Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 151 to 200 of 298
  1. #151
    dwt
    dwt is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,169
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    "Through the ages, we have been perplexed at the fact that people who don't play by the rules have an apparent advantage over those who do, and "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!" has been the rallying cry of those who see the abandonment of values as the only way to prosper."

    This is a proven fact. Gaming theory 101. It is the opposite of a fallacy. Curious, though, that by presenting this you are tacitly acknowledging your own actions. You are criticizing me for behaving like you do. It will always be clear that you are the instigator here, as you always are.

    The "abandonment of all ethical standards" in this case is not mine, it's MTBR's moderation approach and your bad behavior. No one should ever be rewarded for bad behavior. Responding in kind is the only way to deal with people like you in the absence of proper moderation. I don't care whether you like it or not, I will always respond to you in kind and you will always cry about it.
    Wrong , Craig, I admit my behaviour was bad and that I instigated the tit for tat insult exchanges for one base reason: I don't like you or your attitude, and have never read any of your posts which would indicate that you were entlitled to any respect, much less deference. What I'm laughing at now is Mr. Supposedly logical trying to justify as "moral" his responding in kind using the fallacious "he started it " defense. Come now boy, your parents or primary school teachers must have screwed up. Mine taught me, relevant to the issues in this thread 2 things. 1) if you can dish it out, you have to learn take it. 2) if you are scolded for punching or cursing out your little brother, or another kid, " he hit me first" has nothing to do with it Hittingb and cursing are not permitted here, you are both wrong,you both have stop.

    Moral of the story, the fact that I started it gives you ZERO moral high ground. Trying to get that by tugging on your boot straps, only tarnishes your supposed "logical" image and is suggestive rather of a very low I.Q.

    Now I've gone ahead and shot across the bow of your ONLY ally on this thread


    ---
    I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?1zfadc
    Last edited by dwt; 05-29-2012 at 05:56 PM.
    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  2. #152
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,895
    If threads could speak, this one would be begging to get locked.

  3. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by dwt View Post
    Wrong , Craig, I admit my behaviour was bad and that I instigated the tit for tat insult exchanges for one base reason: I don't like you or your attitude, and have never read any of your posts which would indicate that you were entlitled to any respect, much less deference. What I'm laughing at now is Mr. Supposedly logical trying to justify as "moral" his responding in kind using the fallacious "he started it " defense. Come now boy, your parents must have screwed up. Mine taught me, relevant to the issues in this thread 2 things. 1)?If you can dish it out, you have to take it. 2) if you are scolded for punching or cursing out your little brother,
    Tit for tat is not "he started it". No surprise you describe it as such, can't expect any better from you.

    From Wikipedia:

    Tit for tat is an English saying meaning "equivalent retaliation". It is also a highly effective strategy in game theory for the iterated prisoner's dilemma. The strategy was first introduced by Anatol Rapoport in Robert Axelrod's two tournaments, held around 1980. An agent using this strategy will initially cooperate, then respond in kind to an opponent's previous action. If the opponent previously was cooperative, the agent is cooperative. If not, the agent is not. This is similar to superrationality and reciprocal altruism in biology.
    So, as usual, dwt, you are both insulting and wrong. Not only is tit for tat moral, it is the only approach that truly is.

    It's interesting how you can dish it out but can't take it. Looks like your parents are the ones that screwed up. Keep it up, "boy".

  4. #154
    dwt
    dwt is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,169

    New question here.

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Tit for tat is not "he started it". No surprise you describe it as such, can't expect any better from you.


    So, as usual, dwt, you are both insulting and wrong. Not only is tit for tat moral, it is the only approach that truly is.

    It's interesting how you can dish it out but can't take it. Looks like your parents are the ones that screwed up. Keep it up, "boy".
    Srorry, professor, my bad.

