Talk:29er (bicycle)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Are you going to also include MTB races won on road bikes and cyclocross bikes (can't find an example at the moment, but I'm sure they're out there)? Might be best to put them on a seperate list if you do find any, or to note parenthetically on the list any wins that came on road or 'cross rigs. --Cosmo the third 15:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Include cross/road? Those races and dirt crits won on cross bikes and road bikes seem to be less about 29er2 and more about innovative MTB racers. Well that and poor course choices by race organizers. --Ray 09:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Gyroscopic effect
Removed from list of advantages. There are plenty of published articles about how gyroscopic effects do not matter (Jones in Physics Today and Klein at the University of Illinois, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering), and without a supporting reference, this claim should not be listed -AndrewDressel 16:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sections
Any opposition to deleting the "Proselytizing" section as, at best, speculation? Also i think the Online debate section should be deleted and the one line of useful information, if that, incorporated elsewhere. Goodnightmush 20:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- No objection here. I just changed the title because "Prophetizing" isn't really a word. However, I think it might be worthwhile to keep some mention of the zeal with which 29"er fans defend and promote their wheel size choice. Cosmo the third 04:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rolling Resistance
Wouldn't rolling resistance at a given tire width be increased with 29" tires, due to the longer, but identically wide contact patch? Cosmo the third 04:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- From the rolling resistance article:
- "Smaller wheels, all else being equal, have higher rolling resistance than larger wheels.[1]"
-
-
-
- ^ VREDESTEIN Bicycle Tires. Retrieved on 2006-08-14.
-
-
-
-
-
- -AndrewDressel 13:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] angle between hub flange and rim
First it was
- Longer spokes and decreased angle between hub flange and rim result in theoretically weaker wheel.
And now it is
- Longer spokes and increased angle between hub flange and rim result in theoretically weaker wheel.
Perhaps if the "angle between hub flange and rim" were more clearly defined, we could know for sure which is correct. Is there a reference with a picture showing which angle is being talked about? Otherwise, this should come out. -AndrewDressel 13:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- How about this, from Jobst Brandt's "The Bicycle Wheel" 3rd Edition, page 38:
- "For a give hub width, lateral stiffness increases with smaller diameter rims. And, if the number of spokes remains the same, they become more closely spaced along the rim. Through these effects, a nominal 26 inch rim on a standard front hub is laterally about 10% stiffer (and stronger) than an identical 27 inch rim."
- -AndrewDressel 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- How about this, from Jobst Brandt's "The Bicycle Wheel" 3rd Edition, page 38:
[edit] "i believe cannondale is larger than Gary Fisher "
This doesn't sound very encyclopedic. However, it may be impossible to get real numbers because 1) Gary Fisher is simply a brand of Trek and 2) Trek is privately held. What I did find is Trek reported about $600 million for 2006 [1], and Cannondale reported $156.66 million for 2002 (before filing "a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11" in 2003)[2].
I suggest instead that the article read something like this: "Both Cannondale and Gary Fisher, two of the largest US brands, offer 29ers." -AndrewDressel 14:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. For lack of numbers gotta advocate ambiguity. Thanks. GoodnightmushTalk 20:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

