Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12
Results 276 to 298 of 298
  1. #276
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    725
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Hopefully our Klingon overlords will soon fix this French nonsense.
    To which my response is:

    Huj Human toj'eghmeH laH 'ej Dun. vay' Harchugh ghot, 'utbe' ngoDmey. qechDaj tlhochchugh ngoDmey wanI'mey joq, ngoDmeyvetlh wanI'meyvetlh ghap lajQo'. SuvwI'na' tojlu'be'meH, chay' vangnIS? wa' vIttlhegh boqaw: yIvoq, 'ach yI'ol.

  2. #277
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,688
    Quote Originally Posted by satanas View Post
    yIvoq, 'ach yI'ol.
    Satan quoting Stalin. How appropriate.

  3. #278
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3,967

    Can we just call it 27.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by satanas View Post
    IMHO the only feasible answer is US arrogance, parochialism, and failure to understand or learn from history, which also account for the Vietnam War, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, torture at Guantanamo Bay, spying on US and international citizens, etc, etc. And those were all such great ideas!!!
    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  4. #279
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    725
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Satan quoting Stalin. How appropriate.
    In fact I just copied a random sample of Klingon from kli.org and had no idea what it meant. Sorry, no Stalinist or Communist tendencies were involved.

    According to Wikipedia, "Trust but verify" is an old Russian proverb that became more known once adopted by Reagan during his term in office.

  5. #280
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    725
    ^ That's probably what's going to happen - or we could just end up with the present situation where some things in cycling are referred to in inches and others in mm or cm. I suspect both terms are here for the long haul, and anyone with half a clue will understand them. Personally, I prefer 650b as at least it has some historical provenence, rather than being coined by marketers for dubious purposes.

    If we were going to be logical about implementing a sensible system for naming wheel sizes, the answer would be to use the ETRTO system and refer to the bead seat diameter of the rim in mm. This makes much more sense than referring to some nominal outside tyre diameter, and 559/584/622mm rims are not ambiguous, whereas there are several 26" rim diameters out there, including 559 (26" MTB), 571 (650c, used mostly on triathlon bikes), 584 (650b), 590 (650a, aka 26 x 1 3/8", the old "English 3 speed" size), and 597 (26 x 1 1/4"). There may well be other oddball sizes, and GT's failed 700D was 585mm IIRC. The situation is similar with most other nominal tyre diameters, with tyres fitting multiple size rims but labelled as 16", 18", 20" 22", 24" and 28".

    It's a nightmare, and there are 2 or 3 pages of tables in Sutherland's that list all the sizes and their aliases. In the end, the only real way to differentiate between all these tyres and wheels is to use the ETRTO system, so the marketers should be forced to use it too! Referring to 650b wheels as 27.5" and 700c wheels as 29" DOES NOT make things any simpler, though I suppose if you are trying to direct advertising towards people who are illiterate and/or innumerate it probably has some appeal.

  6. #281
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    7
    I'm not against using the imperial terms as long as their significance is abolished and are 're-tooled' to have metric equivalents. Ex. Inch= 2 cm or 2.5 cm Foot= 20 or 25 cm. Mile= 1.5 or 2km Pound= .5 kg

    It's just easier and smarter.

    Stupid people in the US and elsewhere will freak out for about a week and then get used to it.

  7. #282
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nuffink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    769
    Hey Francois!

    Strike a blow for sanity. Rename this forum 584. Put "650b" and "27.5" on the naughty words list.

    C'mon it'd be the funniest thing to happen since you published the anonymous rep list.

  8. #283
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    7
    Please let me clear something: While my name is Dave, I'm not the Copperfield guy on this thread. Also, I am new to this forum so I don't know what you mean by publishing the anonymous rep. list. Lastly, BOYCOTT 584. STICK WITH YOUR LIGHTER 559 OR MOVE UP TO 622 IF YOU'RE OVER 185....... (cm.) over and out.

  9. #284
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nuffink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    769

  10. #285
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3,967

    Can we just call it 27.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by satanas View Post
    ^ That's probably what's going to happen - or we could just end up with the present situation where some things in cycling are referred to in inches and others in mm or cm. I suspect both terms are here for the long haul, and anyone with half a clue will understand them. Personally, I prefer 650b as at least it has some historical provenence, rather than being coined by marketers for dubious purposes.

