Why 650b is an ill conceived idea - Page 2- Mtbr.com
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 201 to 400 of 491
  1. #201
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MMcG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    9,592
    Yeah that bb looks so low.....it would be pedal strike city around here that's for sure.

  2. #202
    Size Does Matter
    Reputation: dirty29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    39
    Yea I guess it could be pedal strike city if I was jumping/riding over obstacles with my pedals vertical instead of horizontal. I did hit once when I was looking at the tree standing in front of me instead of focusing on my line!

    I was able to clear these and enjoyed my ride immensely. I know the number seem like they shouldn't work....and everyone really only looks at numbers...but if the ride is the shizit...me likey!
    Attached Images Attached Images

  3. #203
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MMcG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    9,592
    That's cool.

    Why though did you choose a 29er frame for 650bs vs a 26er with clearance for them?

  4. #204
    Size Does Matter
    Reputation: dirty29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    39
    Had the 29 frame....rode as a 29. But I have very little clearance being short. So after a couple crashes I went slightly smaller wheels (easier) and kept the frame. More expensive to buy new frame vs. wheels...well at least in my case! I know some wheels are ridiculous!

  5. #205
    Reviewer/Tester
    Reputation: Rainman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,176
    Well, that's different, and refreshing, too. Nice to see someone else thinks like I do ... "the right tool for the job in hand" ... well done.



    R.
    It is inevitable ...

  6. #206
    chainpain
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by juansevo
    So far no one has offered a real reason 650b should go on.
    I know this might surprise you, but people aren't obliged to cough up a reason for you to approve of, and brand "real," for 650 wheels to exist.

    The experience of riding on a 26 bike for a short man will differ from the experience of a tall man. Frames are made larger according to rider size, but when wheels stay the same size, kinematics are skewed.

    As for the chaos in keeping stock parts, riding with different tubes (69ers) etc, they are all valid points, in this respect it would be beneficial to only have one wheel size.

    Unfortunately (for you) people still want to ride with these bastardo wheel sizes. I like it.

  7. #207
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by juansevo
    Seriously while I'm all for innovation I'm against making stuff just because. Perhaps we should start making road bikes in 27" again with that logic or perhaps the ultimate headset would be 1 1/16" and 31.8 is a bit heavy lets do a 29.9 bar instead. All are bad ideas because they would not offer a significant advantage over current product and when the fad dies you'll be stuck with stuff that's incompatible with the standard which just plain works.

    In short more junk for landfills.

    Bike shops have enough crap laying around because of dumbass ideas in the past. Remember making shims for your fork race for 1" headsets because there was no standard? Or Gary Fishers 1 1/4 headsets that were standard on his bikes pre-Trek? Or how about pre-31.8 handlebars when you had two different road handlebar diameters? Or when for mtb's you had standard, suntour compact, compact, and 4 arm bolt circles? Lets not even start with the 30 different size seatposts we had for awhile.

    We finally have some standardization which allows bike shops to run lower inventory and thus keep costs down. 1 1/8" headsets are now basically the standard on ALL bikes which means fewer items to stock. 31.8 handlebars are quickly becoming the norm for all bikes as today's stems can be used for road or mtb (with some exceptions of course) which means less inventory. Even seatposts we seem to have 27.2 as a standard with just a few bigger sizes for special bikes but were down to 3-4 that everyone seems to use

    650b has no merit other than a fringe item for people who just have to have something different for the sake of being different. It's like the guy who just has to have everything ti on his bike including applications like cranks were it's not the optimal material for the application.

    I'm for trying new concepts that can offer something different. I've been riding 29ers for 3 years now. I have a 69er and I would like a Pugsley. But all offer significant advantages or ride characteristics that outshine 26" wheels enough to justify them. 650b....does not.

    Specialized once had a slogan of "Innovate or Die"...well 650b is not an innovation and thus should and eventually will die for mtb applications.

    I'll close with this line from Jurassic Park:

    "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

    Dude, why even start a post like this? You trying to help the hapless 650b fans out there? Save them from themselves?

  8. #208
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by juansevo
    So far no one has offered a real reason 650b should go on.
    And, so far, no one has offered a real reason why it shouldn't.

    Therefore, why not? Vive le 650b.


    ...

  9. #209

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    95

    keeps on going!

    the troll killer can hardly believe this lame thread is still alive... doesn't someone moderate this forum? can it be locked down? oh well, the troll killer is not above adding fuel to the fire!

    the troll killer would love to know what jaun, dc, clockskey and the rest of the 29er mafia thinks about latest trail bike from fisher, the Rosco. they all seem to be fans of gary fisher bikes and gf has [for all intents and purposes] built his brand around 29ers since 2001 or so, yet all of his big travel bikes still come with 26' wheels.

    blessings,

    tk

  10. #210
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,974
    Give me 26 and 650B. I don't think 26 will ever be unseated but having a couple of niche sizes suits me just fine. Just don't go past 29 or I'll join the Hater Wagon as well.

  11. #211
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,640
    There's some pretty serious frame design issues w/ 29. Lots of crap geometry out there trying to fit those big a** wheels. Stupid angles, looong stays, lack of proper gears and so on. Seems like 650b actually solves plenty. If it had been introduced to the mtn bike market b/f 29, you'd be complaining about 29 and how it 'solves nothing'.

  12. #212
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmitty
    There's some pretty serious frame design issues w/ 29.
    Lots of crap geometry out there trying to fit those big a** wheels.
    Like what? 29er does pretty well.
    Stupid angles, looong stays, lack of proper gears and so on.
    The same could be stated about 24" vs 27,5", couldn't it?
    Seems like 650b actually solves plenty.
    For whom ? For shorties wanting a huge wheel with 160+ travel?
    If it had been introduced to the mtn bike market b/f 29, you'd be complaining about 29 and how it 'solves nothing'.
    The diffrence between 584mm and 622mm is greater than 559&584 thus no we wouldn't be complaing becuase 700C solves plenty

    Almost all of you base on the common belief that 584mm is a winner when it comes to long travel bikes, which is not truth now when 165mm Niner WFO9 comes out at Interbike together with another 7" -next year- 29er. Unless you perfomr stunts nad/or are shorter than 170cm I see no reason to go 584 or 559.
    A place where long travel 29er could be outperformed by 27,5er or 26er is a twiesties 180 deg, infested trail which is found at small percentage at regular leisure&fun trails.
    I don't see the reason why someone could buy a 27,5er instead of 29er. 29er offer much more rollover effect, floatability, stability. Making the step backwards is ludicrous.

    Purposedly built 27.5ers are now at moot point like 15mm TA. These two ill-conceived ideas solve nothing.

  13. #213
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Like what? 29er does pretty well.
    The same could be stated about 24" vs 27,5", couldn't it?
    For whom ? For shorties wanting a huge wheel with 160+ travel?
    The diffrence between 584mm and 622mm is greater than 559&584 thus no we wouldn't be complaing becuase 700C solves plenty

    Almost all of you base on the common belief that 584mm is a winner when it comes to long travel bikes, which is not truth now when 165mm Niner WFO9 comes out at Interbike together with another 7" -next year- 29er. Unless you perfomr stunts nad/or are shorter than 170cm I see no reason to go 584 or 559.
    A place where long travel 29er could be outperformed by 27,5er or 26er is a twiesties 180 deg, infested trail which is found at small percentage at regular leisure&fun trails.
    I don't see the reason why someone could buy a 27,5er instead of 29er. 29er offer much more rollover effect, floatability, stability. Making the step backwards is ludicrous.

    Purposedly built 27.5ers are now at moot point like 15mm TA. These two ill-conceived ideas solve nothing.
    So I assume you will be the first to jump on the 36" wheels when they come out?

  14. #214
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reformed roadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,586

    shut the (bleep) up!

    Maybe people like the idea of 650B because too many people riding 29ers are like you...

    You have a whole forum devoted to 700c mountain wheels...or did they find you obnoxious too?

    If you can explain why I or anyone else shouldn't buy a 650B wheel/rim and tire to put on many of the compatible 26" forks and get an increase in performance (roll over/float/traction), rather than say, buy an whole bike, let me know.

    Why do you care?
    I agree that the QR15 is dumb, given that there are no advantages over 20TA (maybe potential hub weight?)...but is you are looking attack something that is going to upset standards and compatibility, start a forum on tapered steerer tubes.
    I can't recall a dumber argument made on this site than the 24" vs. 27.5" you referenced re: geometry.

  15. #215

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Like what? 29er does pretty well.
    The same could be stated about 24" vs 27,5", couldn't it?
    For whom ? For shorties wanting a huge wheel with 160+ travel?
    The diffrence between 584mm and 622mm is greater than 559&584 thus no we wouldn't be complaing becuase 700C solves plenty

    Almost all of you base on the common belief that 584mm is a winner when it comes to long travel bikes, which is not truth now when 165mm Niner WFO9 comes out at Interbike together with another 7" -next year- 29er. Unless you perfomr stunts nad/or are shorter than 170cm I see no reason to go 584 or 559.
    A place where long travel 29er could be outperformed by 27,5er or 26er is a twiesties 180 deg, infested trail which is found at small percentage at regular leisure&fun trails.
    I don't see the reason why someone could buy a 27,5er instead of 29er. 29er offer much more rollover effect, floatability, stability. Making the step backwards is ludicrous.

    Purposedly built 27.5ers are now at moot point like 15mm TA. These two ill-conceived ideas solve nothing.
    the troll killer could not have said it better than this:
    http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?...07&postcount=3

    even the 29er crowd thinks davidcrapperfield is a kook. the troll killer thinks the funniest thing about dc is the suspicion that he doesn't even own a 29er. dc just likes to wax poetic about them.

    dc would certainly be the first in poland to ride a 36er if they actually esisted and cost $100 for a complete bike. then we'd get to hear all about how much better they are than 29ers and that 29ers are just kiddy wheels...

    very truly yours,

    tk

  16. #216
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ray Lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,368

    Wow

    I cant believe this thread is going strong so many weeks after it reared its ugly head (must be some real interest in 650B)

    First I will start by saying I didn't care one way or the other if my 650b wheels worked or not as I have a friend that was more than ready to buy my set if I didn't like them, also I dont care what is cool and what is not, I do not care if my components are labeled XC or DH as long as they work on what I ride, I dont bother trying to guess what will be next, and most importantly I actually ride/use stuff before voicing my opinion.

    When I started looking for a suspension bike I wanted a 29er (I'm 6'2") but they had very little travel and all felt a bit long and stretched out for my taste (hard to throw around) 29er was out (maybe someday there will be one more to my liking but not biking and waiting around was not an option) I ended up looking into 5-6 inch travel bikes with 26inch wheels, I really liked the more slacker angles of some but usually that came with more weight and often over built for what I do.....then I found a few that had adjustable angles, tuff enough for my abuse and weighed around the 30 pound mark I wanted... ended up buying a Prophet, months latter I drop $550 or so (about what some of you spend on a seat post ) and get my BB hight back to where is should be, better traction, the wheel size and slightly larger volume tires soak up small rocks and bumps better, handling hasn't changed much at all, and I didn't give up one MM of my travel.