    "He did itbfirst"'is its own fallacy, subset of "two wrongs don't make a right" so youbarecstill wrong and twisting in the wind, trying to justify your bad behaviourv with " he started it" defense. Bitt

    http. ://issuepedia.org/Two_wrongs_fallacy
    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  5. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by dwt View Post
    Srorry, professor, my bad.

    "He did itbfirst"'is its own fallacy, subset of "two wrongs don't make a right" so youbarecstill wrong and twisting in the wind, trying to justify your bad behaviourv with " he started it" defense. Bitt

    http. ://issuepedia.org/Two_wrongs_fallacy
    Your anger is interfering with your typing now.

    "he did it first" is its own fallacy? That's hilarious.

    From your link:

    The two wrongs fallacy refers to any statement where a given action which is known to be wrong is justified by the presumption that another person did, or would have done, the same thing under corresponding circumstances.
    But tit for tat doesn't say this. Tit for tat says that a given action is justified when the other person has ALREADY done it. In fact, it is necessary to discourage further behavior.

    You are showing, once again, how limited your intellect is. You must be quite a lawyer considering how you get this wrong.

  6. #156
    dwt
    dwt is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,169
    :
    Originally Posted by craigsj
    Tit for tat is not "he started it". No surprise you describe it as such, can't expect any better from you.


    So, as usual, dwt, you are both insulting and wrong. Not only is tit for tat moral, it is the only approach that truly is.

    It's interesting how you can dish it out but can't take it. Looks like your parents are the ones that screwed up. Keep it up, "boy".
    Srorry, professor, my bad.

    "He did it first"'is its own fallacy, subset of "two wrongs don't make a right" so you are still wrong and twisting in the wind, trying to justify your bad behavior with the"he started it" defense. That is schoolyard logic;hence:"boy". We are both at fault, not just one. I admit it. Time for you to man up.

    http://issuepedia.org/Two_wrongs_fallacy
    __________________
    One ride on 29" convinced me I no longer wanted 26". One ride on 650b convinced me I didn't "need" 29".
    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  7. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by dwt View Post
    That is schoolyard logic;hence:"boy".
    No, "boy" is another of your petty insults, just like your quip about my parents. You just can't stop nor have you ever been able to. You don't get your way so you throw a tantrum and them blame it on others.

    I recall something about winners and losers and rep points...so much for that. Just remember, all that contempt for me is really just contempt for yourself, all I do is throw your garbage back at you.

  8. #158
    dwt
    dwt is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,169
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    No, "boy" is another of your petty insults, just like your quip about my parents. You just can't stop nor have you ever been able to. You don't get your way so you throw a tantrum and them blame it on others.

    I recall something about winners and losers and rep points...so much for that. Just remember, all that contempt for me is really just contempt for yourself, all I do is throw your garbage back at you.
    Ditto. No tantrums here. Project much?
    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  9. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by dwt View Post
    Ditto. No tantrums here. Project much?
    Unlike you, I didn't complain about risking rep points. I do what I've always done, tit for tat. You want to keep up with the insults, you'll keep getting them back. I'm happy with the forum seeing you for who you are, not that it's any mystery at this point.

    It's interesting how many times you've used profanity in this thread. Tantrum is your middle name.

  10. #160
    bonked
    Reputation: IF52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,129
    Quote Originally Posted by StiHacka View Post
    If threads could speak, this one would be begging to get locked.
    Agreed. I think both users could stand a time out for the forums.
    Quote Originally Posted by banks
    That is one big f'n dude!
    Yes I am!

  11. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BIGHORN LEW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    774
    My entry is B-tweener , since that's what it is
    RAM speed: UP, UP, and away....!

  12. #162
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    9,838

    Zactekly

    Quote Originally Posted by BIGHORN LEW View Post
    My entry is B-tweener , since that's what it is
    Wait whuuut, who did he tell you that!?!?....

  13. #163
    fc
    fc is online now
    mtbr founder Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    24,337
    Yes, lock it capitan!


