@IMightRush Exactly right. And lucaseq77 - it's an expression. I think he's aware that physics is always in play, but he's right - inertia's inertia. A bigger wheel might take more to get rolling, but once it's rolling, it's going to retain more of its momentum. And that's not the same as saying that we should fill wheels with lead, either.
I'm planning on buying spare brake pads for my '09 GF Tassajara with Shimano M486, hydraulic disc, 160mm CenterLock rotors and the stock pads are Shimano resin B01S. There is a 1st version, as well as a 2nd version. Can someone please tell me what the differences are between the two?
@tebonginc I have both a 26 and 29. In my opinion one is not superior over the other and there IS a trade off between the two. When I'm on one, at various times, I miss the other. If I could have both size wheels on one ride, I would have the 29er on rocky uphill terrain due to the fact that it's ability to roll over rocks is more forgiving if I choose a bad line. My 26er handles better and is far more responsive on fast winding descents. Just my opinion based on my experience.
@bkedp Your opinion & experience really counts, as you own both bikes.. Far better than the sales pitch of a man on a video who exclusively sells 29er bikes
@stridercdh he was speaking about 2 different types of resistence..one of them was the "rotational mass of the wheels in motion", that, of course, the 29er has more...and when he meant that the 29er has LESS resistance, he was talking about the friction of the tire to the ground, wich the 29er has LESS rolling resistance, and what he also meant comparing these 2, was that having less friction on the tires is better then having less rotational mass
Some of the Fisher 29ers do have a lower (or as low) centre of gravity, as the frame is more similar to a bmx conformation (angled top tube etc) - so while the wheels have greater clearance, the bottom bracket is the same height
1. "More contact patch on the ground has less rolling resistance". That's not right. But I understand that the contact angle of the tyre against an obstacle is less - thereby offering bless resistance against forward motion.
2. A 29er has a lower centre of gravity? No, because while the centre of gravity of the rider is the same, the taller bike (29er) has a higher centre of gravity.
Not saying they 29ers aren't better, just wish people would stop talking rubbish.
1. Schwalbe did studies on this, a wider tire and a larger tire roll easier over small bumps than a smaller or skinnier tire. He is correct in this video.
2. It's a lower center of gravity relative to the center of the wheels. because the wheels are larger, but the bottom bracket is at the same height as on a 26er, your weight is directed lower than the center of the wheels, which also serve as the center of the gyroscopic effect of the wheels, allowing for better turning capabilities.
@g00mba Also he says the bottom bracket is the same distance from the ground as a 26" and he tries to construe that as meaning that because your weight is exerted on a lower plane (lower than the larger 29er axles) you magically lower your C.O.G. when in fact it is the same distance from the ground as the 26".
@g00mba As for the center of gravity, I think he is correct, the axles are higher off the ground while the crank is the same, therefore it is technically as if the rider has been lowered down towards the axles.
beggar81 they do, look at the gary fisher line up this year. the superfly is a carbon xc race bike with 110mm rear and 100mm front travel, the hifi is basically the same bike as the superfly but in aluminum, and the rumblefish is an all mountian bike with 110mm rear and 120mm front
@IMightRush Exactly right. And lucaseq77 - it's an expression. I think he's aware that physics is always in play, but he's right - inertia's inertia. A bigger wheel might take more to get rolling, but once it's rolling, it's going to retain more of its momentum. And that's not the same as saying that we should fill wheels with lead, either.
TheNomdeguerre 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thanks... very interesting! Although i will say a 29er is much slower turning... and slower off the mark!
4crevis 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
4crevis 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
4crevis 3 weeks ago
Full of bologne... "Physics kicks in" but not here...
lucaseq77 3 months ago
so the bigger contact patch allows for less rolling resistance when accelerating but the bigger contact patch also helps slow it down when braking?
And... The 26ers have a shorter wheelbase, lower overall center of gavity (by 1.5" usually), and can be lighter.
The roll-ability of a 29er over stuff is it's real advatage. The bigger patch does offer more traction and float, especially in the soft stuff.
