Latest mountain bike news

Mountainbikes have run with the 26" wheel for a long time, and not because it was the best; but because it was the only size that the first fat-tire riders could use with fat tires.  They came off of ballon-tire bikes, and they ran knobby moto treads for lack of anything else.  26" wheels aren't bad. In fact, they work extremely well; nice, given that for the longest time that's all there was. Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), there were always those who seeked to improve our bikes; and they refused to believe that the 26" was the best that could be. But now we have a plethora of choice available, and I'm sure that many riders just starting out (or those of us who are Luddites) are confused as to what is the right choice (personal wheel-politics aside). The 26" - Nothing really bad can be said about the standard mountainbike wheel. It does have limitations; inability to roll over large obstacles, smallish moment of inertia, &amp; a tendancy to bog-down in sand/mud/snow.  However, it's benefits include; a mountainbike industry based on the 26" wheel, will support/fit a wide range of rider sizes, ability to be built as strong or light as technologically possible, ability to accept a wide range of tire sizes, &amp; is quick to accelerate. The 29'er - The Big Wheel has proven its' worth for offroading decades ago with the 4-wheeling truck industry. As with trucks, a larger mountainbike wheel can roll obstacles easier, will provide greater floatation through sand/muck, gives a larger tire contact-patch for better overall traction, &amp; maintains its' momentum at speed. But with vehicles, the design can easily be altered to fit the large wheels &amp; tires, with little inconvienience for the driver. On mountainbikes, frames with 29" wheels must be designed to keep the rider's COG &amp; standover height low, prevent tire-toe overlap, &amp; keep the overall weight down.  While manufacturers have done an admirable job of this, the 29'er is still better suited for tall riders.  Frames for very short riders will not be able to keep the standover at a reasonable height, and it would be very hard to prevent tire-toe overlap while still maintaining an effective wheelbase.  A 29'er designed for a 5' person would have the rider sitting <em>between </em>the wheels, as well as them having to fight the considerably increased inertia of the larger wheels.  In addition, full-suspension 29'ers are currently limited in wheel-travel.  Designs with greater than 6" of travel have been made, but keeping the frame to the desired mountainbike dimensions is tough (low standover/COG/wheelbase).  Full-suspension bikes are also heavier than hardtail/rigid bikes, and combined with heavy wheels, not building a 29'er full-susser pig is difficult without using exotic frame materials &amp; simple suspension setups. The Combo (69'er) - This is not a new idea.  In the past, mountainbikes were made with 26"/24" wheel combinations; the idea being to have a large wheel up front to deal with obstacles, and a small wheel in back to provide snappy acceleration.  The same applies for the 69'er.  These bikes can also accomodate small riders, and are easier to bring up to speed than a 29"/29" bike. The 27.5"/650b - Supposedly, the best of both worlds. Larger wheels to handle rough terrain, small enough to not give up acceleration, &amp; yet still have the increased rolling momentum.  These wheels also give bike designers a lot more leeway when considering frames for small/medium people.  A small rider unable to fit a 29'er, but intent on sampling the big-wheel experience will have a much easier time finding the proper fit on a 650b bike. Riders outfitting their existing 26" bikes with 650b wheels is becoming common, as most 26" frames will accept 650b wheels/tires and exhibit no clearance issues. On rigid hardtails with disc-brakes, this is extremely easy (having disc-brakes is key). Even some long-travel FS bikes (the Fisher Fat Possum) are being equipped with the 650b by enterprising bike-shops.  Some suspension forks have clearance issues when running a 650b wheel; but so far, the RockShox Pike, X-Fusion Velvet, Maverick DUC32, &amp; Fox 32 have enough space to run the 27.5" wheel. White Brothers is developing a production 650b fork, but none of the other fork manufacturers at this time recommend using their utensils for the 650b wheel. Using a 650b wheel on a 26" bike will not adversely tone-down the ride. It may slacken the head-angle up front by a degree, and increase bottom-bracket height (hence COG), but this will not nearly equal the upset occuring if a 29" wheel is somehow stuffed onto a 26" frame. Tire-toe overlap is also much less likely to happen, but this depends on the original 26" frame's front triangle dimensions. Within a year's time, the range of options for a weapon-of-choice is going to explode. 29'ers, 26", 27.5", 69'ers, 650b-26'ers; the limits will only be marked by the willingness of the industry to experiment. And after several years of slowly evolving, the mountainbike world seems to have reached a point of revolution.  New suspension designs, wheel designs, &amp; frame materials are all contributing to this; and it's going to be very exciting.
Culture
Mountainbike Wheel-size, & the Right One for you
Dec 29, 2007
A mountain biker in a blue outfit leans into a turn on a dirt trail, showcasing dynamic movement on a rocky path. In the background, spectators watch from the sidelines amidst a forested setting.
Community
MTB Predictions for 2008
Dec 28, 2007
  1
Community
Mountain biking in 2007: A review
Dec 26, 2007
Image alt text: Promotional poster for the Baja Epic Mountain Bike Race, scheduled for November 5-8, 2008, in Baja California, Mexico. The poster features an athlete on a bicycle with the number 608 displayed on the bike.
Community
Baja Epic Multi-stage Mountain Bike Race
Dec 24, 2007
Mountain Bikes and Gear
Rear-view camera for your bike
Dec 21, 2007
Two mountain bikers riding along a dirt path surrounded by greenery. One rider is wearing a blue jersey and white shorts, while the other is further up the path in a black shirt. There are signs and foliage lining the trail.
MTB Tips
Mountain biking for fitness in 2008
Dec 20, 2007
  1
Mountainbikes have run with the 26" wheel for a long time, and not because it was the best; but because it was the only size that the first fat-tire riders could use with fat tires.  They came off of ballon-tire bikes, and they ran knobby moto treads for lack of anything else.  26" wheels aren't bad. In fact, they work extremely well; nice, given that for the longest time that's all there was. Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), there were always those who seeked to improve our bikes; and they refused to believe that the 26" was the best that could be. But now we have a plethora of choice available, and I'm sure that many riders just starting out (or those of us who are Luddites) are confused as to what is the right choice (personal wheel-politics aside). The 26" - Nothing really bad can be said about the standard mountainbike wheel. It does have limitations; inability to roll over large obstacles, smallish moment of inertia, &amp; a tendancy to bog-down in sand/mud/snow.  However, it's benefits include; a mountainbike industry based on the 26" wheel, will support/fit a wide range of rider sizes, ability to be built as strong or light as technologically possible, ability to accept a wide range of tire sizes, &amp; is quick to accelerate. The 29'er - The Big Wheel has proven its' worth for offroading decades ago with the 4-wheeling truck industry. As with trucks, a larger mountainbike wheel can roll obstacles easier, will provide greater floatation through sand/muck, gives a larger tire contact-patch for better overall traction, &amp; maintains its' momentum at speed. But with vehicles, the design can easily be altered to fit the large wheels &amp; tires, with little inconvienience for the driver. On mountainbikes, frames with 29" wheels must be designed to keep the rider's COG &amp; standover height low, prevent tire-toe overlap, &amp; keep the overall weight down.  While manufacturers have done an admirable job of this, the 29'er is still better suited for tall riders.  Frames for very short riders will not be able to keep the standover at a reasonable height, and it would be very hard to prevent tire-toe overlap while still maintaining an effective wheelbase.  A 29'er designed for a 5' person would have the rider sitting <em>between </em>the wheels, as well as them having to fight the considerably increased inertia of the larger wheels.  In addition, full-suspension 29'ers are currently limited in wheel-travel.  Designs with greater than 6" of travel have been made, but keeping the frame to the desired mountainbike dimensions is tough (low standover/COG/wheelbase).  Full-suspension bikes are also heavier than hardtail/rigid bikes, and combined with heavy wheels, not building a 29'er full-susser pig is difficult without using exotic frame materials &amp; simple suspension setups. The Combo (69'er) - This is not a new idea.  In the past, mountainbikes were made with 26"/24" wheel combinations; the idea being to have a large wheel up front to deal with obstacles, and a small wheel in back to provide snappy acceleration.  The same applies for the 69'er.  These bikes can also accomodate small riders, and are easier to bring up to speed than a 29"/29" bike. The 27.5"/650b - Supposedly, the best of both worlds. Larger wheels to handle rough terrain, small enough to not give up acceleration, &amp; yet still have the increased rolling momentum.  These wheels also give bike designers a lot more leeway when considering frames for small/medium people.  A small rider unable to fit a 29'er, but intent on sampling the big-wheel experience will have a much easier time finding the proper fit on a 650b bike. Riders outfitting their existing 26" bikes with 650b wheels is becoming common, as most 26" frames will accept 650b wheels/tires and exhibit no clearance issues. On rigid hardtails with disc-brakes, this is extremely easy (having disc-brakes is key). Even some long-travel FS bikes (the Fisher Fat Possum) are being equipped with the 650b by enterprising bike-shops.  Some suspension forks have clearance issues when running a 650b wheel; but so far, the RockShox Pike, X-Fusion Velvet, Maverick DUC32, &amp; Fox 32 have enough space to run the 27.5" wheel. White Brothers is developing a production 650b fork, but none of the other fork manufacturers at this time recommend using their utensils for the 650b wheel. Using a 650b wheel on a 26" bike will not adversely tone-down the ride. It may slacken the head-angle up front by a degree, and increase bottom-bracket height (hence COG), but this will not nearly equal the upset occuring if a 29" wheel is somehow stuffed onto a 26" frame. Tire-toe overlap is also much less likely to happen, but this depends on the original 26" frame's front triangle dimensions. Within a year's time, the range of options for a weapon-of-choice is going to explode. 29'ers, 26", 27.5", 69'ers, 650b-26'ers; the limits will only be marked by the willingness of the industry to experiment. And after several years of slowly evolving, the mountainbike world seems to have reached a point of revolution.  New suspension designs, wheel designs, &amp; frame materials are all contributing to this; and it's going to be very exciting.
Culture
The fastest accepted fad in the MTB world.
Dec 20, 2007
  1
Close-up view of a damaged computer motherboard showing burn marks and melted components. Wires appear singed, and blackened residue is present around the area of damage.
Community
Singletracks is all better now
Dec 20, 2007
A person riding a mountain bike on a dirt trail. They are wearing a helmet, sunglasses, and a dark jacket, with shorts and gloves. The background features dry grass and trees, indicating an outdoor setting.
Culture
Ride along with the Prez
Dec 19, 2007
Mountainbikes have run with the 26" wheel for a long time, and not because it was the best; but because it was the only size that the first fat-tire riders could use with fat tires.  They came off of ballon-tire bikes, and they ran knobby moto treads for lack of anything else.  26" wheels aren't bad. In fact, they work extremely well; nice, given that for the longest time that's all there was. Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), there were always those who seeked to improve our bikes; and they refused to believe that the 26" was the best that could be. But now we have a plethora of choice available, and I'm sure that many riders just starting out (or those of us who are Luddites) are confused as to what is the right choice (personal wheel-politics aside). The 26" - Nothing really bad can be said about the standard mountainbike wheel. It does have limitations; inability to roll over large obstacles, smallish moment of inertia, &amp; a tendancy to bog-down in sand/mud/snow.  However, it's benefits include; a mountainbike industry based on the 26" wheel, will support/fit a wide range of rider sizes, ability to be built as strong or light as technologically possible, ability to accept a wide range of tire sizes, &amp; is quick to accelerate. The 29'er - The Big Wheel has proven its' worth for offroading decades ago with the 4-wheeling truck industry. As with trucks, a larger mountainbike wheel can roll obstacles easier, will provide greater floatation through sand/muck, gives a larger tire contact-patch for better overall traction, &amp; maintains its' momentum at speed. But with vehicles, the design can easily be altered to fit the large wheels &amp; tires, with little inconvienience for the driver. On mountainbikes, frames with 29" wheels must be designed to keep the rider's COG &amp; standover height low, prevent tire-toe overlap, &amp; keep the overall weight down.  While manufacturers have done an admirable job of this, the 29'er is still better suited for tall riders.  Frames for very short riders will not be able to keep the standover at a reasonable height, and it would be very hard to prevent tire-toe overlap while still maintaining an effective wheelbase.  A 29'er designed for a 5' person would have the rider sitting <em>between </em>the wheels, as well as them having to fight the considerably increased inertia of the larger wheels.  In addition, full-suspension 29'ers are currently limited in wheel-travel.  Designs with greater than 6" of travel have been made, but keeping the frame to the desired mountainbike dimensions is tough (low standover/COG/wheelbase).  Full-suspension bikes are also heavier than hardtail/rigid bikes, and combined with heavy wheels, not building a 29'er full-susser pig is difficult without using exotic frame materials &amp; simple suspension setups. The Combo (69'er) - This is not a new idea.  In the past, mountainbikes were made with 26"/24" wheel combinations; the idea being to have a large wheel up front to deal with obstacles, and a small wheel in back to provide snappy acceleration.  The same applies for the 69'er.  These bikes can also accomodate small riders, and are easier to bring up to speed than a 29"/29" bike. The 27.5"/650b - Supposedly, the best of both worlds. Larger wheels to handle rough terrain, small enough to not give up acceleration, &amp; yet still have the increased rolling momentum.  These wheels also give bike designers a lot more leeway when considering frames for small/medium people.  A small rider unable to fit a 29'er, but intent on sampling the big-wheel experience will have a much easier time finding the proper fit on a 650b bike. Riders outfitting their existing 26" bikes with 650b wheels is becoming common, as most 26" frames will accept 650b wheels/tires and exhibit no clearance issues. On rigid hardtails with disc-brakes, this is extremely easy (having disc-brakes is key). Even some long-travel FS bikes (the Fisher Fat Possum) are being equipped with the 650b by enterprising bike-shops.  Some suspension forks have clearance issues when running a 650b wheel; but so far, the RockShox Pike, X-Fusion Velvet, Maverick DUC32, &amp; Fox 32 have enough space to run the 27.5" wheel. White Brothers is developing a production 650b fork, but none of the other fork manufacturers at this time recommend using their utensils for the 650b wheel. Using a 650b wheel on a 26" bike will not adversely tone-down the ride. It may slacken the head-angle up front by a degree, and increase bottom-bracket height (hence COG), but this will not nearly equal the upset occuring if a 29" wheel is somehow stuffed onto a 26" frame. Tire-toe overlap is also much less likely to happen, but this depends on the original 26" frame's front triangle dimensions. Within a year's time, the range of options for a weapon-of-choice is going to explode. 29'ers, 26", 27.5", 69'ers, 650b-26'ers; the limits will only be marked by the willingness of the industry to experiment. And after several years of slowly evolving, the mountainbike world seems to have reached a point of revolution.  New suspension designs, wheel designs, &amp; frame materials are all contributing to this; and it's going to be very exciting.