    This thread seems to have a lot of people who feel the need to defend there purchases, when something comes out that will make riding even more fun I will dump the Prophet on Ebay and buy it (its only a bike after all) till then I am thrilled with the REAL (not guess work, not theory, not mathematical calculations) but REAL improvements I got for only $550 and this "ill conceived" wheels size.

    Ok let the debate continue, I am going to go ride my rigid 29er to buy a chain guard for my 650b, and grips for my girlfriends 26er.

    Ray

  17. #217
    emtb.pl
    Reputation: krolik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    879
    davidcopperfield indeed is one strange individual. He's Polish and so am I, so this ain't the reason.
    He's posting on a polish forum emtb.pl with same reactions as here on mtbr (well outside 29foro anyway) so language is not an issue.
    He's PMing me nicely and without any hostile intensions about my sources for parts&stuff in the US, so he's not naturaly aggressive or offensive.
    Not sure about his bike abilities or bikes he owns. But on the other hand people from emtb meet each other quite often and noone has ever seen him ride.
    Everyone has the opportunity to post his ideas and most of his are not directly offensive.
    I bet it's just too much theory and too much time off bike.
    At least that's how I see it on both forums.

  18. #218
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,651
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Unless you perfomr stunts nad/or are shorter than 170cm I see no reason to go 584 or 559.
    .
    My man DC, more than half the people who ride bike are less than 1700mm - 5'7". Are you suggesting that nobody makes a bike/wheel sized for them?

    I don't ask this question out of curiousity. Please don't show your lack of intelligence with a reply.

  19. #219
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    267

    DC One Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Like what? 29er does pretty well.
    The same could be stated about 24" vs 27,5", couldn't it?
    For whom ? For shorties wanting a huge wheel with 160+ travel?
    The diffrence between 584mm and 622mm is greater than 559&584 thus no we wouldn't be complaing becuase 700C solves plenty

    Almost all of you base on the common belief that 584mm is a winner when it comes to long travel bikes, which is not truth now when 165mm Niner WFO9 comes out at Interbike together with another 7" -next year- 29er. Unless you perfomr stunts nad/or are shorter than 170cm I see no reason to go 584 or 559.
    A place where long travel 29er could be outperformed by 27,5er or 26er is a twiesties 180 deg, infested trail which is found at small percentage at regular leisure&fun trails.
    I don't see the reason why someone could buy a 27,5er instead of 29er. 29er offer much more rollover effect, floatability, stability. Making the step backwards is ludicrous.

    Purposedly built 27.5ers are now at moot point like 15mm TA. These two ill-conceived ideas solve nothing.
    Do you own a bike?

  20. #220
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by troll killer
    even the 29er crowd thinks davidcrapperfield is a kook. the troll killer thinks the funniest thing about dc is the suspicion that he doesn't even own a 29er. dc just likes to wax poetic about them.
    Hey, you gotta love Dave 'Always Wrong' Coppafeel. His posts are funny, 'cuz they're so untrue. And clueless.

    Of course, when you correct him (which is often), he ignores it. Like one or two pages back, where he tries to tell everyone that 700C conversions are based on triathlon wheels (650C), instead of 650B.

    Y'know what? The poor guy probably still believes that they ARE 650C. Just 'cuz he thinks so.

    ...

  21. #221
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    69
    Oh, and let's not forget another piece of David Coppafeel wisdom... apparently, people under 5'8" don't matter in the mountain biking world.

    Doesn't matter that about 25% of guys and at least 60% of women fit that description.... they JUST DON'T MATTER, 'cuz DAVE SAYS SO.

    I think a village is missing it's you-know-what.

    ...

  22. #222
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ray Lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,368
    tell that to my local dealer, 5 mediums for every 1 large and I think there may be a single XL in the store

    But to be fair thats looks about perfect compared to the people I see riding the trails (i feel like a giant at only 6'2")



    Quote Originally Posted by SystemShock
    Oh, and let's not forget another piece of David Coppafeel wisdom... apparently, people under 5'8" don't matter in the mountain biking world.

    Doesn't matter that about 25% of guys and at least 60% of women fit that description.... they JUST DON'T MATTER, 'cuz DAVE SAYS SO.

    I think a village is missing it's you-know-what.

    ...

  23. #223
    just some guy
    Reputation: talabardio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    532

    yeah 650b sucks..?

    The only thing is, when I rode one it was the best bike I have ever ridden and now I really want one.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  24. #224
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,004
    Quote Originally Posted by talabardio
    The only thing is, when I rode one it was the best bike I have ever ridden and now I really want one.
    Way to resurrect a stupid thread that died (thankfully) a year ago.

  25. #225
    just some guy
    Reputation: talabardio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    532

    thankfully

    Way to be a sarcastic jerk!

  26. #226
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reformed roadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta
    Way to resurrect a stupid thread that died (thankfully) a year ago.

    HA!
    The funny thing is, there is at least one anti-650B poster who is now on board - Hand/of/Midas.
    (See 'Interbike and 650bs' thread)

    How long till DC resumes making an ass out of himself?

  27. #227
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by reformed roadie
    How long till DC resumes making an ass out of himself?
    He is busy at the 29r board complaining about Specialized not using 12mm rear axle on their new 29rs. Long rants about how flexy it is on all bikes with a rear QR, and how even a 10mm bolt-on will not make a dime of difference.

    If he is serious he must be a 7ft tall gorilla.

  28. #228
    just some guy
    Reputation: talabardio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    532

    Thankfully...

    Quote Originally Posted by reformed roadie
    HA!
    The funny thing is, there is at least one anti-650B poster who is now on board - Hand/of/Midas.
    (See 'Interbike and 650bs' thread)

    How long till DC resumes making an ass out of himself?

    Jeez, I just posted an innocuous opinion that I liked a bike; what a weirdo. Anyway, the 650b bike I rode was great, I loved it, and I have a really nice riding Moots bike already so it had to be really good to make that impression.

  29. #229
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,886
    don't say his name... its like mentioned MV on the bike newsgroups...
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  30. #230
    TNC
    TNC is offline
    noMAD man
    Reputation: TNC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,059
    Quote Originally Posted by talabardio
    Jeez, I just posted an innocuous opinion that I liked a bike; what a weirdo. Anyway, the 650b bike I rode was great, I loved it, and I have a really nice riding Moots bike already so it had to be really good to make that impression.
    rr may have come on a little strong, but your post may have been more appropriate as a new post with your comments. This 2008 post was more of a conceptual argument. Your post reflects worthy comments from your perspective about a specific bike apparently. Not dissin' you...just sayin'.

  31. #231
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reformed roadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by talabardio
    Jeez, I just posted an innocuous opinion that I liked a bike; what a weirdo. Anyway, the 650b bike I rode was great, I loved it, and I have a really nice riding Moots bike already so it had to be really good to make that impression.
    Hold on...
    I wasn't even referring to you.

    When this ridiculous, reincarnated thread popped up again (thanks to you ) , I scanned through it...mostly to get a laugh from DCs rants.

    Anyway, near the beginning, I noticed Hand/of/Midas posted that "650B are stupid"...probably about a year and a half ago.
    Recently, both he and I had posted on a thread re: the Racing Ralph being discontinued in 650b size. He mentioned something about he had planned to get some for his SS.

    I was just pointing this out, as I found it funny that at least someone had seen the light.

    Don't care if you think I am weird, but at least think that for the right reasons...

  32. #232
    TNC
    TNC is offline
    noMAD man
    Reputation: TNC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,059
    Quote Originally Posted by reformed roadie
    Hold on...
    I wasn't even referring to you.

    When this ridiculous, reincarnated thread popped up again (thanks to you ) , I scanned through it...mostly to get a laugh from DCs rants.

    Anyway, near the beginning, I noticed Hand/of/Midas posted that "650B are stupid"...probably about a year and a half ago.
    Recently, both he and I had posted on a thread re: the Racing Ralph being discontinued in 650b size. He mentioned something about he had planned to get some for his SS.

    I was just pointing this out, as I found it funny that at least someone had seen the light.

    Don't care if you think I am weird, but at least think that for the right reasons...
    Ooops, rr...I mistook you for kapusta's comment...sorry. For what it's worth, I didn't think any comments by rr or kapusta about resurrecting this old thread were that extreme. It wasn't a great thread when it got started in 2008, and it hasn't improved with age apparently.

  33. #233
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,004
    Quote Originally Posted by TNC
    Ooops, rr...I mistook you for kapusta's comment...sorry. For what it's worth, I didn't think any comments by rr or kapusta about resurrecting this old thread were that extreme. It wasn't a great thread when it got started in 2008, and it hasn't improved with age apparently.
    TNC, reformed roadie, talabardio, Curmy: Please accept my apologies for any pain and suffering I have caused here. I am an insensitive clod, and say bad things sometimes. Clearly there has been no thread from the last year more appropriate than this one in which to post a cool new bike. I loved this thread the first time and secretly I am hoping for DC and friends to return to continue an unbeatable reality show.

  34. #234
    TNC
    TNC is offline
    noMAD man
    Reputation: TNC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,059
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta
    TNC, reformed roadie, talabardio, Curmy: Please accept my apologies for any pain and suffering I have caused here. I am an insensitive clod, and say bad things sometimes. Clearly there has been no thread from the last year more appropriate than this one in which to post a cool new bike. I loved this thread the first time and secretly I am hoping for DC and friends to return to continue an unbeatable reality show.
    LOL!...what's the old saying?...Be careful what you wish for?

  35. #235
    Keep it Simple Stupid!!!
    Reputation: Steel Freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    359

    No good Now Why is 650b so great?

    650 is a Dumb Idea. It's too close to a 26 to make a noticeable difference. If your over 5 10 29ers are an Improvement with current geometry in XC. 26 is fine for the smaller folks. 650 is just a lets do it because we can format. I have yet to hear an intelligent reason to support this format. "Ill Conceived " well put OP
    Who cares how much gas you save, ride your bike to work because it's fun!!!!!!!

  36. #236
    Ovaries on the Outside
    Reputation: umarth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Freak
    650 is a Dumb Idea. It's too close to a 26 to make a noticeable difference. If your over 5 10 29ers are an Improvement with current geometry in XC. 26 is fine for the smaller folks. 650 is just a lets do it because we can format. I have yet to hear an intelligent reason to support this format. "Ill Conceived " well put OP
    Gawd. You are such a douche.

