Musings Prompted By The Recent Sea Otter

Sea Otter- You know.......that yearly gig near Monterey California where all the cyclists hang out? It's a kind of mash-up of racing, trade show, and tribal stomping all wrapped up in the rolling hills of Central California's Coastal Region. Some folks call it "Bay Weasel", which makes me laugh. Anyway...I used to go there and cover it for Twenty Nine Inches, but this lil' gig got in the way, and now my friend in SoCal gets the honors. However; I get to read all the stuff and see all the images Grannygear gathers there, plus talk to him on the phone, where he shares some insider stuff with me too. It's almost as good as being there.....almost! 

27.5"ers are "all the rage".

 First thing that you might notice is that this "enduro" thing is really the "next big thing" in mountain biking, at least competitively, and the Industry has decided that riders need a new weapon to achieve eternal glory in this "new endeavor". That weapon is a long travel, (150-170mm), 27.5" wheeled bike. Yes, your old 26"ers that are in this wheel travel category are now inferior.  It is time to step up to the (slightly) bigger wheel dubbed 27.5"er.

You may try to draw some comparisons to 29"ers here, but ya know what? These new 27.5"ers are not anything like where 29"ers came from. 29"ers were summarily despised by a big slice of the bicycle industry at the outset, and some companies waited for years, (literally), before coming out with 29"ers. Some said they were "circus bikes" and some said that they would "never build a 29"er", but they did, (in both of my examples), and now have those bikes as a big part of their line.

This is not the case with 27.5 wheels.  Companies are pushing this wheel size with no compunctions and no reservations as to its effectiveness, (or lack thereof), so it is not at all like it was with 29"ers, which were driven by demand from riders, and the 27.5"ers are a "top down" marketing gamble. No matter if they are better than the previous 26 inch wheels, which they very well may be. But one has to ask- if the wheel size is good for long travel bikes, why has it taken six years for these companies to figure this out.....all of a sudden? Cause 27.5" wheels for mtb has been around a few years or more. I just find that odd, but again.......the bikes are probably really good, it's just not anything like how 29"ers came about. And I think it is odd that all of a sudden 26 inch wheeled long travel bikes are being dropped like a hot potato.

The new Yeti ARC: Clown bike indeed!

The other observation I was impressed by is a reaction I read to Yeti's introduction of their newest 29"er hard tail bike, the ARC. Those three letters are historically important in MTB racing history. The "ARC" model has a racing pedigree and a standing in Yeti's line that isn't taken lightly. Yes- Yeti's owner wasn't enamored of the big wheel, but I really do not think that is a big deal. Not like some folks apparently do.

Some folks are still bent that Yeti called 29"ers "clown bikes" and think that no one should trust a company that has ever denigrated the idea of big wheels. You know......like Specialized. The company that said it would "never build a 29"er" and put a guy on a FS 29"er that only won the World MTB Championship. Ya know.......kind of a big deal there. But they didn't like 29"ers at first. Here's what I have to say about that:

That just tells me these companies have character to say, “Hey- That is a good idea. We were wrong about them.” And then they get behind big wheels and put in the R&D, creativity, and let’s not forget, money- to build a great product.

I respect that, actually. It says something good to me. Some folks may not see it that way, but I think that Specialized and Yeti saw 29″ers for what they are- a good idea in terms of mtb, and a way to……(yes- I’m saying this)….to make some bucks, cause- ya know- they are in business to make money, not break even, or lose it. Which to the former point means that 29″ers resonate with the riders. Otherwise there would be no marketing, or market, for that matter.

 Well, anyway, that's what I was impressed by over the weekend watching from afar. Now, you'll excuse me while I get back to prepping for this gravel grinder I put on......

Musings Prompted By The Recent Sea Otter

Sea Otter- You know.......that yearly gig near Monterey California where all the cyclists hang out? It's a kind of mash-up of racing, trade show, and tribal stomping all wrapped up in the rolling hills of Central California's Coastal Region. Some folks call it "Bay Weasel", which makes me laugh. Anyway...I used to go there and cover it for Twenty Nine Inches, but this lil' gig got in the way, and now my friend in SoCal gets the honors. However; I get to read all the stuff and see all the images Grannygear gathers there, plus talk to him on the phone, where he shares some insider stuff with me too. It's almost as good as being there.....almost! 

27.5"ers are "all the rage".

 First thing that you might notice is that this "enduro" thing is really the "next big thing" in mountain biking, at least competitively, and the Industry has decided that riders need a new weapon to achieve eternal glory in this "new endeavor". That weapon is a long travel, (150-170mm), 27.5" wheeled bike. Yes, your old 26"ers that are in this wheel travel category are now inferior.  It is time to step up to the (slightly) bigger wheel dubbed 27.5"er.

You may try to draw some comparisons to 29"ers here, but ya know what? These new 27.5"ers are not anything like where 29"ers came from. 29"ers were summarily despised by a big slice of the bicycle industry at the outset, and some companies waited for years, (literally), before coming out with 29"ers. Some said they were "circus bikes" and some said that they would "never build a 29"er", but they did, (in both of my examples), and now have those bikes as a big part of their line.

This is not the case with 27.5 wheels.  Companies are pushing this wheel size with no compunctions and no reservations as to its effectiveness, (or lack thereof), so it is not at all like it was with 29"ers, which were driven by demand from riders, and the 27.5"ers are a "top down" marketing gamble. No matter if they are better than the previous 26 inch wheels, which they very well may be. But one has to ask- if the wheel size is good for long travel bikes, why has it taken six years for these companies to figure this out.....all of a sudden? Cause 27.5" wheels for mtb has been around a few years or more. I just find that odd, but again.......the bikes are probably really good, it's just not anything like how 29"ers came about. And I think it is odd that all of a sudden 26 inch wheeled long travel bikes are being dropped like a hot potato.

The new Yeti ARC: Clown bike indeed!

The other observation I was impressed by is a reaction I read to Yeti's introduction of their newest 29"er hard tail bike, the ARC. Those three letters are historically important in MTB racing history. The "ARC" model has a racing pedigree and a standing in Yeti's line that isn't taken lightly. Yes- Yeti's owner wasn't enamored of the big wheel, but I really do not think that is a big deal. Not like some folks apparently do.

Some folks are still bent that Yeti called 29"ers "clown bikes" and think that no one should trust a company that has ever denigrated the idea of big wheels. You know......like Specialized. The company that said it would "never build a 29"er" and put a guy on a FS 29"er that only won the World MTB Championship. Ya know.......kind of a big deal there. But they didn't like 29"ers at first. Here's what I have to say about that:

That just tells me these companies have character to say, “Hey- That is a good idea. We were wrong about them.” And then they get behind big wheels and put in the R&D, creativity, and let’s not forget, money- to build a great product.

I respect that, actually. It says something good to me. Some folks may not see it that way, but I think that Specialized and Yeti saw 29″ers for what they are- a good idea in terms of mtb, and a way to……(yes- I’m saying this)….to make some bucks, cause- ya know- they are in business to make money, not break even, or lose it. Which to the former point means that 29″ers resonate with the riders. Otherwise there would be no marketing, or market, for that matter.