    If we were going to be logical about implementing a sensible system for naming wheel sizes, the answer would be to use the ETRTO system and refer to the bead seat diameter of the rim in mm. This makes much more sense than referring to some nominal outside tyre diameter, and 559/584/622mm rims are not ambiguous, whereas there are several 26" rim diameters out there, including 559 (26" MTB), 571 (650c, used mostly on triathlon bikes), 584 (650b), 590 (650a, aka 26 x 1 3/8", the old "English 3 speed" size), and 597 (26 x 1 1/4"). There may well be other oddball sizes, and GT's failed 700D was 585mm IIRC. The situation is similar with most other nominal tyre diameters, with tyres fitting multiple size rims but labelled as 16", 18", 20" 22", 24" and 28".

    It's a nightmare, and there are 2 or 3 pages of tables in Sutherland's that list all the sizes and their aliases. In the end, the only real way to differentiate between all these tyres and wheels is to use the ETRTO system, so the marketers should be forced to use it too! Referring to 650b wheels as 27.5" and 700c wheels as 29" DOES NOT make things any simpler, though I suppose if you are trying to direct advertising towards people who are illiterate and/or innumerate it probably has some appeal.
    Great post

    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  11. #286
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,688
    Quote Originally Posted by satanas View Post
    It's a nightmare
    Name:  oh-the-humanity-and-other-good-intentions.jpeg
Views: 137
Size:  14.7 KB

  12. #287
    mtbr member
    Reputation: carverboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    555

    What he meant to say, I belive .

    BlitzkriegBike "Please let me clear something: While my name is Dave, I'm not the Copperfield guy on this thread. Also, I am new to this forum so I don't know what you mean by publishing the anonymous rep. list. Lastly, I am Another anti-650b lunatic come to preach to you heathens. BOYCOTT 584. STICK WITH YOUR LIGHTER 559 OR MOVE UP TO 622 IF YOU'RE OVER 185....... (cm.) over and out. "(but not really as I will continue to post my diatribes until you see things my way or like my dear brother Davey-cop-a-feel I get the ban hammer)
    Fixed it for you
    UGG boots will germinate Paris Hilton like intellect in your soles!

  13. #288
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    725
    Quote Originally Posted by BlitzkriegBike View Post
    I'm not against using the imperial terms as long as their significance is abolished and are 're-tooled' to have metric equivalents. Ex. Inch= 2 cm or 2.5 cm Foot= 20 or 25 cm. Mile= 1.5 or 2km
    ^ It'd be better to use "Norwegian miles" which are 11,295m, or roughly 36,000 feet according to Wikipedia - no need to create something new!

    Shoe sizing isn't as bad as it might first appear as most footwear from brands who sell worldwide is marked with UK/US/Euro sizes, and sometimes mondopoint as well, so it's usually easy enough to get into the ballpark. Cycling shoes are usually marked with Euro sizes wherever they come from, and plastic ski boots are all mondo these days I think, so there's not as much regional variation with sizing conventions as it might appear at first. And unlike bicycle frames, everyone usually agrees on where to measure from.

    Anyway, with footwear the theoretical size doesn't matter as there is so much variation in foot and last shape that everything needs to be tried on. I'd never order footwear online unless sure of the size and fit because I was replacing like with like, i.e., same or similar item, plus same size and manufacturer. I still wouldn't be totally confident unless I was reasonably sure the manufacturer hadn't changed the last since my previous purchase.

    Bike tyres are much simpler to size than shoes!

  14. #289
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3,967

    Can we just call it 27.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by carverboy View Post

    Lastly, I am Another anti-650b lunatic come to preach to you heathens. BOYCOTT 584. STICK WITH YOUR LIGHTER 559 OR MOVE UP TO 622 IF YOU'RE OVER 185....... (cm.) over and out. "(but not really as I will continue to post my diatribes until you see things my way or like my dear brother Davey-cop-a-feel I get the ban hammer
    Copperfield is an actual lunatic. What's your real excuse for giving a shyte what other people ride?