Culture
SF mountain biker finalist for National Hero Award
Dec 18, 2007
Mountain Bike Trails
Liberty University to develop mountain bike trails
Dec 14, 2007
Mountainbikes have run with the 26" wheel for a long time, and not because it was the best; but because it was the only size that the first fat-tire riders could use with fat tires.  They came off of ballon-tire bikes, and they ran knobby moto treads for lack of anything else.  26" wheels aren't bad. In fact, they work extremely well; nice, given that for the longest time that's all there was. Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), there were always those who seeked to improve our bikes; and they refused to believe that the 26" was the best that could be. But now we have a plethora of choice available, and I'm sure that many riders just starting out (or those of us who are Luddites) are confused as to what is the right choice (personal wheel-politics aside). The 26" - Nothing really bad can be said about the standard mountainbike wheel. It does have limitations; inability to roll over large obstacles, smallish moment of inertia, &amp; a tendancy to bog-down in sand/mud/snow.  However, it's benefits include; a mountainbike industry based on the 26" wheel, will support/fit a wide range of rider sizes, ability to be built as strong or light as technologically possible, ability to accept a wide range of tire sizes, &amp; is quick to accelerate. The 29'er - The Big Wheel has proven its' worth for offroading decades ago with the 4-wheeling truck industry. As with trucks, a larger mountainbike wheel can roll obstacles easier, will provide greater floatation through sand/muck, gives a larger tire contact-patch for better overall traction, &amp; maintains its' momentum at speed. But with vehicles, the design can easily be altered to fit the large wheels &amp; tires, with little inconvienience for the driver. On mountainbikes, frames with 29" wheels must be designed to keep the rider's COG &amp; standover height low, prevent tire-toe overlap, &amp; keep the overall weight down.  While manufacturers have done an admirable job of this, the 29'er is still better suited for tall riders.  Frames for very short riders will not be able to keep the standover at a reasonable height, and it would be very hard to prevent tire-toe overlap while still maintaining an effective wheelbase.  A 29'er designed for a 5' person would have the rider sitting <em>between </em>the wheels, as well as them having to fight the considerably increased inertia of the larger wheels.  In addition, full-suspension 29'ers are currently limited in wheel-travel.  Designs with greater than 6" of travel have been made, but keeping the frame to the desired mountainbike dimensions is tough (low standover/COG/wheelbase).  Full-suspension bikes are also heavier than hardtail/rigid bikes, and combined with heavy wheels, not building a 29'er full-susser pig is difficult without using exotic frame materials &amp; simple suspension setups. The Combo (69'er) - This is not a new idea.  In the past, mountainbikes were made with 26"/24" wheel combinations; the idea being to have a large wheel up front to deal with obstacles, and a small wheel in back to provide snappy acceleration.  The same applies for the 69'er.  These bikes can also accomodate small riders, and are easier to bring up to speed than a 29"/29" bike. The 27.5"/650b - Supposedly, the best of both worlds. Larger wheels to handle rough terrain, small enough to not give up acceleration, &amp; yet still have the increased rolling momentum.  These wheels also give bike designers a lot more leeway when considering frames for small/medium people.  A small rider unable to fit a 29'er, but intent on sampling the big-wheel experience will have a much easier time finding the proper fit on a 650b bike. Riders outfitting their existing 26" bikes with 650b wheels is becoming common, as most 26" frames will accept 650b wheels/tires and exhibit no clearance issues. On rigid hardtails with disc-brakes, this is extremely easy (having disc-brakes is key). Even some long-travel FS bikes (the Fisher Fat Possum) are being equipped with the 650b by enterprising bike-shops.  Some suspension forks have clearance issues when running a 650b wheel; but so far, the RockShox Pike, X-Fusion Velvet, Maverick DUC32, &amp; Fox 32 have enough space to run the 27.5" wheel. White Brothers is developing a production 650b fork, but none of the other fork manufacturers at this time recommend using their utensils for the 650b wheel. Using a 650b wheel on a 26" bike will not adversely tone-down the ride. It may slacken the head-angle up front by a degree, and increase bottom-bracket height (hence COG), but this will not nearly equal the upset occuring if a 29" wheel is somehow stuffed onto a 26" frame. Tire-toe overlap is also much less likely to happen, but this depends on the original 26" frame's front triangle dimensions. Within a year's time, the range of options for a weapon-of-choice is going to explode. 29'ers, 26", 27.5", 69'ers, 650b-26'ers; the limits will only be marked by the willingness of the industry to experiment. And after several years of slowly evolving, the mountainbike world seems to have reached a point of revolution.  New suspension designs, wheel designs, &amp; frame materials are all contributing to this; and it's going to be very exciting.
Mountain Bike Trails
No such thing as a Free Lunch - until now!
Dec 12, 2007
A man sitting on a rocky surface under a bridge, wearing a red sweatshirt and gray pants, with a blue bicycle leaning against a wall beside him.
Culture
Bike shop helps out homeless man with new mountain bike
Dec 11, 2007
Mountainbikes have run with the 26" wheel for a long time, and not because it was the best; but because it was the only size that the first fat-tire riders could use with fat tires.  They came off of ballon-tire bikes, and they ran knobby moto treads for lack of anything else.  26" wheels aren't bad. In fact, they work extremely well; nice, given that for the longest time that's all there was. Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), there were always those who seeked to improve our bikes; and they refused to believe that the 26" was the best that could be. But now we have a plethora of choice available, and I'm sure that many riders just starting out (or those of us who are Luddites) are confused as to what is the right choice (personal wheel-politics aside). The 26" - Nothing really bad can be said about the standard mountainbike wheel. It does have limitations; inability to roll over large obstacles, smallish moment of inertia, &amp; a tendancy to bog-down in sand/mud/snow.  However, it's benefits include; a mountainbike industry based on the 26" wheel, will support/fit a wide range of rider sizes, ability to be built as strong or light as technologically possible, ability to accept a wide range of tire sizes, &amp; is quick to accelerate. The 29'er - The Big Wheel has proven its' worth for offroading decades ago with the 4-wheeling truck industry. As with trucks, a larger mountainbike wheel can roll obstacles easier, will provide greater floatation through sand/muck, gives a larger tire contact-patch for better overall traction, &amp; maintains its' momentum at speed. But with vehicles, the design can easily be altered to fit the large wheels &amp; tires, with little inconvienience for the driver. On mountainbikes, frames with 29" wheels must be designed to keep the rider's COG &amp; standover height low, prevent tire-toe overlap, &amp; keep the overall weight down.  While manufacturers have done an admirable job of this, the 29'er is still better suited for tall riders.  Frames for very short riders will not be able to keep the standover at a reasonable height, and it would be very hard to prevent tire-toe overlap while still maintaining an effective wheelbase.  A 29'er designed for a 5' person would have the rider sitting <em>between </em>the wheels, as well as them having to fight the considerably increased inertia of the larger wheels.  In addition, full-suspension 29'ers are currently limited in wheel-travel.  Designs with greater than 6" of travel have been made, but keeping the frame to the desired mountainbike dimensions is tough (low standover/COG/wheelbase).  Full-suspension bikes are also heavier than hardtail/rigid bikes, and combined with heavy wheels, not building a 29'er full-susser pig is difficult without using exotic frame materials &amp; simple suspension setups. The Combo (69'er) - This is not a new idea.  In the past, mountainbikes were made with 26"/24" wheel combinations; the idea being to have a large wheel up front to deal with obstacles, and a small wheel in back to provide snappy acceleration.  The same applies for the 69'er.  These bikes can also accomodate small riders, and are easier to bring up to speed than a 29"/29" bike. The 27.5"/650b - Supposedly, the best of both worlds. Larger wheels to handle rough terrain, small enough to not give up acceleration, &amp; yet still have the increased rolling momentum.  These wheels also give bike designers a lot more leeway when considering frames for small/medium people.  A small rider unable to fit a 29'er, but intent on sampling the big-wheel experience will have a much easier time finding the proper fit on a 650b bike. Riders outfitting their existing 26" bikes with 650b wheels is becoming common, as most 26" frames will accept 650b wheels/tires and exhibit no clearance issues. On rigid hardtails with disc-brakes, this is extremely easy (having disc-brakes is key). Even some long-travel FS bikes (the Fisher Fat Possum) are being equipped with the 650b by enterprising bike-shops.  Some suspension forks have clearance issues when running a 650b wheel; but so far, the RockShox Pike, X-Fusion Velvet, Maverick DUC32, &amp; Fox 32 have enough space to run the 27.5" wheel. White Brothers is developing a production 650b fork, but none of the other fork manufacturers at this time recommend using their utensils for the 650b wheel. Using a 650b wheel on a 26" bike will not adversely tone-down the ride. It may slacken the head-angle up front by a degree, and increase bottom-bracket height (hence COG), but this will not nearly equal the upset occuring if a 29" wheel is somehow stuffed onto a 26" frame. Tire-toe overlap is also much less likely to happen, but this depends on the original 26" frame's front triangle dimensions. Within a year's time, the range of options for a weapon-of-choice is going to explode. 29'ers, 26", 27.5", 69'ers, 650b-26'ers; the limits will only be marked by the willingness of the industry to experiment. And after several years of slowly evolving, the mountainbike world seems to have reached a point of revolution.  New suspension designs, wheel designs, &amp; frame materials are all contributing to this; and it's going to be very exciting.
Culture
Mountain Biking: A second coming
Dec 10, 2007
  2
Mountainbikes have run with the 26" wheel for a long time, and not because it was the best; but because it was the only size that the first fat-tire riders could use with fat tires.  They came off of ballon-tire bikes, and they ran knobby moto treads for lack of anything else.  26" wheels aren't bad. In fact, they work extremely well; nice, given that for the longest time that's all there was. Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), there were always those who seeked to improve our bikes; and they refused to believe that the 26" was the best that could be. But now we have a plethora of choice available, and I'm sure that many riders just starting out (or those of us who are Luddites) are confused as to what is the right choice (personal wheel-politics aside). The 26" - Nothing really bad can be said about the standard mountainbike wheel. It does have limitations; inability to roll over large obstacles, smallish moment of inertia, &amp; a tendancy to bog-down in sand/mud/snow.  However, it's benefits include; a mountainbike industry based on the 26" wheel, will support/fit a wide range of rider sizes, ability to be built as strong or light as technologically possible, ability to accept a wide range of tire sizes, &amp; is quick to accelerate. The 29'er - The Big Wheel has proven its' worth for offroading decades ago with the 4-wheeling truck industry. As with trucks, a larger mountainbike wheel can roll obstacles easier, will provide greater floatation through sand/muck, gives a larger tire contact-patch for better overall traction, &amp; maintains its' momentum at speed. But with vehicles, the design can easily be altered to fit the large wheels &amp; tires, with little inconvienience for the driver. On mountainbikes, frames with 29" wheels must be designed to keep the rider's COG &amp; standover height low, prevent tire-toe overlap, &amp; keep the overall weight down.  While manufacturers have done an admirable job of this, the 29'er is still better suited for tall riders.  Frames for very short riders will not be able to keep the standover at a reasonable height, and it would be very hard to prevent tire-toe overlap while still maintaining an effective wheelbase.  A 29'er designed for a 5' person would have the rider sitting <em>between </em>the wheels, as well as them having to fight the considerably increased inertia of the larger wheels.  In addition, full-suspension 29'ers are currently limited in wheel-travel.  Designs with greater than 6" of travel have been made, but keeping the frame to the desired mountainbike dimensions is tough (low standover/COG/wheelbase).  Full-suspension bikes are also heavier than hardtail/rigid bikes, and combined with heavy wheels, not building a 29'er full-susser pig is difficult without using exotic frame materials &amp; simple suspension setups. The Combo (69'er) - This is not a new idea.  In the past, mountainbikes were made with 26"/24" wheel combinations; the idea being to have a large wheel up front to deal with obstacles, and a small wheel in back to provide snappy acceleration.  The same applies for the 69'er.  These bikes can also accomodate small riders, and are easier to bring up to speed than a 29"/29" bike. The 27.5"/650b - Supposedly, the best of both worlds. Larger wheels to handle rough terrain, small enough to not give up acceleration, &amp; yet still have the increased rolling momentum.  These wheels also give bike designers a lot more leeway when considering frames for small/medium people.  A small rider unable to fit a 29'er, but intent on sampling the big-wheel experience will have a much easier time finding the proper fit on a 650b bike. Riders outfitting their existing 26" bikes with 650b wheels is becoming common, as most 26" frames will accept 650b wheels/tires and exhibit no clearance issues. On rigid hardtails with disc-brakes, this is extremely easy (having disc-brakes is key). Even some long-travel FS bikes (the Fisher Fat Possum) are being equipped with the 650b by enterprising bike-shops.  Some suspension forks have clearance issues when running a 650b wheel; but so far, the RockShox Pike, X-Fusion Velvet, Maverick DUC32, &amp; Fox 32 have enough space to run the 27.5" wheel. White Brothers is developing a production 650b fork, but none of the other fork manufacturers at this time recommend using their utensils for the 650b wheel. Using a 650b wheel on a 26" bike will not adversely tone-down the ride. It may slacken the head-angle up front by a degree, and increase bottom-bracket height (hence COG), but this will not nearly equal the upset occuring if a 29" wheel is somehow stuffed onto a 26" frame. Tire-toe overlap is also much less likely to happen, but this depends on the original 26" frame's front triangle dimensions. Within a year's time, the range of options for a weapon-of-choice is going to explode. 29'ers, 26", 27.5", 69'ers, 650b-26'ers; the limits will only be marked by the willingness of the industry to experiment. And after several years of slowly evolving, the mountainbike world seems to have reached a point of revolution.  New suspension designs, wheel designs, &amp; frame materials are all contributing to this; and it's going to be very exciting.
