It's never been much of a secret that Trek was working on a 29” downhill bike – pictures surfaced as far back as 2009, but it was always presented more as a concept bike, rather than something intended to go into production. That is, until now. The Session 29 is finally a reality, with a frame, fork, and shock package set to become available this October.
The bike has a full carbon frame and 190mm of travel, and will be available in three sizes: small, medium, and large. The same frame features that are present on the Session 27.5 are in place on the Session 29, and, in fact, the two bikes share the same carbon front triangle.
Trek Session 29 Details • Intended use: downhill
• Rear wheel travel: 190mm
• Fork travel: 190mm
• Wheel size: 29''
• OCLV carbon frame
• 62.1º - 64.4º head angle (adjustable with headset cups, Mino Link)
• 12 x 157mm rear axle
• 450mm chainstays
• Sizes: S, M, L, XL
• MSRP: $5,000 USD (frame, fork and shock)
• Available: October 2017
•
www.trekbikes.com,
@trek History of the Session 29 Trek began considering a 29” wheeled downhill bike in 2009 when they created an aluminum framed bike with a 64.5-degree head angle, 440mm chainstays, and 180mm of travel. That project convinced Trek's designers that the larger wheels held plenty of potential, but unfortunately there weren't enough components available at the time to bring the bike to market.
More recently, Cole Picchiottino was enlisted to test out newer versions of the frame. Picchiottino is an elite-level racer, but he's also a key test rider for Trek, someone who's willing to head out on unproven equipment and report back his findings, even if that could potentially mean a less-than-stellar race run. That's something that a top-end World Cup racer wouldn't be willing to do; at the highest lever of our sport, winning is the absolute focus, and switching things up in the middle of a race season simply isn't in the cards. With Cole, however, it's a different story, and he was able to provide invaluable feedback to Trek as the potential for putting the bike into production began to increase.
In fact, Trek almost pulled the trigger on rolling out a 170mm DH 29er two years ago, one that was based on a 165mm bike they'd worked on with Cole, but other projects ended up taking priority and the big wheeler remained on the back burner. That delay may have been a blessing in disguise – had Trek took the leap at that moment, the lack of available components could have caused that bike to flounder, rather than coming in on the crest of this year's wave of other downhill 29ers and components. During that time period, they released the 150mm Slash 29, a bike that provided even more motivation to get a DH 29er out into the world.
Buy what exactly makes 2017 different from years past? Why are we now seeing scores of 29” downhill bikes appear under the sport's elite riders? The biggest reason is that there are now components available that can handle the rigors of World Cup DH racing. Tires from Schwalbe, Maxxis, and Bontrager, among others are on the way, and with a major player like Fox stepping in with a production 29” downhill fork, the stage has been set for a major shift in the world of downhill.
Fox 49The 27.5” Fox 40 deserves credit for helping push the development of 29” downhill bikes forward. As it turned out, with a little modification to the fork arch it was possible to fit a 29” wheel, something that hadn't been possible with the 26” version. That ability to start experimenting with big wheels was the spark that helped light the fire under Fox to start looking into creating a 29” wheel-specific 40.
Once the word was out the Fox would be going to production with a 29" DH fork, there was no shortage of phone calls from race team managers and bike manufacturers trying to procure one for pre-season testing. Even for those lucky enough to snag a fork, there was one more hurdle to overcome - the fork uses Boost 20x110 spacing, which meant that for those without dedicated hubs, adapters had to be created to shift the rotor over into the correct position.
Session 29 GeometryTrek's headquarters are in Waterloo, Wisconsin, but they also operate a suspension R&D facility located just north of Los Angeles, California. Housed in a small industrial park, the facility is headed up by Jose Gonzalez, Trek's director of suspension development. This is where prototypes are sent for additional testing and analysis, a sort of skunkworks laboratory for bringing concepts to life. It's also where the most current iterations of the new Session 27.5 and Session 29 were housed, so I headed down to spend time on each of them before their public debut.