    ---
    I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?0vuuf4
    IPA will save America

  14. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation: krispy@go-ride.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,001
    I just got the 2013 FOX Shox price list..they're showing 27.5" forks.

    In 1920 the "Balloon" 2.125" tires were 26" in diameter.

    The average 26x2.3 is about 26.5"

    A Schwalbe Muddy Mary 2.5 is 27.25

    A 650b 2.25 is about 27.5"

    A bigger 650b is close to 28"

    An Ikon 29 x 2.25 is 29"

    An Ardent 2.4 is 29.25"

    A Hans Dampf 2.3 is 29.5"

    So, yes, 650b isn't quite half way between sizes, but 27.5 still seems to be a reasonable name, and in 7 pages no one has come up with a better one.

    Once again, i never planned to start a pointless battle, but to help get this wheel size rolling by giving it a name consumers can understand.
    Santa Cruz Bronson 2 27.5/Rockshox Pike/Sram XX1
    Salsa Mukluk/Rockshox Bluto/Sram X1

  15. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by krispy@go-ride.com View Post
    So, yes, 650b isn't quite half way between sizes, but 27.5 still seems to be a reasonable name, and in 7 pages no one has come up with a better one.

    Once again, i never planned to start a pointless battle, but to help get this wheel size rolling by giving it a name consumers can understand.
    Consumers can understand 650b. It's just a name after all and they understand 700c just fine. 650b exists and is unambiguous. That's the better one.

  16. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation: krispy@go-ride.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,001
    That's true, but in road 700c is 95% of what is sold. There is basically one road size.
    Santa Cruz Bronson 2 27.5/Rockshox Pike/Sram XX1
    Salsa Mukluk/Rockshox Bluto/Sram X1

  17. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Imagine, 95% of what is sold is named something consumers can't understand.

  18. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation: krispy@go-ride.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,001
    I'm done with the time wasting. If any of you have something constructive to add please do so.
    Santa Cruz Bronson 2 27.5/Rockshox Pike/Sram XX1
    Salsa Mukluk/Rockshox Bluto/Sram X1

  19. #169
    Mr.650b - Mr.27-5
    Reputation: Kirk Pacenti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,629
    Embrace cognitive dissonance.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Can we just call it 27.5?-epistemology_1.png  

    If you like my products and services tell everyone. If you don't, tell me - kirk(at)pacenticycledesign.com

  20. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    848
    Did I miss something while I was out riding my 650b?

  21. #171
    mnoutain bkie rdier
    Reputation: rydbyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,822
    I suggest a PM war...take the bickering off the thread please..

  22. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation: krispy@go-ride.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,001
    Your tires have been recalled. The suitable replacements will say "Size Large" on them.
    Santa Cruz Bronson 2 27.5/Rockshox Pike/Sram XX1
    Salsa Mukluk/Rockshox Bluto/Sram X1

  23. #173
    conjoinicorned
    Reputation: ferday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,527
    Quote Originally Posted by krispy@go-ride.com View Post
    I'm done with the time wasting. If any of you have something constructive to add please do so.
    constructive? heck yeah. give up.

    EVERY single popular biking term has been the one accepted by the largest number of unwashed masses.

    "faux bar", "brake jack", "all mountain", "freeride"....the list goes on and on. the truth behind the statements means nothing, the support of the masses behind those statements mean everything. looking at the sidebar ads, the bike companies are pushing "650b" and very likely that is the term that will stick in the colloquial consciousness, and no amount of mtbr zealotry has the power to affect the masses.

    AZ MTNS said it best..."i don't care what it's called, but i want one"
    160mm travel for mine, please.
    what would rainbow unicorn do?

  24. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    103
    Kirk,
    "fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall." to borrow from Dr. Jones...

    ++++++

    I mentioned such in another thread, but, I'll repeat it here:

    700c is the 'road bike' standard these days. 29" is the same size as the 700c, but it's a new label, to differentiate that it's a mountain bike. If you see 700c, you know it's for a roadbike, if you see 29er you know it's a MTB.