Mountain Bikes and Gear
Internal Drivetrains for Mountainbikes?
Dec 8, 2007
  1
Mountainbikes have run with the 26" wheel for a long time, and not because it was the best; but because it was the only size that the first fat-tire riders could use with fat tires.  They came off of ballon-tire bikes, and they ran knobby moto treads for lack of anything else.  26" wheels aren't bad. In fact, they work extremely well; nice, given that for the longest time that's all there was. Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), there were always those who seeked to improve our bikes; and they refused to believe that the 26" was the best that could be. But now we have a plethora of choice available, and I'm sure that many riders just starting out (or those of us who are Luddites) are confused as to what is the right choice (personal wheel-politics aside). The 26" - Nothing really bad can be said about the standard mountainbike wheel. It does have limitations; inability to roll over large obstacles, smallish moment of inertia, &amp; a tendancy to bog-down in sand/mud/snow.  However, it's benefits include; a mountainbike industry based on the 26" wheel, will support/fit a wide range of rider sizes, ability to be built as strong or light as technologically possible, ability to accept a wide range of tire sizes, &amp; is quick to accelerate. The 29'er - The Big Wheel has proven its' worth for offroading decades ago with the 4-wheeling truck industry. As with trucks, a larger mountainbike wheel can roll obstacles easier, will provide greater floatation through sand/muck, gives a larger tire contact-patch for better overall traction, &amp; maintains its' momentum at speed. But with vehicles, the design can easily be altered to fit the large wheels &amp; tires, with little inconvienience for the driver. On mountainbikes, frames with 29" wheels must be designed to keep the rider's COG &amp; standover height low, prevent tire-toe overlap, &amp; keep the overall weight down.  While manufacturers have done an admirable job of this, the 29'er is still better suited for tall riders.  Frames for very short riders will not be able to keep the standover at a reasonable height, and it would be very hard to prevent tire-toe overlap while still maintaining an effective wheelbase.  A 29'er designed for a 5' person would have the rider sitting <em>between </em>the wheels, as well as them having to fight the considerably increased inertia of the larger wheels.  In addition, full-suspension 29'ers are currently limited in wheel-travel.  Designs with greater than 6" of travel have been made, but keeping the frame to the desired mountainbike dimensions is tough (low standover/COG/wheelbase).  Full-suspension bikes are also heavier than hardtail/rigid bikes, and combined with heavy wheels, not building a 29'er full-susser pig is difficult without using exotic frame materials &amp; simple suspension setups. The Combo (69'er) - This is not a new idea.  In the past, mountainbikes were made with 26"/24" wheel combinations; the idea being to have a large wheel up front to deal with obstacles, and a small wheel in back to provide snappy acceleration.  The same applies for the 69'er.  These bikes can also accomodate small riders, and are easier to bring up to speed than a 29"/29" bike. The 27.5"/650b - Supposedly, the best of both worlds. Larger wheels to handle rough terrain, small enough to not give up acceleration, &amp; yet still have the increased rolling momentum.  These wheels also give bike designers a lot more leeway when considering frames for small/medium people.  A small rider unable to fit a 29'er, but intent on sampling the big-wheel experience will have a much easier time finding the proper fit on a 650b bike. Riders outfitting their existing 26" bikes with 650b wheels is becoming common, as most 26" frames will accept 650b wheels/tires and exhibit no clearance issues. On rigid hardtails with disc-brakes, this is extremely easy (having disc-brakes is key). Even some long-travel FS bikes (the Fisher Fat Possum) are being equipped with the 650b by enterprising bike-shops.  Some suspension forks have clearance issues when running a 650b wheel; but so far, the RockShox Pike, X-Fusion Velvet, Maverick DUC32, &amp; Fox 32 have enough space to run the 27.5" wheel. White Brothers is developing a production 650b fork, but none of the other fork manufacturers at this time recommend using their utensils for the 650b wheel. Using a 650b wheel on a 26" bike will not adversely tone-down the ride. It may slacken the head-angle up front by a degree, and increase bottom-bracket height (hence COG), but this will not nearly equal the upset occuring if a 29" wheel is somehow stuffed onto a 26" frame. Tire-toe overlap is also much less likely to happen, but this depends on the original 26" frame's front triangle dimensions. Within a year's time, the range of options for a weapon-of-choice is going to explode. 29'ers, 26", 27.5", 69'ers, 650b-26'ers; the limits will only be marked by the willingness of the industry to experiment. And after several years of slowly evolving, the mountainbike world seems to have reached a point of revolution.  New suspension designs, wheel designs, &amp; frame materials are all contributing to this; and it's going to be very exciting.
Culture
California wildfires impact bike companies
Dec 7, 2007
A blue and black mountain bike with a modern design, featuring front suspension, disc brakes, and a gear system. The bike is positioned against a white background, highlighting its sleek frame and components.
Mountain Bikes and Gear
3 of the best mountain bikes?
Dec 7, 2007
A white and black dirt bike is parked on a rocky terrain, showcasing its rugged tires and lightweight design. The bike is positioned on a black stand, with a backdrop of red rock formations and dry grass, emphasizing its off-road capabilities.
Mountain Bikes and Gear
Mountain bike + Motorcycle = Rad
Dec 6, 2007
Mountainbikes have run with the 26" wheel for a long time, and not because it was the best; but because it was the only size that the first fat-tire riders could use with fat tires.  They came off of ballon-tire bikes, and they ran knobby moto treads for lack of anything else.  26" wheels aren't bad. In fact, they work extremely well; nice, given that for the longest time that's all there was. Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), there were always those who seeked to improve our bikes; and they refused to believe that the 26" was the best that could be. But now we have a plethora of choice available, and I'm sure that many riders just starting out (or those of us who are Luddites) are confused as to what is the right choice (personal wheel-politics aside). The 26" - Nothing really bad can be said about the standard mountainbike wheel. It does have limitations; inability to roll over large obstacles, smallish moment of inertia, &amp; a tendancy to bog-down in sand/mud/snow.  However, it's benefits include; a mountainbike industry based on the 26" wheel, will support/fit a wide range of rider sizes, ability to be built as strong or light as technologically possible, ability to accept a wide range of tire sizes, &amp; is quick to accelerate. The 29'er - The Big Wheel has proven its' worth for offroading decades ago with the 4-wheeling truck industry. As with trucks, a larger mountainbike wheel can roll obstacles easier, will provide greater floatation through sand/muck, gives a larger tire contact-patch for better overall traction, &amp; maintains its' momentum at speed. But with vehicles, the design can easily be altered to fit the large wheels &amp; tires, with little inconvienience for the driver. On mountainbikes, frames with 29" wheels must be designed to keep the rider's COG &amp; standover height low, prevent tire-toe overlap, &amp; keep the overall weight down.  While manufacturers have done an admirable job of this, the 29'er is still better suited for tall riders.  Frames for very short riders will not be able to keep the standover at a reasonable height, and it would be very hard to prevent tire-toe overlap while still maintaining an effective wheelbase.  A 29'er designed for a 5' person would have the rider sitting <em>between </em>the wheels, as well as them having to fight the considerably increased inertia of the larger wheels.  In addition, full-suspension 29'ers are currently limited in wheel-travel.  Designs with greater than 6" of travel have been made, but keeping the frame to the desired mountainbike dimensions is tough (low standover/COG/wheelbase).  Full-suspension bikes are also heavier than hardtail/rigid bikes, and combined with heavy wheels, not building a 29'er full-susser pig is difficult without using exotic frame materials &amp; simple suspension setups. The Combo (69'er) - This is not a new idea.  In the past, mountainbikes were made with 26"/24" wheel combinations; the idea being to have a large wheel up front to deal with obstacles, and a small wheel in back to provide snappy acceleration.  The same applies for the 69'er.  These bikes can also accomodate small riders, and are easier to bring up to speed than a 29"/29" bike. The 27.5"/650b - Supposedly, the best of both worlds. Larger wheels to handle rough terrain, small enough to not give up acceleration, &amp; yet still have the increased rolling momentum.  These wheels also give bike designers a lot more leeway when considering frames for small/medium people.  A small rider unable to fit a 29'er, but intent on sampling the big-wheel experience will have a much easier time finding the proper fit on a 650b bike. Riders outfitting their existing 26" bikes with 650b wheels is becoming common, as most 26" frames will accept 650b wheels/tires and exhibit no clearance issues. On rigid hardtails with disc-brakes, this is extremely easy (having disc-brakes is key). Even some long-travel FS bikes (the Fisher Fat Possum) are being equipped with the 650b by enterprising bike-shops.  Some suspension forks have clearance issues when running a 650b wheel; but so far, the RockShox Pike, X-Fusion Velvet, Maverick DUC32, &amp; Fox 32 have enough space to run the 27.5" wheel. White Brothers is developing a production 650b fork, but none of the other fork manufacturers at this time recommend using their utensils for the 650b wheel. Using a 650b wheel on a 26" bike will not adversely tone-down the ride. It may slacken the head-angle up front by a degree, and increase bottom-bracket height (hence COG), but this will not nearly equal the upset occuring if a 29" wheel is somehow stuffed onto a 26" frame. Tire-toe overlap is also much less likely to happen, but this depends on the original 26" frame's front triangle dimensions. Within a year's time, the range of options for a weapon-of-choice is going to explode. 29'ers, 26", 27.5", 69'ers, 650b-26'ers; the limits will only be marked by the willingness of the industry to experiment. And after several years of slowly evolving, the mountainbike world seems to have reached a point of revolution.  New suspension designs, wheel designs, &amp; frame materials are all contributing to this; and it's going to be very exciting.
Mountain Bikes and Gear
Carbon-Fiber for Mountainbike Making
Dec 4, 2007
  1
Magellan Triton GPS device featuring a color touchscreen display with navigation options including Waypoint, Place, Trail, Geocache, Route, and Trips. The device has an orange and black ergonomic design, with a circular navigation button and control keys.
Mountain Bikes and Gear
The Magellan Triton 2000 GPS
Nov 29, 2007
Map of Colorado Springs, Colorado, displayed in Google Maps interface, showing terrain features and nearby search options.
Culture
Google Maps adds terrain
Nov 28, 2007
Compact handheld GPS device displaying a colorful map on its screen, featuring a rugged design with buttons on the side.
Mountain Bikes and Gear
What's on your holiday wish list? Fox forks and bikes that start with 'S'
Nov 27, 2007
Mountainbikes have run with the 26" wheel for a long time, and not because it was the best; but because it was the only size that the first fat-tire riders could use with fat tires.  They came off of ballon-tire bikes, and they ran knobby moto treads for lack of anything else.  26" wheels aren't bad. In fact, they work extremely well; nice, given that for the longest time that's all there was. Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), there were always those who seeked to improve our bikes; and they refused to believe that the 26" was the best that could be. But now we have a plethora of choice available, and I'm sure that many riders just starting out (or those of us who are Luddites) are confused as to what is the right choice (personal wheel-politics aside). The 26" - Nothing really bad can be said about the standard mountainbike wheel. It does have limitations; inability to roll over large obstacles, smallish moment of inertia, &amp; a tendancy to bog-down in sand/mud/snow.  However, it's benefits include; a mountainbike industry based on the 26" wheel, will support/fit a wide range of rider sizes, ability to be built as strong or light as technologically possible, ability to accept a wide range of tire sizes, &amp; is quick to accelerate. The 29'er - The Big Wheel has proven its' worth for offroading decades ago with the 4-wheeling truck industry. As with trucks, a larger mountainbike wheel can roll obstacles easier, will provide greater floatation through sand/muck, gives a larger tire contact-patch for better overall traction, &amp; maintains its' momentum at speed. But with vehicles, the design can easily be altered to fit the large wheels &amp; tires, with little inconvienience for the driver. On mountainbikes, frames with 29" wheels must be designed to keep the rider's COG &amp; standover height low, prevent tire-toe overlap, &amp; keep the overall weight down.  While manufacturers have done an admirable job of this, the 29'er is still better suited for tall riders.  Frames for very short riders will not be able to keep the standover at a reasonable height, and it would be very hard to prevent tire-toe overlap while still maintaining an effective wheelbase.  A 29'er designed for a 5' person would have the rider sitting <em>between </em>the wheels, as well as them having to fight the considerably increased inertia of the larger wheels.  In addition, full-suspension 29'ers are currently limited in wheel-travel.  Designs with greater than 6" of travel have been made, but keeping the frame to the desired mountainbike dimensions is tough (low standover/COG/wheelbase).  Full-suspension bikes are also heavier than hardtail/rigid bikes, and combined with heavy wheels, not building a 29'er full-susser pig is difficult without using exotic frame materials &amp; simple suspension setups. The Combo (69'er) - This is not a new idea.  In the past, mountainbikes were made with 26"/24" wheel combinations; the idea being to have a large wheel up front to deal with obstacles, and a small wheel in back to provide snappy acceleration.  The same applies for the 69'er.  These bikes can also accomodate small riders, and are easier to bring up to speed than a 29"/29" bike. The 27.5"/650b - Supposedly, the best of both worlds. Larger wheels to handle rough terrain, small enough to not give up acceleration, &amp; yet still have the increased rolling momentum.  These wheels also give bike designers a lot more leeway when considering frames for small/medium people.  A small rider unable to fit a 29'er, but intent on sampling the big-wheel experience will have a much easier time finding the proper fit on a 650b bike. Riders outfitting their existing 26" bikes with 650b wheels is becoming common, as most 26" frames will accept 650b wheels/tires and exhibit no clearance issues. On rigid hardtails with disc-brakes, this is extremely easy (having disc-brakes is key). Even some long-travel FS bikes (the Fisher Fat Possum) are being equipped with the 650b by enterprising bike-shops.  Some suspension forks have clearance issues when running a 650b wheel; but so far, the RockShox Pike, X-Fusion Velvet, Maverick DUC32, &amp; Fox 32 have enough space to run the 27.5" wheel. White Brothers is developing a production 650b fork, but none of the other fork manufacturers at this time recommend using their utensils for the 650b wheel. Using a 650b wheel on a 26" bike will not adversely tone-down the ride. It may slacken the head-angle up front by a degree, and increase bottom-bracket height (hence COG), but this will not nearly equal the upset occuring if a 29" wheel is somehow stuffed onto a 26" frame. Tire-toe overlap is also much less likely to happen, but this depends on the original 26" frame's front triangle dimensions. Within a year's time, the range of options for a weapon-of-choice is going to explode. 29'ers, 26", 27.5", 69'ers, 650b-26'ers; the limits will only be marked by the willingness of the industry to experiment. And after several years of slowly evolving, the mountainbike world seems to have reached a point of revolution.  New suspension designs, wheel designs, &amp; frame materials are all contributing to this; and it's going to be very exciting.
Culture
Bike company case study: Raleigh
Nov 26, 2007
Two men in outdoor apparel handling a deer carcass on a forest path, with bicycles nearby. One man is wearing an orange safety vest and helping to lift the deer onto the bike, while another man in camouflage observes. Pine trees surround the area, indicating a hunting or outdoor setting.
Culture
Deer hunting meets mountain biking
Nov 23, 2007
  3
Mountainbikes have run with the 26" wheel for a long time, and not because it was the best; but because it was the only size that the first fat-tire riders could use with fat tires.  They came off of ballon-tire bikes, and they ran knobby moto treads for lack of anything else.  26" wheels aren't bad. In fact, they work extremely well; nice, given that for the longest time that's all there was. Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), there were always those who seeked to improve our bikes; and they refused to believe that the 26" was the best that could be. But now we have a plethora of choice available, and I'm sure that many riders just starting out (or those of us who are Luddites) are confused as to what is the right choice (personal wheel-politics aside). The 26" - Nothing really bad can be said about the standard mountainbike wheel. It does have limitations; inability to roll over large obstacles, smallish moment of inertia, &amp; a tendancy to bog-down in sand/mud/snow.  However, it's benefits include; a mountainbike industry based on the 26" wheel, will support/fit a wide range of rider sizes, ability to be built as strong or light as technologically possible, ability to accept a wide range of tire sizes, &amp; is quick to accelerate. The 29'er - The Big Wheel has proven its' worth for offroading decades ago with the 4-wheeling truck industry. As with trucks, a larger mountainbike wheel can roll obstacles easier, will provide greater floatation through sand/muck, gives a larger tire contact-patch for better overall traction, &amp; maintains its' momentum at speed. But with vehicles, the design can easily be altered to fit the large wheels &amp; tires, with little inconvienience for the driver. On mountainbikes, frames with 29" wheels must be designed to keep the rider's COG &amp; standover height low, prevent tire-toe overlap, &amp; keep the overall weight down.  While manufacturers have done an admirable job of this, the 29'er is still better suited for tall riders.  Frames for very short riders will not be able to keep the standover at a reasonable height, and it would be very hard to prevent tire-toe overlap while still maintaining an effective wheelbase.  A 29'er designed for a 5' person would have the rider sitting <em>between </em>the wheels, as well as them having to fight the considerably increased inertia of the larger wheels.  In addition, full-suspension 29'ers are currently limited in wheel-travel.  Designs with greater than 6" of travel have been made, but keeping the frame to the desired mountainbike dimensions is tough (low standover/COG/wheelbase).  Full-suspension bikes are also heavier than hardtail/rigid bikes, and combined with heavy wheels, not building a 29'er full-susser pig is difficult without using exotic frame materials &amp; simple suspension setups. The Combo (69'er) - This is not a new idea.  In the past, mountainbikes were made with 26"/24" wheel combinations; the idea being to have a large wheel up front to deal with obstacles, and a small wheel in back to provide snappy acceleration.  The same applies for the 69'er.  These bikes can also accomodate small riders, and are easier to bring up to speed than a 29"/29" bike. The 27.5"/650b - Supposedly, the best of both worlds. Larger wheels to handle rough terrain, small enough to not give up acceleration, &amp; yet still have the increased rolling momentum.  These wheels also give bike designers a lot more leeway when considering frames for small/medium people.  A small rider unable to fit a 29'er, but intent on sampling the big-wheel experience will have a much easier time finding the proper fit on a 650b bike. Riders outfitting their existing 26" bikes with 650b wheels is becoming common, as most 26" frames will accept 650b wheels/tires and exhibit no clearance issues. On rigid hardtails with disc-brakes, this is extremely easy (having disc-brakes is key). Even some long-travel FS bikes (the Fisher Fat Possum) are being equipped with the 650b by enterprising bike-shops.  Some suspension forks have clearance issues when running a 650b wheel; but so far, the RockShox Pike, X-Fusion Velvet, Maverick DUC32, &amp; Fox 32 have enough space to run the 27.5" wheel. White Brothers is developing a production 650b fork, but none of the other fork manufacturers at this time recommend using their utensils for the 650b wheel. Using a 650b wheel on a 26" bike will not adversely tone-down the ride. It may slacken the head-angle up front by a degree, and increase bottom-bracket height (hence COG), but this will not nearly equal the upset occuring if a 29" wheel is somehow stuffed onto a 26" frame. Tire-toe overlap is also much less likely to happen, but this depends on the original 26" frame's front triangle dimensions. Within a year's time, the range of options for a weapon-of-choice is going to explode. 29'ers, 26", 27.5", 69'ers, 650b-26'ers; the limits will only be marked by the willingness of the industry to experiment. And after several years of slowly evolving, the mountainbike world seems to have reached a point of revolution.  New suspension designs, wheel designs, &amp; frame materials are all contributing to this; and it's going to be very exciting.
Mountain Bike Trails
Wal-Mart bike trail extension proposed
Nov 21, 2007
Alt tag: "A QUARQ cycling computer displaying various metrics, including wattage, cadence, speed, heart rate, lap time, and distance."
Mountain Bikes and Gear
Powerful bike computer + GPS from Quarq
Nov 19, 2007
Mountainbikes have run with the 26" wheel for a long time, and not because it was the best; but because it was the only size that the first fat-tire riders could use with fat tires.  They came off of ballon-tire bikes, and they ran knobby moto treads for lack of anything else.  26" wheels aren't bad. In fact, they work extremely well; nice, given that for the longest time that's all there was. Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), there were always those who seeked to improve our bikes; and they refused to believe that the 26" was the best that could be. But now we have a plethora of choice available, and I'm sure that many riders just starting out (or those of us who are Luddites) are confused as to what is the right choice (personal wheel-politics aside). The 26" - Nothing really bad can be said about the standard mountainbike wheel. It does have limitations; inability to roll over large obstacles, smallish moment of inertia, &amp; a tendancy to bog-down in sand/mud/snow.  However, it's benefits include; a mountainbike industry based on the 26" wheel, will support/fit a wide range of rider sizes, ability to be built as strong or light as technologically possible, ability to accept a wide range of tire sizes, &amp; is quick to accelerate. The 29'er - The Big Wheel has proven its' worth for offroading decades ago with the 4-wheeling truck industry. As with trucks, a larger mountainbike wheel can roll obstacles easier, will provide greater floatation through sand/muck, gives a larger tire contact-patch for better overall traction, &amp; maintains its' momentum at speed. But with vehicles, the design can easily be altered to fit the large wheels &amp; tires, with little inconvienience for the driver. On mountainbikes, frames with 29" wheels must be designed to keep the rider's COG &amp; standover height low, prevent tire-toe overlap, &amp; keep the overall weight down.  While manufacturers have done an admirable job of this, the 29'er is still better suited for tall riders.  Frames for very short riders will not be able to keep the standover at a reasonable height, and it would be very hard to prevent tire-toe overlap while still maintaining an effective wheelbase.  A 29'er designed for a 5' person would have the rider sitting <em>between </em>the wheels, as well as them having to fight the considerably increased inertia of the larger wheels.  In addition, full-suspension 29'ers are currently limited in wheel-travel.  Designs with greater than 6" of travel have been made, but keeping the frame to the desired mountainbike dimensions is tough (low standover/COG/wheelbase).  Full-suspension bikes are also heavier than hardtail/rigid bikes, and combined with heavy wheels, not building a 29'er full-susser pig is difficult without using exotic frame materials &amp; simple suspension setups. The Combo (69'er) - This is not a new idea.  In the past, mountainbikes were made with 26"/24" wheel combinations; the idea being to have a large wheel up front to deal with obstacles, and a small wheel in back to provide snappy acceleration.  The same applies for the 69'er.  These bikes can also accomodate small riders, and are easier to bring up to speed than a 29"/29" bike. The 27.5"/650b - Supposedly, the best of both worlds. Larger wheels to handle rough terrain, small enough to not give up acceleration, &amp; yet still have the increased rolling momentum.  These wheels also give bike designers a lot more leeway when considering frames for small/medium people.  A small rider unable to fit a 29'er, but intent on sampling the big-wheel experience will have a much easier time finding the proper fit on a 650b bike. Riders outfitting their existing 26" bikes with 650b wheels is becoming common, as most 26" frames will accept 650b wheels/tires and exhibit no clearance issues. On rigid hardtails with disc-brakes, this is extremely easy (having disc-brakes is key). Even some long-travel FS bikes (the Fisher Fat Possum) are being equipped with the 650b by enterprising bike-shops.  Some suspension forks have clearance issues when running a 650b wheel; but so far, the RockShox Pike, X-Fusion Velvet, Maverick DUC32, &amp; Fox 32 have enough space to run the 27.5" wheel. White Brothers is developing a production 650b fork, but none of the other fork manufacturers at this time recommend using their utensils for the 650b wheel. Using a 650b wheel on a 26" bike will not adversely tone-down the ride. It may slacken the head-angle up front by a degree, and increase bottom-bracket height (hence COG), but this will not nearly equal the upset occuring if a 29" wheel is somehow stuffed onto a 26" frame. Tire-toe overlap is also much less likely to happen, but this depends on the original 26" frame's front triangle dimensions. Within a year's time, the range of options for a weapon-of-choice is going to explode. 29'ers, 26", 27.5", 69'ers, 650b-26'ers; the limits will only be marked by the willingness of the industry to experiment. And after several years of slowly evolving, the mountainbike world seems to have reached a point of revolution.  New suspension designs, wheel designs, &amp; frame materials are all contributing to this; and it's going to be very exciting.