Day one was dedicated to back-to-back testing using LITPro, a highly accurate GPS tracking device that's about the size of a deck of playing cards. Originally developed for the motocross world, LITPro's high accuracy makes it possible to break each lap down into smaller sections that can be used to compare speeds and times with much more precision than you would be able to with a typical GPS. The track we'd be riding was the same one the Atherton's had been on a couple of months prior, one that contained the ideal mix of tight berms, rock gardens, steep sections, and high-speed straightaways.
With the LITPro velcroed to my helmet and a scouting run out of the way, it was time to start laying down some top-to-bottom lap times. My first laps were on the new Session 27.5, which is an impressive bike in its own right. It didn't take long to get comfortable, and soon I felt right at home diving in and out of steep turns and plunging into the track's awkward rock gardens.
With three laps on the Session 27.5 under my belt, it was time to switch over to the Session 29. I'll admit that I was a little bit nervous about what would happen when I hopped onto that XL 29er. In my head, I had visions of rocketing down the trail, unable to turn or control such a seemingly massive bike. I'm confident in my bike handling skills, but I'm no World Cup racer, and being allowed to ride the Session prototype felt like being allowed to hop into the driver's seat of a Formula One car.
All of that faded away once I dropped in - the difference between the two bikes was noticeable from the very first turn, and any trepidation I felt instantly dissolved, replaced a sense of giddy excitement usually reserved for lottery winners or kids in candy stores. I could tell that I was going faster, but the bike felt calmer and smoother than the 27.5, and there was less need to make little micro-corrections to the steering.
The straight line speed of the 29er is impressive, but the way it felt in steep corners was even better. There's was no skittering or wobbling, just a rock-solid, locked in feeling that allows you to let off the brakes and use the bike's momentum to carry you through the turn. Looking at the LITPro data confirmed this sensation — the calm handling of the 29er allowed me to brake less, which in turn led to faster cornering speeds. The data also verified that the Session 29 was faster than the 27.5” bike – to the tune of nearly 5 seconds on a 2:20 course. On both bikes, my times improved on each lap as I got more familiar with the course, but when I switched back to the 27.5” bike from the 29er my times slowed down, illustrating that the bigger wheels made a significant difference.
It's faster, feels more stable, and is wickedly fun to jump and to slap through corners... So what's the downside? Honestly, the only slight knock against the Session 29's performance that I encountered over those two days of riding was the fact that that the rear tire buzzed my shorts a couple of times. Once was while I contorted myself in a strange position in order to make it over an awkward hip jump that probably wasn't built with downhill bikes (of any wheel size) in mind, and the other was when I got too far off the back in a rock garden.
The 'bzzz' sound of rubber hitting polyester let me know that I was a little too close for comfort, and I was able to adjust my position in time to keep my backside safe. The closer proximity of the rear wheel is something to be conscious of, but I honestly don't see it as being much of an issue – I bet after a few more days of riding, the number of instances would be reduced even further once I got fully in tune with the bike.
Fastest 27.5" Lap vs. Fastest 29" Lap | After two solid days of riding, I'm firmly convinced that 29" DH bikes have massive potential, and not just for elite riders. The idea that a 29er is somehow less "fun," and therefore only for racing only doesn't hold water, at least when it comes to the Session 29.
In fact, I'd be completely content to ride one as a park bike – I don't have any flips or spins in my bag of tricks, which are really the only things that I see as being a little more difficult with the bigger wheels. The concept of a 29" downhill bike may still seem sacrilegious to some, but I can see the opposition starting to crumble once more riders get to actually spend time trying one out in the real world.—Mike Kazimer |
Short people will get clipped in the ass by the 29er.
Greg Minaar on the other hand will be going fastest at fort william on his XL 29ER because it suits him better.
wait and see.
You might be able to make it work on XL frames where you have a lot more room to play with, so 6'0+ riders could be in luck. Otherwise though you'd have to completely redesign the suspension design and ain't nobody got time or money for that. Trek, who are a huge company, don't even want to invest in a custom front triangle for these 29 bikes, never mind redesign the suspension design completely. They just won't sell enough of them to recover the R&D and tooling costs.
