26 vs 29....

[itwasuited]

Is the recent 29" craze all hype? Yes a 29" wheelset on a mtn bike may help rolling over obstacles...... but physics and engineering tells me that it is going to make climbing hills more difficult and a longer chain makes a major loss of energy! Not nearly worth the trade off in my mind. I'd like to hear input? Am I an old goat stuck in the past, or a wise old man stating the obvious?
Cheers

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Troll.
Energy loss in a chain is not a function of length.

Now, go find another argument to feed your boredom.

 

[itwasuited]

Wow 'saddle,
Looks like a struck a nerve! I am certainly not a troll, don't know if you are in a bad mood today or just your nature to lash out against someone that brings up a thought provoking (friendly) topic. I am obviousy new here and am not going to attack anyone. Altho its not hard find formula that puts forth proof through physics the amount of power (watts) lost for every inch length of chain.
Cheers

 

[Profpointy]

Wow 'saddle,
Looks like a struck a nerve! I am certainly not a troll, don't know if you are in a bad mood today or just your nature to lash out against someone that brings up a thought provoking (friendly) topic. I am obviousy new here and am not going to attack anyone. Altho its not hard find formula that puts forth proof through physics the amount of power (watts) lost for every inch length of chain.
Cheers

He does that, and whilst some of his comments are well grounded, others equally stridently put are nonsense

 

[DCLane]

It's personal preference imo. Having had a 650b MTB the wheels felt too big for 5' 8" me whereas 26" were OK.

 

[sevenfourate]

As an aside slightly…… if talking of bigger wheels / larger rolling radius / better ability to soak-up; and ride over rough ground and obstacles better: I started to read an article recently about one of the tyre manufacturers testing some 32” (?) knobblies they’d just produced. I recall seeing pictures of them mounted on actual wheels on a real-bike out in the real-World too…..

Point being - 29” may not effectively even well be the current biggest 😳

**For the record I’ve got a 27.5” / 650b I do some tracks / trails / off-road paths with. And a 29” MTB. I am a big, strong guy and perhaps I notice less than most; but honestly - I can barely notice the difference / disadvantages of either. Over the course of a ride that is.

Probably someone more skilled, who does more true ‘Mountain’ riding, and who needs one or the other due to the technicality or otherwise of their riding - could tell you better. I guess it depends on ‘How off-road is your ride’ ?

 

[T4tomo]

Is the recent 29" craze all hype? Yes a 29" wheelset on a mtn bike may help rolling over obstacles...... but physics and engineering tells me that it is going to make climbing hills more difficult and a longer chain makes a major loss of energy! Not nearly worth the trade off in my mind. I'd like to hear input? Am I an old goat stuck in the past, or a wise old man stating the obvious?
Cheers

Recent???.have the clocks gone back 20 years?

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Wow 'saddle,
Looks like a struck a nerve! I am certainly not a troll, don't know if you are in a bad mood today or just your nature to lash out against someone that brings up a thought provoking (friendly) topic. I am obviousy new here and am not going to attack anyone. Altho its not hard find formula that puts forth proof through physics the amount of power (watts) lost for every inch length of chain.
Cheers

Yes, you did strike a nerve. first of all, there's the issue of ettiquette. Dont burst into a room full of strangers with wild statements. We donb't know you yet. Introduce yourself, settle down a bit, test the water and then think about what you write.

As for your 29-er issue - yawn. Do a little search and you'll see you've attemted to flog an old horse. Remember, we've been here a while, you are not the first cowboy at this rodeo.

As for "a longer chain makes a major loss of energy!"

That's your claim, therefore I'd like you to come up with the said formula to prove that. Keep in mind that the chain (roller chain) is a field of study in mechanical engineering that's well understood and described in text books and online academic journals. Roller chain energy losses can be calculated and even measured. It should therefore be very easy for you to substantiate your claim if there is evidence that it is true. Try ChatGPT if you like - no need even for exclamation marks or the word "major" when designing your prompt.

 

[Drago]

He does that, and whilst some of his comments are well grounded

As indeed they are in this instance.

 

[Punkawallah]

Yes, you did strike a nerve. first of all, there's the issue of ettiquette. Dont burst into a room full of strangers with wild statements. We donb't know you yet. Introduce yourself, settle down a bit, test the water and then think about what you write.

As for your 29-er issue - yawn. Do a little search and you'll see you've attemted to flog an old horse. Remember, we've been here a while, you are not the first cowboy at this rodeo.

As for "a longer chain makes a major loss of energy!"

That's your claim, therefore I'd like you to come up with the said formula to prove that. Keep in mind that the chain (roller chain) is a field of study in mechanical engineering that's well understood and described in text books and online academic journals. Roller chain energy losses can be calculated and even measured. It should therefore be very easy for you to substantiate your claim if there is evidence that it is true. Try ChatGPT if you like - no need even for exclamation marks or the word "major" when designing your prompt.

If you are concerned about ‘etiquette’, maybe think about -not- jumping down someone’s throat when they pose a question?

 

[fossyant]

29ers are old hat, it will be 32ers next. Pro, big wheels to get over stuff easier. True/false, I dunno as I've a 26" and a 27.5. Can't tell, but the bikes are very different being 30 years apart - old skool rigid vs a much more modern full suspension.

Just more tyres and tubes to buy.

 

[tyred]

Pah! Why such small wheels?

 

[figbat]

Is the recent 29" craze all hype? Yes a 29" wheelset on a mtn bike may help rolling over obstacles...... but physics and engineering tells me that it is going to make climbing hills more difficult and a longer chain makes a major loss of energy! Not nearly worth the trade off in my mind. I'd like to hear input? Am I an old goat stuck in the past, or a wise old man stating the obvious?
Cheers

29” is hardly a “recent craze” - they’ve been mainstream for years; you’ll struggle to find a 26” bike that’s more than either a youth model or a BSO.

The pros and cons of 29” have been discussed as nauseum. You have mentioned two: the easier rolling over obstacles and their increased weight. When I switched from 26” to 29” I noticed an immediate improvement overall, but then the whole bike was an upgrade. 29” wheels also allow for a higher BB and crank clearances and increase rolling momentum. Plus the choice of tyres and wheels these days is significantly better.

Drivetrain losses from the chain occur only where it wraps and unwraps around a cog or sprocket, the distance between the cog and sprocket is irrelevant. The only ‘loss’ I can think of regarding a longer chain is its additional mass; there is certainly not a “major loss of energy”.

 

[Profpointy]

Recent???.have the clocks gone back 20 years?

It is "recent" for some of us. When I bought my 26" Thorn bike, they were extolling the virtues of the then "new" (at least for serious bikes) 26" wheels over the traditional 700C (which itself replaced the 27" of my youth) Seemingly 26" is now considered almost obsolute.

It seems smaller wheels were better, but nowadays bigger wheels are better !

 

[Pblakeney]

I found 26” to have more nimble handling, but that’s just me.