Culture
The Un-29'er Movement
Nov 17, 2007
Mountainbikes have run with the 26" wheel for a long time, and not because it was the best; but because it was the only size that the first fat-tire riders could use with fat tires.  They came off of ballon-tire bikes, and they ran knobby moto treads for lack of anything else.  26" wheels aren't bad. In fact, they work extremely well; nice, given that for the longest time that's all there was. Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), there were always those who seeked to improve our bikes; and they refused to believe that the 26" was the best that could be. But now we have a plethora of choice available, and I'm sure that many riders just starting out (or those of us who are Luddites) are confused as to what is the right choice (personal wheel-politics aside). The 26" - Nothing really bad can be said about the standard mountainbike wheel. It does have limitations; inability to roll over large obstacles, smallish moment of inertia, &amp; a tendancy to bog-down in sand/mud/snow.  However, it's benefits include; a mountainbike industry based on the 26" wheel, will support/fit a wide range of rider sizes, ability to be built as strong or light as technologically possible, ability to accept a wide range of tire sizes, &amp; is quick to accelerate. The 29'er - The Big Wheel has proven its' worth for offroading decades ago with the 4-wheeling truck industry. As with trucks, a larger mountainbike wheel can roll obstacles easier, will provide greater floatation through sand/muck, gives a larger tire contact-patch for better overall traction, &amp; maintains its' momentum at speed. But with vehicles, the design can easily be altered to fit the large wheels &amp; tires, with little inconvienience for the driver. On mountainbikes, frames with 29" wheels must be designed to keep the rider's COG &amp; standover height low, prevent tire-toe overlap, &amp; keep the overall weight down.  While manufacturers have done an admirable job of this, the 29'er is still better suited for tall riders.  Frames for very short riders will not be able to keep the standover at a reasonable height, and it would be very hard to prevent tire-toe overlap while still maintaining an effective wheelbase.  A 29'er designed for a 5' person would have the rider sitting <em>between </em>the wheels, as well as them having to fight the considerably increased inertia of the larger wheels.  In addition, full-suspension 29'ers are currently limited in wheel-travel.  Designs with greater than 6" of travel have been made, but keeping the frame to the desired mountainbike dimensions is tough (low standover/COG/wheelbase).  Full-suspension bikes are also heavier than hardtail/rigid bikes, and combined with heavy wheels, not building a 29'er full-susser pig is difficult without using exotic frame materials &amp; simple suspension setups. The Combo (69'er) - This is not a new idea.  In the past, mountainbikes were made with 26"/24" wheel combinations; the idea being to have a large wheel up front to deal with obstacles, and a small wheel in back to provide snappy acceleration.  The same applies for the 69'er.  These bikes can also accomodate small riders, and are easier to bring up to speed than a 29"/29" bike. The 27.5"/650b - Supposedly, the best of both worlds. Larger wheels to handle rough terrain, small enough to not give up acceleration, &amp; yet still have the increased rolling momentum.  These wheels also give bike designers a lot more leeway when considering frames for small/medium people.  A small rider unable to fit a 29'er, but intent on sampling the big-wheel experience will have a much easier time finding the proper fit on a 650b bike. Riders outfitting their existing 26" bikes with 650b wheels is becoming common, as most 26" frames will accept 650b wheels/tires and exhibit no clearance issues. On rigid hardtails with disc-brakes, this is extremely easy (having disc-brakes is key). Even some long-travel FS bikes (the Fisher Fat Possum) are being equipped with the 650b by enterprising bike-shops.  Some suspension forks have clearance issues when running a 650b wheel; but so far, the RockShox Pike, X-Fusion Velvet, Maverick DUC32, &amp; Fox 32 have enough space to run the 27.5" wheel. White Brothers is developing a production 650b fork, but none of the other fork manufacturers at this time recommend using their utensils for the 650b wheel. Using a 650b wheel on a 26" bike will not adversely tone-down the ride. It may slacken the head-angle up front by a degree, and increase bottom-bracket height (hence COG), but this will not nearly equal the upset occuring if a 29" wheel is somehow stuffed onto a 26" frame. Tire-toe overlap is also much less likely to happen, but this depends on the original 26" frame's front triangle dimensions. Within a year's time, the range of options for a weapon-of-choice is going to explode. 29'ers, 26", 27.5", 69'ers, 650b-26'ers; the limits will only be marked by the willingness of the industry to experiment. And after several years of slowly evolving, the mountainbike world seems to have reached a point of revolution.  New suspension designs, wheel designs, &amp; frame materials are all contributing to this; and it's going to be very exciting.
Community
World's most grueling mountain bike race: La Ruta
Nov 16, 2007
  1
Mountainbikes have run with the 26" wheel for a long time, and not because it was the best; but because it was the only size that the first fat-tire riders could use with fat tires.  They came off of ballon-tire bikes, and they ran knobby moto treads for lack of anything else.  26" wheels aren't bad. In fact, they work extremely well; nice, given that for the longest time that's all there was. Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), there were always those who seeked to improve our bikes; and they refused to believe that the 26" was the best that could be. But now we have a plethora of choice available, and I'm sure that many riders just starting out (or those of us who are Luddites) are confused as to what is the right choice (personal wheel-politics aside). The 26" - Nothing really bad can be said about the standard mountainbike wheel. It does have limitations; inability to roll over large obstacles, smallish moment of inertia, &amp; a tendancy to bog-down in sand/mud/snow.  However, it's benefits include; a mountainbike industry based on the 26" wheel, will support/fit a wide range of rider sizes, ability to be built as strong or light as technologically possible, ability to accept a wide range of tire sizes, &amp; is quick to accelerate. The 29'er - The Big Wheel has proven its' worth for offroading decades ago with the 4-wheeling truck industry. As with trucks, a larger mountainbike wheel can roll obstacles easier, will provide greater floatation through sand/muck, gives a larger tire contact-patch for better overall traction, &amp; maintains its' momentum at speed. But with vehicles, the design can easily be altered to fit the large wheels &amp; tires, with little inconvienience for the driver. On mountainbikes, frames with 29" wheels must be designed to keep the rider's COG &amp; standover height low, prevent tire-toe overlap, &amp; keep the overall weight down.  While manufacturers have done an admirable job of this, the 29'er is still better suited for tall riders.  Frames for very short riders will not be able to keep the standover at a reasonable height, and it would be very hard to prevent tire-toe overlap while still maintaining an effective wheelbase.  A 29'er designed for a 5' person would have the rider sitting <em>between </em>the wheels, as well as them having to fight the considerably increased inertia of the larger wheels.  In addition, full-suspension 29'ers are currently limited in wheel-travel.  Designs with greater than 6" of travel have been made, but keeping the frame to the desired mountainbike dimensions is tough (low standover/COG/wheelbase).  Full-suspension bikes are also heavier than hardtail/rigid bikes, and combined with heavy wheels, not building a 29'er full-susser pig is difficult without using exotic frame materials &amp; simple suspension setups. The Combo (69'er) - This is not a new idea.  In the past, mountainbikes were made with 26"/24" wheel combinations; the idea being to have a large wheel up front to deal with obstacles, and a small wheel in back to provide snappy acceleration.  The same applies for the 69'er.  These bikes can also accomodate small riders, and are easier to bring up to speed than a 29"/29" bike. The 27.5"/650b - Supposedly, the best of both worlds. Larger wheels to handle rough terrain, small enough to not give up acceleration, &amp; yet still have the increased rolling momentum.  These wheels also give bike designers a lot more leeway when considering frames for small/medium people.  A small rider unable to fit a 29'er, but intent on sampling the big-wheel experience will have a much easier time finding the proper fit on a 650b bike. Riders outfitting their existing 26" bikes with 650b wheels is becoming common, as most 26" frames will accept 650b wheels/tires and exhibit no clearance issues. On rigid hardtails with disc-brakes, this is extremely easy (having disc-brakes is key). Even some long-travel FS bikes (the Fisher Fat Possum) are being equipped with the 650b by enterprising bike-shops.  Some suspension forks have clearance issues when running a 650b wheel; but so far, the RockShox Pike, X-Fusion Velvet, Maverick DUC32, &amp; Fox 32 have enough space to run the 27.5" wheel. White Brothers is developing a production 650b fork, but none of the other fork manufacturers at this time recommend using their utensils for the 650b wheel. Using a 650b wheel on a 26" bike will not adversely tone-down the ride. It may slacken the head-angle up front by a degree, and increase bottom-bracket height (hence COG), but this will not nearly equal the upset occuring if a 29" wheel is somehow stuffed onto a 26" frame. Tire-toe overlap is also much less likely to happen, but this depends on the original 26" frame's front triangle dimensions. Within a year's time, the range of options for a weapon-of-choice is going to explode. 29'ers, 26", 27.5", 69'ers, 650b-26'ers; the limits will only be marked by the willingness of the industry to experiment. And after several years of slowly evolving, the mountainbike world seems to have reached a point of revolution.  New suspension designs, wheel designs, &amp; frame materials are all contributing to this; and it's going to be very exciting.
Culture
A Link to Mountainbiking's Past
Nov 16, 2007
Mountainbikes have run with the 26" wheel for a long time, and not because it was the best; but because it was the only size that the first fat-tire riders could use with fat tires.  They came off of ballon-tire bikes, and they ran knobby moto treads for lack of anything else.  26" wheels aren't bad. In fact, they work extremely well; nice, given that for the longest time that's all there was. Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), there were always those who seeked to improve our bikes; and they refused to believe that the 26" was the best that could be. But now we have a plethora of choice available, and I'm sure that many riders just starting out (or those of us who are Luddites) are confused as to what is the right choice (personal wheel-politics aside). The 26" - Nothing really bad can be said about the standard mountainbike wheel. It does have limitations; inability to roll over large obstacles, smallish moment of inertia, &amp; a tendancy to bog-down in sand/mud/snow.  However, it's benefits include; a mountainbike industry based on the 26" wheel, will support/fit a wide range of rider sizes, ability to be built as strong or light as technologically possible, ability to accept a wide range of tire sizes, &amp; is quick to accelerate. The 29'er - The Big Wheel has proven its' worth for offroading decades ago with the 4-wheeling truck industry. As with trucks, a larger mountainbike wheel can roll obstacles easier, will provide greater floatation through sand/muck, gives a larger tire contact-patch for better overall traction, &amp; maintains its' momentum at speed. But with vehicles, the design can easily be altered to fit the large wheels &amp; tires, with little inconvienience for the driver. On mountainbikes, frames with 29" wheels must be designed to keep the rider's COG &amp; standover height low, prevent tire-toe overlap, &amp; keep the overall weight down.  While manufacturers have done an admirable job of this, the 29'er is still better suited for tall riders.  Frames for very short riders will not be able to keep the standover at a reasonable height, and it would be very hard to prevent tire-toe overlap while still maintaining an effective wheelbase.  A 29'er designed for a 5' person would have the rider sitting <em>between </em>the wheels, as well as them having to fight the considerably increased inertia of the larger wheels.  In addition, full-suspension 29'ers are currently limited in wheel-travel.  Designs with greater than 6" of travel have been made, but keeping the frame to the desired mountainbike dimensions is tough (low standover/COG/wheelbase).  Full-suspension bikes are also heavier than hardtail/rigid bikes, and combined with heavy wheels, not building a 29'er full-susser pig is difficult without using exotic frame materials &amp; simple suspension setups. The Combo (69'er) - This is not a new idea.  In the past, mountainbikes were made with 26"/24" wheel combinations; the idea being to have a large wheel up front to deal with obstacles, and a small wheel in back to provide snappy acceleration.  The same applies for the 69'er.  These bikes can also accomodate small riders, and are easier to bring up to speed than a 29"/29" bike. The 27.5"/650b - Supposedly, the best of both worlds. Larger wheels to handle rough terrain, small enough to not give up acceleration, &amp; yet still have the increased rolling momentum.  These wheels also give bike designers a lot more leeway when considering frames for small/medium people.  A small rider unable to fit a 29'er, but intent on sampling the big-wheel experience will have a much easier time finding the proper fit on a 650b bike. Riders outfitting their existing 26" bikes with 650b wheels is becoming common, as most 26" frames will accept 650b wheels/tires and exhibit no clearance issues. On rigid hardtails with disc-brakes, this is extremely easy (having disc-brakes is key). Even some long-travel FS bikes (the Fisher Fat Possum) are being equipped with the 650b by enterprising bike-shops.  Some suspension forks have clearance issues when running a 650b wheel; but so far, the RockShox Pike, X-Fusion Velvet, Maverick DUC32, &amp; Fox 32 have enough space to run the 27.5" wheel. White Brothers is developing a production 650b fork, but none of the other fork manufacturers at this time recommend using their utensils for the 650b wheel. Using a 650b wheel on a 26" bike will not adversely tone-down the ride. It may slacken the head-angle up front by a degree, and increase bottom-bracket height (hence COG), but this will not nearly equal the upset occuring if a 29" wheel is somehow stuffed onto a 26" frame. Tire-toe overlap is also much less likely to happen, but this depends on the original 26" frame's front triangle dimensions. Within a year's time, the range of options for a weapon-of-choice is going to explode. 29'ers, 26", 27.5", 69'ers, 650b-26'ers; the limits will only be marked by the willingness of the industry to experiment. And after several years of slowly evolving, the mountainbike world seems to have reached a point of revolution.  New suspension designs, wheel designs, &amp; frame materials are all contributing to this; and it's going to be very exciting.
Culture
Illegal mountain biker winds up in federal court
Nov 15, 2007
A person crouches near a stream, beside a wooden display featuring a sign that reads "DIDY-GO" and bottles of a product. The surrounding area is lush with greenery.
Culture
Mountain bikes as bio-vectors
Nov 13, 2007
A winding dirt path through a tranquil forest, surrounded by tall trees with a mix of green and autumn-colored leaves. The ground is covered with fallen leaves, and the path leads into the distance, inviting exploration of the serene, natural landscape.