    650b is far older, and will still be around. Where it's akin to 700c, I like the idea of using 650b for 'touring' bikes, etc. As 29er is a 700c, just with a pseudonym so you know it's a mountain bike, not a road bike, why can't 650b have an alternate name, too?

    So, sure, use 27.5 or whatever, and you know it's the same thing as a 650b, but would be expecting knobby tires, whereas 650b means it's a roadish/mixed terrain tire. There are other 27s used, there are other 28s used, but 27.5 isn't used by anyone else for any other bike standard; so, yeah, I like 27.5 because it can*only* mean an equivalent to 650b.

    A caveat: Amongst my tires, I have a set of the Conti's Tour Rides... on their sidewall, they don't have either, they say 26 x 1 1/2 on them... ack. I would have thought I was sent the wrong tire. However, looking more closely, there it was, 584-42. That 584 told me, it was a 650b.

    So, regardless of being called a 650b or a 27.5 or anything else, I hope all manufacturers will have the ISO size 584 on there, just as an additional check...

  25. #175
    dwt
    dwt is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,169
    Quote Originally Posted by LNBright View Post
    Kirk,
    "fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall." to borrow from Dr. Jones...

    ++++++

    I mentioned such in another thread, but, I'll repeat it here:

    700c is the 'road bike' standard these days. 29" is the same size as the 700c, but it's a new label, to differentiate that it's a mountain bike. If you see 700c, you know it's for a roadbike, if you see 29er you know it's a MTB.

    650b is far older, and will still be around. Where it's akin to 700c, I like the idea of using 650b for 'touring' bikes, etc. As 29er is a 700c, just with a pseudonym so you know it's a mountain bike, not a road bike, why can't 650b have an alternate name, too?

    So, sure, use 27.5 or whatever, and you know it's the same thing as a 650b, but would be expecting knobby tires, whereas 650b means it's a roadish/mixed terrain tire. There are other 27s used, there are other 28s used, but 27.5 isn't used by anyone else for any other bike standard; so, yeah, I like 27.5 because it can*only* mean an equivalent to 650b.

    A caveat: Amongst my tires, I have a set of the Conti's Tour Rides... on their sidewall, they don't have either, they say 26 x 1 1/2 on them... ack. I would have thought I was sent the wrong tire. However, looking more closely, there it was, 584-42. That 584 told me, it was a 650b.

    So, regardless of being called a 650b or a 27.5 or anything else, I hope all manufacturers will have the ISO size 584 on there, just as an additional check...
    Simple, clear concise informative constructive;
    Thank you.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by dwt; 06-04-2012 at 01:52 PM.
    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  26. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation: carverboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    550

    No we can't call it 27.5 but your free to

    Just took a quick look at my bike and wheels which I've been riding for the last three years.
    Looks like the ship has sailed on the whole "naming" thing.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Can we just call it 27.5?-june2012-181.jpg  

    Can we just call it 27.5?-june2012-180.jpg  

    Can we just call it 27.5?-june2012-182.jpg  


  27. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    892
    Really it doesn't matter what any of us say. Whatever FOX decides to call it will steer the ship. While I think it is absurd that a suspension company will have the main influence on what a wheel size is called, they are the most "common man" big company currently in the mix, and that will set the precedent. So unless Specialized or Trek (or just Mr. Fischer) hand down a product with the size on the side, I think FOX has the reigns.

    I hope it is 650b though, I think it is cleaner sounding than 27.5 (when said out loud).

  28. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    980
    Quote Originally Posted by zombinate View Post
    I think FOX has the reigns.
    You are giving Fox far too much credit. It isn't up to them. It's whatever the mass community will call it. It's just a designation. It's has little meaning on it's own and two-niner or twenty-niners were never called 700C...

    27.5 sounds lame. Too many syllables.