 Well, anyway, that's what I was impressed by over the weekend watching from afar. Now, you'll excuse me while I get back to prepping for this gravel grinder I put on......

Those Were The Good Ol' Daze

Remember when Rebas came out?

I was chattin' with my TNI.com cohort, Grannygear the other day, and we were talking about something or another being scuttled because the company in question was too busy getting geared up for 27.5"er stuff. It is a common thing we're hearing.

Which got me, and Grannygear, to thinking- so is this it? Are we at the end of innovations and introductions of anything truly "big" in the world of 29"ers?

Ya know, I think the answer is "yes".

The companies that do not make a 29"er- Used to be a big topic of discussion. Now it doesn't matter. When will "so-and-so" make a fork for 29"ers? That used to fire up reams of forum threads. Now who doesn't make a 29"er sus fork? 

It used to be that we were waiting for "long travel" 29"ers to hit the scene. Well, the industry killed that off and went for 27.5"ers instead. That pretty much was the last "big" deal for 29"ers to cross over to, but it looks like it'll never happen now.

Does that bother me? No. Not really, but I have to say that I  thought I might not see the day when 29"ers weren't  waiting for some new innovation to push the boundaries a bit more. There used to be a lot of resistance to the big wheels. Now it looks like the edges have been reached.

Now it's all fat bike this and gravel bike that and 29"ers are.......well, just mountain bikes, these days. I always thought that would happen, and by golly, I think it pretty much is at that point now a days. That's cool. While it was all fun and exciting when all you could do was dream about a "real" suspension fork, and it is tempting to think that those were "the good ol' daze", I am thinking this is right where we wanted to be back then. I'm glad that we are. I plan on enjoying that for as long as I can.

The "good ol' daze"? Just over that hill up yonder. Keep pedaling, you'll get there.....

Those Were The Good Ol' Daze

Remember when Rebas came out?

I was chattin' with my TNI.com cohort, Grannygear the other day, and we were talking about something or another being scuttled because the company in question was too busy getting geared up for 27.5"er stuff. It is a common thing we're hearing.

Which got me, and Grannygear, to thinking- so is this it? Are we at the end of innovations and introductions of anything truly "big" in the world of 29"ers?

Ya know, I think the answer is "yes".

The companies that do not make a 29"er- Used to be a big topic of discussion. Now it doesn't matter. When will "so-and-so" make a fork for 29"ers? That used to fire up reams of forum threads. Now who doesn't make a 29"er sus fork? 

It used to be that we were waiting for "long travel" 29"ers to hit the scene. Well, the industry killed that off and went for 27.5"ers instead. That pretty much was the last "big" deal for 29"ers to cross over to, but it looks like it'll never happen now.

Does that bother me? No. Not really, but I have to say that I  thought I might not see the day when 29"ers weren't  waiting for some new innovation to push the boundaries a bit more. There used to be a lot of resistance to the big wheels. Now it looks like the edges have been reached.

Now it's all fat bike this and gravel bike that and 29"ers are.......well, just mountain bikes, these days. I always thought that would happen, and by golly, I think it pretty much is at that point now a days. That's cool. While it was all fun and exciting when all you could do was dream about a "real" suspension fork, and it is tempting to think that those were "the good ol' daze", I am thinking this is right where we wanted to be back then. I'm glad that we are. I plan on enjoying that for as long as I can.

The "good ol' daze"? Just over that hill up yonder. Keep pedaling, you'll get there.....

29"er Geometry: Tuning Forks

Just over a year ago I posted this missive on 29"er Geometry. In that post I went back over where 29"er geometry had been, where it was, and where it looked to be going. My final conclusion then , (and still is), was that there is "No School" geometry these days for 29"ers. There just isn't a coalescing of thought on what the numbers should be like for 29"ers  today like there was 25 years ago with 26"er hard tail mountain bikes.

I've had several forks on this bike...

So, what we have today is the ability to change the front end geometry, and thus- the over-all handling characteristics of our 29"ers. This is an intimidating thought for a lot of mountain bikers out there. The geometry terms and how they work are confusing to many, and downright misunderstood by several folks.

But it doesn't have to be this way.

First things first- The Human species is a highly adaptable one, and the power of our brains to quickly learn and master new inputs and tasks is not to be underestimated. A rider can ride many variations of geometry successfully on many different types of terrain. The thing is, you have to "want to", and that may be influenced by preferences and perceptions to a high degree.

So take that all into mind while reading this post. Nothing I put forth here is going to reveal "the perfect geometry for 29"ers", nor should it. That said, I hope there is something you can draw from this to make your own considered judgments on what might be "right:" for your 29"er. This post will strive to show how you could "tune" your handling with simple fork swaps.

This is something I have done over the years with one of my bikes in particular: the OS Bikes Blackbuck 29"er single speed hard tail.

....like this rigid Willits W.O.W. fork.

In 2008 I ran eight different forks with axle to crown measurements from 420mm to 510mm and offsets from 38mm to 51mm all on this one bike to gauge the effects of what front end geometry did to handling.

Head angle, bottom bracket height, and seat tube angle all changed with each fork, and I carefully measured each change to make sure I adjusted my cockpit to be as close to the same with each fork that I could. Then I tested each set up on various trails in the local area.

I posted my findings which maybe shocked some, and puzzled others. Basically what I said to start out here is the conclusion, but here are a few details for you to consider here. The terminology has to be understood first and foremost.

• "Quicker handling" is basically steering that is less stable. The extreme of this would be a bike one has to really concentrate on to keep on trail, or you crash. Most folks want "quicker" to equal "easier to steer", but that can get confused with "stability", so be careful!
• "Slower handling" is- you guessed it- more stable geometry. Essentially a bike that is so easy to ride, you can track stand it easily, and/or ride no handed over rough ground without the bike bouncing off line. Geometry can play into this, but so can wheel weight, rider weight distribution, and even tire pressures. "Slow" handling bikes tend to also be a chore to corner in tighter trails or switchbacks.
• "Trail" is a result of a formula that takes into account the head angle, fork offset, and wheel diameter of a bicycle. A higher figure, (which is usually expressed in millimeters for bicycles), will indicate a front end geometry that is more stable, (slower), and a lower figure for trail would indicate the opposite, (quicker handling). You may have heard some folks in the rando world that will talk about "low trail forks" for better front end loading capabilities, and this is what they are referring to.  Mountain bikes tend to have higher trail figures for stability, and front end loads are not a concern here. 
• "Axle to Crown" is a measurement from the center line of your front wheel axle to the base of the crown race on the fork. It is useful for adjusting the head angle of your frame without modifying the frame. For instance, you could use a fork on your 29"er that had anywhere from 420mm axle to crown to over 500mm and effect head angle changes of up to 3°-4°, which has a big effect on your Trail figure.
• "Offset", or more correctly "Fork Offset", (which some refer to as "rake", which I liken to a gardening tool, but whatever...), is the distance the front axle is "offset" forward from the center line drawn through your steer tube to the ground. Where the axle is forward of this axis is measured as offset, but more here equals less. Yes- your front axle looks as if it is in front of your steer tube, but trust me- where the rubber meets the trail, that contact point is behind the center line of your steer tube if you draw a line straight down from the axle to the ground and compare the two points.  More offset = less stable Trail figures. So, if you push the axle further away from the steer tube center line, the tire contact point will get closer to the intersection of the steer tube axis with the ground equaling less Trail. (Of course, head angle and wheel diameter may negate this or enhance it.) Having a hard time visualizing this? Think of a shopping cart wheel. The axis where it pivots is your steer tube, the wheel's contact patch is behind that. Now tilt the axis, which is normally vertical, to be more like a bicycle head angle. See it now?