Mountain Bike Trails
Ride Report: Raccoon Mountain, Tennessee
Nov 12, 2007
Mountainbikes have run with the 26" wheel for a long time, and not because it was the best; but because it was the only size that the first fat-tire riders could use with fat tires.  They came off of ballon-tire bikes, and they ran knobby moto treads for lack of anything else.  26" wheels aren't bad. In fact, they work extremely well; nice, given that for the longest time that's all there was. Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), there were always those who seeked to improve our bikes; and they refused to believe that the 26" was the best that could be. But now we have a plethora of choice available, and I'm sure that many riders just starting out (or those of us who are Luddites) are confused as to what is the right choice (personal wheel-politics aside). The 26" - Nothing really bad can be said about the standard mountainbike wheel. It does have limitations; inability to roll over large obstacles, smallish moment of inertia, &amp; a tendancy to bog-down in sand/mud/snow.  However, it's benefits include; a mountainbike industry based on the 26" wheel, will support/fit a wide range of rider sizes, ability to be built as strong or light as technologically possible, ability to accept a wide range of tire sizes, &amp; is quick to accelerate. The 29'er - The Big Wheel has proven its' worth for offroading decades ago with the 4-wheeling truck industry. As with trucks, a larger mountainbike wheel can roll obstacles easier, will provide greater floatation through sand/muck, gives a larger tire contact-patch for better overall traction, &amp; maintains its' momentum at speed. But with vehicles, the design can easily be altered to fit the large wheels &amp; tires, with little inconvienience for the driver. On mountainbikes, frames with 29" wheels must be designed to keep the rider's COG &amp; standover height low, prevent tire-toe overlap, &amp; keep the overall weight down.  While manufacturers have done an admirable job of this, the 29'er is still better suited for tall riders.  Frames for very short riders will not be able to keep the standover at a reasonable height, and it would be very hard to prevent tire-toe overlap while still maintaining an effective wheelbase.  A 29'er designed for a 5' person would have the rider sitting <em>between </em>the wheels, as well as them having to fight the considerably increased inertia of the larger wheels.  In addition, full-suspension 29'ers are currently limited in wheel-travel.  Designs with greater than 6" of travel have been made, but keeping the frame to the desired mountainbike dimensions is tough (low standover/COG/wheelbase).  Full-suspension bikes are also heavier than hardtail/rigid bikes, and combined with heavy wheels, not building a 29'er full-susser pig is difficult without using exotic frame materials &amp; simple suspension setups. The Combo (69'er) - This is not a new idea.  In the past, mountainbikes were made with 26"/24" wheel combinations; the idea being to have a large wheel up front to deal with obstacles, and a small wheel in back to provide snappy acceleration.  The same applies for the 69'er.  These bikes can also accomodate small riders, and are easier to bring up to speed than a 29"/29" bike. The 27.5"/650b - Supposedly, the best of both worlds. Larger wheels to handle rough terrain, small enough to not give up acceleration, &amp; yet still have the increased rolling momentum.  These wheels also give bike designers a lot more leeway when considering frames for small/medium people.  A small rider unable to fit a 29'er, but intent on sampling the big-wheel experience will have a much easier time finding the proper fit on a 650b bike. Riders outfitting their existing 26" bikes with 650b wheels is becoming common, as most 26" frames will accept 650b wheels/tires and exhibit no clearance issues. On rigid hardtails with disc-brakes, this is extremely easy (having disc-brakes is key). Even some long-travel FS bikes (the Fisher Fat Possum) are being equipped with the 650b by enterprising bike-shops.  Some suspension forks have clearance issues when running a 650b wheel; but so far, the RockShox Pike, X-Fusion Velvet, Maverick DUC32, &amp; Fox 32 have enough space to run the 27.5" wheel. White Brothers is developing a production 650b fork, but none of the other fork manufacturers at this time recommend using their utensils for the 650b wheel. Using a 650b wheel on a 26" bike will not adversely tone-down the ride. It may slacken the head-angle up front by a degree, and increase bottom-bracket height (hence COG), but this will not nearly equal the upset occuring if a 29" wheel is somehow stuffed onto a 26" frame. Tire-toe overlap is also much less likely to happen, but this depends on the original 26" frame's front triangle dimensions. Within a year's time, the range of options for a weapon-of-choice is going to explode. 29'ers, 26", 27.5", 69'ers, 650b-26'ers; the limits will only be marked by the willingness of the industry to experiment. And after several years of slowly evolving, the mountainbike world seems to have reached a point of revolution.  New suspension designs, wheel designs, &amp; frame materials are all contributing to this; and it's going to be very exciting.
Community
Ladies on Velocipedes
Nov 9, 2007
A person wearing an orange shirt and helmet is riding a mountain bike, positioned in a natural outdoor setting with a clear sky in the background. The rider appears focused and poised, with a backpack on, showcasing a dynamic cycling posture.
Mountain Bikes and Gear
Introducing our Senior Bike Editor
Nov 8, 2007
  3
A winding dirt path cuts through a grassy landscape, surrounded by low hills and scattered rocks under a partly cloudy sky.
Mountain Bike Trails
Connecting Hall Ranch and Heil Valley Ranch
Nov 8, 2007
Mountainbikes have run with the 26" wheel for a long time, and not because it was the best; but because it was the only size that the first fat-tire riders could use with fat tires.  They came off of ballon-tire bikes, and they ran knobby moto treads for lack of anything else.  26" wheels aren't bad. In fact, they work extremely well; nice, given that for the longest time that's all there was. Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), there were always those who seeked to improve our bikes; and they refused to believe that the 26" was the best that could be. But now we have a plethora of choice available, and I'm sure that many riders just starting out (or those of us who are Luddites) are confused as to what is the right choice (personal wheel-politics aside). The 26" - Nothing really bad can be said about the standard mountainbike wheel. It does have limitations; inability to roll over large obstacles, smallish moment of inertia, &amp; a tendancy to bog-down in sand/mud/snow.  However, it's benefits include; a mountainbike industry based on the 26" wheel, will support/fit a wide range of rider sizes, ability to be built as strong or light as technologically possible, ability to accept a wide range of tire sizes, &amp; is quick to accelerate. The 29'er - The Big Wheel has proven its' worth for offroading decades ago with the 4-wheeling truck industry. As with trucks, a larger mountainbike wheel can roll obstacles easier, will provide greater floatation through sand/muck, gives a larger tire contact-patch for better overall traction, &amp; maintains its' momentum at speed. But with vehicles, the design can easily be altered to fit the large wheels &amp; tires, with little inconvienience for the driver. On mountainbikes, frames with 29" wheels must be designed to keep the rider's COG &amp; standover height low, prevent tire-toe overlap, &amp; keep the overall weight down.  While manufacturers have done an admirable job of this, the 29'er is still better suited for tall riders.  Frames for very short riders will not be able to keep the standover at a reasonable height, and it would be very hard to prevent tire-toe overlap while still maintaining an effective wheelbase.  A 29'er designed for a 5' person would have the rider sitting <em>between </em>the wheels, as well as them having to fight the considerably increased inertia of the larger wheels.  In addition, full-suspension 29'ers are currently limited in wheel-travel.  Designs with greater than 6" of travel have been made, but keeping the frame to the desired mountainbike dimensions is tough (low standover/COG/wheelbase).  Full-suspension bikes are also heavier than hardtail/rigid bikes, and combined with heavy wheels, not building a 29'er full-susser pig is difficult without using exotic frame materials &amp; simple suspension setups. The Combo (69'er) - This is not a new idea.  In the past, mountainbikes were made with 26"/24" wheel combinations; the idea being to have a large wheel up front to deal with obstacles, and a small wheel in back to provide snappy acceleration.  The same applies for the 69'er.  These bikes can also accomodate small riders, and are easier to bring up to speed than a 29"/29" bike. The 27.5"/650b - Supposedly, the best of both worlds. Larger wheels to handle rough terrain, small enough to not give up acceleration, &amp; yet still have the increased rolling momentum.  These wheels also give bike designers a lot more leeway when considering frames for small/medium people.  A small rider unable to fit a 29'er, but intent on sampling the big-wheel experience will have a much easier time finding the proper fit on a 650b bike. Riders outfitting their existing 26" bikes with 650b wheels is becoming common, as most 26" frames will accept 650b wheels/tires and exhibit no clearance issues. On rigid hardtails with disc-brakes, this is extremely easy (having disc-brakes is key). Even some long-travel FS bikes (the Fisher Fat Possum) are being equipped with the 650b by enterprising bike-shops.  Some suspension forks have clearance issues when running a 650b wheel; but so far, the RockShox Pike, X-Fusion Velvet, Maverick DUC32, &amp; Fox 32 have enough space to run the 27.5" wheel. White Brothers is developing a production 650b fork, but none of the other fork manufacturers at this time recommend using their utensils for the 650b wheel. Using a 650b wheel on a 26" bike will not adversely tone-down the ride. It may slacken the head-angle up front by a degree, and increase bottom-bracket height (hence COG), but this will not nearly equal the upset occuring if a 29" wheel is somehow stuffed onto a 26" frame. Tire-toe overlap is also much less likely to happen, but this depends on the original 26" frame's front triangle dimensions. Within a year's time, the range of options for a weapon-of-choice is going to explode. 29'ers, 26", 27.5", 69'ers, 650b-26'ers; the limits will only be marked by the willingness of the industry to experiment. And after several years of slowly evolving, the mountainbike world seems to have reached a point of revolution.  New suspension designs, wheel designs, &amp; frame materials are all contributing to this; and it's going to be very exciting.
Culture
Mountainbiking technology comes full circle.
Nov 8, 2007
  2
Mountainbikes have run with the 26" wheel for a long time, and not because it was the best; but because it was the only size that the first fat-tire riders could use with fat tires.  They came off of ballon-tire bikes, and they ran knobby moto treads for lack of anything else.  26" wheels aren't bad. In fact, they work extremely well; nice, given that for the longest time that's all there was. Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), there were always those who seeked to improve our bikes; and they refused to believe that the 26" was the best that could be. But now we have a plethora of choice available, and I'm sure that many riders just starting out (or those of us who are Luddites) are confused as to what is the right choice (personal wheel-politics aside). The 26" - Nothing really bad can be said about the standard mountainbike wheel. It does have limitations; inability to roll over large obstacles, smallish moment of inertia, &amp; a tendancy to bog-down in sand/mud/snow.  However, it's benefits include; a mountainbike industry based on the 26" wheel, will support/fit a wide range of rider sizes, ability to be built as strong or light as technologically possible, ability to accept a wide range of tire sizes, &amp; is quick to accelerate. The 29'er - The Big Wheel has proven its' worth for offroading decades ago with the 4-wheeling truck industry. As with trucks, a larger mountainbike wheel can roll obstacles easier, will provide greater floatation through sand/muck, gives a larger tire contact-patch for better overall traction, &amp; maintains its' momentum at speed. But with vehicles, the design can easily be altered to fit the large wheels &amp; tires, with little inconvienience for the driver. On mountainbikes, frames with 29" wheels must be designed to keep the rider's COG &amp; standover height low, prevent tire-toe overlap, &amp; keep the overall weight down.  While manufacturers have done an admirable job of this, the 29'er is still better suited for tall riders.  Frames for very short riders will not be able to keep the standover at a reasonable height, and it would be very hard to prevent tire-toe overlap while still maintaining an effective wheelbase.  A 29'er designed for a 5' person would have the rider sitting <em>between </em>the wheels, as well as them having to fight the considerably increased inertia of the larger wheels.  In addition, full-suspension 29'ers are currently limited in wheel-travel.  Designs with greater than 6" of travel have been made, but keeping the frame to the desired mountainbike dimensions is tough (low standover/COG/wheelbase).  Full-suspension bikes are also heavier than hardtail/rigid bikes, and combined with heavy wheels, not building a 29'er full-susser pig is difficult without using exotic frame materials &amp; simple suspension setups. The Combo (69'er) - This is not a new idea.  In the past, mountainbikes were made with 26"/24" wheel combinations; the idea being to have a large wheel up front to deal with obstacles, and a small wheel in back to provide snappy acceleration.  The same applies for the 69'er.  These bikes can also accomodate small riders, and are easier to bring up to speed than a 29"/29" bike. The 27.5"/650b - Supposedly, the best of both worlds. Larger wheels to handle rough terrain, small enough to not give up acceleration, &amp; yet still have the increased rolling momentum.  These wheels also give bike designers a lot more leeway when considering frames for small/medium people.  A small rider unable to fit a 29'er, but intent on sampling the big-wheel experience will have a much easier time finding the proper fit on a 650b bike. Riders outfitting their existing 26" bikes with 650b wheels is becoming common, as most 26" frames will accept 650b wheels/tires and exhibit no clearance issues. On rigid hardtails with disc-brakes, this is extremely easy (having disc-brakes is key). Even some long-travel FS bikes (the Fisher Fat Possum) are being equipped with the 650b by enterprising bike-shops.  Some suspension forks have clearance issues when running a 650b wheel; but so far, the RockShox Pike, X-Fusion Velvet, Maverick DUC32, &amp; Fox 32 have enough space to run the 27.5" wheel. White Brothers is developing a production 650b fork, but none of the other fork manufacturers at this time recommend using their utensils for the 650b wheel. Using a 650b wheel on a 26" bike will not adversely tone-down the ride. It may slacken the head-angle up front by a degree, and increase bottom-bracket height (hence COG), but this will not nearly equal the upset occuring if a 29" wheel is somehow stuffed onto a 26" frame. Tire-toe overlap is also much less likely to happen, but this depends on the original 26" frame's front triangle dimensions. Within a year's time, the range of options for a weapon-of-choice is going to explode. 29'ers, 26", 27.5", 69'ers, 650b-26'ers; the limits will only be marked by the willingness of the industry to experiment. And after several years of slowly evolving, the mountainbike world seems to have reached a point of revolution.  New suspension designs, wheel designs, &amp; frame materials are all contributing to this; and it's going to be very exciting.
Community
National Mountain Bike Series Ignores East Coast
Nov 7, 2007
A mountain biker riding down stone steps near a historic archway, surrounded by large rocks and ancient stone walls. The scene is set against a clear sky, highlighting the cyclist's action.