  29. #179
    Uncle
    Reputation: Entrenador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    3,967

    Called it

    I'm accepting the slow death of this worthless thread as proof that my prediction of a forum apocalypse has come true.

    http://forums.mtbr.com/650b/revoluti...ml#post9201475

    Great prices - some sweet vintage stuff: http://classifieds.mtbr.com/showprod...product=101010

  30. #180

  31. #181
    bonked
    Reputation: IF52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,129
    Again, just because it rolled back up - it's been called 650b or B by the early adopters for 5 or 6 years now, and all the sudden it should be changed to 27 five just because?

    I've been called Michael my whole life, and now you should call me 6 five because that how tall I am. Makes about as much sense.

    Let's just call it Guillermo or something equally as arbitrary
    Quote Originally Posted by banks
    That is one big f'n dude!
    Yes I am!

  32. #182
    the new Gilbert Grape
    Reputation: laffeaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,779
    To me, the best reasons not to use 27.5" over 650b:

    Example 1: A 700c rim is ~27" with road tires, ~28" with a CX tire, and ~29" with a mountain tire. Are we can sell the same rim in three different sizes depending on what tire you choose to put on it?

    Example: What size tire fits on a 26" rim? Today we only have 559mm 26" rims. However if you like old bikes, 571mm and 597mm rims are also 26" wheels. You can also argue that a 650c (used on small road bikes) and a 650b (with a road tire) are 26" wheels. So when you go to buy a tire to fit your 26" rim and the guy behind the counter hands you a 650c road tire, what are you going to say: "no, I mean the other 26 inch rim."

    The 700c, 650b, 650c, etc. systems is outdated and the numbers/letters don't mean what they did originally but it's better than remembering that you 622mm, 584mm, or 559mm tires.

    Also, a better argument to make is why the hell do people in the US (yes, I'm one of them) cling to inches anyway? Every developed country except one (and nearly all of other countries) use the same system for taking measurements: the metric system. In the age of the world economy, no reasonable argument can be made why any product should be measured in inches. 26, 27.5 and 29 inch wheels is almost as antiquated as the French system that gave us the 700c and 650b names.
    Each bicycle owned exponentially increases the probability that none is working correctly.

  33. #183
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,762
    700c with road tires isnt even 27 inches though, and what cross tires are you using to get to 28" ?
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  34. #184
    the new Gilbert Grape
    Reputation: laffeaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,779
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    700c with road tires isnt even 27 inches though, and what cross tires are you using to get to 28" ?
    Thus the "~" which means approximately.

    Continental tubes (made in Germany) that I use in my 700c CX bike labels there boxes as 28-inch tubes. I always have double check that they are 700c tubes as no one in the US calls any tire size 28 inches.
    Each bicycle owned exponentially increases the probability that none is working correctly.

  35. #185
    derp
    Reputation: danielsilva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    948
    27.5 inches ? None of my bikes have 27.5 inch wheels ... they do have 27.somethinganddependinghowwornoutheyare wheels though. Just call them for what they are for some decades now ... 650b.

  36. #186
    Dude, got any schwag?
    Reputation: TheSchwagman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    829
    Quote Originally Posted by IF52 View Post
    Again, just because it rolled back up - it's been called 650b or B by the early adopters for 5 or 6 years now, and all the sudden it should be changed to 27 five just because?

    I've been called Michael my whole life, and now you should call me 6 five because that how tall I am. Makes about as much sense.

    Let's just call it Guillermo or something equally as arbitrary
    'Sup 6 five?

    Of course I'd rather be chatting with 7 of 9. There's another thread for that.
    Billy

    Speed is sweet, it's like an avenue to
    ... Shredtopia!

  37. #187
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,017
    WFIW, Scott's people (the biggest conspirators I guess) are calling it 27".

  38. #188
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,017
    Quote Originally Posted by IF52 View Post
    I've been called Michael my whole life, and now you should call me 6 five because that how tall I am. Makes about as much sense.
    No, we will call you "IF52".