Okay- that's enough for one post. In the meantime, go knock yerself out playing with this Bicycle Trail Calculator . I'll come back again with another edition of "29"er Geometry: Tuning Forks" soon.

29"er Geometry: Tuning Forks

Just over a year ago I posted this missive on 29"er Geometry. In that post I went back over where 29"er geometry had been, where it was, and where it looked to be going. My final conclusion then , (and still is), was that there is "No School" geometry these days for 29"ers. There just isn't a coalescing of thought on what the numbers should be like for 29"ers  today like there was 25 years ago with 26"er hard tail mountain bikes.

I've had several forks on this bike...

So, what we have today is the ability to change the front end geometry, and thus- the over-all handling characteristics of our 29"ers. This is an intimidating thought for a lot of mountain bikers out there. The geometry terms and how they work are confusing to many, and downright misunderstood by several folks.

But it doesn't have to be this way.

First things first- The Human species is a highly adaptable one, and the power of our brains to quickly learn and master new inputs and tasks is not to be underestimated. A rider can ride many variations of geometry successfully on many different types of terrain. The thing is, you have to "want to", and that may be influenced by preferences and perceptions to a high degree.

So take that all into mind while reading this post. Nothing I put forth here is going to reveal "the perfect geometry for 29"ers", nor should it. That said, I hope there is something you can draw from this to make your own considered judgments on what might be "right:" for your 29"er. This post will strive to show how you could "tune" your handling with simple fork swaps.

This is something I have done over the years with one of my bikes in particular: the OS Bikes Blackbuck 29"er single speed hard tail.

....like this rigid Willits W.O.W. fork.

In 2008 I ran eight different forks with axle to crown measurements from 420mm to 510mm and offsets from 38mm to 51mm all on this one bike to gauge the effects of what front end geometry did to handling.

Head angle, bottom bracket height, and seat tube angle all changed with each fork, and I carefully measured each change to make sure I adjusted my cockpit to be as close to the same with each fork that I could. Then I tested each set up on various trails in the local area.

I posted my findings which maybe shocked some, and puzzled others. Basically what I said to start out here is the conclusion, but here are a few details for you to consider here. The terminology has to be understood first and foremost.

• "Quicker handling" is basically steering that is less stable. The extreme of this would be a bike one has to really concentrate on to keep on trail, or you crash. Most folks want "quicker" to equal "easier to steer", but that can get confused with "stability", so be careful!
• "Slower handling" is- you guessed it- more stable geometry. Essentially a bike that is so easy to ride, you can track stand it easily, and/or ride no handed over rough ground without the bike bouncing off line. Geometry can play into this, but so can wheel weight, rider weight distribution, and even tire pressures. "Slow" handling bikes tend to also be a chore to corner in tighter trails or switchbacks.
• "Trail" is a result of a formula that takes into account the head angle, fork offset, and wheel diameter of a bicycle. A higher figure, (which is usually expressed in millimeters for bicycles), will indicate a front end geometry that is more stable, (slower), and a lower figure for trail would indicate the opposite, (quicker handling). You may have heard some folks in the rando world that will talk about "low trail forks" for better front end loading capabilities, and this is what they are referring to.  Mountain bikes tend to have higher trail figures for stability, and front end loads are not a concern here. 
• "Axle to Crown" is a measurement from the center line of your front wheel axle to the base of the crown race on the fork. It is useful for adjusting the head angle of your frame without modifying the frame. For instance, you could use a fork on your 29"er that had anywhere from 420mm axle to crown to over 500mm and effect head angle changes of up to 3°-4°, which has a big effect on your Trail figure.
• "Offset", or more correctly "Fork Offset", (which some refer to as "rake", which I liken to a gardening tool, but whatever...), is the distance the front axle is "offset" forward from the center line drawn through your steer tube to the ground. Where the axle is forward of this axis is measured as offset, but more here equals less. Yes- your front axle looks as if it is in front of your steer tube, but trust me- where the rubber meets the trail, that contact point is behind the center line of your steer tube if you draw a line straight down from the axle to the ground and compare the two points.  More offset = less stable Trail figures. So, if you push the axle further away from the steer tube center line, the tire contact point will get closer to the intersection of the steer tube axis with the ground equaling less Trail. (Of course, head angle and wheel diameter may negate this or enhance it.) Having a hard time visualizing this? Think of a shopping cart wheel. The axis where it pivots is your steer tube, the wheel's contact patch is behind that. Now tilt the axis, which is normally vertical, to be more like a bicycle head angle. See it now?

Okay- that's enough for one post. In the meantime, go knock yerself out playing with this Bicycle Trail Calculator . I'll come back again with another edition of "29"er Geometry: Tuning Forks" soon.

Project Black: (Addicted To Single Speeds)

The subject: Project Black

Recently I traded Captain Bob a suspension fork I had for a frame. Not just any ol' frame- no- a single speed frame.

You might be thinking, "Okay, big deal , GT." Yeah, it isn't all that "newsworthy", unless you understand that I already have 8 single speeds that are rideable, (all 29"ers), already. Not only that, I have two frames hanging in the rafters that are single speed frames as well. 

So, what the heck? I don't really need a single speed hard tail, rigid 29"er, but.....I sure didn't need that suspension fork either! Addicted to single speeds? Maybe. Possibly. Either that or I just attract these things some how, I don't know!

Well, I guess I have to build this rig up, right? I mean, it does me no good as a frame, and it basically is in new condition. A black Vassago Jaberwocky. Steel. Wet Cat. All that stuff. Anyway....I figured I might have nearly everything to get this one going without buying anything. I am close, but I'll need to get a couple things to make this "right".

I also figured out early on in the process that the theme for this one would be "black". I figure it is fitting, since this is a Vassago, which is sort of a dark name with the model dubbed "Jabberwocky", which furthers the darkness and vaguely described here. So, I grabbed the "Black Flag" wheels I had sitting around, some black Avid Ultimate brakes, a black TruVativ Noir Bar, a carbon seat post, some black, nondescript lock on grips, and a Race X-Lite stem in black. The fork is a Salsa CroMoto Grande.

I have a few substitutions and additions in mind, but that will all get reported on later. For now, Project Black is well under way, and I guess I'll have another single speed in the stable!