Take motoGP marquez is the best because hes 5 foot and light as a feather, gets extra horse power and aerodynamic profile.
Now I need Session +
Have you ever considered that some of your ways of thinking are taking away the joy from your riding or watching racing?
Chill out bro, peace!
It's a bitch but it's just the nature of the industry. You have to be able to adapt and move with the times and the trends or you're going to get left behind.
The great thing about this industry is that it's always moving forward. There's always a competitive advantage to be had and a new idea to pursue. Bikes from 5 years ago are junk compared to what you can buy now. So much better than working in a static, traditional, over constrained industry.
Also, with things like boost, geo trends, different mounts etc you don't always have to comply if you don't think it's useful. There's still tonnes of kit about to fit all standards. There's no way I wouldn't buy a bike just because it wasn't boost.
Take my advice and make a 160mm 275 plus bike accepting 29" wheels. And don't do DH bikes... wonderful sport, terrible clients...
A good example would be the automotive industry, if you build a car that can last for years with tons of miles that's great for brand loyalty but you need to come out with something that will bring those customers back (i.e. little changes and improvements that make you second guess whether your now not so new car is up to snuff)
but all BS aside i think 29 is faster and better.
A funny thing to mention though is that all motorcycles come in one size... and big mouthed, outraged people on pinkbike are eager to go rabble rabble on wheel or axle size but they are the first ones to demand geometry refinements and talking bike fit without calling it bike fit, so... mhmhmh...
For the advancement of the sport it's exciting to see how well the 29" wheel will perform on the WC circuit this year. As for bike design (from a company owner) it would be nice if things were a little more mellow. I think ideally offering both 27.5 and 29 options for a DH bike would be great. Not necessarily a frame that excepts both since you lose the simplicity of a design (by having to make geometry adjusting features) but I do think having the option for taller riders would be beneficial by giving consumers a choice.
I could ride a bike with a motor and would still not even qualify. But at that level when there are at least 10 guys within seconds every little bit helps and they want what ever potential advantage they can possibly get. I'm pretty stoked to see the results.
Sorry, I mean 26 4 LIFE! or BRRAAAAPPPPP!!!!
Two-sample T-test for 27.5 vs 29
N Mean StDev SE Mean
27.5 4 141.93 6.69 3.3
29 3 137.64 6.68 3.9
Difference = μ (27.5) - μ (29)
Estimate for difference: 4.29
95% CI for difference: (-9.88, 18.46)
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs ≠): T-Value = 0.84 P-Value = 0.448 DF = 4
Theory falls short on mountain bikes, especially on DH tracks. just because Boost is X% stiffer doesn't mean much to times. Just because USD fork has less unsprung mass and looks better on paper doesn't mean much. Just because Fox 40 is stiffer than DVO, doesn't mean much either... 20mm axle is stiffer than 15mm axle. In a lab. 15mm axle clamped with real clamp is going to create a stiffer fork than 20mm axle being just screwed in like a Maxle. Carbon frame will not be faster than a heavier aluminium frame. Bike Radar tied 3kgs to a frame and found that heavier frame by average rides down faster. Just because plus tyre seems heavier and slower rolling doesn't mean it makes a slower bike up a hill than a XC 29er. The list goes on and on.
Like 29hog day?
Another massive variable is temporal (ie changing conditions) Also rider fatigue crosses over into both the rider and temporal aspects if you want to get into massive geekout mode
Did you mean, "statistical analysis is one thing, intuition is another"?
For example: Even though there is no statistical difference in speed between a plane A that can travel 500 mph and plane B that can travel 515 mph, plane B is still faster and you cannot say plane A is as fast as plane B because the difference in speed (which is a measure of time) was not statistscly significant.
So what matters is simply what is faster, not by how much. So, do a bunch of runs and if all or a very nigh percentage of runs are faster on a 29er, then one could say 29ers are faster.
Where is that reflected in your data?