  37. #237
    Keep it Simple Stupid!!!
    Reputation: Steel Freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    359
    [QUOTE=umarth]Gawd. You are such a douche.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKwA8pFJvJc check it out.
    SF
    Who cares how much gas you save, ride your bike to work because it's fun!!!!!!!

  38. #238
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Freak
    650 is a Dumb Idea. It's too close to a 26 to make a noticeable difference. If your over 5 10 29ers are an Improvement with current geometry in XC. 26 is fine for the smaller folks. 650 is just a lets do it because we can format. I have yet to hear an intelligent reason to support this format. "Ill Conceived " well put OP
    if some people enjoy riding it, then isn't that reason enough?

    You know what would be awesomely ironic? If you actually got to test ride a 650B bike and realized that you do prefer it for your riding

  39. #239
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,927
    I have not taken the time to read through all the posts - I have read some pretty negative ones on the last page. I will start off by saying the more options the better in cycling. I can only imagine if conservatives said nay to full suspension, disc brakes, 29" wheels whatever. I think if you want to say nay to 650b you should have @ least spent some time in the saddle before you put it down. I ride 650b and prefer it over 26" wheels for my application of trails.

  40. #240
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    26" wheels had been a mistake to start with. They should have standartized on 650b, BB30, tapered headtubes, three sizes of seat posts etc. right away back in the 80s..

    What were they thinking?

  41. #241
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SteveF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Freak
    650 is a Dumb Idea. It's too close to a 26 to make a noticeable difference. If your over 5 10 29ers are an Improvement with current geometry in XC. 26 is fine for the smaller folks. 650 is just a lets do it because we can format. I have yet to hear an intelligent reason to support this format. "Ill Conceived " well put OP

    Sooo, those of us under 5'10" should just shut up and ride 26" wheels, or put up with screwed up geometry, toe overlap and zero standover to try and ride wagon wheels? If 650b offers a decent option for those who want to try it, what's it to you?

  42. #242
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reformed roadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    [QUOTE=Steel Freak]
    Quote Originally Posted by umarth
    Gawd. You are such a douche.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKwA8pFJvJc check it out.
    SF

    It must kill you to put a helmet over your wind resistant, blond tipped hair...
    But then again, I wouldn't be shocked if you don't wear one.

  43. #243
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fernandoj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    102
    Silent!


  44. #244
    just some guy
    Reputation: talabardio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    532
    Sweeet!

  45. #245
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    107
    why is"26 is fine for smaller folks" a good argument when 650b would be better ? sounds like a dismissive argument....perhaps your trails are as smooth as sidewalks....larger dia. wheels (than 26) will be more capable in rough terrain, 29" proves that. why relegate "smaller folk" to a 26" wheel when a 27.5 would be an improvement ? 650B is a "bigger is better" argument

  46. #246
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,780

    Caution;  Merge;  Workers Ahead! Nip in the bud before it cannibalizes our 29ers!

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveF
    Sooo, those of us under 5'10" should just shut up and ride 26" wheels, or put up with screwed up geometry, toe overlap and zero standover to try and ride wagon wheels?
    Such wide sweeping statement is just ballooney!. I am 5'8" just for enjoyment of my medium rip9 with enough standover, no screwed up geometry and toe overlap. I don't need 100metres to decelerate or accelerate or make a turn either. Is it Mr, Pacenti, who told you that?
    Take into account that newer 29ershave shorter CS, win nationals. Appeal to most women yes including those 5'3" Willow Korber being just a smigde over 5' 2" scored a bronze in Canaberre Australia.
    http://twentynineinches.com/2009/09/...-racers-speak/

    Whereare those earthshuttering 27,5ers? All tests say nothing groundbreaking about 584, no thrills, little emotions. I presume that 650b takes advantage of 29er format not being mature enough to nip it in the bud.
    I am faster than 26ers riders and the difference would be a smigde smaller yet with not perfect 584 geometry from the ground up.

    http://twentynineinches.com/2009/09/...s-sixfifty-b2/
    I had just recently ridden a 26” bike, something I rarely do anymore, and I was wondering if I could tell the difference? Short answer? Not really. Was the 27.5” wheel working for me to the positive? Probably, but it was just pretty subtle about it. Compared to the average 29er, it was quite a bit more moto as far as wheelies and tossing it around, no doubt. It was very flick-able. But the sand and rocks still grabbed at the wheels and slowed them down more then I expected. If this is a good example of the middie-sized wheel and how it performs, it sure does not have the ability of a 29er wheel for rolling over the terrain.

    And yeah Hitler supports us Got mit uns
    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=557498
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jElwljxGGs
    Last edited by Davidcopperfield; 10-12-2009 at 04:01 PM.

  47. #247
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Freak
    650 is a Dumb Idea. It's too close to a 26 to make a noticeable difference. If your over 5 10 29ers are an Improvement with current geometry in XC. 26 is fine for the smaller folks. 650 is just a lets do it because we can format. I have yet to hear an intelligent reason to support this format. "Ill Conceived " well put OP

    Good thing I'm 5'10" because 26" would be too small and 29" would be too big.


    <------Fan of mixed wheel sizes. No bigger than 650b on the rear, no smaller than 650b on the front.

  48. #248
    rmb
    rmb is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rmb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    660
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    I am faster than 26ers riders and the difference would be a smigde smaller yet with not perfect 584 geometry from the ground up.
    Can't argue with that sound reasoning .

  49. #249
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Such wide sweeping statement is just ballooney!.
    Are you talking about your own posts?

  50. #250
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reformed roadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    I am faster than 26ers riders and the difference would be a smigde smaller yet with not perfect 584 geometry from the ground up.
    WOW

    I guess you could show up at a world cup race and smoke everyone on you're 29er, since most are running 26" wheels.

    impressive.

  51. #251
    Keep it Simple Stupid!!!
    Reputation: Steel Freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    359

    Hope

    [QUOTE=reformed roadie]
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Freak


    It must kill you to put a helmet over your wind resistant, blond tipped hair...
    But then again, I wouldn't be shocked if you don't wear one.
    Actually I'm Bald. I shaved my thinning hair back in 2003.

    I always wear a helmet off Road and on long rides on my Steel Framed road bike. I some times wear just a banana of beinie (Like I have in my profile pic) on a ride to the Coffee shop, bike shop,or Bookstore. I used to ride a Harly with no helmet to the Bars and Clubs Grahams Baby, but I dont go to places like that nomore.
    SF
    Who cares how much gas you save, ride your bike to work because it's fun!!!!!!!

  52. #252
    just some guy
    Reputation: talabardio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    532
    I rode a 650b and liked it better than a 29er or a 26 inch bike. Like Goldilocks. That's just the way it is, deal with it.

  53. #253
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SteveF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,313
    DC, It's pretty clear you have a strong preference for 29er wheels. It sounds as though you feel 650b threatens 29er growth--I don't personally think that will happen, and I think your disparaging comments about 650b wheels are simply selfish, paranoid defense of a standard that you've adopted whole-heartedly but somehow still feel insecure about.

    If 650b is really as poor a choice as you claim, then it'll never take a significant portion of the 26" or 29" market share anyway, so you shouldn't worry. I personally think it is a good option--and I made that decision way back when Rivendell first introduced the wheel size on it's "rough stuff fast tourer," the Saluki. I bought one from the very first production runs and I like it a lot. Kirk didn't talk me into anything, but I immediately took to the idea of the same sized wheel for off road use too and I'm committing to buying at least 1 and probably two mountain bikes utilizing this wheelsize.

    I'm not interested in 29'ers. If 27.5 had never happened or if it goes away, I'd stick with 26" wheels. As it is the 650b seems like a good compromise for me and I hope it stays and grows. Unlike you, however, I don't think one standard that I happen to prefer should take over the market and I'm happy to let others ride what they want to ride. So there!

  54. #254
    just some guy
    Reputation: talabardio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    532
    Good writing SteveF! I think that concentrating on choices that provide you with a good time on a bike is the way to go. With all due respect, DC seems like he is suffering from OCD or similar - only a good therapist would know fer sure.

  55. #255
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,780
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveF
    DC, It's pretty clear you have a strong preference for 29er wheels. It sounds as though you feel 650b threatens 29er growth--I don't personally think that will happen, and I think your disparaging comments about 650b wheels are simply selfish, paranoid defense of a standard that you've adopted whole-heartedly but somehow still feel insecure about.
    You nailed it.

    If 650b is really as poor a choice as you claim, then it'll never take a significant portion of the 26" or 29" market share anyway, so you shouldn't worry.
    Before that happen less time will be devoted to 29ers since someopne must test the 584 new stuff. Some manufacturers may not be willing to make s 5" 29ers because there is 27,5er and they assume that 29er can't have so much suspension and present to many trade-offs and they may choose 584 which would not happen if there was only 622 besides 559. The tradeoff are the assumptions their narrow-minded mind cna't surpass and invent something new they prefer to stick to something they know and sth it is similar- 584mm

    I'm not interested in 29'ers.
    Why?
    Last edited by Davidcopperfield; 10-15-2009 at 04:41 PM.

  56. #256
    just some guy
    Reputation: talabardio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    532

    So?

    Who cares if that happens? I sure don't. Get a life dude! That whole type of 'reasoning' is absurd and narcissistic, like displaying yer week old underwear fer everyone to see.

    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    You nailed it.

    Before that happen less time will be devoted to 29ers since someopne must test the 584 new stuff. Some manufacturers may not be willing to make s 5" 29ers as because there is 27,5er and they assume that 29er can have so much suspension and they may choose 584 which would not happen if there is only 622 aside 559.

    Why?

  57. #257
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,780
    Several bike manufacturers are biased towards 27,5ers and would be ready to build them instead of 29ers. This where 584 will cannibalize 622mm and this why -29er zealots- are so negatively mooded to 27,5ers.

  58. #258
    rmb
    rmb is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rmb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    660
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Several bike manufacturers are biased towards 27,5ers and would be ready to build them instead of 29ers. This where 584 will cannibalize 622mm and this why -29er zealots- are so negatively mooded to 27,5ers.
    >>>>>>>
    Attached Images Attached Images

  59. #259
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Why?
    It has already been explained to you in minute details by a whole lot of different people.

  60. #260
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    It has already been explained to you in minute details by a whole lot of different people.
    Not like that will ever stop him

  61. #261
    smell the saddle...
    Reputation: stumonky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    612
    I can’t believe I just spent 2 days reading practically every post on this thread…maybe I was hoping to reach mindfulness by the end to the oracle of savvy 650b’ness…no such luck, but gained appreciation nonetheless.

    I have to applaud all the great responses of ohpossum, TNC, reformed roadie, and MW (sorry if I left others out but after reading 253 replies you start identifying with a chosen few). I won’t leave out Troll Killer because his humor helped me get through it all (reminds me of George Constanza referring to himself in the third person “George is getting’ upset!”)

