UKC

Had a quick play on one in thLBS carpark the other day and first impressions were verypositive.

Does anyone have reasonable riding experience of this machine or similar as they are fairly new on the market.

Cheers

David

In reply to David Hooper:

I would say have a look at the head angle, many 29rs suffer from sluggish steering on twisty single track, but this can be corrected with a degree or 2 more angle on the head (i.e. 71-72 degrees). Trek and Cannondale certainly have this issue sorted out on their new 29rs and it makes a big difference. I have no experience of the Orange you mention.

In reply to balmybaldwin: cheers for that,orange are good at posting techy specs and angles on their site,I will pop over and check.

In reply to balmybaldwin: 69.5 - so what would that mean in layman's terms?

I'm demoing a 5 and a Gyro back to back anyway,so the results should be interesting.

In reply to David Hooper: It means it is fairly slack for a short travel 29er, so a bike pitched more at being fun than an ultra efficeint climber. In geo terms, it is pretty much just a 29er version of a five, which is another great bike if the descent is the bit you want it to be best at. Chewie from Glen Tress spent a few days on one recently when he was shopping for his new bike (there's a nice video of him riding it on the alpine bikes vimeo account). He liked it a lot and remarked that if he had just wanted a trail centre type bike he might well have bought one, but he went with a Santa Cruz Blur Trc in the end feling it would handle tight DH riding (which he does quite a bit of too) a bit better I think.

In reply to neil the weak: That sounds pretty promising actualluy. Ill certainly be bombing round trail centres, but my real MTB passion is the big classic XC routes and I believe a 29er is made for munching the miles.

Also although the Gyro comes as stock with no upgrade options orange have said they will build me a one off dream bike with any parts i want to specify so Im very very tempted.

In reply to David Hooper:

As above, the slacker angle will make it a bit more sure footed at speed in sweeping runs, but if you like the tight and twisties a more aggressive 70.5 or 71 head angle would be a better choice. However you'll notice a number of manufacturers vary this with frame size too (a small Cannondale scalpel 29r for example has a head angle of 70.5, large is 71.4)

As a by product of the 29 inch wheels the bike will be more stable at a given head angle but slower response to steering input - i.e. a 69.5 on a 26 will be quicker turning than a 69.5 on a 29r in general. this is why some manufacturers (again using Cannondale as an example as I have the book in front of me) have made their 29r frames with different geometries a scalpel 26" medium frame has a head angle of 69.6, the 29r version has a head angle of 71.0.

A month back or so I took out a specialized epic 29r along with a friend how owns a 26" epic and the difference was quite marked in handling. While the 29r was definitely quicker up hills, and climbing and just seemed to roll over bumps better, the steering was slow, and it was much harder to correct your line mid corner if you didn't get it right. This nearly put me off the idea of a 29r as I like a bike you can through around a bit in the technical stuff, but trying a Cannondale 29r the difference in handling was almost gone (the main one remaining was simply that the bigger wheels make the bike rise up on you a bit more - something I can certainly get used to) , but it still had all the benefits of the big wheels and the speed, but more importantly the extra grip it gives you.

I would certainly try out whatever you are thinking about against a few different manufacturers' frames, and look out for those like the Trek and Cannondale (I'm sure their are others too) that haven't just taken a 26" frame and made it big enough to take 29" wheels. (Orange may well have not done this, perhaps their 26r has a head of 67 ish - but it does seem quite slack)

I'm still looking for my next bike (I want am XC specific short travel full sus) and haven't made up my mind fully yet, but highest on my list are the Scalpel and the Trek Superfly 100, I still have a few more to try... at least the sales don't start until August!

In reply to balmybaldwin:

After all that I forgot a key point... try it on the trail and not in the carpark - i'm sure you know this, but for me it has made a massive difference riding the bikes properly to get a feel for them - and I don't regret the £150 I've spent on test rides it will be worth it in the end (not to mention it's quite fun trying them all out

In reply to David Hooper:

hi dave,hope all is going well...

actually im just curious whats the thing with these 29ers ?,i like to run skinny tyres 1.8/1.9 (26 that is of course)and coz im only 10 st can get away with silly low pressures..most of the time.
every now and then i try some fatter/higher profile tyres maybe because i seem the odd one out but i never get on with them,my bike steers much slower,rolls from side to side slower,and always feels a bit boingy like the tyres arent allowing the suspension to work and i actually feel those semi cicular front wheel landing ruts much more,almost like the tyre is (fitting ?)the rut rather than rolling through it,it does mean have to watch out for those square edge stones more but i consider it a fair price to pay for a fast bike in the twisties.

a 29er sounds like single track hell to me...!but you are much taller than me so maybe that makes the difference..
cheers cliff...