this is going to be a slightly useless thread nitpicking about a few mm and what could've been, but I'm ill and don't have anything better to do.
So as per title the new wheel sizes ain't ideal. Why would a road rim size with 622mm be the ideal size for most off road use? The drawbacks of such an enormous wheel are obvious:
- The wheels are either heavy, lack stiffness/strength or are extremely expensive (carbon).
- Compromises in geometry have to be made concerning chainstay length.
- Furthermore it often doesn't work for smaller riders; bar height (Nino Shurter), toe clearance, optics.
- Lot's of complications with long-travel full suspension applications.
Sure the roll and other advantages are their, but in my opinion they took it too far with 622mm. It's just too much for too many applications to be a suitable size to be one of two wheel sizes we'll eventually end up with.
Had they chosen say 605mm (roughly the max size without having to compromise geometry in most applications the way bikes were normally built) almost all drawbacks of 622mm could've been avoided. The heavy, weak or uberexpensive wheels, playfullness robbing chainstay lengths, issues with full-suspension designs etc, etc.
650C (571mm) could then have been a nice smaller size of the two. Fine for the smallest frames sizes, no problem for people that now stick to 26 (559mm) for it's properties and strong enough for DH with slightly better rollover.
Everyone who wanted to upgrade their 26 bike with a lighter wheelset could put 650C on without any fork/frame clearance or BB height issues.
There you have it, instead of three sizes you would just have 605mm for most people and 571mm for all the rest where strength, smaller size or maximum playfullness is needed and you're done.
I know a futile what if scenario, but wanted to post it anyway.
Mtbr's 2016 Winter Biking GearReviews and Roundups
Results 1 to 1 of 1