    So, I’ve been riding for about 10 years all of which has been done on 26” bikes (hardtails, FSs, and SSs). My fully rigid SS (MUSS) gets the most ride time and I find myself faster and more agile than on my FS. Actually I have 2 SS bikes, but one is a commuter (1X1). Anyhow, I have debated the option to stepping up to 29er for a while upon the recommendation of a few fellow riding buddies. Our local trail is flat, fast, a few minor elev. changes but no significant climbs and it gets rooty in some sections. At one point I left the 2.1 tires and went to 2.3 lowered my psi to 20 in the front and 25 in rear. My weight fluctuates between 170-180, (5’10” tall) so you have the bio BS. Needless to say if you pick the right lines it easily manageable on the fully rigid and I am currently running a 37 ring front to ENO 16T freewheel, and could easily run a 38:16.

    So with all that said, I was leaning towards the purchase of my dream bike next spring a Lynskey Ridgeline 29er. After running the numbers on pimping this rig out, it’s getting harder to swallow the 3-4k price tag on a that setup. Of course I could opt for another 29er setup at a lower cost but I started thinking do I really want to step up to 29er after riding and being used to 26ers. So I started reading this forum and elsewhere on 650b. I ran across this summary on Soma’s website describing their b-side “Rolls over obstacles better and more stable at speed than a 26er. Better in twisty singletrack than a 29er.” Of course I have not test ridden a 29er or 650b to comment on, but the data I am reading seems to make sense to me. In fact why wouldn’t it be worth a try to throw on a front 650b wheel and see how it feels? I understand a lot of the previous posters expressed that exact sentiment. So that’s narrowed down my research to 2 bikes, the Soma b-side or Spook Horror Taxi. Leaning towards the Spooky for the simple reason of e-mailing Mickey and he’ll design a custom fit SS frame for half of what Lynskey would charge (given I am not comparing apples to apples with the Ti factor, but I am over that dilemma for the meantime). Not to mention, after learning more of Spooky I can hardly go to anyone else now, some companies just seem to fit you (for lack of better example). At the same time if I wanted to, I could keep all my current gear from my 26” bike with the exception of wheels (and obviously I want a new frame). But I will probably go for a complete build.

    Getting back to the point of this post and commenting to the subject of “Why 650b is an ill conceived idea”. I must admit I traditionally go against the grain with almost anything conceived as common (anti- antics) but with SS riding and simplicity it really comes down to “ride feeling”. Again, I can’t comment on evaluation of riding 29er or 650b, but it just seems to make sense to step up to 650b over 29er to me. Bottom line to this entire discussion is everything said here is irrelevant. And to constant hashing and/or explanations on why or why not 650b should be, the market will ultimately decide as many pointed out. I’ll be voting “yay” with my dollars in the near future and am very optimistic that it may forever change my “ride feeling” for the better, at the tend of the day that’s all that matters.

    -stu

  62. #262
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MMcG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    9,592
    -stu - another option for you would be to turn your MUSS Into your commuter and buy a set of 650b wheels for your Surly 1x1. They'll fit really nicely on the 1x1 and that way you can see if you like the wheelsize before plunking down a chunk of change on a completely new frame/frameset.

    The only issue you'd have is if your 1x1 is older and doesn't have disc tabs front and back - but even that can be overcome with the right set of v-brakes.

  63. #263
    smell the saddle...
    Reputation: stumonky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    612
    Quote Originally Posted by MMcG
    -stu - another option for you would be to turn your MUSS Into your commuter and buy a set of 650b wheels for your Surly 1x1. They'll fit really nicely on the 1x1 and that way you can see if you like the wheelsize before plunking down a chunk of change on a completely new frame/frameset.

    The only issue you'd have is if your 1x1 is older and doesn't have disc tabs front and back - but even that can be overcome with the right set of v-brakes.
    I do have the old 1X1 w/o disk tabs. I stumbled on a thread here earlier this year where someone installed a 29er wheel on their MUSS http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.ph...89180#poststop So a 650b wheel should fit fine, I suppose? Rather building a new wheel, I am hoping to stumble across someone who is running one to try for a lap or tow at my local trail. I have no doubts it will respond better than running 26 rigid.
    Last edited by stumonky; 10-16-2009 at 09:24 AM.

  64. #264
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    It has already been explained to you in minute details by a whole lot of different people.
    I'm interested in his causes thereof.

    ps. Also stumonky there are new 29ers for 2010 with better manouvreability, also stiffer lighter etc. just like SC Tallboy - do you want to ry one? I still don't get 650b is better for you than 700c ? 584 does not rollover obstacles like a 29er, also the 29er sluggishness in newer designs is not so big like kiddie wheel fans here would like to believe.

    Your are buying a new bike anyway for 27.5er so why not a 29er?
    Last edited by Davidcopperfield; 10-16-2009 at 08:17 AM.

  65. #265
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reformed roadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    I'm interested in his causes thereof.

    ps. Also stumonky there are new 29ers for 2010 with better manouvreability, also stiffer lighter etc. just like SC Tallboy - do you want to ry one? I still don't get 650b is better for you than 700c ? 584 does not rollover obstacles like a 29er, also the 29er sluggishness in newer designs is not so big like kiddie wheel fans here would like to believe.

    Your are buying a new bike anyway for 27.5er so why not a 29er?

    DID YOU READ HIS POST?????

    He explained it, in detail.
    How do you get recommending a Tallboy out of that? I am a SC fan, and that would be my choice, but nothing he said points toward a carbon FS 29er...clueless...again.

    Stumonky - it seems you get it. I hope it works out.

  66. #266
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,927
    Look what happened to 26er's when 29er's became popular it severed the R&D / production of all 26" products...not . Such doomsday conservatism

  67. #267
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ramjm_2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,188
    Quote Originally Posted by reformed roadie
    the Racing Ralph being discontinued in 650b size...
    OK is this rumor or fact?

  68. #268
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by reformed roadie
    DID YOU READ HIS POST?????
    Probably he did. But such is a power of opinionated mind - the most reliable information filter known..

  69. #269

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    70

    No good

    Fascintating, thank you bike Nazi.....achtung!

  70. #270
    thread killer
    Reputation: WTF-IDK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    751
    Why all the bickering?
    Doesn't any one know that the world is going to end in about two years?
    December 12,2012

    Get out and ride what you can while you can.
    next time

    [QUOTE=spazzy] Might as well sell your bikes, E-riding is much more productive.

  71. #271
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    254
    Hey guys,
    I started reading this thread and well only got half way through and decided to respond or at least make some points.
    First off we (Jamis) have been riding, testing and thrashing 650B bikes for over 2 years now. Our product devo Team has ridden 650 as well as our Elite XC races (Podium guys) and actually Adam Snyder got 3rd at Mount Snow this year on a 650B in the Super D. And all of our XC guys (Rotem Ishay (National XC & Short Track Collegiate National Champion), Seamus McGrath (no need to explain) Adam Snyder, Black Harlen and Jason Sager) have all asked for an XC 650B bike. There would be a huge advantage in short track events where acceleration and momentum is important. It would also be an advantage in technical races with a lot of switchbacks, and tech down hills. Now I do see the benefits of 29er HARDTAILS, but we are talking about 650B benefits.

    For XC: The accelerate faster then 29ers (so out of corners, climbing) you can ride more aggressive on the downhills and you can lift the front end a bit more easy.

    for trail riding: This is where I have been riding my 650B (5" travel). I am 5"5 tall and like to ride aggressive and tech trails. The 650B lets me have the benefits of rolling over roots and rocks better then a 26" while allowing me to ride it aggressive, jumping, doing drops, manuals, and wheelies.

    Im not saying that 650B is going to take over, there is a place for 29er (hardtail's). We are going to be able to address sizing issues much better and build bikes that people want.

    I love my 650 for trail riding, but John Stamstad loves his for ultra long endurance rides, he feels that it handles great when he gets tired (like he gets tired), allows him to be aggressive, carries momentum and have great roll over ability.

    Just for the record the ultimate handlebar size would be 27.0. There have been tests that show that size offers the best strength to weight ratio.... But I agree 31.8 work fine.

    Hope I made sense with this....and again not looking to change the world but want to offer options for sizing, geographical terrain, and what you want to ride....

    Brappp

    Skip
    ]
    Craig "Skippy" Hoyt

  72. #272
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,017
    Hi Skip, good to have you here!

    Quote Originally Posted by Skip
    Hey guys,
    There would be a huge advantage in short track events where acceleration and momentum is important.
    For XC: The accelerate faster then 29ers (so out of corners, climbing) you can ride more aggressive on the downhills and you can lift the front end a bit more easy.

    Skip
    Would you be able to back that up with numbers, or formulae? I'm seeking any kind of scientically defendable insights in the wheel size debate. We all have to obey the laws of phisics, after all?

    650B wheels are 1.5" smaller than 29", let's start from there.
    Are your team sponsors offering relatively light 650B parts? That would something to consider for sure.

    Also, if acceleration is a concern, why not 24" or less? UCI regulations ony have a wheel size ceiling, no bottom.

    Thanks for your input!!

    J
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  73. #273
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reformed roadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Like DC, you fail to get the point.

    Jamis makes 26", 650B and 29" wheeled mtbs.
    Skip states that their pro racers have a preference for the 650b size. They are fast and get paid to race. They pick the equipment that they feel will give them the best chance to produce results.

    Another example would be Julian Absolon. Orbea makes carbon 29ers, yet he's still racing a 26" bike.

    The scientific details are irrelevant.
    It is an acknowledged fact that larger wheels roll over things better and carry momentum.
    Smaller wheels will accelerated faster due to lighter weight (if you can make a light 29er wheel, you can make an even lighter 26" wheel, that will be stronger and stiffer) It is also more manuverable; I don't care what you say, but on tight switchbacks, there is no way big wheels have an advantage.

    To say 'why not 24" wheels' is dumb. 650b is larger than 26". The idea is not for smaller wheels, just smaller than 29". To get a balance that the rider prefers and feels comfortable with.
    Personally, I think you and DC can't ride and use the big wheels as a crutch for a lack of skill, but I am just speculating.

  74. #274

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    Hi Skip, good to have you here!



    Would you be able to back that up with numbers, or formulae? I'm seeking any kind of scientically defendable insights in the wheel size debate. We all have to obey the laws of phisics, after all?

    650B wheels are 1.5" smaller than 29", let's start from there.
    Are your team sponsors offering relatively light 650B parts? That would something to consider for sure.

    Also, if acceleration is a concern, why not 24" or less? UCI regulations ony have a wheel size ceiling, no bottom.

    Thanks for your input!!

