Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 251 to 298 of 298
  1. #251
    the new Gilbert Grape
    Reputation: laffeaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,749
    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.

  2. #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.

  3. #253
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,572
    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

  4. #254
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mestapho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,174

    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?

  5. #255
    the new Gilbert Grape
    Reputation: laffeaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,749
    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.

  6. #256
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,168

    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 **** 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 **** 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.

  7. #257
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,947
    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.

  8. #258
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    9,775
    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!?!?....

  9. #259
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,168

    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.

  10. #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.

  11. #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.

  12. #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.

  13. #263
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,947

    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).

  14. #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.

  15. #265
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,947
    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..

  16. #266
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,168

    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.

  17. #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".

  18. #268
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,947
    Quote Originally Posted by dwt View Post
    What is your native language?
    Russian.

  19. #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.

  20. #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."

  21. #271
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    745
    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!!!

  22. #272
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jimbowho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    733
    Here we go!

  23. #273
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    9,775
    Quote Originally Posted by jimbowho View Post
    Here we go!
    Huh?...Just where you been?.....
    Wait whuuut, who did he tell you that!?!?....

  24. #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!

  25. #275
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,947

    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.

  26. #276
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    745
    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.

  27. #277
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,947
    Quote Originally Posted by satanas View Post
    yIvoq, 'ach yI'ol.
    Satan quoting Stalin. How appropriate.

  28. #278
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,168

    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.

  29. #279
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    745
    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.

  30. #280
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    745
    ^ 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.

  31. #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.

  32. #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.

  33. #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.

  34. #284
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nuffink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    768

  35. #285
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,168

    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.

  36. #286
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,947
    Quote Originally Posted by satanas View Post
    It's a nightmare
    Name:  oh-the-humanity-and-other-good-intentions.jpeg
Views: 150
Size:  14.7 KB

  37. #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!

  38. #288
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    745
    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!

  39. #289
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,168

    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.

  40. #290
    ccm
    ccm is offline
    West Coast Racing
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    541
    I wish there was a middle size where you could easily tell the difference between the smaller and larger sizes
    lets call it 666B

  41. #291
    the new Gilbert Grape
    Reputation: laffeaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,749
    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.

  42. #292
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    745
    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.

  43. #293
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    745
    ...
    Last edited by satanas; 08-28-2013 at 08:46 AM. Reason: deleted - duplicated content

  44. #294
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,947
    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".

  45. #295
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    745
    ^ 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.

  46. #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.

  47. #297
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    745
    None whatsoever!

  48. #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 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

Posting Permissions

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