Talk:29er (bicycle)

message: This means that tire, caliper, center, and fiber are all correctly spelled in this article. Please do not change them without discussion here first. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inclusions

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gyroscopic effect 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: 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 , and Cannondale reported $156.66 million for 2002 (before filing "a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11" in 2003).
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)
replies: text: Agreed. For lack of numbers gotta advocate ambiguity. Thanks. GoodnightmushTalk 20:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "i believe cannondale is larger than Gary Fisher " 

message: The Origins section contains: "Gary Fisher Bicycles, then a stand alone firm, now a division of Trek Bicycles, became the first of the major manufactures to offer a line of 29" bikes." This is misleading since Gary Fisher Mountain Bikes was owned by Trek since the early '90s.
Also, in the Tires section, the statement "A tire with a tread width of less than 2.0 in (51 mm) is considered a cyclocross tire by 29" enthusiasts, even though in cyclocross, any tire wider than 1.5 in (38 mm) is not a cyclocross tire" either needs documentation or should be removed.
206.83.48.110 (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup 

message: There's a factual error in the sentence The typical 26" rim has a diameter of 22.0 in (559 mm) and an outside tire diameter of about 26.2in (665 mm). I just measured my new wheel with a Continental Race King Supersonic, and it is ~70cm across, meaning ~27,5". This is a bit wider than most wheels, but 27" is normally said to be the standard, 26" plus a lot of MTB tyre… Rkarlsba (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what your point is, but the fact remains and the references agree that the current convention is to call an ISO 559 rim and tire on a mountain bike "26 inch", no matter what the tire width, and to call an ISO 622 rim and tire on a mountain bike "29 inch". -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  26" is not 26" with MTB tyre 

message: Calling out that "most of these claims have yet to be objectively investigated" in the Advantages section, but not the Disadvantages section makes it sound like the advantages are suspect where the disadvantages are not.  This cannot be true, especially as increased inertia of 29er wheel is listed as both an advantage (". . .they lose less speed to obstacles and rough sections. . .") and a disadvantage (". . .makes the wheels harder to accelerate and harder to brake.").  It would be better to move the paragraph that starts "most of these claims have yet to be objectively investigated" below (or perhaps above?) the advantages/disadvantages section and make it clear that it applies to both.  Objections?  Jamesfett (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Advantages not scientifically verified, but no similar disclaimer for disadvantages