|
|
29er "pedals easier"
I have a friend who just bought a new 29"-wheel Motobecane MTB and swears that, due to the larger-diameter wheels, it "pedals easier" than his old 26"-wheel MTB did.
Have you ever heard anyone say this before? I have. Since the contention does not seem correct to me, I was just curious about how you gentlemen would respond to it? |
29er "pedals easier"
On 7/15/2018 12:00 PM, wrote:
I have a friend who just bought a new 29"-wheel Motobecane MTB and swears that, due to the larger-diameter wheels, it "pedals easier" than his old 26"-wheel MTB did. Have you ever heard anyone say this before? I have. Since the contention does not seem correct to me, I was just curious about how you gentlemen would respond to it? Depends on the speeds and surface anomalies involved. For a smooth board track a smaller wheel may well be more efficient: http://www.tomsarazac.com/tom/opinions/wheelsize.html But in typical riding conditions, a big fat 700x54 rolls over depressions, rocks, debris, zombie bodies etc much better than, say, a skateboard wheel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdwROHgPask -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
29er "pedals easier"
|
29er "pedals easier"
|
29er "pedals easier"
On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 6:00:30 PM UTC+1, wrote:
I have a friend who just bought a new 29"-wheel Motobecane MTB and swears that, due to the larger-diameter wheels, it "pedals easier" than his old 26"-wheel MTB did. Have you ever heard anyone say this before? I have. Since the contention does not seem correct to me, I was just curious about how you gentlemen would respond to it? I wouldn't pay overmuch attention to the sneering of the usual clowns competing to be the most snide poster of the week. I have a proper 29er, which means that it has 622x60 tyres mounted on rims at least 40% of tyre width, in this case 24mm across the bead retainers; all of the consideration I mention in this post are important primary parameters; if the makers skimp on them, the bicycle isn't a 29er and will not share in the benefits of a 29er. The tyres are furthermore inflated to very low pressures, in my case 2 bar or about 28-30psi to carry at least 135-150kg or bike, rider and extensive painting gear. (Despite what the usual morons will now tell you about my bike, about which they claim to know more than its makers or me, its frame is lighter than my two similar ali bikes; when you order custom tubes from Columbus, you get what you pay for.) My bike is very comfortable indeed without any other suspension than the air in the balloons, and light rolling too, and once it gets going, the momentum of those big tyres keeps it going, which also makes the pedaling easier. Several distinguished European universities in recent years tested low inflation near-slick balloon tyres and found their rolling resistance less than narrow, high pressure, treaded tyres. That is a fact which continually comes as a surprise to a surprising number RBT posters, though it shouldn't: Jobst Brandt, the smartest engineer who ever posted here (not a high barrier, as most of those with punched tickets here have tenth-rate minds and are the products of third-rate colleges, and Jobst was a very thoroughly trained engineer -- his first job was with Porsche in Germany -- with brilliant insights) several times predicted these findings by a pure process of logic, which was also the logic behind his introduction of slick tyres for road bikes for an American firm he advised. Andre Jute Zero tolerance for pompous fools, less for lying clowns |
29er "pedals easier"
On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 7:34:25 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
...a big fat 700x54 rolls over .... zombie bodies etc much better than, say, a skateboard wheel: -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 The 29er rider is prepared for all eventualities! AJ Heh-heh! |
29er "pedals easier"
On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 10:00:30 AM UTC-7, wrote:
I have a friend who just bought a new 29"-wheel Motobecane MTB and swears that, due to the larger-diameter wheels, it "pedals easier" than his old 26"-wheel MTB did. Have you ever heard anyone say this before? I have. Since the contention does not seem correct to me, I was just curious about how you gentlemen would respond to it? Misusing the laws of physics to mislead the reader into a false conclusion. A heavier rotating mass, or the same mass at a longer radius, will need more energy to bring the linear velocity that the circumference is rotating at up to the same velocity. That greater amount of momentum will require greater opposing force to slow it down. That's how the claim that a larger tire can roll easier is true.. But do we want a tire that rolls "easier" or that can be brought up to a desired rolling speed, easier? This also leaves out aerodynamic drag. There's more drag on a taller tire and wheel of the same width. So you also have to overcome that drag. That drag on the tire and wheel is constant regardless of the bumps and surface resistance against the tire tread. The aero part is easily seen by going back to when TT bikes were using smaller diameter front wheels till UCI banned that. My MTB is still the same 26" rim brake wheels that its had since new in 2000. If it can't roll over the bumps and rocks and ruts and slop I want to roll over, then its the rider, and not the tire diameter that's the problem. |
29er "pedals easier"
On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 13:34:23 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