Project Black: (Addicted To Single Speeds)

The subject: Project Black

Recently I traded Captain Bob a suspension fork I had for a frame. Not just any ol' frame- no- a single speed frame.

You might be thinking, "Okay, big deal , GT." Yeah, it isn't all that "newsworthy", unless you understand that I already have 8 single speeds that are rideable, (all 29"ers), already. Not only that, I have two frames hanging in the rafters that are single speed frames as well. 

So, what the heck? I don't really need a single speed hard tail, rigid 29"er, but.....I sure didn't need that suspension fork either! Addicted to single speeds? Maybe. Possibly. Either that or I just attract these things some how, I don't know!

Well, I guess I have to build this rig up, right? I mean, it does me no good as a frame, and it basically is in new condition. A black Vassago Jaberwocky. Steel. Wet Cat. All that stuff. Anyway....I figured I might have nearly everything to get this one going without buying anything. I am close, but I'll need to get a couple things to make this "right".

I also figured out early on in the process that the theme for this one would be "black". I figure it is fitting, since this is a Vassago, which is sort of a dark name with the model dubbed "Jabberwocky", which furthers the darkness and vaguely described here. So, I grabbed the "Black Flag" wheels I had sitting around, some black Avid Ultimate brakes, a black TruVativ Noir Bar, a carbon seat post, some black, nondescript lock on grips, and a Race X-Lite stem in black. The fork is a Salsa CroMoto Grande.

I have a few substitutions and additions in mind, but that will all get reported on later. For now, Project Black is well under way, and I guess I'll have another single speed in the stable!

Move Over 26"ers- Here Comes The 27.5"ers

Continental Announces 27.5"er tires at Eurobike '12

Back when 29"ers were a niche, (remember that?), there was a lot of comment made from different sources about how 29"ers would one day wipe out 26"ers and how 26"ers would never go away by others. What they all didn't know was that 26"ers maybe were going away, but not because of 29"ers, no- it was another tire size that would be proposed as the replacement for the "standard" 26 inch wheel mtb.

I've already pontificated on this subject here. But I'll make a few more observations based upon what is happening right now in Europe at the annual Eurobike show.

First- I never thought 27.5"ers were "the best of both 26 and 29 inch attributes", although you'll hear that a lot from the marketing wonks moving forward. 27.5"ers are different, but they can not do near what a 29"er can do. In fact, this is something of an issue for marketers, who feel that once 27.5"er product gets out there, it won't impress the 29"er folks, and won't get much traction there. Of course, this is why the 27.5"er will be heavily invested into over in Europe. There 29"ers are still very new, not entrenched, and marketers feel that the 27.5"er, being less of a jump from 26", has a better chance of becoming "the next big thing".

Tires, wheels, and forks are all going to be unleashed this very week at Eurobike to prove my point here. Brands will also introduce new 27.5"er bikes, (mostly in the longer travel categories, which are selling flat of late), which will further the reach for this wheel size.

Rocky Mountain recently intro'ed a whole new line of 27.5"ers

But what will become of 26"? Many see the 27.5"er as a replacement, more having to do with that it is "new" and has a "new story to tell" behind it than anything else. But be that as it may, the industry would love nothing more than to make your current AM/FR/DH sled obsolete. You know what they would have in store for you to replace that "aging 26"er platform" with too.

In the end, as I have always said, the riders will vote with their dollars, as long as there is a choice. That seems to be the case as long as the "Big Three", (Giant, Specialized, and Trek), don't capitulate and in one fell swoop, relegate 26 inch wheels to the dustbin of mtb history. Will that happen? Not anytime soon, that's for sure.

For now this will be an experiment for mid-level companies looking to capitalize on a "new trend" that they may have missed out on, (read: 29 inch wheels), last time. Make no mistake- this is an exercise in marketing, and we'll see if it pans out in the long run.

How can I say this? Well, 27.5"ers have been around at retail stores since 2007, and they haven't done diddly squat in the marketplace. That's six years ago in model year terms. Six years into the 29"er becoming available at retail stores the wheel size was well on its way to becoming more than a niche. All without marketing driven hoo-ha. (In fact, marketing departments resisted 29"ers like the plague in the early years, for the most part.)

Want another example? Try fat bikes, which have had little to no industry horsepower behind them, yet are a growing segment that shows no sign of stopping yet. Why? Because these are rider driven demand products, not "top down" marketed platforms. Again- I am not saying 27.5"ers will not be any good. No- this has to do with marketing. Maybe it'll work, but I haven't seen this sort of success in a product category in my years in the cycling business. That's what I am saying.

Again- I may well eat my words here, and that is fine, but I do not think 26"ers are going anywhere soon. But the mtb segment will have to make some room for these upstart 27.5"ers at any rate, whatever you may think of them.

Move Over 26"ers- Here Comes The 27.5"ers

Continental Announces 27.5"er tires at Eurobike '12

Back when 29"ers were a niche, (remember that?), there was a lot of comment made from different sources about how 29"ers would one day wipe out 26"ers and how 26"ers would never go away by others. What they all didn't know was that 26"ers maybe were going away, but not because of 29"ers, no- it was another tire size that would be proposed as the replacement for the "standard" 26 inch wheel mtb.

I've already pontificated on this subject here. But I'll make a few more observations based upon what is happening right now in Europe at the annual Eurobike show.

First- I never thought 27.5"ers were "the best of both 26 and 29 inch attributes", although you'll hear that a lot from the marketing wonks moving forward. 27.5"ers are different, but they can not do near what a 29"er can do. In fact, this is something of an issue for marketers, who feel that once 27.5"er product gets out there, it won't impress the 29"er folks, and won't get much traction there. Of course, this is why the 27.5"er will be heavily invested into over in Europe. There 29"ers are still very new, not entrenched, and marketers feel that the 27.5"er, being less of a jump from 26", has a better chance of becoming "the next big thing".

Tires, wheels, and forks are all going to be unleashed this very week at Eurobike to prove my point here. Brands will also introduce new 27.5"er bikes, (mostly in the longer travel categories, which are selling flat of late), which will further the reach for this wheel size.

Rocky Mountain recently intro'ed a whole new line of 27.5"ers

But what will become of 26"? Many see the 27.5"er as a replacement, more having to do with that it is "new" and has a "new story to tell" behind it than anything else. But be that as it may, the industry would love nothing more than to make your current AM/FR/DH sled obsolete. You know what they would have in store for you to replace that "aging 26"er platform" with too.

In the end, as I have always said, the riders will vote with their dollars, as long as there is a choice. That seems to be the case as long as the "Big Three", (Giant, Specialized, and Trek), don't capitulate and in one fell swoop, relegate 26 inch wheels to the dustbin of mtb history. Will that happen? Not anytime soon, that's for sure.

For now this will be an experiment for mid-level companies looking to capitalize on a "new trend" that they may have missed out on, (read: 29 inch wheels), last time. Make no mistake- this is an exercise in marketing, and we'll see if it pans out in the long run.

