Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    123

    Why not make a wheel size Actually in between 26" and 29"???

    First off I am not complaining about the size as it stands. However I hear a lot of naysayers complaining that 650b isn't exactly in between the two sizes and is closer to 26". Its not like years ago there was excessive stock in 650b wheels coming from France/Europe and we put them on bikes... all components made are new fabrications. So why didn't the industry just simply make a size directly in between 26" and 29"??
    "If 650b is the future and 26"ers are the past then sitting on my B6'er I am in the middle of the here and now"

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    766
    650b was already here, Mr. Pacenti didn't invent or design the wheel to fit in the exact middle, he just had an inspirational thought to ride it. That's part of the genius of it, imo, he saw the possibility of improving mtbing using a size that was already there. He clearly saw an unappreciated tool in the bag that deserved more attention.

    I don't know anything about rim building tech, but could it be that rim building equipment is more or less set (standardized) to build a specific rim sizes and the cost to retool and/or develop that true middle size is too costly for the perceived payoff? Keep in mind, one also needs tires to fit the rim. I also don't think the mtb industry is pushing the middle wheel size, the riders are. There's not enough incentive to create a new true middle size, when 650b/27.5 is already here and doing well.

    I don't know that 26ers are exactly 26 and 29ers are exactly 29. I would imagine the same arguments the naysayers profess about 650b/27.5 could be directed at the other the wheel sizes too. Also, and I believe it has been said before on this site, the comparison should be done with the same tire on all 3 size rims: 559, 584, 622. I think tires are like shoes, not every company makes the same size 11.
    No fuss with the MUSS

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brentos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    980
    650c would have been sweet. 1/2 way...all the way.
    Race Reports, PreRide Reports, and General Rambling:

    www.roostersbikersedge.com
    http://www.ENVEcomposites.com

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by Magnum Ti View Post
    First off I am not complaining about the size as it stands. However I hear a lot of naysayers complaining that 650b isn't exactly in between the two sizes and is closer to 26". Its not like years ago there was excessive stock in 650b wheels coming from France/Europe and we put them on bikes... all components made are new fabrications. So why didn't the industry just simply make a size directly in between 26" and 29"??
    The same reason 26" wheels were first used for MTB riding, availability. The 29r size wasn't specifically designed for MTB either, it's a road size and I'm sure the first 29r bikes used converted road hoops as well. As far as I know there's never been a single rim size designed specifically for MTB rather inherited from other parts of the bike industry.

    Regarding overall diameter this appears to be all over the place, I have some 26" MTB tires that measure a full 27" in diameter and my current 650b tires (WTB Wolverine) measure almost 28" in diameter though I should be getting some RR tires this week which hopefully are closer to 27.5" as the 28" is tight even on my 650b specific frame.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    766
    Quote Originally Posted by brentos View Post
    650c would have been sweet. 1/2 way...all the way.
    I'm confused, 650c rim dia is 571, how is this in the middle of 559 and 622? It's even closer to 26 than 650b. Please let me know if I have the wrong dia for the size.
    No fuss with the MUSS

  6. #6
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,566
    Kirk Pacenti didn't pick the 650B rim to hand-make a some tires for because he was trying to be closer to 26er rims than to 700C rims. He did it because the rims were already being made in good models by companies like Velocity USA and there'd been a resurgence in interest for them in custom built tandem/touring bike circles in the USA and Kirk is first and foremost, a frame builder and machinist who makes frame building parts. And after hand-making some prototype tires, he paid, out of his own pocket, for Panaracer to make him a batch of tires, based on their Rampage tread design, in the 650B size. THAT is what led this revolution to adopting 650B for mountain bikes, that has now exploded onto the industry in particular over the past 12 months.

    To go to the actual "middle" rim size, would be the 590mm 650A size. But that means a whole new batch of tires need to be paid for, as well as getting more rim manufacturers to step up to producing quality rims for mountain biking... just to shut up the morons who are too personally invested in 26ers or 29ers to stop whining about 650B rims not being in the middle.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brentos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    980
    You're right...meant to say 650a.
    Race Reports, PreRide Reports, and General Rambling:

    www.roostersbikersedge.com
    http://www.ENVEcomposites.com

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reformed roadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,405
    Yes! ...when people are complaining that 650b is only 4% (or whatever) bigger then 26", why not push a size (650a) that is 6mm larger in diameter.

    Kirk did exactly what 29ers did - use a readily existing product for another purpose.

  9. #9
    Cleavage Of The Tetons
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,755
    Seeing as GT had a production 650 'mountain' bike in the 80's, even Pacenti's notions had ready precedent.
    "We LOVE cows! They make trails for us.....

    And then we eat them."

  10. #10
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,036
    I think it is better to just think of the size on it's own merits rather than how it compares mathamatically to other sizes.

    26 and 29 were both simply based on pre-existing sizes, nothing magical about either one. So a size made to be precisely between them is not anything special either. In other words, I don't know that a true 27.5 would be better than 650b (which I think is more like 27.2?)
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    I think it is better to just think of the size on it's own merits rather than how it compares mathamatically to other sizes.

    26 and 29 were both simply based on pre-existing sizes, nothing magical about either one. So a size made to be precisely between them is not anything special either. In other words, I don't know that a true 27.5 would be better than 650b (which I think is more like 27.2?)
    Wouldn't life be easier if tires were listed like the old flotation off-road Jeep/truck tires? Just about anyone can understand 35x12.5R15 but I still need an online calculator to figure out that a 315/70R17 is the exact same size height and width. Evolution isn't always good!

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    766
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    27.5 would be better than 650b (which I think is more like 27.2?)
    Didn't we already have this convo..... it's Johnny Dangerously Charles, Juan Carlos FTW. At least, that's what I think the consensus was....
    No fuss with the MUSS

  13. #13
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,566
    The ONLY 650B mtb tire that comes out as 27.2 is the Quasimoto 2.0. Everything else is bigger.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  14. #14
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,036
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    The ONLY 650B mtb tire that comes out as 27.2 is the Quasimoto 2.0. Everything else is bigger.
    Thanks for pointing that out, but If you are responding to my point, I think you missed it.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  15. #15
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3,545

    Why not make a wheel size Actually in between 26" and 29"???

    Really? It's May 2013, and people are still debating how wheel sizes/diameters are/should be measured. That's so 2012.

    Done, decided, history, irrelevant, stupid, BORING.


    Posted via Tapatalk on iPhone.

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

  16. #16
    Cleavage Of The Tetons
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,755
    Quote Originally Posted by dwt View Post
    Really? It's May 2013, and people are still debating how wheel sizes/diameters are/should be measured. That's so 1912.
    Fixed.
    "We LOVE cows! They make trails for us.....

    And then we eat them."

  17. #17
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,474
    I recon we should have 100 different wheel sizes ranging from 1'' to 100'' then everybody would be happy..
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    123
    Like I said I am not complaining just wondering..I am happy with the way that it is.
    "If 650b is the future and 26"ers are the past then sitting on my B6'er I am in the middle of the here and now"

  19. #19
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    47,279

    Why not make a wheel size Actually in between 26" and 29"???

    Quote Originally Posted by Tone's View Post
    I recon we should have 100 different wheel sizes ranging from 1'' to 100'' then everybody would be happy..
    Should be metric, not imperial sizes.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reformed roadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,405
    584...done.

  21. #21
    just some guy
    Reputation: talabardio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    472
    In a couple of years there could be a niche market for 590 or 597 or so rims and tires to fit onto 650b frames. I might try it just for kicks!

  22. #22
    Cleavage Of The Tetons
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,755
    Quote Originally Posted by talabardio View Post
    In a couple of years there could be a niche market for 590 or 597 or so rims and tires to fit onto 650b frames. I might try it just for kicks!
    I say bring it on.
    Just wait until we can do this stuff with local/commercial 3d printing.
    "We LOVE cows! They make trails for us.....

    And then we eat them."

  23. #23
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    47,279

    Why not make a wheel size Actually in between 26" and 29"???

    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    I say bring it on.
    Just wait until we can do this stuff with local/commercial 3d printing.
    Have fun with the tires.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  24. #24
    BarBanger
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    102
    The NeoMoto on my carbon 275 rims measure exactly 27.5 inches tall.

  25. #25
    My Brain Hurts!
    Reputation: ProfGumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    I think it is better to just think of the size on it's own merits rather than how it compares mathamatically to other sizes.

    26 and 29 were both simply based on pre-existing sizes, nothing magical about either one. So a size made to be precisely between them is not anything special either. In other words, I don't know that a true 27.5 would be better than 650b (which I think is more like 27.2?)
    Exactly that!

    Besides remember all the complaining about 29ers? It seems to me that complainers will complain no mater what...
    Remember when we were kids and our Mom's said we could not play in the mud? I'm making up for it now!!

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 74
    Last Post: 6 Days Ago, 06:32 AM
  2. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-26-2012, 08:19 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-07-2012, 10:18 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-13-2011, 07:34 AM
  5. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-06-2011, 01:52 PM

Posting Permissions

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