 wheels? I don't seem to recall them cornering horribly, but I haven't spent much time on one in a while.I would think that's not a very bright idea. Different diameter wheels have different cornering radii for any given lean angle. You've got your front tire trying to do something different from the rear tire. In theory at least.
There's a reason the original 69ers didn't catch on...
I still don't see how having a larger contact patch between your bike and the trail surface won't make you 'turn better'. Don't get me wrong, I think there needs to be a lot of D before big wheels hit DH bikes in force, but I still fail to see where having more traction is a bad thing. Bigger wheels allow for less travel allows for better sprinting allows for more reactive suspension tuning allows for higher air pressures allows for less rolling resistance.....I feel like I've almost never heard anyone (who has a clue about life and/or bikes) "Gee, I wish my bike rolled over rocks better". But almost everyone says "I wish I could turn better" or "I wish I could muscle my bike around better". And 650b or whatever stupid big wheel trend is next does nothing to address any of the actual concerns of DH bikes.
Suspension linkage and geometry needs to be completely re-optimized. You also need to learn how to readjust to the new dynamics and geometry. I say no thanks to that.I still don't see how having a larger contact patch between your bike and the trail surface won't make you 'turn better'.
umm hmmm....I still don't see how having a larger contact patch between your bike and the trail surface won't make you 'turn better'. Don't get me wrong, I think there needs to be a lot of D before big wheels hit DH bikes in force, but I still fail to see where having more traction is a bad thing. Bigger wheels allow for less travel allows for better sprinting allows for more reactive suspension tuning allows for higher air pressures allows for less rolling resistance.....
I think the negatives are largely in the practical application, like finding a hub width that supports strong wheels, finding rims that balance strength and weight, finding tires that maximize the fundamentals of a larger contact patch, designing a bike that doesn't handle like a school bus....
did you read anything I've said, ever?umm hmmm....
My Objections? I wrote two non-words. hahahaha.did you read anything I've said, ever?
bigger contact patch from larger wheels good.
long chainstays from larger wheels bad.
It's going to take a lot of R+D, mostly D, to figure out how to compromise the two in order to get them to feel "natural". It doesn't have to feel like a 26" bike, just comfortable enough to be fast.
650b is one compromise that I think has a lot of merit. It allows you to keep the short chainstays that keep a bike feeling "spritely" but gives you some benefit in wheel diameter.
I personally don't have the cash to bother with a 29er DH bike experiment, but I'd love to try. In the meantime, you'll see more and more 650bDH bikes coming out, despite your objections.
I honestly wonder if it'll be worth a damn, and I think it'll be pretty telling if they decide to stick with them. People are still gobbling up $4000 DH frames year after year. The comparison between a 2001 DH bike and a 2011 DH bike are relatively minor in specifications (aluminum, coil sprung, 8-9" of travel) but the refinements have been huge. I don't know if the "different wheels to sell more bikes" argument holds in the world of DH, where every year we have a different head angle and suspension patent. If those guys still use 26" to race, then eff it!KHS, Scott and Intense have all shown off 650b DH bikes. I am sure a handfull of the top WC guys will be tooling around on 650b DH bikes in the off season to see if they are worth it.
What about the old bighits with 24/26 wheels? I don't seem to recall them cornering horribly, but I haven't spent much time on one in a while.
I was going to say that this thread is going to go full retard as soon as tabletop84 posts but he beat me to it.
You are correct, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Less rolling resistance and better braking, for one. It also opens up some possibility of more strategic tire design, with specific knobs and channels for cornering vs. straight line. Again, R+D to prove whether it's worth a damn or if it's MTBR-speak."bigger contact patch from larger wheels good."
Wrong. Contact patch is given by tire pressure, not by wheel size. Wheel size can alter shape of the patch. For 29" wheel it's longer and narrower, but the patch area is the same.
I ran a 24/26 back in the day on my brooklyn and it worked OK. I had a lot of problems with "wheel flop", but the avy fork I had carried a ton of offset (+65?). I didn't notice a dramatic change in cornering strategy when switching from equal sized wheels to different ones, although there did seem to be a large rearward weight shift. I don't know that I would bother with it again if I had my druthers.The intent of this thread was different front and rear wheels sizes not the dreaded 29r and 650 and 27.5 and and and and...
I read on another forum that a few guys have been running 26/29 and 26/27.5 combos and liking it. I had a 24/26 Big Hit back in the day and liked it. Heck I even ran dual 24s and 3.0s for a bit.
Im sure no one that has tried the 26/29 or 26/27.5 combo will speak up now.
How is that correct? if a 26 and a 29 have the same width tread on them, how is the 29" contact not bigger? Same width, longer patch.You are correct, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Less rolling resistance and better braking, for one. It also opens up some possibility of more strategic tire design, with specific knobs and channels for cornering vs. straight line. Again, R+D to prove whether it's worth a damn or if it's MTBR-speak.
Double 24 was mad fun, taught me heaps fast. 24/26 and I'd imagine any other combo is/feels kooky. Front wheel feels all flip floppy, and rear axle tries to match the fronts height when descending or breaking, making it want to overtake the front any way it can. That's what it felt like to me anyway.The intent of this thread was different front and rear wheels sizes not the dreaded 29r and 650 and 27.5 and and and and...
I read on another forum that a few guys have been running 26/29 and 26/27.5 combos and liking it. I had a 24/26 Big Hit back in the day and liked it. Heck I even ran dual 24s and 3.0s for a bit.
29er will be a thinner longer contact patch for the same pressure(and tire build).How is that correct? if a 26 and a 29 have the same width tread on them, how is the 29" contact not bigger? Same width, longer patch.
What am I missing?
Again, if the tire casing/tread is the same width, how is it physically possible that it have a thinner contact patch? Longer? yes, thinner? how does increasing the diameter have any subtracting effect on the width of the contact patch. That just doesn't make sense to me.29er will be a thinner longer contact patch for the same pressure(and tire build).
http://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/summary-26-vs-29-contact-patch-pinch-flats-143544.htmlHow is that correct? if a 26 and a 29 have the same width tread on them, how is the 29" contact not bigger? Same width, longer patch.
What am I missing?
mmmmmm.....not really.But, they DO roll faster and smoother,
He's mad that Gwin crashed, feel his wrath.whoa....jesus put slashes in my post every time there's an apostrophe....weird.
I high center my V10 all the time, but fortunately I have a hi-lift jack, so no 29's required.You know jeeps? Like old CJ style? Short wheelbases = better equivalent clearance
View attachment 112172
The full width of the tyre doesn't touch the ground at once. Only say 1/3rd is touching the ground at one time, unless you run 5 PSI. The tyre will deform due to the weight on it at contact with the ground the same amount, on a bigger wheel, the tyre can more easily deform length wise, so there's less width put down. I'm sure tyre casing make up could change this to an extent, but that's an unknown quantity for now.Again, if the tire casing/tread is the same width, how is it physically possible that it have a thinner contact patch? Longer? yes, thinner? how does increasing the diameter have any subtracting effect on the width of the contact patch. That just doesn't make sense to me.
Not based on what tires you have available, but assuming same details excepting diameter.
Yea that's pretty much what I mean. They 'roll better' could be construed as 'rolls over things better'. So, yea.mmmmmm.....not really.
They maintain momentum better. Not exactly the same thing. They accelerate slower (along the lines of everything you just said about 20" vs. 24" when dirtjumping).
.