How can I say this? Well, 27.5"ers have been around at retail stores since 2007, and they haven't done diddly squat in the marketplace. That's six years ago in model year terms. Six years into the 29"er becoming available at retail stores the wheel size was well on its way to becoming more than a niche. All without marketing driven hoo-ha. (In fact, marketing departments resisted 29"ers like the plague in the early years, for the most part.)

Want another example? Try fat bikes, which have had little to no industry horsepower behind them, yet are a growing segment that shows no sign of stopping yet. Why? Because these are rider driven demand products, not "top down" marketed platforms. Again- I am not saying 27.5"ers will not be any good. No- this has to do with marketing. Maybe it'll work, but I haven't seen this sort of success in a product category in my years in the cycling business. That's what I am saying.

Again- I may well eat my words here, and that is fine, but I do not think 26"ers are going anywhere soon. But the mtb segment will have to make some room for these upstart 27.5"ers at any rate, whatever you may think of them.

Leveraged

Ever wonder why you don't see a lot of rigid, 100mm suspension corrected forks for 29"ers? (Other than that "riding a rigid fork is a dumb idea." We get it you sus fork wankers!) Well, it has to do with a little problem called leverage.(From www.dictionary.com)

lev·er·age

 [lev-er-ij, lee-ver-]   noun, verb, lev·er·aged, lev·er·ag·ing.

noun

1.

the action of a lever,  a rigid bar that pivots about one point and that is used to move an object at a second point by a force applied at a third (point).

 

"Old School" rigid fork

Old style forks without suspension correction could tuck the wheel up nearer to the fork crown, minimizing the length, (or lever), of the fork blades. This gave the fork better strength against frontal impacts, and with longer head tubes to help dissipate the energy from those impacts, forks could be svelte, pretty, and still be strong. 

 

But that started to change when those pesky suspension devices were introduced to mountain bikes in the late 80's. Most designs used a telescopic design where the two fork legs were divided in half, a lower part, called the "fork lowers", (amongst other names), and the upper part that connected to the crown, called the stanchions. The stanchions slide into the lowers when a trail obstacle is encountered. 

 

That meant that the fork legs had to get longer to allow for the travel of the suspension, so the tire wouldn't bottom out on the crown. Early suspension forks had a whopping 63mm of travel. Then they moved to 80mm, then an unheard of 100mm of travel.

 

With each incremental increase in travel, a longer  fork was necessary. Remember- a longer fork means a longer lever, which means more stresses on the frame and fork crown. At first, suspension designers thought we'd have to go the dual crown route to ensure safe usage for longer travel forks, but materials technology applied to the problems have kept 26 inch forks largely a single crown affair even up to this day. 

That all changes with 29 inch wheels, which makes the axle to crown measurements even longer for a given fork travel. Compound this by the intentions of designers to use the shortest possible head tube, and you can see why it has become harder to find a long, rigid fork. The forces at work become so great that to make a fork safe, the fork gets heavy, or too complex to manufacture to get them to pass the required testing procedures.

2013 Specialized "Chisel" fork. 480mm A to C

However; some forks are out there that do have a longer "lever", (or axle to crown measurement), that will keep your bike's intended geometry correct. These typically are carbon fiber, because it has a strength to weight ratio and capabilities to be produced at weights and costs that buyers are willing to accept. 

Trouble is almost all are 1 1/8th" to 1 1/5" "tapered" steer tube types because they need that design for the extra strength required to make those long, lovely legs work. You folks with straight 1 1/8th steer tube bikes know it is hard to find these longer legged beauties in carbon, and steel ones are not easy to track down either. When you do, they are more often than not really heavy. Well, that and stiff. 

Kinda defeats the purposes of getting a rigid fork in the first place. 

With 100mm travel hard tails being more and more the norm for 29"ers, it seems that the rigid fork fans will be harder pressed to find rigid fork nirvana. It is nice to see Whiskey Parts and Specialized coming out with these newer choices for the future, but there are slim pickens for the 100mm travel hard tail bikes right now. 

And it is all due to leverage.

Leveraged

Ever wonder why you don't see a lot of rigid, 100mm suspension corrected forks for 29"ers? (Other than that "riding a rigid fork is a dumb idea." We get it you sus fork wankers!) Well, it has to do with a little problem called leverage.(From www.dictionary.com)

lev·er·age

 [lev-er-ij, lee-ver-]   noun, verb, lev·er·aged, lev·er·ag·ing.

noun

1.

the action of a lever,  a rigid bar that pivots about one point and that is used to move an object at a second point by a force applied at a third (point).

 

"Old School" rigid fork

Old style forks without suspension correction could tuck the wheel up nearer to the fork crown, minimizing the length, (or lever), of the fork blades. This gave the fork better strength against frontal impacts, and with longer head tubes to help dissipate the energy from those impacts, forks could be svelte, pretty, and still be strong. 

 

But that started to change when those pesky suspension devices were introduced to mountain bikes in the late 80's. Most designs used a telescopic design where the two fork legs were divided in half, a lower part, called the "fork lowers", (amongst other names), and the upper part that connected to the crown, called the stanchions. The stanchions slide into the lowers when a trail obstacle is encountered. 

 

That meant that the fork legs had to get longer to allow for the travel of the suspension, so the tire wouldn't bottom out on the crown. Early suspension forks had a whopping 63mm of travel. Then they moved to 80mm, then an unheard of 100mm of travel.

 

With each incremental increase in travel, a longer  fork was necessary. Remember- a longer fork means a longer lever, which means more stresses on the frame and fork crown. At first, suspension designers thought we'd have to go the dual crown route to ensure safe usage for longer travel forks, but materials technology applied to the problems have kept 26 inch forks largely a single crown affair even up to this day. 

That all changes with 29 inch wheels, which makes the axle to crown measurements even longer for a given fork travel. Compound this by the intentions of designers to use the shortest possible head tube, and you can see why it has become harder to find a long, rigid fork. The forces at work become so great that to make a fork safe, the fork gets heavy, or too complex to manufacture to get them to pass the required testing procedures.

2013 Specialized "Chisel" fork. 480mm A to C

However; some forks are out there that do have a longer "lever", (or axle to crown measurement), that will keep your bike's intended geometry correct. These typically are carbon fiber, because it has a strength to weight ratio and capabilities to be produced at weights and costs that buyers are willing to accept. 

Trouble is almost all are 1 1/8th" to 1 1/5" "tapered" steer tube types because they need that design for the extra strength required to make those long, lovely legs work. You folks with straight 1 1/8th steer tube bikes know it is hard to find these longer legged beauties in carbon, and steel ones are not easy to track down either. When you do, they are more often than not really heavy. Well, that and stiff. 

Kinda defeats the purposes of getting a rigid fork in the first place. 

With 100mm travel hard tails being more and more the norm for 29"ers, it seems that the rigid fork fans will be harder pressed to find rigid fork nirvana. It is nice to see Whiskey Parts and Specialized coming out with these newer choices for the future, but there are slim pickens for the 100mm travel hard tail bikes right now. 

And it is all due to leverage.