    J
    oi Beatrijs,

    hmm... as the inane one (gt) would say, your post is "very telling". with all due respect, your history (and gt's) on mtbr would suggest that the only scientific insights you are interested in are those that support your forgone conclusion. by funneling all information through your myopic"bigger is always better" filter, you prove [to yourself] that 29ers are superior to all else. you never learn anything, despite the many posts from much smarter members that support positions contrary to you own... yet you relentlessly continue to foist your opinion on everyone here as truth. why not live and let live?

    a jötunn trolde such as yourself is blind to any possibilities beyond your own physical experience. overestimating that experience as an absolute truth and simultaneously discounting the experience of others as the naïveté of the unenlighted cyclist. tk supposes if we all were all jötnar trolde (giant trolls) and lived in a land whose highest elevation is 322 meters and where 60% of the population actually lives below sea level we might agree that 29ers are best too. fortunately tk lives in a place where there are real mountains! tk has been riding 29ers for 10 years and has been on a 650b rig for the last year and half . tk now knows its better! [at least for tk and his terrain].

    tk would like to see some scientific data too. specifically data that would explain how it could be possible that the two biggest bloviators on mtbr happen to be 29er devotee’s who also happen to live in the flattest territory in the world. ha! that would be interesting indeed. perhaps there is something freudian at work here? we all know gt and cloxxki are quite tall, and thus 29ers make sense for them in terms of proportion. however, it appears they exhibit strong napoleonic tendencies or "small mans syndrome" if you will. compensating for something? perhaps these feelings have been perpetrated upon them by living in areas that could hardly be described as mountain bike territory. ??? ironically they continually remind that their opinion carry more weight simply because of their prolific (never ending) posting and supposed mtbr e-guru status! who knows? who cares? how about they just crawl back into their caves and leave us to our uniformed naïveté?

    doesn't anyone moderate this forum?

    afscheid,

    tk
    Last edited by troll killer; 10-19-2009 at 01:16 PM.

  75. #275
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,017
    When arguments do not make sense, can they be brought forwards as arguments at all?
    You can combine all the truths in the world in one post, but fail to cover the topic and hand, it's just off-topic nonsence.

    So, it a 650B oh-so-faster accelerating than 29", or is it faster rolling than 26", because of being bigger?
    I want to know :
    - How does average rolling resistance (let's use race average 8m/s) correlate with wheel size?
    - How does acceleration-associated inertia to be overcome correlate with wheel size?
    - How does wheel associated rotating weight compare to the rest of bike and rider weight?
    - How does air resistance change with wheel size?
    - How many Joules does it take to get each wheelsize from maximum cornering speed up to straight line speed, with a rider on board, and how many meters are covered in the process?
    - What does it matter if a rider things something (like FS) is slower, when the stopwatch and heart rate monitor seem to indicate otherwise?

    Some still ride 60psi tires on MTB's because it "feels fast". That is a relevant argument, because rider (pro racer) conception of forces at hand is what apparently is steering the industry here. Riders like big wheels, but want something more snappy accellerating? Well, who doesn't?

    First, racers were in the role of suppressing the advancements in wheel size, and now they are becoming the argument that sells it, which-ever the size we're discussing?

    If you can't deal with rational arguments, why try to fight them at all? Point out when I make an invalid arguments (I have been well known to do so, so don't be shy), and come up with your own arguments that stand. The truth is open for discussion, or for you all to proclaim here. Just falsify my statements, of fill me in where I have been lacking.

    I'll offer you this to take a stab at:
    - If 650B is better than 26", then 29" is better still, for the same reasons, yet at difference levels.
    - If 650B is better than 29", AND better than 26", someone will have to come up with a SOUND explanation for that. I honestly would like to know it. It would imply that we'd have to re-establish some of the laws of physics as they apply to bike riding.

    And, BTW, regarding switch-backs, I've also read contrasting accounts. Were those riders lieing, or dillusional? Possible. Better bike handlers? Just as possible, unless you ARE Julien Absalon.

    A discussion can't hurt you, unless you've failed to analyse the matter before taking a stance. Because then, your luck in the discussion will be based on the flip of a coins, or something like Russian Roulette, whether you'll come out as winner. In an open discussion with mutual respect, all are winner.
    I may go into discussion taking a given stance once in a while, but watch out, as you don't know how long I've thought about my stance. Don't stand first in line to take the opposite stance. It's possibly going to be tiresome and unthankful to try and come up with arguments to falsify mine, when I've used logic and experience before coming to mine. You'd not be the first to sense arrogance here, but it's an everyday reality. Go to your baker, and ask him how best to bake a bread. You know it will be hard to fault him/her. Now this old guy come up the trail, and greets you "hi". You have a nice chat, and you find him to take a technical stance. How do you know he is not the man who designed your frame, or wheels? Or named the sport you call your life? Have an open mind, and know what you're discussing. Knowing the tallest mountain in my country doesn't make you know anything about my XC capabilities. A tall guy living near that little hill is one of the greatest XC racers of all time, not only on XC laps, even marathons. So once again, don't be prejudice.


    Anyone wise enough to fill after any of my on-topic question marks?
    Should I prepare to promote yet another wheelsize, in between 650B and 700c, for just that edge in BOTH rolling resistance AND wild acceleration?
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  76. #276
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reformed roadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,586

    wow...

    Tonight I could try to formula some sort of scientific response to each of your points...but I
    think I'll go out for a night ride instead.

    No one here is saying that 29ers or 26" are 'wrong' or 'inferior'. I think that most of the sensible participants in this debate own multiple bikes with different size wheels. Hell, my primary ride has different two different size wheels. They each have there place.
    Why is it that you demand some sort of scientific explanation to back the mere existence of 650b wheels? (why do I owe you anything?)

    Go ahead and ride your wagon wheels on your flat double-track...just know that I and many others are riding 650b wheels and your long winded, assanine rants are not going to convince us otherwise.

    (I do find it a bit funny that you don't deny the swipe at your lack of riding ability. I'll take that as confirmation of my hunch)

  77. #277
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    I want to know :
    - How does average rolling resistance (let's use race average 8m/s) correlate with wheel size?
    - How does acceleration-associated inertia to be overcome correlate with wheel size?
    - How does wheel associated rotating weight compare to the rest of bike and rider weight?
    - How does air resistance change with wheel size?
    - How many Joules does it take to get each wheelsize from maximum cornering speed up to straight line speed, with a rider on board, and how many meters are covered in the process?
    - What does it matter if a rider things something (like FS) is slower, when the stopwatch and heart rate monitor seem to indicate otherwise?
    What is wrong with riding you bike and comparing? Little things like a lap time on your trail, or the size of the red area on your monkey butt?

    Biomechanics of the bike fit and effort needed to ride it is just as important then your laundry list of features.

    "Feels fast" is just as important for a man-machine system as other measurable parameters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    - If 650B is better than 26", then 29" is better still, for the same reasons, yet at difference levels.
    You are assuming a linear relationship of all relevant properties. That is asinine. Existence of an optimum implies non-linearity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    Should I prepare to promote yet another wheelsize, in between 650B and 700c, for just that edge in BOTH rolling resistance AND wild acceleration?
    Knock yourself out. Reductio ad absurdum.

    P.S. What I would like to see - size XS/S - 26", size M = 650b, size L+ - 29r, plus one size for hardtails. Why would different sized frames use same size wheels? Just does not make any sense.
    Last edited by Broccoli; 10-19-2009 at 04:14 PM.

  78. #278
    mtbr member
    Reputation: stevemtu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    738

    the natural progression is then

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    When arguments do not make sense, can they be brought forwards as arguments at all?
    You can combine all the truths in the world in one post, but fail to cover the topic and hand, it's just off-topic nonsence.

    So, it a 650B oh-so-faster accelerating than 29", or is it faster rolling than 26", because of being bigger?
    I want to know :
    - How does average rolling resistance (let's use race average 8m/s) correlate with wheel size?
    - How does acceleration-associated inertia to be overcome correlate with wheel size?
    - How does wheel associated rotating weight compare to the rest of bike and rider weight?
    - How does air resistance change with wheel size?
    - How many Joules does it take to get each wheelsize from maximum cornering speed up to straight line speed, with a rider on board, and how many meters are covered in the process?
    - What does it matter if a rider things something (like FS) is slower, when the stopwatch and heart rate monitor seem to indicate otherwise?

    Some still ride 60psi tires on MTB's because it "feels fast". That is a relevant argument, because rider (pro racer) conception of forces at hand is what apparently is steering the industry here. Riders like big wheels, but want something more snappy accellerating? Well, who doesn't?

    First, racers were in the role of suppressing the advancements in wheel size, and now they are becoming the argument that sells it, which-ever the size we're discussing?

    If you can't deal with rational arguments, why try to fight them at all? Point out when I make an invalid arguments (I have been well known to do so, so don't be shy), and come up with your own arguments that stand. The truth is open for discussion, or for you all to proclaim here. Just falsify my statements, of fill me in where I have been lacking.

    I'll offer you this to take a stab at:
    - If 650B is better than 26", then 29" is better still, for the same reasons, yet at difference levels.
    - If 650B is better than 29", AND better than 26", someone will have to come up with a SOUND explanation for that. I honestly would like to know it. It would imply that we'd have to re-establish some of the laws of physics as they apply to bike riding.

    And, BTW, regarding switch-backs, I've also read contrasting accounts. Were those riders lieing, or dillusional? Possible. Better bike handlers? Just as possible, unless you ARE Julien Absalon.

    A discussion can't hurt you, unless you've failed to analyse the matter before taking a stance. Because then, your luck in the discussion will be based on the flip of a coins, or something like Russian Roulette, whether you'll come out as winner. In an open discussion with mutual respect, all are winner.
    I may go into discussion taking a given stance once in a while, but watch out, as you don't know how long I've thought about my stance. Don't stand first in line to take the opposite stance. It's possibly going to be tiresome and unthankful to try and come up with arguments to falsify mine, when I've used logic and experience before coming to mine. You'd not be the first to sense arrogance here, but it's an everyday reality. Go to your baker, and ask him how best to bake a bread. You know it will be hard to fault him/her. Now this old guy come up the trail, and greets you "hi". You have a nice chat, and you find him to take a technical stance. How do you know he is not the man who designed your frame, or wheels? Or named the sport you call your life? Have an open mind, and know what you're discussing. Knowing the tallest mountain in my country doesn't make you know anything about my XC capabilities. A tall guy living near that little hill is one of the greatest XC racers of all time, not only on XC laps, even marathons. So once again, don't be prejudice.


    Anyone wise enough to fill after any of my on-topic question marks?
    Should I prepare to promote yet another wheelsize, in between 650B and 700c, for just that edge in BOTH rolling resistance AND wild acceleration?
    attached
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Why 650b is an ill conceived idea-always-bigger-always-better.jpg  


  79. #279
    Ovaries on the Outside
    Reputation: umarth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,417
    I think we should do a poll to see if anyone is swayed by any arguments made for or against. I'm assuming no one is, so maybe we'll just take a vote about which one we think is better and ride only that one wheelsize. If 29er wins, I'm writing "29er" on the side of my Kenda's and let everyone else deduce the mystery of why I'm having more fun.