Mountain Bike Trails
Epic Ride Report: Grande Route of Historical Villages, Portugal
Nov 6, 2007
Mountainbikes have run with the 26" wheel for a long time, and not because it was the best; but because it was the only size that the first fat-tire riders could use with fat tires.  They came off of ballon-tire bikes, and they ran knobby moto treads for lack of anything else.  26" wheels aren't bad. In fact, they work extremely well; nice, given that for the longest time that's all there was. Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), there were always those who seeked to improve our bikes; and they refused to believe that the 26" was the best that could be. But now we have a plethora of choice available, and I'm sure that many riders just starting out (or those of us who are Luddites) are confused as to what is the right choice (personal wheel-politics aside). The 26" - Nothing really bad can be said about the standard mountainbike wheel. It does have limitations; inability to roll over large obstacles, smallish moment of inertia, &amp; a tendancy to bog-down in sand/mud/snow.  However, it's benefits include; a mountainbike industry based on the 26" wheel, will support/fit a wide range of rider sizes, ability to be built as strong or light as technologically possible, ability to accept a wide range of tire sizes, &amp; is quick to accelerate. The 29'er - The Big Wheel has proven its' worth for offroading decades ago with the 4-wheeling truck industry. As with trucks, a larger mountainbike wheel can roll obstacles easier, will provide greater floatation through sand/muck, gives a larger tire contact-patch for better overall traction, &amp; maintains its' momentum at speed. But with vehicles, the design can easily be altered to fit the large wheels &amp; tires, with little inconvienience for the driver. On mountainbikes, frames with 29" wheels must be designed to keep the rider's COG &amp; standover height low, prevent tire-toe overlap, &amp; keep the overall weight down.  While manufacturers have done an admirable job of this, the 29'er is still better suited for tall riders.  Frames for very short riders will not be able to keep the standover at a reasonable height, and it would be very hard to prevent tire-toe overlap while still maintaining an effective wheelbase.  A 29'er designed for a 5' person would have the rider sitting <em>between </em>the wheels, as well as them having to fight the considerably increased inertia of the larger wheels.  In addition, full-suspension 29'ers are currently limited in wheel-travel.  Designs with greater than 6" of travel have been made, but keeping the frame to the desired mountainbike dimensions is tough (low standover/COG/wheelbase).  Full-suspension bikes are also heavier than hardtail/rigid bikes, and combined with heavy wheels, not building a 29'er full-susser pig is difficult without using exotic frame materials &amp; simple suspension setups. The Combo (69'er) - This is not a new idea.  In the past, mountainbikes were made with 26"/24" wheel combinations; the idea being to have a large wheel up front to deal with obstacles, and a small wheel in back to provide snappy acceleration.  The same applies for the 69'er.  These bikes can also accomodate small riders, and are easier to bring up to speed than a 29"/29" bike. The 27.5"/650b - Supposedly, the best of both worlds. Larger wheels to handle rough terrain, small enough to not give up acceleration, &amp; yet still have the increased rolling momentum.  These wheels also give bike designers a lot more leeway when considering frames for small/medium people.  A small rider unable to fit a 29'er, but intent on sampling the big-wheel experience will have a much easier time finding the proper fit on a 650b bike. Riders outfitting their existing 26" bikes with 650b wheels is becoming common, as most 26" frames will accept 650b wheels/tires and exhibit no clearance issues. On rigid hardtails with disc-brakes, this is extremely easy (having disc-brakes is key). Even some long-travel FS bikes (the Fisher Fat Possum) are being equipped with the 650b by enterprising bike-shops.  Some suspension forks have clearance issues when running a 650b wheel; but so far, the RockShox Pike, X-Fusion Velvet, Maverick DUC32, &amp; Fox 32 have enough space to run the 27.5" wheel. White Brothers is developing a production 650b fork, but none of the other fork manufacturers at this time recommend using their utensils for the 650b wheel. Using a 650b wheel on a 26" bike will not adversely tone-down the ride. It may slacken the head-angle up front by a degree, and increase bottom-bracket height (hence COG), but this will not nearly equal the upset occuring if a 29" wheel is somehow stuffed onto a 26" frame. Tire-toe overlap is also much less likely to happen, but this depends on the original 26" frame's front triangle dimensions. Within a year's time, the range of options for a weapon-of-choice is going to explode. 29'ers, 26", 27.5", 69'ers, 650b-26'ers; the limits will only be marked by the willingness of the industry to experiment. And after several years of slowly evolving, the mountainbike world seems to have reached a point of revolution.  New suspension designs, wheel designs, &amp; frame materials are all contributing to this; and it's going to be very exciting.
Mountain Bike Trails
A frozen Moab?
Nov 5, 2007
Mountainbikes have run with the 26" wheel for a long time, and not because it was the best; but because it was the only size that the first fat-tire riders could use with fat tires.  They came off of ballon-tire bikes, and they ran knobby moto treads for lack of anything else.  26" wheels aren't bad. In fact, they work extremely well; nice, given that for the longest time that's all there was. Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), there were always those who seeked to improve our bikes; and they refused to believe that the 26" was the best that could be. But now we have a plethora of choice available, and I'm sure that many riders just starting out (or those of us who are Luddites) are confused as to what is the right choice (personal wheel-politics aside). The 26" - Nothing really bad can be said about the standard mountainbike wheel. It does have limitations; inability to roll over large obstacles, smallish moment of inertia, &amp; a tendancy to bog-down in sand/mud/snow.  However, it's benefits include; a mountainbike industry based on the 26" wheel, will support/fit a wide range of rider sizes, ability to be built as strong or light as technologically possible, ability to accept a wide range of tire sizes, &amp; is quick to accelerate. The 29'er - The Big Wheel has proven its' worth for offroading decades ago with the 4-wheeling truck industry. As with trucks, a larger mountainbike wheel can roll obstacles easier, will provide greater floatation through sand/muck, gives a larger tire contact-patch for better overall traction, &amp; maintains its' momentum at speed. But with vehicles, the design can easily be altered to fit the large wheels &amp; tires, with little inconvienience for the driver. On mountainbikes, frames with 29" wheels must be designed to keep the rider's COG &amp; standover height low, prevent tire-toe overlap, &amp; keep the overall weight down.  While manufacturers have done an admirable job of this, the 29'er is still better suited for tall riders.  Frames for very short riders will not be able to keep the standover at a reasonable height, and it would be very hard to prevent tire-toe overlap while still maintaining an effective wheelbase.  A 29'er designed for a 5' person would have the rider sitting <em>between </em>the wheels, as well as them having to fight the considerably increased inertia of the larger wheels.  In addition, full-suspension 29'ers are currently limited in wheel-travel.  Designs with greater than 6" of travel have been made, but keeping the frame to the desired mountainbike dimensions is tough (low standover/COG/wheelbase).  Full-suspension bikes are also heavier than hardtail/rigid bikes, and combined with heavy wheels, not building a 29'er full-susser pig is difficult without using exotic frame materials &amp; simple suspension setups. The Combo (69'er) - This is not a new idea.  In the past, mountainbikes were made with 26"/24" wheel combinations; the idea being to have a large wheel up front to deal with obstacles, and a small wheel in back to provide snappy acceleration.  The same applies for the 69'er.  These bikes can also accomodate small riders, and are easier to bring up to speed than a 29"/29" bike. The 27.5"/650b - Supposedly, the best of both worlds. Larger wheels to handle rough terrain, small enough to not give up acceleration, &amp; yet still have the increased rolling momentum.  These wheels also give bike designers a lot more leeway when considering frames for small/medium people.  A small rider unable to fit a 29'er, but intent on sampling the big-wheel experience will have a much easier time finding the proper fit on a 650b bike. Riders outfitting their existing 26" bikes with 650b wheels is becoming common, as most 26" frames will accept 650b wheels/tires and exhibit no clearance issues. On rigid hardtails with disc-brakes, this is extremely easy (having disc-brakes is key). Even some long-travel FS bikes (the Fisher Fat Possum) are being equipped with the 650b by enterprising bike-shops.  Some suspension forks have clearance issues when running a 650b wheel; but so far, the RockShox Pike, X-Fusion Velvet, Maverick DUC32, &amp; Fox 32 have enough space to run the 27.5" wheel. White Brothers is developing a production 650b fork, but none of the other fork manufacturers at this time recommend using their utensils for the 650b wheel. Using a 650b wheel on a 26" bike will not adversely tone-down the ride. It may slacken the head-angle up front by a degree, and increase bottom-bracket height (hence COG), but this will not nearly equal the upset occuring if a 29" wheel is somehow stuffed onto a 26" frame. Tire-toe overlap is also much less likely to happen, but this depends on the original 26" frame's front triangle dimensions. Within a year's time, the range of options for a weapon-of-choice is going to explode. 29'ers, 26", 27.5", 69'ers, 650b-26'ers; the limits will only be marked by the willingness of the industry to experiment. And after several years of slowly evolving, the mountainbike world seems to have reached a point of revolution.  New suspension designs, wheel designs, &amp; frame materials are all contributing to this; and it's going to be very exciting.
Community
Trail Weekend @ Hueston Woods: Nov 9-11
Nov 2, 2007
Mountainbikes have run with the 26" wheel for a long time, and not because it was the best; but because it was the only size that the first fat-tire riders could use with fat tires.  They came off of ballon-tire bikes, and they ran knobby moto treads for lack of anything else.  26" wheels aren't bad. In fact, they work extremely well; nice, given that for the longest time that's all there was. Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), there were always those who seeked to improve our bikes; and they refused to believe that the 26" was the best that could be. But now we have a plethora of choice available, and I'm sure that many riders just starting out (or those of us who are Luddites) are confused as to what is the right choice (personal wheel-politics aside). The 26" - Nothing really bad can be said about the standard mountainbike wheel. It does have limitations; inability to roll over large obstacles, smallish moment of inertia, &amp; a tendancy to bog-down in sand/mud/snow.  However, it's benefits include; a mountainbike industry based on the 26" wheel, will support/fit a wide range of rider sizes, ability to be built as strong or light as technologically possible, ability to accept a wide range of tire sizes, &amp; is quick to accelerate. The 29'er - The Big Wheel has proven its' worth for offroading decades ago with the 4-wheeling truck industry. As with trucks, a larger mountainbike wheel can roll obstacles easier, will provide greater floatation through sand/muck, gives a larger tire contact-patch for better overall traction, &amp; maintains its' momentum at speed. But with vehicles, the design can easily be altered to fit the large wheels &amp; tires, with little inconvienience for the driver. On mountainbikes, frames with 29" wheels must be designed to keep the rider's COG &amp; standover height low, prevent tire-toe overlap, &amp; keep the overall weight down.  While manufacturers have done an admirable job of this, the 29'er is still better suited for tall riders.  Frames for very short riders will not be able to keep the standover at a reasonable height, and it would be very hard to prevent tire-toe overlap while still maintaining an effective wheelbase.  A 29'er designed for a 5' person would have the rider sitting <em>between </em>the wheels, as well as them having to fight the considerably increased inertia of the larger wheels.  In addition, full-suspension 29'ers are currently limited in wheel-travel.  Designs with greater than 6" of travel have been made, but keeping the frame to the desired mountainbike dimensions is tough (low standover/COG/wheelbase).  Full-suspension bikes are also heavier than hardtail/rigid bikes, and combined with heavy wheels, not building a 29'er full-susser pig is difficult without using exotic frame materials &amp; simple suspension setups. The Combo (69'er) - This is not a new idea.  In the past, mountainbikes were made with 26"/24" wheel combinations; the idea being to have a large wheel up front to deal with obstacles, and a small wheel in back to provide snappy acceleration.  The same applies for the 69'er.  These bikes can also accomodate small riders, and are easier to bring up to speed than a 29"/29" bike. The 27.5"/650b - Supposedly, the best of both worlds. Larger wheels to handle rough terrain, small enough to not give up acceleration, &amp; yet still have the increased rolling momentum.  These wheels also give bike designers a lot more leeway when considering frames for small/medium people.  A small rider unable to fit a 29'er, but intent on sampling the big-wheel experience will have a much easier time finding the proper fit on a 650b bike. Riders outfitting their existing 26" bikes with 650b wheels is becoming common, as most 26" frames will accept 650b wheels/tires and exhibit no clearance issues. On rigid hardtails with disc-brakes, this is extremely easy (having disc-brakes is key). Even some long-travel FS bikes (the Fisher Fat Possum) are being equipped with the 650b by enterprising bike-shops.  Some suspension forks have clearance issues when running a 650b wheel; but so far, the RockShox Pike, X-Fusion Velvet, Maverick DUC32, &amp; Fox 32 have enough space to run the 27.5" wheel. White Brothers is developing a production 650b fork, but none of the other fork manufacturers at this time recommend using their utensils for the 650b wheel. Using a 650b wheel on a 26" bike will not adversely tone-down the ride. It may slacken the head-angle up front by a degree, and increase bottom-bracket height (hence COG), but this will not nearly equal the upset occuring if a 29" wheel is somehow stuffed onto a 26" frame. Tire-toe overlap is also much less likely to happen, but this depends on the original 26" frame's front triangle dimensions. Within a year's time, the range of options for a weapon-of-choice is going to explode. 29'ers, 26", 27.5", 69'ers, 650b-26'ers; the limits will only be marked by the willingness of the industry to experiment. And after several years of slowly evolving, the mountainbike world seems to have reached a point of revolution.  New suspension designs, wheel designs, &amp; frame materials are all contributing to this; and it's going to be very exciting.
Mountain Bike Trails
Best trail in the world
Nov 1, 2007
Close-up image of a black insect, commonly referred to as a stinkbug or clown beetle, positioned on a surface of small gravel or dirt. The insect is shown from a top-down angle, highlighting its distinct body shape and long antennae.
Culture
Mountain bikers: Yield to wildlife?