My theory regarding bigger wheels, based from my experience riding them, is that they are harder to manoeuvre pricesly, at a pro level this could be the difference between nailing the perfect line or losing speed; destroying your wheel on a rock or narrowly avoiding it...
If you take a fair assessment of the data presented, disregard the first two runs, irrespective of the bike, as 'learning the track', you're left with the 3 best runs feom each wheel size. You have a 7 second variation in times with 650b and a 13.3sec variation with 29. This part of the data is huge, it confirms exactly what I always thought, 29ers might be ultimately capable of a quicker run, but due to being cumbersome and awkward, they result in far more inconsistent runs times and ergo, more chance of crashing, flatting or breaking a wheel.
Really dont know how many pros, in a sport that measures overall performance throughout a whole season, are going to trade consistency over pot luck.
www.pinkbike.com/news/first-look-intenses-new-29er-dh-bike.html
They updated it of course and I saw some geo charts on some other sites so the XL lives.
What happened with the Madone? I was between Madone and TCR, went TCR in the end for different reasons.
I was going to go up a frame size to get more Reach out of my frames, but it appears the latest gen of frames have increased the Reach so I'm unsure what to do now.
LOL....quote of the day.
www.instagram.com/p/BRAEcqijim2/?taken-by=luescher_teknik
I see no reason why not buy a carbon Canyon costing less than that super deluxe frame. Why would I think that Session 9.9 is made in a better way since it used same technology (not monocoque, but glued segments)
Just like every owner of ENVE rim who have seen this picture:
www.instagram.com/p/BNRBHoED5JK/?taken-by=luescher_teknik
should feel a bit of anxiety which rim is Light Bicycle and which is ENVE...
He is brilliant, he also kicked the crap out of roadies for being against disc brakes.
Check out his youtube channel, the guy is ace
@JonnyPollock - small wheels should be banned then, they are dangerous
That Enve rim is just plain embarrassing.
the second best test is what pro riders (who are in a good position with their sponsors, and can dictate their own terms) choose to ride.
What these statistics are getting at is that @mikekazimer could have had some of his best possible times on the 29er and some of his worst possible times on the 27.5, given that there is randomness in lap times.
It would be really cool to pit bike reviews head to head to head in a design of experiment format where you could actually separate out the bike effect from the rider and run order. I'd be happy to provide the design and analysis if you guys are interested. It can be difficult to really extract meaning from reviews when every bike seems to ride well.
The best conclusion that can be gathered from the above dataset is that the hypothesis can be neither confirmed nor denied and requires further testing. I assume the fine people at Trek made these same observations, performed a lot more testing and came to the conclusion that the benefits were enough to begin production on new carbon fiber molds (not an inexpensive endeavor by any means) and release a production version of this bike that they can give to their racers to be help them ride faster than the competition. Along with several other major bike manufacturers.
With this being said the laws of physics point to one of these wheel sizes being faster than the other which is hard to refute. I guess you don't think that these companies do their homework before creating production level products.
"deceptively fast" and "confidence inspiring" which can only be a good thing considering how rough certain sections of track can be. Can't wait to see them rolling at Ft. Bill!
Srrsy, whats the problem here? Should the bike industry apologize for trying to make bikes better? Or is the issue here that the 29er's showed up, then 650B and now we are back to 29? I understand that 27.5 was easier to make it work better, where as since there is a much larger delta between 26, and 29 so it took a while to get right..
No one is getting forced to trade your old bikes in, if you like 26 then duke on. But don't hate simply because it's different or better/faster.
I remember reading the internet looking at these goofy wagon wheeled bikes, then seeing my old 26in hardtail, thinking these big-wheeled bikes are getting pretty silly.. Then I was forced to ride one, and now I wouldn't give it up. I feel cheated for riding this long and now after 25 years I finally get a bike that fits right.
Sorry kids the 29ers are the future, look at XC racing, its 29' or why bother, and soon DH will be a similar tail. Nobody is going to sit around when there are valuable seconds sitting on the table for free.