Still Trying To Figure It Out

My latest trip to Northfield, Minnesota, (which I talked about in the post previous to this one), was an interesting reminder about wheels for off road bicycles. Mike of Mike's Bikes up there was right at the epicenter of the Marin developments as he wrenched at another Mike's Bikes out in Marin County. Mike has some great stories about what went down with the riders and the scene back in the day, right down to some personal nitty-gritty stuff, that would be best left to lie, but is definitely interesting to hear.

It coulda been you....

But leaving the personal tidbits aside, (which may or may not be true anyway), it always comes out in the conversations I have with Mike about the early days of mtb that nothing was "sacred" as far as "standards" as we learned them for mountain biking. What it was about, and this is paramount, was what would work best.

As an example, I give you this anecdote from my latest conversation with Mike. Now Mike isn't one to hang out on internet forums and whatnot. (Which is something I think we all could do less of so we could ride more.) So, I knew he probably hadn't heard that one of the 10 original Breezer bikes, the first purpose built for off road, batch produced bike series, had come up for sale recently. Mike was astounded. He was familiar with the first series, and had seen them back in the day.

Mike wanted to know if it had aluminum rims on it, or the originally spec'ed Schwinn S-2 steel rims. See, the S-2 rims were horrid for braking, since the chrome plated finish was so slippery. When aluminum rims became readily available, all the original Breezer owners had their wheels re-laced to them in what Mike referred to as a "wheel building frenzy". Oddly enough, all the rims that came in were of one anodized color, which wasn't the case later on. Ukai and a few others did several different anodized hues. So anyway, all the rims were a gold ano color on the re-laced set ups for all the Breezer bikes of the day. But what did that matter? The thing was, the aluminum rims worked better. Much better.

And the whole rim deal came down to the tires necessary to do "proper off roading" with, which were all 26" kids ballooner tires from Schwinn cruiser bikes. If those tires had been, say 650B- well then we'd be talking about a whole 'nuther story now. They could have been 700c based as well. Just like the wheels from the late 19th Century were.

But they weren't, and now, with all the available choices, we're still trying to figure out what is best for mountain bikes. In fact, if you think about it, we are still trying to figure out what a mountain bike is in the first place. Whatever it is, I don't think it will ever be as simple as it was in 1977, nor as technologically deficient as it was then. Obviously, a mountain bike is going to have multiple definitions depending upon who you talk to these days.

Maybe we'll never really figure it out!

Still Trying To Figure It Out

My latest trip to Northfield, Minnesota, (which I talked about in the post previous to this one), was an interesting reminder about wheels for off road bicycles. Mike of Mike's Bikes up there was right at the epicenter of the Marin developments as he wrenched at another Mike's Bikes out in Marin County. Mike has some great stories about what went down with the riders and the scene back in the day, right down to some personal nitty-gritty stuff, that would be best left to lie, but is definitely interesting to hear.

It coulda been you....

But leaving the personal tidbits aside, (which may or may not be true anyway), it always comes out in the conversations I have with Mike about the early days of mtb that nothing was "sacred" as far as "standards" as we learned them for mountain biking. What it was about, and this is paramount, was what would work best.

As an example, I give you this anecdote from my latest conversation with Mike. Now Mike isn't one to hang out on internet forums and whatnot. (Which is something I think we all could do less of so we could ride more.) So, I knew he probably hadn't heard that one of the 10 original Breezer bikes, the first purpose built for off road, batch produced bike series, had come up for sale recently. Mike was astounded. He was familiar with the first series, and had seen them back in the day.

Mike wanted to know if it had aluminum rims on it, or the originally spec'ed Schwinn S-2 steel rims. See, the S-2 rims were horrid for braking, since the chrome plated finish was so slippery. When aluminum rims became readily available, all the original Breezer owners had their wheels re-laced to them in what Mike referred to as a "wheel building frenzy". Oddly enough, all the rims that came in were of one anodized color, which wasn't the case later on. Ukai and a few others did several different anodized hues. So anyway, all the rims were a gold ano color on the re-laced set ups for all the Breezer bikes of the day. But what did that matter? The thing was, the aluminum rims worked better. Much better.

And the whole rim deal came down to the tires necessary to do "proper off roading" with, which were all 26" kids ballooner tires from Schwinn cruiser bikes. If those tires had been, say 650B- well then we'd be talking about a whole 'nuther story now. They could have been 700c based as well. Just like the wheels from the late 19th Century were.

But they weren't, and now, with all the available choices, we're still trying to figure out what is best for mountain bikes. In fact, if you think about it, we are still trying to figure out what a mountain bike is in the first place. Whatever it is, I don't think it will ever be as simple as it was in 1977, nor as technologically deficient as it was then. Obviously, a mountain bike is going to have multiple definitions depending upon who you talk to these days.

Maybe we'll never really figure it out!

Gear Heads

2X, 29"er gearing

Gearing: Ask a single speeder what gearing is best, and it might spark some mild debate, but ask a 29"er freak about gearing and you may be in for a long rant on the disparity between gearing for 26"ers and 29"ers. I found out about that from a recent post we put up on Twenty Nine Inches recently, (seen here).

The thing is, what is 29"er gearing? I don't have any clue, since the comments I read are all over the place as to what folks think that is. Some want super low gearing. Some want triple crank sets for the widest range of gearing, and still others are saying a 1X set up is all they will ever need.

What about me? Well, I never have liked the front dérailleur. I will say that Shimano's and SRAM's latest have gone a long way in impressing me though. I also will say that a lot of what I ride can be done on a 2X set up hear on my local trails. That doesn't mean I think it is perfect at all.

Probably the coolest set up I have ridden is the new DynaSys 10 speed. The thing that makes it work is not what you would expect at all though. Shimano actually identified something I wish was focused on more than it is, or seems to be.

Road riders have identified an advantage in close ratio cassettes, and actually, that's been the case for that discipline for a long time now. However; in the case of mountain bikes, it wasn't possible to have a close ratio and a wide range of gearing with only 15 speeds, so jumps between gearing were big. This persisted throughout the modern mountain bike's development up until recently.

Shimano realized that tightening up the jumps between cogs meant less loss of momentum and less rider fatigue due to a lower cadence when shifting to higher gears and a cadence that was too fast when switching to lower gears. They fine tuned DynaSys to help eliminate this, and to my mind that was the major selling point to me for the new 10 speed group.

I found there was less shifting between cogs up front, and when you did, you only had to readjust one, maybe two clicks in the rear to accommodate your cadence. I found the tighter ratios in the middle of the rear cassette to be gold for me on longer, grinding climbs when you could find a gear that was "just right".

Is DynaSys my perfect set up then? No, it is not, but to my mind the way Shimano is thinking about mountain bike gearing is making sense to me more and more. I just wish that Shimano would give the riders that low, low gear some are wanting, but Shimano has never really been about low, low gears either. I don't expect to see a change there.

Maybe an "ala carte" system similar to Surly's "Mr. Whirly" cranks, but without the weirdness that crank set has would be the ticket. Then make a cassette with user customizable ratios and we'd have everyone covered. But whatever the "perfect 29"er gearing" is, I'm sure it won't be available anytime soon. That is something you can take to the bank!