Rough stuff- 29
sharp turns-26
descending-29
climbing-26
^ typically
goitoutdoors 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm planning on buying spare brake pads for my '09 GF Tassajara with Shimano M486, hydraulic disc, 160mm CenterLock rotors and the stock pads are Shimano resin B01S. There is a 1st version, as well as a 2nd version. Can someone please tell me what the differences are between the two?
ussprinceton2004 5 months ago
"Physics kicks in" LOL, physics always applies, nice sales pitch brosian.
mic09dcsm09 5 months ago 5
Great info. THX
LiveFireGuy 8 months ago
AND THEY LOOK SOOOO COOOL
MrMisanthrope1 9 months ago
i find it difficult to accept that a larger contact patch wheel will create less rolling resistance than a thinner contact patch wheel.
that would mean the road bike/racer bike has more rolling resistance than mountain bikes. this video is misleading no?
i'm concerned cuz i'm planning on getting a 29er instead of a 26er
tebonginc 9 months ago
@tebonginc I have both a 26 and 29. In my opinion one is not superior over the other and there IS a trade off between the two. When I'm on one, at various times, I miss the other. If I could have both size wheels on one ride, I would have the 29er on rocky uphill terrain due to the fact that it's ability to roll over rocks is more forgiving if I choose a bad line. My 26er handles better and is far more responsive on fast winding descents. Just my opinion based on my experience.
bkedp 9 months ago
@bkedp Your opinion & experience really counts, as you own both bikes.. Far better than the sales pitch of a man on a video who exclusively sells 29er bikes
good comment
MegaEagle63 5 months ago
This guy contradicts himself so often. How can u have less rolling resistance in one sentence followed by more rolling resistance in the next?
stridercdh 11 months ago
@stridercdh he was speaking about 2 different types of resistence..one of them was the "rotational mass of the wheels in motion", that, of course, the 29er has more...and when he meant that the 29er has LESS resistance, he was talking about the friction of the tire to the ground, wich the 29er has LESS rolling resistance, and what he also meant comparing these 2, was that having less friction on the tires is better then having less rotational mass
Driftuner 10 months ago
29ers are great but this guy is wrong in more than one point
jmgp1970 1 year ago
Some of the Fisher 29ers do have a lower (or as low) centre of gravity, as the frame is more similar to a bmx conformation (angled top tube etc) - so while the wheels have greater clearance, the bottom bracket is the same height
thecolourofdarkness 1 year ago
He can't even pronounce "Porsche" properly.
What a dipshit!
RBK855 1 year ago
This is nonsense.
1. "More contact patch on the ground has less rolling resistance". That's not right. But I understand that the contact angle of the tyre against an obstacle is less - thereby offering bless resistance against forward motion.
2. A 29er has a lower centre of gravity? No, because while the centre of gravity of the rider is the same, the taller bike (29er) has a higher centre of gravity.
Not saying they 29ers aren't better, just wish people would stop talking rubbish.
g00mba 1 year ago 15
@g00mba
1. Schwalbe did studies on this, a wider tire and a larger tire roll easier over small bumps than a smaller or skinnier tire. He is correct in this video.
2. It's a lower center of gravity relative to the center of the wheels. because the wheels are larger, but the bottom bracket is at the same height as on a 26er, your weight is directed lower than the center of the wheels, which also serve as the center of the gyroscopic effect of the wheels, allowing for better turning capabilities.
verheyian 1 year ago 3
@g00mba Also he says the bottom bracket is the same distance from the ground as a 26" and he tries to construe that as meaning that because your weight is exerted on a lower plane (lower than the larger 29er axles) you magically lower your C.O.G. when in fact it is the same distance from the ground as the 26".
mic09dcsm09 5 months ago
@g00mba As for the center of gravity, I think he is correct, the axles are higher off the ground while the crank is the same, therefore it is technically as if the rider has been lowered down towards the axles.
IMightRush 1 month ago
beggar81 they do, look at the gary fisher line up this year. the superfly is a carbon xc race bike with 110mm rear and 100mm front travel, the hifi is basically the same bike as the superfly but in aluminum, and the rumblefish is an all mountian bike with 110mm rear and 120mm front
xupthree60 1 year ago
The greatest bullshit story ever told in the MTB world. Just look at his shifty eyes!
RBK855 1 year ago
@RBK855
Asian man tells the truth, even when he's lying.
JamesKim13 1 year ago
How come they don't make a dual suspension model for 29ers?
beggar81 1 year ago
@beggar81
They do. It's called the RIP9.
lexvill 1 year ago