The 29er crowd is out in full force
Basically what it boils down to is that mountain biking is an expensive sport (for reference, my math shows it costs me about $20 / ride on bikes and bike parts), and constant change and evolution in the industry causes it to be more expensive. For that reason it's easy to understand why people hate on the change.
I was forced in the terms of my LBS owner making me try the 29 before I knew I wanted it.
I've got lots of extras for my 26, and they are going to last considering how much I ride it now.
And standards are important, they make things better and cheaper for the masses, they don't exist to make people buy new bikes. If you worked in engineering, manufacturing or design you would understand how stupid that statement is.
Also, I rode the same 26 bike for years and years, past the first 29 trend, then 27.5 then back to 29, then with carbon frames, air suspension and every other change in this industry in the last 10 years. And instead of ranting on the internet about how air suspension is the devil because everyone know coil springs are best, I just rode my bike and didn't worry about it. Then I made a choice based on what felt right to me when upgrading, not what the internet was telling me.
It seems that in the Trail/AM world that the 650B and the 29er each have their place in the industry today and it doesn't look like that's changing, since they both achieve the same goal in slightly different ways... Why would DH be any different? The only gripe that makes sense to me is people complaining about the jump from 26 to 650B as a new standard. They are so similar... But 29 and 650B are pretty different, so I think they can both be great options for people.
2013 - 650b
2014 - boost rear
2015 - boost front
2016 - metric shock
2017 - 29 DH
2018 and beyond - might as well wait until they get their act together before buying your next bike/frame
i've not long upgraded both my sons and my Downhill bikes thinking at least when we need to replace them we can recover most of the investment. I now feel I may well have flushed most of my money down the pan.
i'm seriously considering turning my back on mountain bikes and heading back to Motocross. I may suffer huge deprecation on buying the bike but at least in three year times it will still be reasonable competitive and have some residual value.
I'll guess that the next change is about head tube sizing. That's the place where most of the flex is now on the trail bikes and actually a straight 1.5" inch steerer tube would make sense. Handlebars are stronger than the steerer tube. This would help stocking bearings as well... Although I think that's too convenient so someone will think of something in between sizes
www.mountainbikesdirect.com.au/assets/images/Steerers.jpg
Admittedly, I've used his assertion that we have "the non-existent need for 27.5'' wheels" for my own sarcastic enjoyment a couple of times now.
2018: super boost!
What remains to be seen is quantification of fun factor in wheelsizes. @mikekazimer I suggest a biopsy or (less invasive) blood samples to meter endorphin flow differentials between the different wheel size platforms. Your choice but remember that the universe of Pinkbike commenters will microparse your methodology.
DISCLOSURE _ I own bikes in all these different wheelsizes and somehow manage to have a blast riding all of them
I propose we test this in an animal model first to illustrate proof of concept that a living being can have fun on a 29er before we review a human trial study with the ethics board, does anyone have a canine specimen that can shred? I can't imagine how huge the impact would be on civilization if we could prove riding any wheel size is fun (or any bike for that matter).
And to make Enduro more interesting do one of the following.
-Either have specific races require a certain wheel size (i.e. 29 only for venue "A" & 27.5 only for venue "B".)
-Or have a Weight Minimum, say 28 lbs, and then the industry can focus on creating the best and strongest Enduro bikes within a given spec range.
Regulation would improve both the sports and the equipment as it has done in many other racing sports.
With patience I was able to assemble enough parts to set up my 2012 GT Sensor for a change from diy 1x9 to diy 1x10 for $65 CDN.
#whateveryourideaintdead
They all still have smiles on their face at the end of the trail and the end of the day.
*ill walk myself out
Did you notice the difference in the boost front hub? That must really have made a huge difference...
But every shot I see of these things is on a straight or arcing turn. Heck, Champerey is the tightest of the tight, but still wider than any DH course I ride.
I'm sure there is some twisty tech out there...but by in large, it's so much more open than here.
I got to ride various top of the line trail bikes here in 27.5" and can feel they have to have a larger arc to turn and the wheels take longer to pull up to speed. I'll buy on eventually, but man..I ride a tiny 26" on trails as it is to have fun. My DH bike is still 26" and I am sure 27.5" is faster...but it also takes away some of the desperation turning I can get away on stuff here.
29" DH bikes on World Cup tracks and West Coast stuff I get. I want to see guys like Sam Hill, Marc Beaumont and Danny Hart making 180 degree drop turns in sequence and still clicking them off cleaner and faster.
Call me skeptic.
But OK, I rode same bike at Pisgah Forest, NC earlier this year. Certainly an epicenter of twisty, gnarly East Coast tech. Road the biggest, gnarliest trails they had with a Wreckoning. Lots of twisty too. Had no issues, and was a lot faster than previous times there with a 26er. Yeah, it's harder to tip the big bike over into turns, but once I got more aggressive with body shifts, I don't even notice anymore. Upside is I'm fast thru turns now, and the bigger wheels are way faster on straights and also thru any gnar. Give er a try! I'm sold now.
If the corner is so steep and tight that you need a single crown, then there is a chance that smaller wheels and wheelbase might be better.
For a taller guy like me, should work out great.
All this hype about the "development" of 29er DH bikes and all Santa Cruz and Trek have done is give us a different rear triangle that fits a bigger wheel.
He was stoked. We rode together, my bike is 10 years newer and has fancy wheels. We both had the same amount of fun and shuttled the same trails. The world didn't end. Life went on and we enjoyed a beer.
Ride what ya got!
You my friend....have hit the nail on the head.
Internet hype is ruining the fun.
The wider rims & tires designed for them? A lot of people(including me) find them to be much more than a "slight" improvement.
So what if better riders did things I can't do on crappier equipment? That doesn't somehow completely negate the advantage of better parts. & having spent several thousand dollars on a new bike, only to not be able to use new, improved, consumable parts like tires, not because they couldn't work on my bike, but because the industry elected not to make them in a size that they were pushing only a year or two ago, sucks. the fact that the bike still works with whatever tires the industry deigns to continue to produce in 27.5 doesn't negate that fact. Not being able to sell this bike for a reasonable price, merely due to it's wheelsize, sucks.
Why did you remove the Dorado 29" photo pinkbike??
Here is the link to the photo for those who might be interested
ep1.pinkbike.org/p4pb6134143/p4pb6134143.jpg
I have trouble understanding all of the hate. You don't dis bugatti for consistently making faster cars, what is the difference? ride the bike you can afford, dream of the shiny new bike. Let the racers and people that get paid to advance the technology do their jobs without all of the hate. I guess everyone would rather bike companies not do any R&D and only change models every 10 years. How dare they experiment with faster racing equipment. People have to remember that downhill is called the formula one of mountain biking for a reason, this ain't Nascar! Kudos to these companies pushing the envelope and ultimately making better products cheaper thanks to trickle down technology. All of this coming from a guy that just bought a 2017 FOX performance for his steel hardtail 26er...
We used to have square BB spindles , the Octalink, then 30 mm. Headsets used to be threaded, then threadless, then 1x1/8, now tapered. Bars used to be 25.4, now 31.8, 35. Try finding parts for a 6 year old frame no matter the wheel size. Point is , shit always changes. It's natural.
No way Trek ever invites you back to ride cool preproduction bikes with all expenses paid if the results don't show the new one is better. How did that bias play in to things?
i can't be arsed to scroll through previous articles where he would have been praising said wheel size, `
pays the bills i guess
Racing or riding mtb is and should only be about a rider'a ability to max out a given tool maximizing the fun factor and performance out of it .Its irrelevant to 99.99999% of the riders to be 2.3 sec faster on a 4 min run.Anyone saying then can feel that is a f*cking moron...Sure, smoother but they'd be better learning how to dial their suspensions better...Nothing wrong with 26' or 27'5 or even 29 " ( which will soon be 31'5") This new standard every year BS is only doing one think as far as Im concerns, PISSING me off...Its gotten to a point of a complete farce.Do you see that happening with BMX ?Dirt Bikes ?Even road bikes have had less f*cking around bullshit, how about skis , surf, skate boards?.This is no innovation, innovation would be nano molecules for suspensions like I have in my car, carbon brakes, gear boxes, lighter, better material, hec even e-bikes are more innovative that a f*cking wheel with an extra inch and a 1/2 .