    27.5 or whatever is firmly entrenched, you can't fight that. If 27.5 & 29 push 26 out of the market, so be it. I seriously doubt, however, ALL brands will dump 26". Too big an established loyal market.

    If 27.5" has no objective performance benefit and really IS "all about marketing" it will eventually fade on its own accord. If so, those of us who ride and prefer the middle size over small and large will bow to your "told ya so" and we will start whining. Don't think that will happen, either. It "should have" been the default way back when.
    Last edited by dwt; 08-28-2013 at 10:34 AM.
    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  15. #290
    ccm
    ccm is offline
    West Coast Racing
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    505
    I wish there was a middle size where you could easily tell the difference between the smaller and larger sizes
    lets call it 666B

  16. #291
    the new Gilbert Grape
    Reputation: laffeaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,404
    Quote Originally Posted by dwt View Post
    27.5 or whatever is firmly entrenched, you can't fight that. If 27.5 & 29 push 26 out of the market, so be it. I seriously doubt, however, ALL brands will dump 26". Too big an established loyal market.
    You should spend some time on the kid's bike forum. They're always arguing about why we have a need for 12, 16, 18, 20 and 24 inch wheel sizes. I personally think that the 18 inch wheel size should be banned. Smaller kids can ride a 16 inch wheel until it gets a little small for them, then they should suck it up and jump straight to 20 inches wheels. The amount of money and marketing spent on 18 inch wheels is taking away research and design from the other sizes - it's wasteful. I'd contend that the 18 inch wheel has set back the development of kid's bikes by years. Do not buy 18 inch wheeled bikes - the difference between 16 and 20 inches is not enough to matter and kids should not ride it!!
    Each bicycle owned exponentially increases the probability that none is working correctly.

  17. #292
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    725
    Quote Originally Posted by ccm View Post
    I wish there was a middle size where you could easily tell the difference between the smaller and larger sizes
    lets call it 666B
    I Wish I'd thought of that!

    Quote Originally Posted by laffeaux View Post
    Smaller kids can ride a 16 inch wheel until it gets a little small for them, then they should suck it up and jump straight to 20 inches wheels.
    With a very few rare exceptions, nobody has ever sold 14" or 18" wheeled bikes here in Australia, We have 12", 16", 20", and occasionally 24" - these are not very common. Nobody has ever complained about needing an in-between wheel size that I've heard.

    I think 650b wheels have more reasons for existing and if one believes MTB folklore we might all be riding 650b if the Russian military hadn't bought all Nokian's production in the early days. Still, more SKUs = more hassles for retailers.

  18. #293
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    725
    ...
    Last edited by satanas; 08-28-2013 at 09:46 AM. Reason: deleted - duplicated content

  19. #294
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,688
    Quote Originally Posted by satanas View Post
    With a very few rare exceptions, nobody has ever sold 14" or 18" wheeled bikes here in Australia, We have 12", 16", 20", and occasionally 24" - these are not very common. Nobody has ever complained about needing an in-between wheel size that I've heard.
    Twenty seconds of google search found Verde EON 18 in an australian store: Verde EON and EON 18 Dirt / Jump BMX Bike I would bet 18" BMX are fairly common.

    I had 14" convertible run bike/pedal bike for my kids (BMW made it - really nice kid's bike). And 10" Haro z10 to start with - as one can start earlier. Skipped 12".

  20. #295
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    725
    ^ I've worked in a number of shops and been in numerous others without ever seeing a 14" or 18" wheel except on obscure 1970s Raleighs, or Birdys. There may be few out there, but not many, and most places definitely do not stock tyres. I've never seen or heard of 10" before now.

    They should really start at 11:

    Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
    Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.

  21. #296
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ctopher63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    50
    I'm going to start calling mine front 54/112B23 rear 57/110B23 so there is no confusion.

  22. #297
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    725
    None whatsoever!

  23. #298
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    78
    Just follow the vehicle/moto standards...
    60/95-22 ("26" x2.35)
    60/95-23 ("27.5" x 2.35)
    60/95-24.5 ("29" x 2.35)

    Now when we gonna get some 80 series 60mm wide tires? I'll take them in 22 rim size for now, thank you.

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •