Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 298 of 298
  1. #201
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,169
    Long as more new bikes keep coming I could really care less
    2013 Banshee Spitfire V2 650b

  2. #202
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,169
    This excerpt from Bicycling Magazine explains much

    Can we just call it 27.5?-imageuploadedbytapatalk1353078990.150093.jpg


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  3. #203
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,169
    My new 2.35" NN tires measure 28" tall or maybe just a ball hair under 1/2" taller than my Neo Moto's.

    I think I would really call that 1/2 way between the 2 sizes now Still might not be enough to shut up the nay sayers.
    2013 Banshee Spitfire V2 650b

  4. #204
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    353
    Quote Originally Posted by skidad View Post
    my new 2.35" nn tires measure 28" tall or maybe just a ball hair under :d 1/2" taller than my neo moto's.
    .
    nn?

  5. #205
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,169
    Quote Originally Posted by LowOnO2 View Post
    nn?
    Schwalbe Nobby Nicks
    2013 Banshee Spitfire V2 650b

  6. #206
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,122
    Quote Originally Posted by skidad View Post
    Schwalbe Nobby Nicks
    The sign of a veteran around here - RR, NN, RoRo are all clear as day...

    They effed up a good naming scheme with Hans Dampf though. Should have been some Hairy Hans of something.. I like my Muddy Mary.

  7. #207
    derp
    Reputation: danielsilva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    TShould have been some Hairy Hans of something.. I like my Muddy Mary.
    Just don't mix the two though ... i would hate going to the LBS and ask to buy an Hairy Mary
    2006 Cannondale Rush 650b
    2010 Cannondale Trail SL 650b
    2013 Norco Range Killer-B

  8. #208
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,895
    Muddy Hans does not sound appealing either.

  9. #209
    Getaway Cycle Center
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    180

    My Vote is 27.5 inch

    I own a bike shop and i am constantly having to explain 650B.
    27.5 inch is just easier to explain to someone who does not know.
    A customer walks in looking for a mtn bike, not sure what he is looking at.....
    "This is a 26 inch wheel, this is 650B wheel, and that is a 29 inch wheel".....
    "what is 650B" they say......
    "it is a 27.5 inch".....they look at me and say......."oh i see"
    If someone comes in and knows 650B...then no issue...and no questions.
    But these people are experienced in the world of cycling and need no explanation.
    27.5 assumes a particular size tire on a 650B rim...but so does 26 and 29....why split hairs.
    I sell Jamis who has been in the 650B world for 4years and again....i need to explain it a lot.

    Actually.......i like Tall, Grande, & Venti.........but i would probably have to explain that also.
    Last edited by Nickt30; 11-17-2012 at 07:53 PM.

  10. #210
    just some guy
    Reputation: talabardio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickt30 View Post
    I own a bike shop and i am constantly having to explain 650B.
    27.5 inch is just easier to explain to someone who does not know.
    A customer walks in looking for a mtn bike, not sure what he is looking at.....
    "This is a 26 inch wheel, this is 650B wheel, and that is a 29 inch wheel".....
    "what is 650B" they say......
    "it is a 27.5 inch".....they look at me and say......."oh i see"
    If someone comes in and knows 650B...then no issue...and no questions.
    But these people are experienced in the world of cycling and need no explanation.
    27.5 assumes a particular size tire on a 650B rim...but so does 26 and 29....why split hairs.
    I sell Jamis who has been in the 650B world for 4years and again....i need to explain it a lot.

    Actually.......i like Tall, Grande, & Venti.........but i would probably have to explain that also.
    My guess is that those of us who have been into 650b since 2008 or so will continue to call it 650b, and with manufacturers using 27.5 almost exclusively new arrivals will say 27.5. I'm not opposed to 27.5 but when I talk about it, I automatically say 650b...

  11. #211
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    907
    can we agree that Scott calling it "27 inch" is crazy. I prefer 650B, and don't hate 27.5, but just 27 seems absurd.

  12. #212
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,169
    Quote Originally Posted by zombinate View Post
    can we agree that Scott calling it "27 inch" is crazy. I prefer 650B, and don't hate 27.5, but just 27 seems absurd.
    Yes. And can we agree that Scott's marketing strategy is nuts as well?

    Let's see, their guy Nino Schurter wins the overall XC WC, receives an Olympic Silver medal, and then wins the World Championship on the revolutionary Scale 700. His success was a huge part of the 650b publicity avalanche which inundated the mtb market in spring and summer 2012.

    So what does Scott do? First, they DO NOT offer a production model of Nino's bike for sale to the public on either side of the Pond to scarf up like seagulls on French fries. Huh?

    Second, agreeing with the conventional wisdom that 5-6" travel is the sweet spot for the wheel size, they do come up with various Genius configurations that entice and excite the mtb public, then reportedly don't produce very many for the public to actually buy. Which is the manufacturing equivalent of cock teasing. F**k that noise.

    Third, they blindly don't jump in and fill a gaping void in the bike choices offered in the wheel size: 4" carbon XC bike. Nobody sells one. Therefore, a Spark 700 seems like it would be a no brainer that would immediately sell as well as the Genius would - that is if they actually produced either bike in quantity for retail sale anywhere on the planet.

    WTF? is all I can say.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by dwt; 11-18-2012 at 09:08 AM.
    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  13. #213
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,777

    ... and if we just ...

    Quote Originally Posted by dwt View Post
    Third, they blindly don't jump in and fill a gaping void in the bike choices offered in the wheel size: 4" carbon XC bike. Nobody sells one.
    You never learn my friend. Why would anyone want a short travel XC 27,5 bicycle and not a 29er? Don't even start this hogwash about upside down stem problem concerning Nino. Other manufacturers have racer far shorter than Nino excelling on 29ers.

    How exactly 27,5 would outperform a 29er in XC field? We might as well say that 26 outperfoms a 29er in XC, which is now far from truth. You still believe in magic that all goodness like traction, lower centre of gravity ends with 584mm rim and no more goodness can be felt from even a bigger 622mm rim?

    Why anyone would like to take a step back wards (from a 29er 38mm to 584mm) more than a step forwards from a 26er (25mm to 584mm rim).
    Either you'are a deaf fanatic or you're paid for advertizing 584mm rim. Don't repeat your story how you caught a deal on your 650b trike. It is especially so when so push on XC right after 559mm has been deemed as slow for XC and less racers racer it. Out of the blue just a 25mm bigger rim is hugely faster and 29ers are slower as well. I believe in math, you in illusoire sect-like marketing.

  14. #214
    Stubby-legged
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    972
    Nothing is more close minded than a "open"-minded 29er.

  15. #215
    just some guy
    Reputation: talabardio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by dwt View Post
    Yes. And can we agree that Scott's marketing strategy is nuts as well?

    Let's see, their guy Nino Schurter wins the overall XC WC, receives an Olympic Silver medal, and then wins the World Championship on the revolutionary Scale 700. His success was a huge part of the 650b publicity avalanche which inundated the mtb market in spring and summer 2012.

    So what does Scott do? First, they DO NOT offer a production model of Nino's bike for sale to the public on either side of the Pond to scarf up like seagulls on French fries. Huh?

    Second, agreeing with the conventional wisdom that 5-6" travel is the sweet spot for the wheel size, they do come up with various Genius configurations that entice and excite the mtb public, then reportedly don't produce very many for the public to actually buy. Which is the manufacturing equivalent of cock teasing. F**k that noise.

    Third, they blindly don't jump in and fill a gaping void in the bike choices offered in the wheel size: 4" carbon XC bike. Nobody sells one. Therefore, a Spark 700 seems like it would be a no brainer that would immediately sell as well as the Genius would - that is if they actually produced either bike in quantity for retail sale anywhere on the planet.

    WTF? is all I can say.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I would have bought a Scale or Spark 650b, but no product. I didn't want to take a step backwards to a 29er so I ordered a nice 650b ti hardtail instead.

  16. #216
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield View Post
    You never learn my friend. Why would anyone want a short travel XC 27,5 bicycle and not a 29er? Don't even start this hogwash about upside down stem problem concerning Nino. Other manufacturers have racer far shorter than Nino excelling on 29ers.

    How exactly 27,5 would outperform a 29er in XC field? We might as well say that 26 outperfoms a 29er in XC, which is now far from truth. You still believe in magic that all goodness like traction, lower centre of gravity ends with 584mm rim and no more goodness can be felt from even a bigger 622mm rim?

    Why anyone would like to take a step back wards (from a 29er 38mm to 584mm) more than a step forwards from a 26er (25mm to 584mm rim).
    Either you'are a deaf fanatic or you're paid for advertizing 584mm rim. Don't repeat your story how you caught a deal on your 650b trike. It is especially so when so push on XC right after 559mm has been deemed as slow for XC and less racers racer it. Out of the blue just a 25mm bigger rim is hugely faster and 29ers are slower as well. I believe in math, you in illusoire sect-like marketing.
    Note to self: do not feed the troll...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  17. #217
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,122
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield View Post
    You never learn my friend.
    Look. A village idiot is back.

  18. #218
    Rep Power: Pick a number
    Reputation: Xcisok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    360
    The six five zero

  19. #219
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,895
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Look. A village idiot is back.
    Who keeps pos repping him? After my neg rep (and a kind request to leave and never come back) he was down to two chiclets yesterday.

  20. #220
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,169
    A bike custom made for DC:

    http://saddleupbike.blogspot.com/201...-650b.html?m=1



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  21. #221
    derp
    Reputation: danielsilva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Look. A village idiot is back.
    I consider him like that really dumb friend that we love to hear because he's funny but no one takes him serious since he never says anything meaningful or coherent. Just laugh it off and keep him talking to himself.
    2006 Cannondale Rush 650b
    2010 Cannondale Trail SL 650b
    2013 Norco Range Killer-B

  22. #222
    Trail Tire TV on blogger
    Reputation: thomllama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    4,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield View Post
    You never learn my friend. Why would anyone want a short travel XC 27,5 bicycle and not a 29er? Don't even start this hogwash about upside down stem problem concerning Nino. Other manufacturers have racer far shorter than Nino excelling on 29ers.
    ........
    I want a XC 650B with shorter travel... 4 or 4.5" would be great...

    Quote Originally Posted by dwt View Post
    Note to self: do not feed the troll...
    (even trolls need to eat ) LOLOLOL
    Going to try and bring Trail Tire TV back. go take a look... http://trailtiretv.blogspot.com/

  23. #223
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DirtyHank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    235
    Maybe call it a 28er. Then people with 29er envy won't feel so bad?

    "b" sounds more like a bra size. What's a 29er a "D"

    Who cares about 1/2 an inch?

    Hank

  24. #224
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,122
    Quote Originally Posted by StiHacka View Post
    Who keeps pos repping him? After my neg rep (and a kind request to leave and never come back) he was down to two chiclets yesterday.
    AZ and a few misguided people who listen to AZ and think that it is funny.

  25. #225
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SuspectDevice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    647
    We should really use ETRO standards- they make SO MUCH sense.

    559-26"
    584-650b
    622-700c(29'r)

  26. #226
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,764
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield View Post
    You never learn my friend. Why would anyone want a short travel XC 27,5 bicycle and not a 29er? Don't even start this hogwash about upside down stem problem concerning Nino. Other manufacturers have racer far shorter than Nino excelling on 29ers.
    Yeah, look at Emily Batty who compromised her setup so much with a 15 inch Trek Superfly that in order to be able to be able to attack on climbs and keep the front end weighted, she promptly went over the bars on the olympic course during practice and broke several ribs on one of the rocky technical descents where a 29er should have shined. Oh wait... that just proves you're a moron and racers like Nino were right. As soon as Trek offers a 650B, Emily and other short racers will be on them.

    Also what short RACERS will actually ride doesn't matter to everyday trail riders.

    How exactly 27,5 would outperform a 29er in XC field?
    By beating them... which Nino did 11 times last year.

    Either you'are a deaf fanatic or you're paid for advertizing 584mm rim.
    Actually you're either a deaf moronic fanatic or paid advertiser for 622mm rims, so it all evens out.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  27. #227
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,764
    Quote Originally Posted by thomllama View Post
    I want a XC 650B with shorter travel... 4 or 4.5" would be great...



    (even trolls need to eat ) LOLOLOL
    I have had one for 2 years...

    Well finished my 650B Carbon full suspension build...
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  28. #228
    mtbr member
    Reputation: carverboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    550

    Maybe just call it a Mtn bike?

    Just went for a ride yesterday with a guy whos just getting back into MTbing after a few years off. We meet at the house and loaded the bikes on his car. He commented "Oh nice,
    you have a 29' to that's what my rack is adjusted to fit."
    Since I wasn't really sure if he was a 29' fanatic or what I didn't correct him. My bike did indeed fit his rack perfectly and we hit the road. Latter at the top of a long climb we stopped to catch our breath and he asked me how I liked my 29'r. I explained at this point that it was actually a 650b. To which he replied "looks the same size as mine"
    So I lined my front tire up with his to show what I thought would be a obvious difference.
    Now it was my turn to be puzzled. There was hardly any diffrence in the height of the tires at all Latter in the parking lot we compared on the asphalt and could see a difference of about a quarter inch and certainly not more than a half inch!
    At this point I am sure Dave Copperfield is up in arms about apples to oranges and some silly math crap but my point is His Giant came with rr's and I have 2.3 Nevagals and these are the tires we ride on the same trails, So it is more of a real world comparison than all of DC's math rants.

  29. #229
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,764
    If americans (and lets face it, it IS mostly the only people who never embraced the metric system who can't wrap their heads around calling tires/wheelsizes by metric or ISO numbers) can't bring themselves to say 650B, then they can do what canadians did 50 years ago. Call it 26 x 1 1/2.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  30. #230
    mtbr member
    Reputation: carverboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    550
    Quote Originally Posted by dwt View Post
    A bike custom made for DC:

    Saddle Up Bike: 650b



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    +1 Now that was funny!

  31. #231
    just some guy
    Reputation: talabardio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    27.5 should be left for 650a. Now that we have 650b forks and frames, we can hand sew and fit 650a tires in them.

    Just the last step to the perfect optimum.
    Seriously, this is a good idea. I'd love to try one and see how it rides.

    There is also a 597 standard, and while we're at it there is an old 630 or 635 standard for those who want to go bigger than 29er but not ridiculously bigger.

  32. #232
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    7
    Hello, I would just like to say that I think that 584mm (what used to be called 26 1 1/2 or 650b) is best called 'DEAD' It was a size used on older European womens bikes that was replaced by the 590 (26 1 1/2) Now, some dickless wonder decided to resurrect this archaic size and call it a 27.5 to, perhaps, find a middle ground between 559 and 622. Well, if this genius did his math, he would have come up with 590 (590.5 to be precise) I can only hope that that the 584 mm size will fail as it is only a disservice to the cycling community.

  33. #233
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nuffink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    768
    Look chaps we need to agree on this.
    650b - Rubbish. It's inaccurate and French.
    27 and a half - Rubbish. It's inaccurate and English.

    What's needed is a truly American measuring system, so I have a modest proposal - fractions of a Cubit.

    Agreed? Good. Now all we have to do is determine the length of a Cubit. Let's turn to the web's pre-eminent repository of good scientific sense, Answers in Genesis.

    Culture Inches (centimeters)
    Hebrew (short) 17.5 (44.5)
    Egyptian 17.6 (44.7)
    Common (short) 18 (45.7)
    Babylonian (long) 19.8 (50.3)
    Hebrew (long) 20.4 (51.8)
    Egyptian (long) 20.6 (52.3)

    Well, that helps.

    Ok, I can see certain constituencies having a slight problem with the Egyptian and Babylonian Cubits. Which leaves the Common and Hebrew Cubit. How to decide?

    Fortunately the same scholarly article gives us the answer "The long cubit appears to be Godís preferred standard of measurement."
    If it's good enough for God it's good enough for me, the Long Hebrew cubit it is!

    Now we have to decide whether to measure the outer or bead seat diameter and here common sense dictates that only the BSD is accurate, so we'll go with that. This is a scientific proposal after all.

    Therefore I propose the following standards:-

    1.079150579 Cubits
    1.127413127 Cubits
    1.200772201 Cubits

    I myself ride a 1.079150579er

    Happy trails.

  34. #234
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,122
    Quote Originally Posted by nuffink View Post
    It's inaccurate and French.
    Tautology

  35. #235
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    7

    584 is stupid

    Thank you for providing some levity to the subject however in an age where we should be looking forward, decreasing waste and designing things more intelligently, 584 is a big step backwards.

  36. #236
    DILLIGAF
    Reputation: msimmons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by BlitzkriegBike View Post
    Hello, I would just like to say that I think that 584mm (what used to be called 26 1 1/2 or 650b) is best called 'DEAD' It was a size used on older European womens bikes that was replaced by the 590 (26 1 1/2) Now, some dickless wonder decided to resurrect this archaic size and call it a 27.5 to, perhaps, find a middle ground between 559 and 622. Well, if this genius did his math, he would have come up with 590 (590.5 to be precise) I can only hope that that the 584 mm size will fail as it is only a disservice to the cycling community.
    Classic troll!

  37. #237
    mtbr member
    Reputation: carverboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    550
    Quote Originally Posted by BlitzkriegBike View Post
    Thank you for providing some levity to the subject however in an age where we should be looking forward, decreasing waste and designing things more intelligently, 584 is a big step backwards.
    Looks like Davey-cop-a feel got a new account. 2 post both to this thread for a new user? Amateur Troll welcome to the 650b forum.
    UGG boots will germinate Paris Hilton like intellect in your soles!

  38. #238
    mtbr member
    Reputation: doismellbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by msimmons View Post
    Classic troll!
    With extra dumbass on the side

  39. #239
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by carverboy View Post
    Looks like Davey-cop-a feel got a new account. 2 post both to this thread for a new user? Amateur Troll welcome to the 650b forum.

    Honestly, I don't remember groping your sister....

  40. #240
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bugaroo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    497
    I really like the idea of calling a mountain bike a "bike" or "mountain bike". The whole marketing/ labeling thing takes away what from what I want my lifestyle to be, from what I consider the sport to be.

    I own a truck too. I call it a truck. It's pretty cool, all black, leather seats and some bad-a$$ 22's on it. I don't call it a 22'r. And I definitely don't call it a 55.8'r. Just saying.....
    AKA: G-wat

  41. #241
    mtbr member
    Reputation: doismellbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by bugaroo View Post
    I really like the idea of calling a mountain bike a "bike" or "mountain bike". The whole marketing/ labeling thing takes away what from what I want my lifestyle to be, from what I consider the sport to be.

    I own a truck too. I call it a truck. It's pretty cool, all black, leather seats and some bad-a$$ 22's on it. I don't call it a 22'r. And I definitely don't call it a 55.8'r. Just saying.....
    You and your laid back, open minded attitude.......GAAWD!
    There's no place for that in our sport

  42. #242
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bugaroo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    497
    LOL.....heaven forbid we don't have something to argue about. Now I'm depressed! I'm going to have to log off my 13 inch laptop and go drink a 12oz soda and watch my 50 in TV until my 6ft wife comes home and cooks me a 12oz steak while I drink a 6oz, no make that a 750ml bottle of, bottle of wine.

    I'd like to buy a bike. What kind or riding do you primarily? Mostly trail and rocky technical stuff. Oh, so you're a 650'r? No. I only weigh about 200#.
    AKA: G-wat

  43. #243
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    7
    Gezzus piss ****, I just registered on this ****ing forum hoping to discuss important shit and all it seems is that people just want to kiss the ass of the industry and embrace any crap they pump out. I hope you're all happy to fondle genitalia in the golden fields and lick the balls of free market liberalism only to have your buttholes plugged by consumate waste and to sniff the shit that backs up in your trachea. ..... did I violate any rules by posting this? Is frowned upon to be angry? .... heavens forbid someone rocks the boat

  44. #244
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    7
    Oh my, i cant say c*nt or c*nting????

  45. #245
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,593
    "B-bike" flows off the tongue like "29er". "27.5" has too many syllables, and no flow to it.

  46. #246
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,122
    Quote Originally Posted by BlitzkriegBike View Post
    did I violate any rules by posting this? Is frowned upon to be angry?
    Yes and yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlitzkriegBike View Post
    Oh my, i cant say c*nt or c*nting????
    Why can't you say сunt?

    I think it is because of the rules violations and anger.

  47. #247
    mtbr member
    Reputation: doismellbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by deuxdiesel View Post
    "B-bike" flows off the tongue like "29er". "27.5" has too many syllables, and no flow to it.
    That's good. I like it.

  48. #248
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,169

    Can we just call it 27.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by BlitzkriegBike View Post
    Oh my, i cant say c*nt or c*nting????
    The word has a different meaning in UK English than USA English.
    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  49. #249
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,122
    Quote Originally Posted by dwt View Post
    The word has a different meaning in UK English than USA English.
    Does it? (Pardon me, neither is my native language). What is the difference?

  50. #250
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    290
    Soon enough, no designation required. 8]
    Just as with 29er, 26er is creeping in. Let us not complicate matters any further.

    Stamp it.
    '10 Marin MountVision 650b conversion

  51. #251
    the new Gilbert Grape
    Reputation: laffeaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,819
    The best reason not to use 27.5 is that "inches" (and the entire British Imperial measuring system) is officially used in one country: the US. The remainder of the world uses the metric system. Why would you name a tire size based on the system that one country uses?

    I much prefer the rim size designations. My road bike and 29er both use 700c rims. My 650b mountain bike and randonneur both use 650b rims. I want to buy a tire called a "650b" and know that it will fit on my 650b rim (regardless of the type of bike). Why should I buy a 27.5" tire for my mountain bike, and a 650b tire for my randonneur, when the tires are completely interchangable?

    I think most of the guys that ride 29ers have no idea that they are riding the same size rim as roadies. When they build up a commuters they're looking for 29er slicks, instead of wider 700c tires. Makes little sense to call the same thing by two names.
    Each bicycle owned exponentially increases the probability that none is working correctly.

  52. #252
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nuffink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by laffeaux View Post
    The best reason not to use 27.5 is that "inches" (and the entire British Imperial measuring system) is officially used in one country: the US.
    Us Brit's still use Miles, Stones (for weighing ourselves), Pounds (for buying fruit), Ounces (for buying weed), Yards (for measuring our cocks), and Dozens (for buying eggs).

    But, yeah, all serious work is done in metric. As, I understand, it is in The US.

  53. #253
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,576
    The rims for 27.5 do not measure 650mm nor do my Czar or road bike rims measure 700mm. A 650b mountain bike tire is almost exactly 700mm outside diameter or 27.5", depending on volume of course and those hand built tubulars that Nino races on are probably the closest to 650mm outside diameter of any mountain bike tire anyone will ever ride anywhere, which for the rest of us buying real mountain biking tire clinchers is irrelevant.

    The whole bicycle tire measuring system is stupid, and I think that is really what we need to agree upon. Every other vehicle tire I have ever bought is based on rim diameter so a 27.5 should be called 584 and a big wheeled mountain bike is really 622 in Bead Seat Diameter, then like cars and motorcycles you shop by rim size first and height/width. WTB tries to nod a bit in that direction with their height/width measurements on the side wall as well as traditional sizing. But shopping by an outside diameter that does not exist needs to go away. My 2c from a tire whore and 27.5 fanboy!

    DT

  54. #254
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mestapho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,303

    Can we just call it 27.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by bugaroo View Post
    I really like the idea of calling a mountain bike a "bike" or "mountain bike". The whole marketing/ labeling thing takes away what from what I want my lifestyle to be, from what I consider the sport to be.

    I own a truck too. I call it a truck. It's pretty cool, all black, leather seats and some bad-a$$ 22's on it. I don't call it a 22'r. And I definitely don't call it a 55.8'r. Just saying.....
    Agreed. Why does anyone care what somebody else chooses to ride?

  55. #255
    the new Gilbert Grape
    Reputation: laffeaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,819
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes View Post
    The rims for 27.5 do not measure 650mm nor do my Czar or road bike rims measure 700mm.
    I agree with you that we should use the rim diameter to describe tires, not the outer diameter (which varies a lot based on the tire selected).

    650b, 700c, 650c, etc. are just names. They could be called, Bob, Barney, and Jim - or 584mm, 622mm, and 571mm. But call them something that is consistently applied on all platforms - 700c (622mm) rims and tires should have the same name regardless of if you mount it on a road, mountain, CX, or wheelchair.
    Each bicycle owned exponentially increases the probability that none is working correctly.

  56. #256
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,169

    Can we just call it 27.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by BlitzkriegBike View Post
    Gezzus piss ****, I just registered on this ****ing forum hoping to discuss important shit and all it seems is that people just want to kiss the ass of the industry and embrace any crap they pump out. I hope you're all happy to fondle genitalia in the golden fields and lick the balls of free market liberalism only to have your buttholes plugged by consumate waste and to sniff the shit that backs up in your trachea. ..... did I violate any rules by posting this? Is frowned upon to be angry? .... heavens forbid someone rocks the boat
    Angry is common here. Incoherent is common. Not good form but tolerated. Angry & incoherent at once is over the top. Try angry & coherent or just coherent
    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  57. #257
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,122
    Quote Originally Posted by laffeaux View Post
    The best reason not to use 27.5 is that "inches" (and the entire British Imperial measuring system) is officially used in one country: the US.
    Inches actually used everywhere, for example to designate tire sizes. Every care in the world use ~15 to 20" rims etc. Many, many areas where British units are widely used.

    Nothing wrong with inches. Actually, any units that are factor of 12 are better - they are divisible by 2, 3 and 4 and 6 - more useful than 2 and 5.

  58. #258
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    10,114
    Quote Originally Posted by carverboy View Post
    Looks like Davey-cop-a feel got a new account. 2 post both to this thread for a new user? Amateur Troll welcome to the 650b forum.
    There's no way same person. This guy's clear and understandable with his post(s).
    Wait whuuut, who did he tell you that!?!?....

  59. #259
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,169

    Can we just call it 27.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Does it? (Pardon me, neither is my native language). What is the difference?
    In the UK, **** is a gender neutral insult, I would guess a grade worse than "wanker". At the 2011 TdF, Bradley Wiggins threw the word around left and right at the media and nobody got too worked up.

    In the USA, it's a female insult - vulgar reference to female genitalia. Its like the N word in the sense that women can get away with using it with other women; meaning a particularly obnoxious, snotty & condescending beatch.

    But if a male tries insulting a US women with the word, it is more demeaning and personal, like a white person calling a black person N word. It will gain the user enemies, he won't get laid often, if ever, and he might end up with a kick to the groin depending on whom he is talking to.
    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  60. #260
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nuffink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    768
    Yeah, sadly we're wearing out the only swearword left with any impact. Well, apart from the racial ones and they're just ****ish.

  61. #261
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    315
    Let's just call it "gravy baby".

    Potential customer: "Is that 27.5 inch on the new Treks, Remedy and Slash?"
    LBS salesman: "Yes, the new 2014s are all gravy baby".

    New guy on the trail: "Is that a 27.5 inch?"
    650b rider: "It's all gravy baby"

    Girlfriend: "Do you like your new bike's wheels sweetie?"
    650b rider: "Yeah, it's all gravy baby"

    Can't think of a situation where "gravy baby" instead of "27.5" or "650b" doesn't work.

  62. #262
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    315
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Inches actually used everywhere, for example to designate tire sizes. Every care in the world use ~15 to 20" rims etc. Many, many areas where British units are widely used.

    Nothing wrong with inches. Actually, any units that are factor of 12 are better - they are divisible by 2, 3 and 4 and 6 - more useful than 2 and 5.
    I have to disagree with you there. Using the metric system is much better because it's way easier to convert mm to cm to m to km, etc, rather than inches to feet to yards to miles. At a basic level, I guess our numbers are easier to visualize and get a feel for, but in terms of precise measurements, the metric system is a no brainer--everything is interchangeable by multiplying by 10^x.

  63. #263
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,122

    Can we just call it 27.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by bluntrager View Post
    I have to disagree with you there. Using the metric system is much better because it's way easier to convert mm to cm to m to km, etc, rather than inches to feet to yards to miles. At a basic level, I guess our numbers are easier to visualize and get a feel for, but in terms of precise measurements, the metric system is a no brainer--everything is interchangeable by multiplying by 10^x.
    There is absolutely no difference in precision measurement from what units one uses. None. All metric systems still use degrees, minutes and seconds, radians etc. No problems there.

    I am not advocating British system (and I did not grow up in US). Just it is no big deal to use it, especially where it is established (like rim diameter).

  64. #264
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    315
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    There is absolutely no difference in precision measurement from what units one uses. None. All metric systems still use degrees, minutes and seconds, radians etc. No problems there.

    I am not advocating British system (and I did not grow up in US). Just it is no big deal to use it, especially where it is established (like rim diameter).
    Someone might call a 160 mm fork 6" for simplicity, when it is actually 6.29921" for example. The extra decimals there are implicit in the representation in mm, so when inches are commonly used instead, the rounding messes up the precision. Not a big deal though, I am American and just wish we were on the metric system--it must be the scientist in me. Just my 2 cents, no need to reply really. So let's just call 27.5 all gravy baby.

  65. #265
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,122
    Quote Originally Posted by bluntrager View Post
    Someone might call a 160 mm fork 6" for simplicity, when it is actually 6.29921" for example. The extra decimals there are implicit in the representation in mm, so when inches are commonly used instead, the rounding messes up the precision. Not a big deal though, I am American and just wish we were on the metric system--it must be the scientist in me. Just my 2 cents, no need to reply really. So let's just call 27.5 all gravy baby.
    Inch just sounds better than centimeter...millimeter.. Even in my native language we still use "inch" in many expressions..

  66. #266
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,169

    Can we just call it 27.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Inch just sounds better than centimeter...millimeter.. Even in my native language we still use "inch" in many expressions..
    What is your native language? Your English is flawless, unlike, for example, our favorite Euro Troll, David Copperfield.
    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  67. #267
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,895
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Inch just sounds better than centimeter...millimeter.. Even in my native language we still use "inch" in many expressions..
    Same here. And we have a lovely word for it, too. "Coul".

  68. #268
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,122
    Quote Originally Posted by dwt View Post
    What is your native language?
    Russian.

  69. #269
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    25
    650b sounds mysterious and technical and most non biking people wouldn't have a clue what it means. For that reason alone we should drop the 27.5... It makes too much sense.

  70. #270
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nuffink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Nothing wrong with inches. Actually, any units that are factor of 12 are better - they are divisible by 2, 3 and 4 and 6 - more useful than 2 and 5.
    True, but look what happened when engineers where allowed to use inches. They divided them up into quarters, eighths, sixteens etc. Until they got to measuring really small stuff when they divided them by thousandths and then by "tenths".
    At some point an adult has to step in and say - "Since you can't play nice, it's base 10 all the way. Now off you go."

  71. #271
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    778
    Quote Originally Posted by laffeaux View Post
    The best reason not to use 27.5 is that "inches" (and the entire British Imperial measuring system) is officially used in one country: the US. The remainder of the world uses the metric system. Why would you name a tire size based on the system that one country uses?
    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!!!

  72. #272
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jimbowho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    828
    Here we go!

  73. #273
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    10,114
    Quote Originally Posted by jimbowho View Post
    Here we go!
    Huh?...Just where you been?.....
    Wait whuuut, who did he tell you that!?!?....

  74. #274
    mtbr member
    Reputation: carverboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    550
    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!!!
    Wow, were just trying to name a wheel size here bub. In that regard parochialism kind fits.
    For the rest you should probably realize you logged into your MTBR account not your Social Politico Debate forum.(or take it to off camber although you might not make it out alive lol)
    UGG boots will germinate Paris Hilton like intellect in your soles!

  75. #275
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,122

    Can we just call it 27.5?

    Quote Originally Posted by nuffink View Post
    True, but look what happened when engineers where allowed to use inches. They divided them up into quarters, eighths, sixteens etc. Until they got to measuring really small stuff when they divided them by thousandths and then by "tenths".
    At some point an adult has to step in and say - "Since you can't play nice, it's base 10 all the way. Now off you go."
    Yeah, they should have fixed the rest of the measurement units to base 12 or 60. Hopefully our Klingon overlords will soon fix this French nonsense. Egyptians knew what they were doing.

  76. #276
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    778
    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.

  77. #277
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,122
    Quote Originally Posted by satanas View Post
    yIvoq, 'ach yI'ol.
    Satan quoting Stalin. How appropriate.

  78. #278
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,169

    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.

  79. #279
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    778
    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.

  80. #280
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    778
    ^ 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.

  81. #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.

  82. #282
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nuffink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    768
    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.

  83. #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.

  84. #284
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nuffink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    768

  85. #285
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,169

    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.

  86. #286
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,122
    Quote Originally Posted by satanas View Post
    It's a nightmare
    Name:  oh-the-humanity-and-other-good-intentions.jpeg
Views: 157
Size:  14.7 KB

  87. #287
    mtbr member
    Reputation: carverboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    550

    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!

  88. #288
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    778
    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!

  89. #289
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,169

    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 09:34 AM.
    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  90. #290
    ccm
    ccm is online now
    West Coast Racing
    Reputation: ccm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    591
    I wish there was a middle size where you could easily tell the difference between the smaller and larger sizes
    lets call it 666B

  91. #291
    the new Gilbert Grape
    Reputation: laffeaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,819
    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.

  92. #292
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    778
    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.

  93. #293
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    778
    ...
    Last edited by satanas; 08-28-2013 at 08:46 AM. Reason: deleted - duplicated content

  94. #294
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,122
    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".

  95. #295
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    778
    ^ 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.

  96. #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.

  97. #297
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    778
    None whatsoever!

  98. #298
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    131
    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 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Members who have read this thread: 1

Posting Permissions

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