Oct 26, 2007
  2
Culture
Ultimate Frisbee on Mountain Bikes
Oct 25, 2007
Mountainbikes have run with the 26" wheel for a long time, and not because it was the best; but because it was the only size that the first fat-tire riders could use with fat tires.  They came off of ballon-tire bikes, and they ran knobby moto treads for lack of anything else.  26" wheels aren't bad. In fact, they work extremely well; nice, given that for the longest time that's all there was. Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), there were always those who seeked to improve our bikes; and they refused to believe that the 26" was the best that could be. But now we have a plethora of choice available, and I'm sure that many riders just starting out (or those of us who are Luddites) are confused as to what is the right choice (personal wheel-politics aside). The 26" - Nothing really bad can be said about the standard mountainbike wheel. It does have limitations; inability to roll over large obstacles, smallish moment of inertia, &amp; a tendancy to bog-down in sand/mud/snow.  However, it's benefits include; a mountainbike industry based on the 26" wheel, will support/fit a wide range of rider sizes, ability to be built as strong or light as technologically possible, ability to accept a wide range of tire sizes, &amp; is quick to accelerate. The 29'er - The Big Wheel has proven its' worth for offroading decades ago with the 4-wheeling truck industry. As with trucks, a larger mountainbike wheel can roll obstacles easier, will provide greater floatation through sand/muck, gives a larger tire contact-patch for better overall traction, &amp; maintains its' momentum at speed. But with vehicles, the design can easily be altered to fit the large wheels &amp; tires, with little inconvienience for the driver. On mountainbikes, frames with 29" wheels must be designed to keep the rider's COG &amp; standover height low, prevent tire-toe overlap, &amp; keep the overall weight down.  While manufacturers have done an admirable job of this, the 29'er is still better suited for tall riders.  Frames for very short riders will not be able to keep the standover at a reasonable height, and it would be very hard to prevent tire-toe overlap while still maintaining an effective wheelbase.  A 29'er designed for a 5' person would have the rider sitting <em>between </em>the wheels, as well as them having to fight the considerably increased inertia of the larger wheels.  In addition, full-suspension 29'ers are currently limited in wheel-travel.  Designs with greater than 6" of travel have been made, but keeping the frame to the desired mountainbike dimensions is tough (low standover/COG/wheelbase).  Full-suspension bikes are also heavier than hardtail/rigid bikes, and combined with heavy wheels, not building a 29'er full-susser pig is difficult without using exotic frame materials &amp; simple suspension setups. The Combo (69'er) - This is not a new idea.  In the past, mountainbikes were made with 26"/24" wheel combinations; the idea being to have a large wheel up front to deal with obstacles, and a small wheel in back to provide snappy acceleration.  The same applies for the 69'er.  These bikes can also accomodate small riders, and are easier to bring up to speed than a 29"/29" bike. The 27.5"/650b - Supposedly, the best of both worlds. Larger wheels to handle rough terrain, small enough to not give up acceleration, &amp; yet still have the increased rolling momentum.  These wheels also give bike designers a lot more leeway when considering frames for small/medium people.  A small rider unable to fit a 29'er, but intent on sampling the big-wheel experience will have a much easier time finding the proper fit on a 650b bike. Riders outfitting their existing 26" bikes with 650b wheels is becoming common, as most 26" frames will accept 650b wheels/tires and exhibit no clearance issues. On rigid hardtails with disc-brakes, this is extremely easy (having disc-brakes is key). Even some long-travel FS bikes (the Fisher Fat Possum) are being equipped with the 650b by enterprising bike-shops.  Some suspension forks have clearance issues when running a 650b wheel; but so far, the RockShox Pike, X-Fusion Velvet, Maverick DUC32, &amp; Fox 32 have enough space to run the 27.5" wheel. White Brothers is developing a production 650b fork, but none of the other fork manufacturers at this time recommend using their utensils for the 650b wheel. Using a 650b wheel on a 26" bike will not adversely tone-down the ride. It may slacken the head-angle up front by a degree, and increase bottom-bracket height (hence COG), but this will not nearly equal the upset occuring if a 29" wheel is somehow stuffed onto a 26" frame. Tire-toe overlap is also much less likely to happen, but this depends on the original 26" frame's front triangle dimensions. Within a year's time, the range of options for a weapon-of-choice is going to explode. 29'ers, 26", 27.5", 69'ers, 650b-26'ers; the limits will only be marked by the willingness of the industry to experiment. And after several years of slowly evolving, the mountainbike world seems to have reached a point of revolution.  New suspension designs, wheel designs, &amp; frame materials are all contributing to this; and it's going to be very exciting.
Culture
Recumbents: Expired
Oct 24, 2007
  3
An illustration featuring a cyclist in an unusual position, riding a bicycle with a skeletal spine incorporated into their body. The background is green, and the text "Riding the SPINE" is displayed in a stylized font above the figure.
Culture
Riding the Spine: Halfway to the tip of South America
Oct 23, 2007
  1
Mountainbikes have run with the 26" wheel for a long time, and not because it was the best; but because it was the only size that the first fat-tire riders could use with fat tires.  They came off of ballon-tire bikes, and they ran knobby moto treads for lack of anything else.  26" wheels aren't bad. In fact, they work extremely well; nice, given that for the longest time that's all there was. Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), there were always those who seeked to improve our bikes; and they refused to believe that the 26" was the best that could be. But now we have a plethora of choice available, and I'm sure that many riders just starting out (or those of us who are Luddites) are confused as to what is the right choice (personal wheel-politics aside). The 26" - Nothing really bad can be said about the standard mountainbike wheel. It does have limitations; inability to roll over large obstacles, smallish moment of inertia, &amp; a tendancy to bog-down in sand/mud/snow.  However, it's benefits include; a mountainbike industry based on the 26" wheel, will support/fit a wide range of rider sizes, ability to be built as strong or light as technologically possible, ability to accept a wide range of tire sizes, &amp; is quick to accelerate. The 29'er - The Big Wheel has proven its' worth for offroading decades ago with the 4-wheeling truck industry. As with trucks, a larger mountainbike wheel can roll obstacles easier, will provide greater floatation through sand/muck, gives a larger tire contact-patch for better overall traction, &amp; maintains its' momentum at speed. But with vehicles, the design can easily be altered to fit the large wheels &amp; tires, with little inconvienience for the driver. On mountainbikes, frames with 29" wheels must be designed to keep the rider's COG &amp; standover height low, prevent tire-toe overlap, &amp; keep the overall weight down.  While manufacturers have done an admirable job of this, the 29'er is still better suited for tall riders.  Frames for very short riders will not be able to keep the standover at a reasonable height, and it would be very hard to prevent tire-toe overlap while still maintaining an effective wheelbase.  A 29'er designed for a 5' person would have the rider sitting <em>between </em>the wheels, as well as them having to fight the considerably increased inertia of the larger wheels.  In addition, full-suspension 29'ers are currently limited in wheel-travel.  Designs with greater than 6" of travel have been made, but keeping the frame to the desired mountainbike dimensions is tough (low standover/COG/wheelbase).  Full-suspension bikes are also heavier than hardtail/rigid bikes, and combined with heavy wheels, not building a 29'er full-susser pig is difficult without using exotic frame materials &amp; simple suspension setups. The Combo (69'er) - This is not a new idea.  In the past, mountainbikes were made with 26"/24" wheel combinations; the idea being to have a large wheel up front to deal with obstacles, and a small wheel in back to provide snappy acceleration.  The same applies for the 69'er.  These bikes can also accomodate small riders, and are easier to bring up to speed than a 29"/29" bike. The 27.5"/650b - Supposedly, the best of both worlds. Larger wheels to handle rough terrain, small enough to not give up acceleration, &amp; yet still have the increased rolling momentum.  These wheels also give bike designers a lot more leeway when considering frames for small/medium people.  A small rider unable to fit a 29'er, but intent on sampling the big-wheel experience will have a much easier time finding the proper fit on a 650b bike. Riders outfitting their existing 26" bikes with 650b wheels is becoming common, as most 26" frames will accept 650b wheels/tires and exhibit no clearance issues. On rigid hardtails with disc-brakes, this is extremely easy (having disc-brakes is key). Even some long-travel FS bikes (the Fisher Fat Possum) are being equipped with the 650b by enterprising bike-shops.  Some suspension forks have clearance issues when running a 650b wheel; but so far, the RockShox Pike, X-Fusion Velvet, Maverick DUC32, &amp; Fox 32 have enough space to run the 27.5" wheel. White Brothers is developing a production 650b fork, but none of the other fork manufacturers at this time recommend using their utensils for the 650b wheel. Using a 650b wheel on a 26" bike will not adversely tone-down the ride. It may slacken the head-angle up front by a degree, and increase bottom-bracket height (hence COG), but this will not nearly equal the upset occuring if a 29" wheel is somehow stuffed onto a 26" frame. Tire-toe overlap is also much less likely to happen, but this depends on the original 26" frame's front triangle dimensions. Within a year's time, the range of options for a weapon-of-choice is going to explode. 29'ers, 26", 27.5", 69'ers, 650b-26'ers; the limits will only be marked by the willingness of the industry to experiment. And after several years of slowly evolving, the mountainbike world seems to have reached a point of revolution.  New suspension designs, wheel designs, &amp; frame materials are all contributing to this; and it's going to be very exciting.
Mountain Bikes and Gear
GPS Freeze: Problem solved?
Oct 22, 2007
Mountainbikes have run with the 26" wheel for a long time, and not because it was the best; but because it was the only size that the first fat-tire riders could use with fat tires.  They came off of ballon-tire bikes, and they ran knobby moto treads for lack of anything else.  26" wheels aren't bad. In fact, they work extremely well; nice, given that for the longest time that's all there was. Fortunately (depending on how you look at it), there were always those who seeked to improve our bikes; and they refused to believe that the 26" was the best that could be. But now we have a plethora of choice available, and I'm sure that many riders just starting out (or those of us who are Luddites) are confused as to what is the right choice (personal wheel-politics aside). The 26" - Nothing really bad can be said about the standard mountainbike wheel. It does have limitations; inability to roll over large obstacles, smallish moment of inertia, &amp; a tendancy to bog-down in sand/mud/snow.  However, it's benefits include; a mountainbike industry based on the 26" wheel, will support/fit a wide range of rider sizes, ability to be built as strong or light as technologically possible, ability to accept a wide range of tire sizes, &amp; is quick to accelerate. The 29'er - The Big Wheel has proven its' worth for offroading decades ago with the 4-wheeling truck industry. As with trucks, a larger mountainbike wheel can roll obstacles easier, will provide greater floatation through sand/muck, gives a larger tire contact-patch for better overall traction, &amp; maintains its' momentum at speed. But with vehicles, the design can easily be altered to fit the large wheels &amp; tires, with little inconvienience for the driver. On mountainbikes, frames with 29" wheels must be designed to keep the rider's COG &amp; standover height low, prevent tire-toe overlap, &amp; keep the overall weight down.  While manufacturers have done an admirable job of this, the 29'er is still better suited for tall riders.  Frames for very short riders will not be able to keep the standover at a reasonable height, and it would be very hard to prevent tire-toe overlap while still maintaining an effective wheelbase.  A 29'er designed for a 5' person would have the rider sitting <em>between </em>the wheels, as well as them having to fight the considerably increased inertia of the larger wheels.  In addition, full-suspension 29'ers are currently limited in wheel-travel.  Designs with greater than 6" of travel have been made, but keeping the frame to the desired mountainbike dimensions is tough (low standover/COG/wheelbase).  Full-suspension bikes are also heavier than hardtail/rigid bikes, and combined with heavy wheels, not building a 29'er full-susser pig is difficult without using exotic frame materials &amp; simple suspension setups. The Combo (69'er) - This is not a new idea.  In the past, mountainbikes were made with 26"/24" wheel combinations; the idea being to have a large wheel up front to deal with obstacles, and a small wheel in back to provide snappy acceleration.  The same applies for the 69'er.  These bikes can also accomodate small riders, and are easier to bring up to speed than a 29"/29" bike. The 27.5"/650b - Supposedly, the best of both worlds. Larger wheels to handle rough terrain, small enough to not give up acceleration, &amp; yet still have the increased rolling momentum.  These wheels also give bike designers a lot more leeway when considering frames for small/medium people.  A small rider unable to fit a 29'er, but intent on sampling the big-wheel experience will have a much easier time finding the proper fit on a 650b bike. Riders outfitting their existing 26" bikes with 650b wheels is becoming common, as most 26" frames will accept 650b wheels/tires and exhibit no clearance issues. On rigid hardtails with disc-brakes, this is extremely easy (having disc-brakes is key). Even some long-travel FS bikes (the Fisher Fat Possum) are being equipped with the 650b by enterprising bike-shops.  Some suspension forks have clearance issues when running a 650b wheel; but so far, the RockShox Pike, X-Fusion Velvet, Maverick DUC32, &amp; Fox 32 have enough space to run the 27.5" wheel. White Brothers is developing a production 650b fork, but none of the other fork manufacturers at this time recommend using their utensils for the 650b wheel. Using a 650b wheel on a 26" bike will not adversely tone-down the ride. It may slacken the head-angle up front by a degree, and increase bottom-bracket height (hence COG), but this will not nearly equal the upset occuring if a 29" wheel is somehow stuffed onto a 26" frame. Tire-toe overlap is also much less likely to happen, but this depends on the original 26" frame's front triangle dimensions. Within a year's time, the range of options for a weapon-of-choice is going to explode. 29'ers, 26", 27.5", 69'ers, 650b-26'ers; the limits will only be marked by the willingness of the industry to experiment. And after several years of slowly evolving, the mountainbike world seems to have reached a point of revolution.  New suspension designs, wheel designs, &amp; frame materials are all contributing to this; and it's going to be very exciting.
Mountain Bike Trails
New mountain bike trails in Cleveland
Oct 19, 2007
A Garmin Edge 605 GPS device displaying a map with speed and heading information, featuring a gray casing and a black screen with navigation details.
Mountain Bikes and Gear
Garmin Edge 605 and 705 release pushed back to 2008
Oct 18, 2007