On a wide world cup style track , I bet the bigger are quicker, but then again, who's gets to ride a large variety of WC track in their backyard everyday?Guys like Ritchie Rude are still favouring their 27.5 over 29" ..Until the day their sponsors will force them to ride the bigger wheels.
Dear bike industry, go f*ck yourself, Ive had it with you f*cking bullshit ..Next time I have 12k to spend on a bike it will a used Ducatti or an Aprillia...cause well ,A I have just about a millions places to go ride one of those fast and B it as a f*cking motor on it
Waiting for the land slide of neg prep in 1 . 2 . 3 GO
And you're also missing the point buddy, this non cense isnt going no where.31'5 " will also be faster on certain tracks and 33" might as well be.At one point we'll need to settle and enjoy watching who can get the most out of their bikes.Racing should be about which racers can max out a given bike, once everyone will be on the bigger wheels, what advantage will they have over the other ? None.29er arent more fun, not saying they cant be equally as fun but certainly not more so whats the point of shuffling the whole deck of cards AGAIN ? Manifacturers needs to stop worrying so much about top speed and start designing , better, more efficient bikes for the end users...True innovation, not so marginal crap thats only blurring the line.This reminds me of car manufacturers...A few years ago every one would go out and test their cars at the Nuburgring which in the end , was completely pointless for their customers.Now you see a lot of those guys skipping the whole thing and making cars that are more fun to drive...Bringing back slower , more engaging cars with manual transmission and stuff.We should at the very least all be on gear box bike by now, the tech is there but the industry isnt commiting.Sooo many other areas that can be largely improve on bikes to make them more efficient but instead we're wasting time with stupid shit like that.
Show me on the dolly where the 29er hurt you.
-Paired t-test pairing by segment (p-value 0.475) NOT significantly different.
-Linear Regression
Response: Total Time
Predictors: Constant, Wheel Size, and Lap number
Lap number is a significant predictor of the response Total Time (p-value 0.031), Wheel size is not a significant predictor (p-value.22).
Talk about statistically insignificant...one of your test subjects is a sham.
I mean im a regular park rider, for me it could be more speed, more fun maybe but thats not the full equation. Im aswell concerned about this test, is it better for beginners, as you may feel a bit safer while rolling over bumps.
thats stuff which interessts me aswell.
Im thankfull for your testing and brining the world of biking forward but im an average guy, would i really have a big differents for me?
That said, all my bikes are 26"
Rules on equipment for competition would not affect you one bit, except more development focus would be on bits that you do care about.
Many sports no less cool than MTB do just fine with competition formulas.
All what an equipment formula will help with, it will be less of drastic shifts, and more of a gradual healthy progress.
Well over half the riders in Colorado and Utah I ride with or encounter have droppers both XC and 'all mountain' type riders. I worked in the industry for years and many of my friends still do. Plus/fat are popular in certain circles , but in no way are a popular as droppers in this case. So 'circus marketing' by your logic is applied to 29" tires in DH racing and not in plus/fat tires? You don't think 'marketing' plays a role in plus/fat tires but does in racing? I find that logic amusing because it doesn't make sense. Marketing is in all aspects of MTB, regardless of discipline.
So great stuff Mike!
Short people will get clipped in the ass by the 29er.
Greg Minaar on the other hand will be going fastest at fort william on his XL 29ER because it suits him better.
wait and see
Manufacture 'invites' hack to come 'test' their latest/greatest sled.
In addition to manufacturer previously supplying said hack's employer with other products for employer to write stories about on the internet, thus sell advertising space(from very same manufacturer?), they also treat hack like a team rider for the session. Oh, and every hack wants to be 'one of the boys' insofar as manufacturers/aftermarket manufacturers/teams are concerned as well, so before said hack's ass even touches the seat, he's faced with one helluva CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
Readers of hack's employer's website(rag,etc..) occasionally bring up this little factoid, and like every other rag/website, they always deny 'favorable' press to those companies that pay their bills, make them feel like they're special, give them product etc.