But in typical riding conditions, a big fat 700x54 rolls over depressions, rocks, debris, zombie bodies etc much better than, say, a skateboard wheel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdwROHgPask Ever notice that none of the numerous disaster movies show people escaping on bicycles? The crowds are always running away from the chaos either on foot or in various vehicles that eventually are stomped flat by the monster or zapped by an alien flying machine. Also, no motorcycles (except in "Meteor" and "Deep Impact"). I guess the zombies know what they're doing by first destroying all the bicycles. "Bug Out Bike - Apocalypse Bicycle" http://www.instructables.com/id/Bug-Out-Bike-Apocalypse-Bicycle/ I like the paint job. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any advice suggesting that a 29" wheel was in any way superior to smaller wheels for attacking or rolling over zombies. I suspect that the added weight of the survivalist junk might ruin any benefits gained by a few mm larger diameter tire. According to the movies, dead zombies will bleed profusely, which will be too slippery to traverse on slick tires. Instead, I recommend tires with some tread. Or, just build your own 29" zombie crusher from plans: http://www.atomiczombie.com -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
29er "pedals easier"
On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 10:36:09 PM UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 13:34:23 -0500, AMuzi wrote: But in typical riding conditions, a big fat 700x54 rolls over depressions, rocks, debris, zombie bodies etc much better than, say, a skateboard wheel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdwROHgPask Ever notice that none of the numerous disaster movies show people escaping on bicycles? The crowds are always running away from the chaos either on foot or in various vehicles that eventually are stomped flat by the monster or zapped by an alien flying machine. Also, no motorcycles (except in "Meteor" and "Deep Impact"). I think no motorcycles escaping the zombies is simply because motorcycles are really not very prevalent in the USA. And the screen writers are simply reflecting reality in their movie. On the road near my house, I hear about one or two motorcycles per day riding up the road. Compared to about 500 or more cars traversing the same road over 24 hours. 1/500th is about 0.2% I'd guess that is about the percentage of motorcycle ownership in the USA. No one I know owns a motorcycle. But I think they all own two or three or four cars apiece. I guess the zombies know what they're doing by first destroying all the bicycles. "Bug Out Bike - Apocalypse Bicycle" http://www.instructables.com/id/Bug-Out-Bike-Apocalypse-Bicycle/ I like the paint job. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any advice suggesting that a 29" wheel was in any way superior to smaller wheels for attacking or rolling over zombies. I suspect that the added weight of the survivalist junk might ruin any benefits gained by a few mm larger diameter tire. According to the movies, dead zombies will bleed profusely, which will be too slippery to traverse on slick tires. Instead, I recommend tires with some tread. Or, just build your own 29" zombie crusher from plans: http://www.atomiczombie.com -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
29er "pedals easier"
On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 21:57:01 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: I think no motorcycles escaping the zombies is simply because motorcycles are really not very prevalent in the USA. And the screen writers are simply reflecting reality in their movie. On the road near my house, I hear about one or two motorcycles per day riding up the road. Compared to about 500 or more cars traversing the same road over 24 hours. 1/500th is about 0.2% I'd guess that is about the percentage of motorcycle ownership in the USA. No one I know owns a motorcycle. But I think they all own two or three or four cars apiece. Estimates from various web pages: 8.4 million motorcycles registered in the US in 2017. 263.2 million vehicles overall registered in the US in 2017. 66.5 million bicycle riders in 2016. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
29er "pedals easier"
retroguybilly wrote:
I have a friend who just bought a new 29"-wheel Motobecane MTB and swears that, due to the larger-diameter wheels, it "pedals easier" than his old 26"-wheel MTB did. Have you ever heard anyone say this before? I have. Since the contention does not seem correct to me, I was just curious about how you gentlemen would respond to it? "Glad you like your new ride! Already gathered some Strava data to compare? There are so many more variables beside rim diameter that influence pedaling effort. IIRC, you last inspected the rotten 26"-bike's hubs near the end of the 90-day warranty period. Doesn't matter, let's meet for a ride -- and see if you really go faster with your new 'cane." |
29er "pedals easier"
On 7/15/2018 5:09 PM, Oculus Lights wrote:
snip My MTB is still the same 26" rim brake wheels that its had since new in 2000. If it can't roll over the bumps and rocks and ruts and slop I want to roll over, then its the rider, and not the tire diameter that's the problem. While a 29er does not "pedal easier" a larger wheel clears ruts, rocks, etc., easier. It also adds more ground clearance. That's why there was a move to larger wheels on mountain bikes. |
29er "pedals easier"
Very, very good! Thanks for all your thoughtful opinions. I will tell my friend that his 29er pedals easier because he must be riding over zombies but just doesn't realize it!