Gear Heads

2X, 29"er gearing

Gearing: Ask a single speeder what gearing is best, and it might spark some mild debate, but ask a 29"er freak about gearing and you may be in for a long rant on the disparity between gearing for 26"ers and 29"ers. I found out about that from a recent post we put up on Twenty Nine Inches recently, (seen here).

The thing is, what is 29"er gearing? I don't have any clue, since the comments I read are all over the place as to what folks think that is. Some want super low gearing. Some want triple crank sets for the widest range of gearing, and still others are saying a 1X set up is all they will ever need.

What about me? Well, I never have liked the front dérailleur. I will say that Shimano's and SRAM's latest have gone a long way in impressing me though. I also will say that a lot of what I ride can be done on a 2X set up hear on my local trails. That doesn't mean I think it is perfect at all.

Probably the coolest set up I have ridden is the new DynaSys 10 speed. The thing that makes it work is not what you would expect at all though. Shimano actually identified something I wish was focused on more than it is, or seems to be.

Road riders have identified an advantage in close ratio cassettes, and actually, that's been the case for that discipline for a long time now. However; in the case of mountain bikes, it wasn't possible to have a close ratio and a wide range of gearing with only 15 speeds, so jumps between gearing were big. This persisted throughout the modern mountain bike's development up until recently.

Shimano realized that tightening up the jumps between cogs meant less loss of momentum and less rider fatigue due to a lower cadence when shifting to higher gears and a cadence that was too fast when switching to lower gears. They fine tuned DynaSys to help eliminate this, and to my mind that was the major selling point to me for the new 10 speed group.

I found there was less shifting between cogs up front, and when you did, you only had to readjust one, maybe two clicks in the rear to accommodate your cadence. I found the tighter ratios in the middle of the rear cassette to be gold for me on longer, grinding climbs when you could find a gear that was "just right".

Is DynaSys my perfect set up then? No, it is not, but to my mind the way Shimano is thinking about mountain bike gearing is making sense to me more and more. I just wish that Shimano would give the riders that low, low gear some are wanting, but Shimano has never really been about low, low gears either. I don't expect to see a change there.

Maybe an "ala carte" system similar to Surly's "Mr. Whirly" cranks, but without the weirdness that crank set has would be the ticket. Then make a cassette with user customizable ratios and we'd have everyone covered. But whatever the "perfect 29"er gearing" is, I'm sure it won't be available anytime soon. That is something you can take to the bank!

The Business Of 29"ers

For many years, I used to see the following question pop up, or a variation of it: "I wonder what percentage of the market 29"ers have?" The folks that were asking were often trying to leverage their enthusiasm for 29"ers into some sort of "solid evidence" that 26"ers were dying off and this should show the manufacturers that they needed to start making more 29"er forks, tires, rims, and frames.

Looking more "normal" all the time.

It wasn't a question that could be answered at all for many years. The industry sales statistics for mountain bikes didn't reflect a category for wheel size. Why would they? All "mountain bikes" were 26"ers, right? These big wheelers weren't going to amount to much anyway.

That is until Fisher Bikes, who doggedly stuck to their guns despite almost loosing 29"ers to Trek's inner hatchet men, were starting, in 2005, to see 29"ers make inroads on their 26"er product. Slowly but surely, others took notice. More companies were making token 29"er efforts, and they were higher priced, due to the small supply of 29"er specific parts, and specific frames.

But it didn't seem to matter. Customers came and bought the things, and within three years, it was evident that 29"ers weren't going away. Specialized and Giant finally caved in, and then it was on. Since 2009, 29"ers have been the hottest bicycle category next to road bikes, and in the mountain bike category, the 29"er was the only growth area. And you know what? Even with more numbers, the "premium" prices never went away. Didn't have to since demand was often out-stripping supplies.

Now it seems that the industry thought to track 29"er sales. Ya know what? They are still growing as a category, but now it seems that the forecast is for a leveling off. All this despite a slower economy, and all this despite a generally shrinking, or at best, staying even,  mountain bike category.Plus, those bigger prices will likely fade away with the leveling off of demand.

This all was brought to light recently by "Bicycle Retailer and Industry News", in whose latest issue is laid out the skinny on the sales figures in the industry. A few things stand out to me now.

In hard tails and to some degree, full suspension bikes, 29"ers have carved out a huge piece of the pie formerly owned by 26"ers. Interestingly, only full rigid 26"ers showed any increases, but keep in mind, these could be commuter/urban bikes that have more mountain bike-ish leanings. Who knows. These categories and reported numbers can only really be seen as "guidelines", not "hard and fast rules", after all. That said, you can draw some conclusions in trends. Obviously, 26"er mountain bikes as we once knew them are fast becoming an anomaly in the market place. The 29"er rules here.

Where there is a line now is where "Trail" full suspension stops and "All Mountain" starts. Sure, you can find some examples where the 29"er lives and breathes in the All Mountain category, but if we're honest with ourselves, those examples are few and far between right now. The industry is setting up what they think will be the next "29"er-like" surge in mountain bike sales, and that is with the 650B bikes. They aren't here yet, but the category they slot into is sagging in sales. The big travel, all mountain type rigs with 650B wheels are seen as "that bike" which the industry is pinning its hopes on for more growth.

The industry as a whole has pretty much decided for you that 29 inch wheels have too many issues to get around to make a true all mountain bike with 5-7 inches of travel. The front ends would get too high, the tires, (if they existed), would be too heavy, and the way the geometry of big travel 29"ers would lay out isn't conducive to good handling. In other words, you folks out there that have been pining away for "shorter chain stays and slacker angled long travel 29"er bikes" will get your answer. It is 650B.

Oh yeah, and I think this is why the 29"er Maxxis Minion, shown at Interbike, hasn't materialized yet. They aren't going to make many of those, because Maxxis is probably getting hammered to do a 650B Minion, and Kirk Pacenti just announced a 2.4"er 650B tire which is set to be on these bigger travel 650B bikes. The industry wants 29"er growth in the AM market like they have gotten in the XC/Trail categories, and 650B is their "savior", by the looks of it.

The final thing that stands out to me from the article is the category of full rigid 29"ers has shrunken. I find that a bit funny, since at one time, that was all you could get for 29"ers. Now it seems that with the advent of the ultimate suspension technologies being applied to 29"ers, folks see no appeal in the fully rigid ride, or at least companies spec'ing bikes don't have to push those rigs any more. Probably the latter.

The Business Of 29"ers

For many years, I used to see the following question pop up, or a variation of it: "I wonder what percentage of the market 29"ers have?" The folks that were asking were often trying to leverage their enthusiasm for 29"ers into some sort of "solid evidence" that 26"ers were dying off and this should show the manufacturers that they needed to start making more 29"er forks, tires, rims, and frames.

Looking more "normal" all the time.