Hack writes 'review', and low and behold said review couldn't be more glowing. He attempts to throw in one 'negative' in a half-assed attempt at appearing impartial, but even then totally waters it down. He blames everything(himself, awkward positioning, the moon..) but the bike, and the 'problem' he chose is so minor in nature, it's highly unlikely anybody is gonna remember it anyway.
Business as usual
Doh! Too late.
DH racing with 29ers? it should work..
redbull rampage on 29ers? we should test it..
Article: www.pinkbike.com/news/trek-tour-29er-proto-2011.html
Dorado search: ep1.pinkbike.org/p4pb6134143/p4pb6134143.jpg
They can't even understand the the wheel size discussion so you can't hope to reach them. I'm old school anyway and totally ok with it.
Rock solid argument.
I honestly don't have a problem with whatever wheel size people think is the best these days.
My problem is that it's all marketing on "these wheels are faster".
We went 27.5. Now it's 29. Why stop at 29? I suspect 30 or 31 inch wheels would be faster than 29.
At what point do you start sacrificing maneuverability for straight line speed?
The answer is probably different things for different people, so I don't know the answer.
I do know this industry will change things up a few years down the road.
How much more nimble do you need for riding on just about any trail?
The point is that your subjective assessment of the qualities of wheel size stands in direct contrast to reality. You think 29ers are less nimble. There are lots of really nimble 29er bikes out there. The video above is one example of that.
No.2 just because you've owned them doesn't mean you're an aggressive rider. Tons of people own top tier bikes for show. Again if you did ride several sizes you'd know the difference between them. Which by your statement you clearly don't.
I also own every wheel size made. I can ride them all just fine. They all behave differently,point being I can tell the difference.
My point is still the same. No I don't think you actually have adequate experience or else you know the difference.
So, in your vast aggressive riding experience, what was Luke Strobel missing out on by being on those big wheels?
Simple as that.
What I'm saying is I don't want or need a bike that goes faster.
I want a bike that is more fun, and my definition of fun is a bike I can chuck around the trail as best as possible, take to the local dirt jumps, shred in the bike park. If your definition of fun is going 5 seconds faster down your local trail, you'll love 29ers. I'm just not one of those people. I don't want to make any sacrifices to go faster. My problem is the entire mountain bike industry seems to need to conform to what pro DHers want in their bike, and for me, that makes no sense, since my needs are completely different. No one cares though. The sheep will lap up whatever new "technology" the industry throws at them.
And the P.Slope, and the Ticket. I'm sure there are others and the big box stores are full of them but I'm assuming that's not what you're talking about.
As for new bikes, why if you are buying new do you want 26"? If you insist on 26" There of over 170+ 26" frames for sale on Pinkbike alone, there are over 1500 complete bikes in 26" on Pinkbike alone. Many in really good condition.
Plus it means issues for race organisers and uplift providers as it means costly expense for upgrading/managing new bike sizes that will be impossible to forecast numbers.
If there is no discernable differences why would the manufacturer's and racers say otherwise or even build the clown bikes in the first place.
As well as being one of the top UK riders, Si Paton only ran the most successful National British Downhill series until he retired last year so what would he know compared to a self proclaimed expert on f**k all like yourself.
I said the RULES worked in F1 etc not me. Are you saying the known advantages of better rolling speed and roll over aren't an advantage?
Wheel sizes have been standardised in road cycling for just such reasons. please if you are going to troll come up with a plausible and coherent argument other than Caesar said so.
I've better things to do now than waste my time on you.
The Troll has been Trolled.
Just bigger?
Lol
And so back to my original statement, ride what you want. If people truly ride what they want to ride, people will want to make a profit and make it. It’s not really fair to expect someone else to make something for me that they can’t turn a profit on. Staying in business means staying ahead of the game and innovating. A stable, fun, faster DH bike is going to be profitable if it’s better.