  80. #280
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,780

    Caution;  Merge;  Workers Ahead! too much cool-aid

    Quote Originally Posted by Skip
    Our product devo Team has ridden 650 as well as our Elite XC races (Podium guys) and actually Adam Snyder got 3rd at Mount Snow this year on a 650B in the Super D. And all of our XC guys (Rotem Ishay (National XC & Short Track Collegiate National Champion), Seamus McGrath (no need to explain) Adam Snyder, Black Harlen and Jason Sager) have all asked for an XC 650B bike.
    Did they race light 29ers- carbon wheels and frames? How many brandnew 29ers do/did they own? Where exactly are those brandnew inferior to 27,5ers and to what extent? Smooth/ rough climbs? Downhills? Switchback- how tight?

    There would be a huge advantage in short track events where acceleration and momentum is important.
    The momentum which is represented by a 25mm bigger wheel than 26" is not so dramatic as the momentum represented by 63mm bigger wheel than 26" and 38mm than 27,5"- 29".
    I reckon that placebo of the sole idea of testing something new raised the racers' emotions. Prove me wrong with the detailed ride reports on carbon and alu 2010 29ers. Don't tell me that antiquated 29ish trekking bikes are not the tool for the job.

    It would also be an advantage in technical races with a lot of switchbacks, and tech down hills.
    This relative how tight does the switchback have to be to expose 27,5er superiority and make the 29er fail? Same applies to tech downhills.

    The accelerate faster then 29ers (so out of corners, climbing) you can ride more aggressive on the downhills and you can lift the front end a bit more easy.
    On relatively smooth climbs and virages yes but now add stones, mud and sand. Those factors still grab the wheels more than the 29er ones.


    for trail riding: This is where I have been riding my 650B (5" travel). I am 5"5 tall and like to ride aggressive and tech trails.
    Have you tried the Niner Wfo9?

    The 650B lets me have the benefits of rolling over roots and rocks better then a 26"
    How much better? Sheer math- 25mm - tells me that not much, but 63mm tells me that the difference is palpable. It is twice and a half more than 25mm.
    while allowing me to ride it aggressive, jumping, doing drops, manuals, and wheelies.
    There are trials bicycles specifically designed for this purpose, which would outperform your 584mm wheel.

    Im not saying that 650B is going to take over, there is a place for 29er (hardtail's).
    Why hardtails? I'm riding a rip9 which is a 115mm FS 29er and see a place for DH 29er on less twisty than 140 deg switchbacks and rough trails
    We are going to be able to address sizing issues much better and build bikes that people want.
    There is the Lunchbox with 6" or rear wheel travel done also in S and rides well. Yes harder to perform trials stuff but it is not a Trials bike but Trail bike.
    I love my 650 for trail riding, but John Stamstad loves his for ultra long endurance rides, he feels that it handles great when he gets tired (like he gets tired), allows him to be aggressive, carries momentum and have great roll over ability.
    Why he thinks it's better than well designed 29er? Where and under what conditions?

    Just for the record the ultimate handlebar size would be 27.0. There have been tests that show that size offers the best strength to weight ratio.... But I agree 31.8 work fine.
    We don't want to give up on stiffness.
    Hope I made sense with this....and again not looking to change the world but want to offer options for sizing, geographical terrain, and what you want to ride....

    Brappp

    Skip
    Great, but I sense that you are biased just like Mr Pacenti, who relied on older 29ers and ascribed all sluggishnes to the wheels not the inferior technology. Two years later an S frame with 140-150mm on the rear can be done and accomodate a 5'5" person just like Chris Sugai the founder of Ninerbikes.
    27.5er proponents don't believe that a nimble long travel 29er can be done- Mr Pacenti's marketing, which is being proved wrong with contemporary 29ers.

    I e-mailed with Chris Cocalis from Pivot Cycles and expressed a desire to make a big wheeled mtb but he deems a 29er presenting too many tradeoffs and offered an idea of making a 27,5er instead. Making a 29er nimble lies in the frame and forks not the wheel size. Unfortuantely he can't wrap his mind around a decent longer travel 29er yet.
    I'd like to avoid such silly ideas as making 584 instead of 622 in mtb. That's why I am against 650b. If 29ers become mature first then this bastard wheel may suppliant 26ers completely.

    Until 29ers fail for DH I don't see a place for 584 there.

  81. #281
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Did they race light 29ers- carbon wheels and frames? How many brandnew 29ers do/did they own? Where exactly are those brandnew inferior to 27,5ers and to what extent? Smooth/ rough climbs? Downhills? Switchback- how tight?
    I am amazed that you feel entitled to answers to a bunch of rhetorical questions from a man whose left thumb knows more about everything related to bicycles then you do. So do other professionals that you quote in your prolix.

  82. #282
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    I am amazed that you feel entitled to answers to a bunch of rhetorical questions from a man whose left thumb knows more about everything related to bicycles then you do.
    You see you are amazed that bike designers are only people with university degree and skills- great yet they are mere motals -not gods-subject to their subjective sensations and habits, economic plight, turnover or they may feel lazy and that it is easier to build a 27.5 er than a 29er etc.
    I know I shouldn't be busting your soap bubble sorry.

    Progress is the art of questioning. You wouldn't be ridinig your 584milimeters if GF hadn't questiones other big wigs with lots experience.

    some food for thought
    http://mtobikes.com/are-29er%E2%80%9...he-big-wheels/

    Just change the scale for 27.5er.

  83. #283
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    You see you are amazed that bike designers are only people with university degree and skills.
    I do actually have university degrees and skills. That is why I do see your drivel for what it is.

  84. #284
    mtbr member
    Reputation: trrubicon06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    266
    This has to be the most useless thread I've read to date.

    I have a 29er and yes it does roll better then my 26" did, but it feels sluggish and so huge in technical areas. I also ordered 650b wheels and tires for my 1x1, so I can have the experience. I have a feeling the 650b will be the victor for me. I'm 5'10" and not small, but the 29er just seems like a giant and doesn't have the handling I want.

    I'd rather have options then to be stuck with one size. Without trial and error there wouldn't be half the stuff in the world that there is. Let it run it's course and the sales will decide. If you've ridden a 650b and don't like it...then don't ride it. But, if you haven't then stick a sock in it!

    There seems to always be the person at the party that wants to or does mess it up. You seem to be that person

  85. #285
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    I do actually have university degrees and skills. That is why I do see your drivel for what it is.

    i decide not to ride 29ers just so i won't be in the company.... trying to disprove what others LIKE, list of demands, nasa like science data to prove why their wheel is better. pfft.. how silly can one be?
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  86. #286
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,780
    Quote Originally Posted by trrubicon06
    I have a 29er and yes it does roll better then my 26" did, but it feels sluggish and so huge in technical areas.[...], but the 29er just seems like a giant and doesn't have the handling I want.
    What 29ers do you test/ ride/own? I hope that you have all 2010 goods not old geometry and dumptruck chainstays, try new ripn tallboy, superfly 100, rumblefish or Specialized 2010 Epic and FSR 130mm of travel and then form your opinion. I could test the first disc brakes and call them tin-pot.
    This is where your reasoning is faulty. There are fast and slow steering 29ers with old and new geometry, which makes them handle similar to 26ers.

  87. #287
    mtbr member
    Reputation: trrubicon06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    266
    Get a life.

    Can a new forum section be added as "Useless opinions of the one tracked minds"? This thread will be the first please. That way all the negative ramblings of these people can be in there own section...away from the people that care about riding what they have or improving upon them and trying NEW ideas.

    That's the last I want to add for this topic

  88. #288
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    This is where your reasoning is faulty.
    How many times should everybody tell you that you are clueless and opinionated?

    What part of the fact that each of us knows better what is good for us does not get through your head? Rest assured that every single poster who wasted time responding to your drivel knows more about bikes and tried more setups then you did.

    OK, unsubscribing thread.

  89. #289
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,780

    No good No place to excell

    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    What part of the fact that each of us knows better what is good for us does not get through your head?
    None, because most of you did not test the newly designed 29ers. The majority tried the budget ones with heavy wheels and flexy frames, and that's what people formed their opinion on and decided that 584mm must be better.
    Instead of spewing a stubborn rant you could answer thoroughly my and Cloxxki's questions. I hoped you can defend the wheelsize you so strongly believe in.

    584 does not anything better than 559 or 622. Let's take tight switchbacks- 26" is better there, let's take any challenging terrain- mud, sand, rolling stones, roots. Again 584 recedes to 29ers. There is no terrain where 584 outperform the 622 and 559.

    584 might work better where a 5'4" person wants a 160-180mm bike to jump off bike park benches again where is his 584 better than 559? Not in the air and not on the ground.

    I am not against 584 overall but am against the marketing like "584 is the best wheel size for long travel applications" why the hell? We have already 180mm 29er and no 27.5er to compete in this travel ranges.
    In trail riding regular trails with no FR stunts or huge drops or super over 140 deg swicthbacks demanding one to stop the bike completely; there is no way a 120-130mm 584 bike is going to be better than well designed 29er on long course. Arguments like it is easier/cheaper to build a small wheeled bicycle do not apply,

    Yes 584mm will be faster than 559 on XC or marathon trails by a smidge but will not be faster than a 29er.
    Willow Koerber is 5'2" and scored a bronze on Worldchampionships so there isn't a height thing anymore. Explain why all 584 proponents would put her on 584 instead of 622mm? She left a 26er for a reason, do you think she'll be happy taking a step backwards with 584?

    Jeez 584 is not even a half way from 559 to 622. 590,5mm is the size.
    27.5er for a mainstream bike instead of 29er for XC-AM rides is simply loony and mendacious.
    584 will never be comparable with 29er in terms of forward momentum or floatability. It will never get so much traction as 29er. It will never be so light as 26er owing to the added material.

    The only place where 584 will outperform 29er is the person like 5 2" up to 5 6" riding a DH sled. Yes a 29er might have too long chainstays or wheelbase for such person to wrap around a tight switchback with high speed. But by how much is the 584 better than 559 in this application to justify a whole new suspension forks, tyres, frames, geometries etc.?

    Is there anything left in that pitiful PR-marketing and ill-conceived 27,5" sorcery?

    Yes some of you stated that a Neo-moto gives you the similar sensation like riding a 29er, but it is the question of good quality tyres not the wheel size. If Neo moto existed in 29er the difference would be huge.

  90. #290
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,018
    This thread needs pictures of kittens.