|
29er "pedals easier"
On 7/15/2018 10:36 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
... "Bug Out Bike - Apocalypse Bicycle" http://www.instructables.com/id/Bug-Out-Bike-Apocalypse-Bicycle/ I like the paint job. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any advice suggesting that a 29" wheel was in any way superior to smaller wheels for attacking or rolling over zombies. I suspect that the added weight of the survivalist junk might ruin any benefits gained by a few mm larger diameter tire. According to the movies, dead zombies will bleed profusely, which will be too slippery to traverse on slick tires. Instead, I recommend tires with some tread. Or, just build your own 29" zombie crusher from plans: http://www.atomiczombie.com I don't really think the idea of a "disaster bicycle" is really all that good of an idea--but even ignoring that--running 29" tires would be dumb, since 26" is way more common. |
29er "pedals easier"
On 7/15/2018 3:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I might point someone to the book _Bicycling Science_ by Wilson. All things being equal, on typical road surfaces, a larger diameter wheel should roll easier. But for slight differences in diameter, I'd expect the differences in rolling resistance to be slight. ... Among the recumbent riders, it is pretty well known that taller tires do roll easier, since there have been various models of recumbent bikes that could be ordered with 20", 24", 26" and 700c tires, but that were otherwise roughly equivalent. The larger tire diameter is mainly an advantage on bumpy surfaces however. And at higher speeds, aero drag becomes a factor. Some of the Battle Mountain bikes have gone to using front & rear 406mm (20") wheels. Not for rolling resistance, but because the smaller wheels can be contained inside a smaller body shell--and at ~80 mph, aero drag is the biggest problem. |
29er "pedals easier"
On 7/16/2018 11:11 AM, Doug Cimperman wrote:
On 7/15/2018 10:36 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: ... "Bug Out Bike - Apocalypse Bicycle" http://www.instructables.com/id/Bug-Out-Bike-Apocalypse-Bicycle/ I like the paint job. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any advice suggesting that a 29" wheel was in any way superior to smaller wheels for attacking or rolling over zombies. I suspect that the added weight of the survivalist junk might ruin any benefits gained by a few mm larger diameter tire. According to the movies, dead zombies will bleed profusely, which will be too slippery to traverse on slick tires. Instead, I recommend tires with some tread. Or, just build your own 29" zombie crusher from plans: http://www.atomiczombie.com I don't really think the idea of a "disaster bicycle" is really all that good of an idea--but even ignoring that--running 29" tires would be dumb, since 26" is way more common. I changed my mind about that. 26" seemed to me, a medium sized Italian guy, about right for offroad/technical riding; lower to the ground, effectively smaller gearing, shorter top tube and all that. My opinion changed once I saw a full sized (muscular 6'5") rider on a his new 700-54 Gunnar. That said, women just over five feet who ride in with whatever new chinese 29-inch thing the local outlet store foisted on her looks bizarre to me if not dorky. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
29er "pedals easier"
On 7/16/2018 8:48 AM, sms wrote:
On 7/15/2018 5:09 PM, Oculus Lights wrote: snip My MTB is still the same 26" rim brake wheels that its had since new in 2000.Â* If it can't roll over the bumps and rocks and ruts and slop I want to roll over, then its the rider, and not the tire diameter that's the problem. While a 29er does not "pedal easier" a larger wheel clears ruts, rocks, etc., easier. It also adds more ground clearance. That's why there was a move to larger wheels on mountain bikes. No, bigger wheels do not necessarily mean more ground clearance. That's a function of frame design. -- - Frank Krygowski |
29er "pedals easier"
sms wrote:
My MTB is still the same 26" rim brake wheels that its had since new in 2000. If it can't roll over the bumps and rocks and ruts and slop I want to roll over, then its the rider, and not the tire diameter that's the problem. While a 29er does not "pedal easier" a larger wheel clears ruts, rocks, etc., easier. It also adds more ground clearance. That's why there was a move to larger wheels on mountain bikes. How big is a "29er"? I think bikes in general should have bigger wheels. Why not drop the 622 standard (700C) and go back to 630? Only it can/should be wider than the 32 of the 27x1-1/4 old road bike standard. Or even to 635 but with modern rims, of course. -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 |
29er "pedals easier"
Frank Krygowski wrote:
No, bigger wheels do not necessarily mean more ground clearance. That's a function of frame design. Bigger wheels are much better. Try a 630 bike after your 622 and feel the difference. Or likewise try a 584 after the 622 and feel it getting even worse. Again, how big exactly are the 29 wheels? I ask because in the MTB bike world aren't both 26 and 27.5 actually 584 or 650B? -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 |
29er "pedals easier"
On 7/16/2018 1:25 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: No, bigger wheels do not necessarily mean more ground clearance. That's a function of frame design. Bigger wheels are much better. Try a 630 bike after your 622 and feel the difference. Or likewise try a 584 after the 622 and feel it getting even worse. Again, how big exactly are the 29 wheels? I ask because in the MTB bike world aren't both 26 and 27.5 actually 584 or 650B? 29" is 622mm, the same as a 700c. 29" is just made to mount fat tires. The difference between 584mm/650b and 27.5" is that the 27.5 frames are made to mount wider tires,,, I think up to 3" wide? Plus still have decent mud clearance on both sides (1/2" or so). |
29er "pedals easier"
Doug Cimperman wrote:
29" is 622mm, the same as a 700c. 29" is just made to mount fat tires. The difference between 584mm/650b and 27.5" is that the 27.5 frames are made to mount wider tires,,, I think up to 3" wide? Plus still have decent mud clearance on both sides (1/2" or so). Yeah, that's what I thought. Still, the move from 584/650B to 622/700C for MTBs is very sensible IMO. Even the girls are starting to grow really tall these days! So what is 27+ then, is that just another name for 27.5"? -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 |
29er "pedals easier"
On 2018-07-16 19:25, Emanuel Berg wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: No, bigger wheels do not necessarily mean more ground clearance. That's a function of frame design. Bigger wheels are much better. Try a 630 bike after your 622 and feel the difference. Or likewise try a 584 after the 622 and feel it getting even worse. Again, how big exactly are the 29 wheels? I ask because in the MTB bike world aren't both 26 and 27.5 actually 584 or 650B? It's people like you that love to stir up trouble. In ye olden days you'd have simply been burnt at the stake :-) |
29er "pedals easier"
On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 2:43:12 PM UTC+1, wrote:
Very, very good! Thanks for all your thoughtful opinions. I will tell my friend that his 29er pedals easier because he must be riding over zombies but just doesn't realize it! In this new intersectional world, it would be politically very incorrect, not to mention deeply insensitive, to deny that zombies, especially dead ones, can be exceedingly uplifting. Andre Jute Politically correct and sensitive |
29er "pedals easier"
On 7/16/2018 2:17 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
sms wrote: My MTB is still the same 26" rim brake wheels that its had since new in 2000. If it can't roll over the bumps and rocks and ruts and slop I want to roll over, then its the rider, and not the tire diameter that's the problem. While a 29er does not "pedal easier" a larger wheel clears ruts, rocks, etc., easier. It also adds more ground clearance. That's why there was a move to larger wheels on mountain bikes. How big is a "29er"? I think bikes in general should have bigger wheels. Why not drop the 622 standard (700C) and go back to 630? Only it can/should be wider than the 32 of the 27x1-1/4 old road bike standard. Or even to 635 but with modern rims, of course. I'm pretty sure you can buy adult bicycles with wheel+tire diameters all the way from 17" to 29". Oops. Make that 36". https://dirtysixer.com/ Take your choice! -- - Frank Krygowski |