  39. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    892
    New plan, we call it "Mountain B." Obviously not 650B, cause that is a trekking tire. Not 27" cause that is an old roadbike standard that it still in wide enough use. Not 27.5, because if we are going to be arbitrary, it would be better to go with 27".

    So MountainB. You hard it here first

  40. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,161
    just call it "fity B"

    and send me my royalty checks

  41. #191
    Baby Bear is in the house
    Reputation: r1Gel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,032
    Resurrecting this thread, after coming across this Youtube vid
    650B Trends_Scott Bicycles-Mountain Bike Action Magazine - YouTube

    "We, like Mountain Bike Action, are using the inch measurement... we want to keep it inches because we don't want to change units of measure while we're talking about a bike..."

    Hah! Sucking up to MBA, the rag that uses ounces and grams; inches and millimeters in the same sentence.

    Adrian himself says "...you get a hundred fifty millimeters of travel with a 27.5-inch wheel..."

    Silly.

    If you watch the whole series of "650B Trends" by hitorquemags (there's one on Intense, and a few others) it seems just like a pathetic attempt at pushing for the "27.5" moniker. And yet they named it "650B Trends."
    Better to have and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

  42. #192
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,017
    Quote Originally Posted by r1Gel View Post
    "We, like Mountain Bike Action, are using the inch measurement... we want to keep it inches because we don't want to change units of measure while we're talking about a bike..."

    Hah! Sucking up to MBA, the rag that uses ounces and grams; inches and millimeters in the same sentence.
    Those idiots use fractional ounces where every frigging body else uses grams. It is stupidity. Grade A moronic.

  43. #193
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,895
    Look at the new name of this forum. Just saying.

    PS: ounces should have been abandoned a hundred years ago...

  44. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    82
    But inches is somehow less asinine?

  45. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    267
    Six fifty B, six fifty, two seven five, two seventy five, twenty seven? It's all the same to me and most people who are in the know, will know what you are talking about no matter what lingo you use. I really don't think it matters at this point what you call it.

  46. #196
    just some guy
    Reputation: talabardio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by mobaar View Post
    MUCH closer?

    559
    584 (+25mm/4.5%)
    622 (+38mm/6.5 %)

    I guess we need to switch to 650A (590mm BSD) to use 27.5"?

    Much like everything else 650b, its going to be the manufacturers that set the terms here, and 27.5 seems to be gaining traction from what I see.

    27.5" is easier to explain to the customer that doesn't have any idea what 650b is (26", 27.5", 29" makes more sense thatn 26", 650B, 29").

    It also prevents confusion with 650C (571mm BSD). 700c works because 700a, b, and d are all practically obsolete. 700B (635 BSD) tires are out there, but everyone calls them 28".
    Yeah really, 6 whole mm difference from exactly halfway between the other sizes. Although I wouldn't mind trying some 650a and 700B bikes!

  47. #197
    dwt
    dwt is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,169
    This dumbass subject has been beaten to death

    Name:  ImageUploadedByTapatalk1353000936.622833.jpg
Views: 181
Size:  15.5 KB

    Some people can't get over the most picayune and irrelevant details. Ride the wheel size, whatever name you want to call it. Who friggin' cares? Get real

    If you like it, post in this forum. If you don't and like 29", there are two forums for that; if you like 26" there are the AM, FR and DH forums. In all the forums, there are far more important and interesting topics than whether to use metric or imperial measurements and whether it is cool or not to mix them in the same paragraph.


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

  48. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,653
    I agree with dwt. You are allowed to mix units in the same sentence, how often do we talk about frame weights in ibs and top tube lengths in mm? So using 650b or 27.5 is just fine as far I'm concerned.

  49. #199
    dwt
    dwt is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,169
    Folks who want to keep this pointless argument going might want to check out this South African forum:

    650B is NOT 27.5" - Rant 'n Rave - thehubsa.co.za
    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  50. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    16
    Let's call it Goldilocks. It seems to fit just right. (insert drum roll)

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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