  91. #291
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,927
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    None, because most of you did not test the newly designed 29ers. The majority tried the budget ones with heavy wheels and flexy frames, and that's what people formed their opinion on and decided that 584mm must be better.
    Instead of spewing a stubborn rant you could answer thoroughly my and Cloxxki's questions. I hoped you can defend the wheelsize you so strongly believe in.

    584 does not anything better than 559 or 622. Let's take tight switchbacks- 26" is better there, let's take any challenging terrain- mud, sand, rolling stones, roots. Again 584 recedes to 29ers. There is no terrain where 584 outperform the 622 and 559.

    584 might work better where a 5'4" person wants a 160-180mm bike to jump off bike park benches again where is his 584 better than 559? Not in the air and not on the ground.

    I am not against 584 overall but am against the marketing like "584 is the best wheel size for long travel applications" why the hell? We have already 180mm 29er and no 27.5er to compete in this travel ranges.
    In trail riding regular trails with no FR stunts or huge drops or super over 140 deg swicthbacks demanding one to stop the bike completely; there is no way a 120-130mm 584 bike is going to be better than well designed 29er on long course. Arguments like it is easier/cheaper to build a small wheeled bicycle do not apply,

    Yes 584mm will be faster than 559 on XC or marathon trails by a smidge but will not be faster than a 29er.
    Willow Koerber is 5'2" and scored a bronze on Worldchampionships so there isn't a height thing anymore. Explain why all 584 proponents would put her on 584 instead of 622mm? She left a 26er for a reason, do you think she'll be happy taking a step backwards with 584?

    Jeez 584 is not even a half way from 559 to 622. 590,5mm is the size.
    27.5er for a mainstream bike instead of 29er for XC-AM rides is simply loony and mendacious.
    584 will never be comparable with 29er in terms of forward momentum or floatability. It will never get so much traction as 29er. It will never be so light as 26er owing to the added material.

    The only place where 584 will outperform 29er is the person like 5 2" up to 5 6" riding a DH sled. Yes a 29er might have too long chainstays or wheelbase for such person to wrap around a tight switchback with high speed. But by how much is the 584 better than 559 in this application to justify a whole new suspension forks, tyres, frames, geometries etc.?

    Is there anything left in that pitiful PR-marketing and ill-conceived 27,5" sorcery?

    Yes some of you stated that a Neo-moto gives you the similar sensation like riding a 29er, but it is the question of good quality tyres not the wheel size. If Neo moto existed in 29er the difference would be huge.

    Have you ridden a 650b equipped bike ?

  92. #292
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kiatkiat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    What 29ers do you test/ ride/own? I hope that you have all 2010 goods not old geometry and dumptruck chainstays, try new ripn tallboy, superfly 100, rumblefish or Specialized 2010 Epic and FSR 130mm of travel and then form your opinion. I could test the first disc brakes and call them tin-pot.
    This is where your reasoning is faulty. There are fast and slow steering 29ers with old and new geometry, which makes them handle similar to 26ers.
    Hi DC, since you had a 2010 bike and you mention you like numbers and scientic result.

    Can please state the difference in geometry of the 2010 frame compare to those older frame.
    When it's time to go, is time to go.
    Fate rarely calls upon us at a moment of our choosing

  93. #293
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SteveF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,313
    Quote Originally Posted by 88 rex
    This thread needs pictures of kittens.
    Gotcha covered! Anne and I adopted three brothers about a year ago--they're much bigger now, all around 14 pounds, but here's a shot from not long after we brought them home:


  94. #294
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,780
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveF
    Gotcha covered! Anne and I adopted three brothers about a year ago--they're much bigger now, all around 14 pounds, but here's a shot from not long after we brought them home:

    Domestics suck bobcats rule just like a 29ers
    https://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/29er-riders-own-lynx-bobcats-whereas-26er-ones-own-domestics-480099.html

  95. #295
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reformed roadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,586

    You crossed the line...

    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Domestics suck bobcats rule just like a 29ers
    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=480099
    You can question or mock a man's bike, but you you rip his cats, you've crossed the line.

  96. #296
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    847

    DC's Bobcat

    <img src="https://www.lovefords.org/78/pintobobcat/New_Folder/1978_mercury_bobcat_villageryellow_001.jpg">

  97. #297
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    847

    Here's a recent shot of DC's Bobcat

    <img src="https://farm2.static.flickr.com/1216/1420240949_daef8826fd.jpg">

  98. #298
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    847

    Bobcat's rule?

    <img src="http://blogs.usatoday.com/.a/6a00d83451b46269e20120a5f99567970c-450wi">

  99. #299
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SteveF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,313
    Quote Originally Posted by reformed roadie
    You can question or mock a man's bike, but you you rip his cats, you've crossed the line.

    It'd bother me more if it was someone who's opinion I'd come to respect.

    I think it's far more humane and noble to give a good home to domestic animals that would otherwise starve or go to a shelter than to try and make a pet out of a wild animal--that strikes me as cruel and dangerous, and perhaps even more foolish than insisting one wheelsize suits all condition and riders...

  100. #300
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    None, because most of you did not test the newly designed 29ers. The majority tried the budget ones with heavy wheels and flexy frames, and that's what people formed their opinion on and decided that 584mm must be better.
    Instead of spewing a stubborn rant you could answer thoroughly my and Cloxxki's questions. I hoped you can defend the wheelsize you so strongly believe in.

    584 does not anything better than 559 or 622. Let's take tight switchbacks- 26" is better there, let's take any challenging terrain- mud, sand, rolling stones, roots. Again 584 recedes to 29ers. There is no terrain where 584 outperform the 622 and 559.

    584 might work better where a 5'4" person wants a 160-180mm bike to jump off bike park benches again where is his 584 better than 559? Not in the air and not on the ground.

    I am not against 584 overall but am against the marketing like "584 is the best wheel size for long travel applications" why the hell? We have already 180mm 29er and no 27.5er to compete in this travel ranges.
    In trail riding regular trails with no FR stunts or huge drops or super over 140 deg swicthbacks demanding one to stop the bike completely; there is no way a 120-130mm 584 bike is going to be better than well designed 29er on long course. Arguments like it is easier/cheaper to build a small wheeled bicycle do not apply,

    Yes 584mm will be faster than 559 on XC or marathon trails by a smidge but will not be faster than a 29er.
    Willow Koerber is 5'2" and scored a bronze on Worldchampionships so there isn't a height thing anymore. Explain why all 584 proponents would put her on 584 instead of 622mm? She left a 26er for a reason, do you think she'll be happy taking a step backwards with 584?

    Jeez 584 is not even a half way from 559 to 622. 590,5mm is the size.
    27.5er for a mainstream bike instead of 29er for XC-AM rides is simply loony and mendacious.
    584 will never be comparable with 29er in terms of forward momentum or floatability. It will never get so much traction as 29er. It will never be so light as 26er owing to the added material.

    The only place where 584 will outperform 29er is the person like 5 2" up to 5 6" riding a DH sled. Yes a 29er might have too long chainstays or wheelbase for such person to wrap around a tight switchback with high speed. But by how much is the 584 better than 559 in this application to justify a whole new suspension forks, tyres, frames, geometries etc.?

    Is there anything left in that pitiful PR-marketing and ill-conceived 27,5" sorcery?

    Yes some of you stated that a Neo-moto gives you the similar sensation like riding a 29er, but it is the question of good quality tyres not the wheel size. If Neo moto existed in 29er the difference would be huge.
    650B is better.
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  101. #301
    Mr.650b - Mr.27-5
    Reputation: Kirk Pacenti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,630

    Scientific Explination for the Internet Troll


  102. #302
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    if 26" wheels are too small for some, and 29" too large, why not have an option available that's in between. makes sense to me. not everyone is either 5"8 or 6'2.

    there are a lot of other useless inventions that i would go after before this one. nice try, but u fail.

  103. #303
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    267
    650 B is too expensive yet. If they catch on the price should come down. 29er to big, Im not tall enough and the bike felt slow. Really rolled over the rocks though. So I bought a 69er. Gears are good with 26 back wheel, 29" front rolls the rocks and cushions a bad sholder. Tall in front but it really works for me, bummer packing 2 tubes though.

  104. #304
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,640
    Quote Originally Posted by winchboy
    , bummer packing 2 tubes though.
    Carry one 650b tube.. will fit both other sizes just fine.




    DavidCopperChode: go back to the Niner recall thread where you belong. Your grasp of geometry and bicycles in general is like of an infants on a buttered anvil.


    -Schmitty-

  105. #305
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,018
    Quote Originally Posted by winchboy
    bummer packing 2 tubes though.

    Just carry a 26". Heck I've used 26" downhill tubes on my crossbike out of necessity on the trail. Rubber stretches.

  106. #306
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SteveF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,313
    Quote Originally Posted by steelbike
    <img src="http://blogs.usatoday.com/.a/6a00d83451b46269e20120a5f99567970c-450wi">

    I kinda like that orange plaid!

  107. #307
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,780
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    not everyone is either 5"8 or 6'2.
    I'm 5'8" and ride a 29er not need for 26 or 27,5. Besides 584 is not a inbetween size as it is falsely adavetised- 590,5mm is. Still no replies from persons who didn't like the 29er -what 29er they tried.

  108. #308
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    I'm 5'8" and ride a 29er not need for 26 or 27,5. Besides 584 is not a inbetween size as it is falsely adavetised- 590,5mm is. Still no replies from persons who didn't like the 29er -what 29er they tried.
    i have never ridden a 29er. i still like the 650B. i think it looks better. i like the colors.
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  109. #309

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    I'm 5'8" and ride a 29er not need for 26 or 27,5. Besides 584 is not a inbetween size as it is falsely adavetised- 590,5mm is. Still no replies from persons who didn't like the 29er -what 29er they tried.
    oi dupek,

    like you tk is 173cm tall.

    unlike you tk has ridden 29ers for 10 years, and 650b for almost 2 years.

    650b is better.

    spierdalaj,

    tk

  110. #310
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    I'm 5'8" and ride a 29er not need for 26 or 27,5. Besides 584 is not a inbetween size as it is falsely adavetised- 590,5mm is. Still no replies from persons who didn't like the 29er -what 29er they tried.
    that's great for you, but it's nice to have choices, people are different. for my car or truck i can get 14" 15" 16" 17" 18" wheels pretty much whatever size is appropriate for the type of driving or style i want. why can't i have at least few choices in the sizes of my bicycle wheels.

  111. #311
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,440
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    that's great for you, but it's nice to have choices, people are different. for my car or truck i can get 14" 15" 16" 17" 18" wheels pretty much whatever size is appropriate for the type of driving or style i want. why can't i have at least few choices in the sizes of my bicycle wheels.

    is anyone even taking this thread seriously?
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  112. #312
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    847

    What's faster, your bike or bobcat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    I'm 5'8" and ride a 29er not need for 26 or 27,5. Besides 584 is not a inbetween size as it is falsely adavetised- 590,5mm is. Still no replies from persons who didn't like the 29er -what 29er they tried.
    <img src="https://farm2.static.flickr.com/1216/1420240949_daef8826fd.jpg">

  113. #313
    just some guy
    Reputation: talabardio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    532
    Illegal to make a bobcat a pet, what a clown.