29er "pedals easier"
Frank Krygowski wrote:
How big is a "29er"? I think bikes in general should have bigger wheels. Why not drop the 622 standard (700C) and go back to 630? Only it can/should be wider than the 32 of the 27x1-1/4 old road bike standard. Or even to 635 but with modern rims, of course. I'm pretty sure you can buy adult bicycles with wheel+tire diameters all the way from 17" to 29". Oops. Make that 36". https://dirtysixer.com/ Take your choice! OK, then I'd like a Fuji Touring bike or equivalent model but with 630 or 635 wheels/tires instead of the 700C's 622. -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 |
29er "pedals easier"
On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 3:33:31 AM UTC-4, Emanuel Berg wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: How big is a "29er"? I think bikes in general should have bigger wheels. Why not drop the 622 standard (700C) and go back to 630? Only it can/should be wider than the 32 of the 27x1-1/4 old road bike standard. Or even to 635 but with modern rims, of course. I'm pretty sure you can buy adult bicycles with wheel+tire diameters all the way from 17" to 29". Oops. Make that 36". https://dirtysixer.com/ Take your choice! OK, then I'd like a Fuji Touring bike or equivalent model but with 630 or 635 wheels/tires instead of the 700C's 622. -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 Those are not hard to find in the U.S. In fact, last winter I helped get one belonging to a friend back on the road after decades in his garage. Sadly, he decided he still preferred to ride his mountain bike on the road! But there are a LOT of 630 (or 27") garage queens around here. Some are quite nice bikes. They're left over from the 1970s and 80s. - Frank Krygowski |
29er "pedals easier"
Frank Krygowski wrote:
But there are a LOT of 630 (or 27") garage queens around here. Some are quite nice bikes. They're left over from the 1970s and 80s. I have one from the early-mid 80s, which was the eye-opener for me how much cooler it is with 630 tires than 622. But I meant bikes manufactured *today*. -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 |
29er "pedals easier"
On 2018-07-16 09:25, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/16/2018 11:11 AM, Doug Cimperman wrote: On 7/15/2018 10:36 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: ... "Bug Out Bike - Apocalypse Bicycle" http://www.instructables.com/id/Bug-Out-Bike-Apocalypse-Bicycle/ I like the paint job. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any advice suggesting that a 29" wheel was in any way superior to smaller wheels for attacking or rolling over zombies. I suspect that the added weight of the survivalist junk might ruin any benefits gained by a few mm larger diameter tire. According to the movies, dead zombies will bleed profusely, which will be too slippery to traverse on slick tires. Instead, I recommend tires with some tread. Or, just build your own 29" zombie crusher from plans: http://www.atomiczombie.com I don't really think the idea of a "disaster bicycle" is really all that good of an idea--but even ignoring that--running 29" tires would be dumb, since 26" is way more common. 29" tires are very easy to obtain by now. There is a nice selection of low cost Asian tires that hold up very well on rocky trails. I changed my mind about that. 26" seemed to me, a medium sized Italian guy, about right for offroad/technical riding; lower to the ground, effectively smaller gearing, shorter top tube and all that. My opinion changed once I saw a full sized (muscular 6'5") rider on a his new 700-54 Gunnar. That said, women just over five feet who ride in with whatever new chinese 29-inch thing the local outlet store foisted on her looks bizarre to me if not dorky. I am 6'2" and don't feel right on a 26" MTB which I rode before. 29" large frame but with the stem shortened to 80mm feels perfect. On pavement it doesn't matter much but on some trails it does. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:45 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com