It wasn't a question that could be answered at all for many years. The industry sales statistics for mountain bikes didn't reflect a category for wheel size. Why would they? All "mountain bikes" were 26"ers, right? These big wheelers weren't going to amount to much anyway.

That is until Fisher Bikes, who doggedly stuck to their guns despite almost loosing 29"ers to Trek's inner hatchet men, were starting, in 2005, to see 29"ers make inroads on their 26"er product. Slowly but surely, others took notice. More companies were making token 29"er efforts, and they were higher priced, due to the small supply of 29"er specific parts, and specific frames.

But it didn't seem to matter. Customers came and bought the things, and within three years, it was evident that 29"ers weren't going away. Specialized and Giant finally caved in, and then it was on. Since 2009, 29"ers have been the hottest bicycle category next to road bikes, and in the mountain bike category, the 29"er was the only growth area. And you know what? Even with more numbers, the "premium" prices never went away. Didn't have to since demand was often out-stripping supplies.

Now it seems that the industry thought to track 29"er sales. Ya know what? They are still growing as a category, but now it seems that the forecast is for a leveling off. All this despite a slower economy, and all this despite a generally shrinking, or at best, staying even,  mountain bike category.Plus, those bigger prices will likely fade away with the leveling off of demand.

This all was brought to light recently by "Bicycle Retailer and Industry News", in whose latest issue is laid out the skinny on the sales figures in the industry. A few things stand out to me now.

In hard tails and to some degree, full suspension bikes, 29"ers have carved out a huge piece of the pie formerly owned by 26"ers. Interestingly, only full rigid 26"ers showed any increases, but keep in mind, these could be commuter/urban bikes that have more mountain bike-ish leanings. Who knows. These categories and reported numbers can only really be seen as "guidelines", not "hard and fast rules", after all. That said, you can draw some conclusions in trends. Obviously, 26"er mountain bikes as we once knew them are fast becoming an anomaly in the market place. The 29"er rules here.

Where there is a line now is where "Trail" full suspension stops and "All Mountain" starts. Sure, you can find some examples where the 29"er lives and breathes in the All Mountain category, but if we're honest with ourselves, those examples are few and far between right now. The industry is setting up what they think will be the next "29"er-like" surge in mountain bike sales, and that is with the 650B bikes. They aren't here yet, but the category they slot into is sagging in sales. The big travel, all mountain type rigs with 650B wheels are seen as "that bike" which the industry is pinning its hopes on for more growth.

The industry as a whole has pretty much decided for you that 29 inch wheels have too many issues to get around to make a true all mountain bike with 5-7 inches of travel. The front ends would get too high, the tires, (if they existed), would be too heavy, and the way the geometry of big travel 29"ers would lay out isn't conducive to good handling. In other words, you folks out there that have been pining away for "shorter chain stays and slacker angled long travel 29"er bikes" will get your answer. It is 650B.

Oh yeah, and I think this is why the 29"er Maxxis Minion, shown at Interbike, hasn't materialized yet. They aren't going to make many of those, because Maxxis is probably getting hammered to do a 650B Minion, and Kirk Pacenti just announced a 2.4"er 650B tire which is set to be on these bigger travel 650B bikes. The industry wants 29"er growth in the AM market like they have gotten in the XC/Trail categories, and 650B is their "savior", by the looks of it.

The final thing that stands out to me from the article is the category of full rigid 29"ers has shrunken. I find that a bit funny, since at one time, that was all you could get for 29"ers. Now it seems that with the advent of the ultimate suspension technologies being applied to 29"ers, folks see no appeal in the fully rigid ride, or at least companies spec'ing bikes don't have to push those rigs any more. Probably the latter.

Friday News And Views

Kona Raijin Prototype: (Image Courtesy Kona Cog blog)

More Tennessee Titanium: Lynskey Performance in Tennessee is cranking out titanium bikes under its own brand name, plus at least three other brands that I know about, maybe more. At any rate, I find it rather amusing to see this Kona proto coming out which should be available later this spring.

Signature Lynskey design touches abound here, and one starts to wonder when the brand on the down tube starts to lose its meaning. Sure......it's got a 69.5 degree head angle, but beyond this, what is really any different than a Lynskey or a Salsa Cycles offering? Not a whole lot.

Now, I realize I am riding a Lynskey made rig, and I have ridden a few others made by them. They do great work. My point isn't that "Lynskey is bad", my point is that if you are bothering to have one manufactured by them, you might want to somehow make a strong visual distinction from the "standard issue" Lynskey cues. I don't think anyone would bat an eyelash at first glance at this bike if it had a sandblasted Salsa Cycles logo on the down tube. Ya know?

That said, I am sure the Raijin is a cool riding rig. Gotta wonder what the chain stay length is here. I noticed its screaming non-disclosure in the blog posted specs. One other possibly telling cue: The rear tire is a Maxxis Ikon. Not a voluminous, wide tire. Maybe that's all that would fit with mud clearance with the sliders pulled all the way forward as they are here. If so, that won't fly too well with the forum-freaks. We'll see.

WTB Frequency Rims: Ya know, so many times I get e-mails about what rims to use for tubeless applications on big wheeled rigs. It seems so many choices are already laced to hubs. Well, not everyone wants pre-built wheels. It is something of a problem in the marketplace. Especially when one choice, (Stan's), seems to be the only thing that comes to most folks minds these days. (Not that Mr. Koziak minds, but it would be nice to have some competition here.)

Well, that is why things like the new WTB Frequency rims are going to be cool. These are looking like some pretty well thought out rims here. The bead seat is optimized more toward the UST side of things, and the sealing tape and sealant is right from Stan's playbook. Solid, reliable stuff there.

Then WTB's design work is added on top. "I-Beam" extrusions have been a feature of WTB rims since the late 90's. I used a set of Lazerbeam rims once back in my 26"er days and was really impressed with the lightweight/toughness combination they exhibited. I would suspect that the 29"er version, with current refinements, would be as good if not better. WTB also optimized the spoke drilling angles and added the "Unbendium Bulge" for strength. Good, smart stuff. 

Anyway, these are available now in 26 or 29 inch versions with 19mm or 23mm inside rim well dimension variants to choose from. MSRP on the 26 and 29 inch versions are $75.00 and $80.00 respectively. Now you know.

On One Scandal 29: Image courtesy of shedfire

Okay- So What Would You Suggest? Getting back to the Kona thing, I would have suggested that (perhaps) they should have veered from the "typical Lynskey" look and found a signature. Used to be that Kona had that rad top tube slope, big head tube, and an extended set tube with a forward facing slot at the seat collar.

You know the bike in the image doesn't look like a Lynskey. It looks like an On One bike. You know this from the signature seat stay arrangement.

So, ya know......that's what I am talking about. Get something unique out there. (Whoa! Never thought I'd write that about 29"ers, but they are mainstream now days.) The Kona Raijin isn't really much to crow about in terms of its looks. It does have some unique stats, but I dunno.......

Maybe I'm wrong here, but it just strikes me as a bit "ho-hum".

Okay, well.......enjoy the non-winter! Get out and ride a bike, take some pictures, and have an adventure.