  114. #314
    just some guy
    Reputation: talabardio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    532

    No good who cares?

    YAWN.

    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    None, because most of you did not test the newly designed 29ers. The majority tried the budget ones with heavy wheels and flexy frames, you just don't get that i am a total nut, no one in real life can stand me so i hang out on here all day. I'm off my meds so I can go all day long with no boundaries whatsoever blah blah blah.

  115. #315
    just some guy
    Reputation: talabardio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    532

    Just seriously enough

    Quote Originally Posted by colker1
    is anyone even taking this thread seriously?

    Just seriously enough to keep it going. I'm 5'10 and I've ridden and enjoyed all 3 wheel sizes, but my next bike will be 650b. i'm not slamming them others, I love my YBB and all, but that's what I think will be more betterer. Maybe even the bestest.

  116. #316
    just some guy
    Reputation: talabardio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    532

    650b tubes

    Quote Originally Posted by 88 rex
    Just carry a 26". Heck I've used 26" downhill tubes on my crossbike out of necessity on the trail. Rubber stretches.


    Does anyone make 650B tubes? What do people use for these things?

  117. #317
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    847
    26" tubes work fine with 27.5 and 29.

    Quote Originally Posted by talabardio
    Does anyone make 650B tubes? What do people use for these things?

  118. #318
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,018
    Quote Originally Posted by talabardio
    Does anyone make 650B tubes? What do people use for these things?

    Kenda actually does.


    And I don't like bobcats. Too small. I think bobcats have Napolean syndrome. I know if I were 5'8" or smaller I would feel the need to compensate with larger wheel sizes and act bigger than I am. But tough guys rock 650b...kind of like rocking pink. Maybe I should paint my 650b bike pink? That would be hardcore.


  119. #319
    Mr.650b - Mr.27-5
    Reputation: Kirk Pacenti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,630
    Quote Originally Posted by 88 rex
    Kenda actually does.
    But tough guys rock 650b...kind of like rocking pink. Maybe I should paint my 650b bike pink? That would be hardcore.


    Ha! That reminds me of an issue of Moto-Cross Action I had in the 80's when pink was hot.

    "Good guys wear white, bad guys wear black and fast guys wear pink!"

    Cheers,

    KP

  120. #320
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reformed roadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    SteveF - one stray cat taken in, one dog rescued from the SPCA.

    DC- Bobcat???!!?!?!?? WTF? Clearly, your you are not just an 29er freak.

    KP - I was reading DirtBike in the 80's, since I was doing enduros/hare scrambles...I think that is why I keep buying MBA, though I should know better...much like I cannot help replying to this thread.
    It is essentially the same Roland Heinz cookie-cutter produced rag.

  121. #321
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,886
    My squirrel would ride a 650B if he wasn't too busy trying to get out of his cage all the time.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  122. #322
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,018
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    My squirrel would ride a 650B if he wasn't too busy trying to get out of his cage all the time.

    My Aunt has a pet squirrel. Crazy little rodent!

  123. #323
    TNC
    TNC is offline
    noMAD man
    Reputation: TNC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,059

    Alright Kirk...Trivia!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Pacenti
    Ha! That reminds me of an issue of Moto-Cross Action I had in the 80's when pink was hot.

    "Good guys wear white, bad guys wear black and fast guys wear pink!"

    Cheers,

    KP
    Who was the first "well known" rider to wear pink riding gear at a major Supercross event? It was a big deal at the time.

  124. #324
    Mr.650b - Mr.27-5
    Reputation: Kirk Pacenti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,630
    Quote Originally Posted by TNC
    Who was the first "well known" rider to wear pink riding gear at a major Supercross event? It was a big deal at the time.

    I don't know... I've got very limited MX experience.

    I just remember that phrase "fast guys wear pink" when they were showing the new product line from JT. A complete matching kit all in pink and white including the helmet.

    Remember that JT helmet? That thing was sooo cool at the time!

    Cheers,

    KP

    PS: Here's a pic of Jacky Vimond all decked out in the pink JT kit...talk about thread drift!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Why 650b is an ill conceived idea-jackyvimond.jpg  

    Last edited by Kirk Pacenti; 10-25-2009 at 07:59 AM.

  125. #325
    Mr.650b - Mr.27-5
    Reputation: Kirk Pacenti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,630

    My new Avatar...

    You drank the Kool-Aide, now buy the T-shirt.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4038280298/
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Why 650b is an ill conceived idea-650b-t.jpg  

    Last edited by Kirk Pacenti; 10-24-2009 at 03:32 PM.

  126. #326
    mtbr member
    Reputation: trrubicon06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    266
    That's awesome! I have Nevegal 650's at the moment, but I'd still buy this shirt

  127. #327
    Baby Bear is in the house
    Reputation: r1Gel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Pacenti
    You drank the Kool-Aide, now buy the T-shirt!
    A little OT, but why cock-fighting?

    sidebar: just fitted a Neo 2.3 front and Quasi rear on my Schwinn Moab
    Will post pics in that other thread as soon as I can
    Better to have and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

  128. #328
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by r1Gel
    A little OT, but why cock-fighting?
    Have you read this thread?

  129. #329
    just some guy
    Reputation: talabardio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    532

    Have you read this thread?

    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    Have you read this thread?

    Great shirt and hilarious comment!

  130. #330
    Baby Bear is in the house
    Reputation: r1Gel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    Have you read this thread?
    Unfortunately, yes.

    Pardon my conservative Asian sensibilities for not getting it, but I think I do now.
    Better to have and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

  131. #331
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kiatkiat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Pacenti
    You drank the Kool-Aide, now buy the T-shirt.
    Nice design, I thinking of wear this, with a Neo-Moto in the front wheel, and a Quasi-Moto at the rear
    When it's time to go, is time to go.
    Fate rarely calls upon us at a moment of our choosing

  132. #332
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,440
    now seriuously: which is the best wheel size for a mountain bike?
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  133. #333
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,018
    Quote Originally Posted by colker1
    now seriuously: which is the best wheel size for a mountain bike?

    Don't know, but I think a 46" plasma screen is a nice size.

  134. #334
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kiatkiat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by 88 rex
    Don't know, but I think a 46" plasma screen is a nice size.
    Why don't get a LCD instead?
    When it's time to go, is time to go.
    Fate rarely calls upon us at a moment of our choosing

  135. #335
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by kiatkiat
    Why don't get a LCD instead?
    For some reason they a bunch of companies discontinued 52" size, got 55" instead. 52" is the optimal size, 55" is too big, and 46" is kiddy screen that I have to watch now. Feels like going over the bars all the time.

  136. #336
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,780
    Switch to OLED (not LED) screens, 29ers and bobcats. This trio rocks. You will feel much better having it

  137. #337
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Pacenti
    It's a shame that so visible an advocate for the standard should post such garbage.

    There are no trolls here, just people who don't know what a troll is and people who can't formulate a good argument but can throw a good tantrum. It's a shame that no one is able to engage the few here that view the issue critically. Then people might actually learn something of value.

  138. #338
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    It's a shame that so visible an advocate for the standard should post such garbage.

    There are no trolls here, just people who don't know what a troll is and people who can't formulate a good argument but can throw a good tantrum. It's a shame that no one is able to engage the few here that view the issue critically. Then people might actually learn something of value.
    The real shame is that all of us have wasted valuable minutes of our lives reading the nonsensical crap in the first post of this thread. It makes no logical sense, and has absolutely nothing to do with handlebars or stem sizes.

    As to whether or not they are a troll, at the very least the title was clearly provocative and meant to instigate something. That is no way to start a serious and respectful discussion, which is why nobody took them seriously. Pretty simple concept ey?

  139. #339
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    The real shame is that all of us have wasted valuable minutes of our lives reading the nonsensical crap in the first post of this thread. It makes no logical sense, and has absolutely nothing to do with handlebars or stem sizes.

    As to whether or not they are a troll, at the very least the title was clearly provocative and meant to instigate something. That is no way to start a serious and respectful discussion, which is why nobody took them seriously. Pretty simple concept ey?
    I guess it makes no logical sense to some who can't think clearly. His opinion is clear. Problem is people don't like it yet they're largely unable to engage in intelligent conversation. Wheel size, sadly, is a religion and that's what's shown here.

    Provocative does not equal troll, but thanks for pointing out again that people here don't know what a troll is. When you can't put together a coherent thought, just call people names. That, sadly, appears to go for Kirk Pacenti as well.

  140. #340
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    847

    IMO Riding downhill at night with no lights is an ill conceived idea

    Just trying to formulate a clear opinion...

  141. #341
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    I guess it makes no logical sense to some who can't think clearly. His opinion is clear. Problem is people don't like it yet they're largely unable to engage in intelligent conversation. Wheel size, sadly, is a religion and that's what's shown here.

    Provocative does not equal troll, but thanks for pointing out again that people here don't know what a troll is. When you can't put together a coherent thought, just call people names. That, sadly, appears to go for Kirk Pacenti as well.
    Why do you assume that Kirk was calling the OP a troll? He just posted a link to some information about trolling. Maybe he felt that the OPs attempt was so lame that he felt inclined to post some resources to help him out with his trolling skills, because right now he's got some...


  142. #342
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    Why do you assume that Kirk was calling the OP a troll? He just posted a link to some information about trolling. Maybe he felt that the OPs attempt was so lame that he felt inclined to post some resources to help him out with his trolling skills, because right now he's got some...
    I realize that a remedial course on trolls is needed by some here but I didn't know it was this ridiculous.

  143. #343
    A Senior
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    67
    Good read on a rainy morning....you guys are funny !

  144. #344
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    26
    650b is certainly here to stay. 650b is not an ill conceived idea. It is a solution for many riders and more importantly for keeping with their current frame setup. In turn, this helps to keep said frames out of the "landfill" that you speak of. 750b is in the works (for road applications). Im not sure that is such a great idea. Im still excited to see it nonetheless.

  145. #345
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tkul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    611
    I want to try!!! Unfortenatly is not available here - Portugal/EU.
    When it'll appear?

  146. #346
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kiwisimon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Tkul
    I want to try!!! Unfortenatly is not available here - Portugal/EU.
    When it'll appear?
    http://www.bikelugs.com/about/index....WebAction=650b

    would be a good place to start.

  147. #347
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tkul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    611
    +/-

    Macario (Spanish distributor) doesn't sell directly and I don't want to shed +$170.00 in a new tire+rim+spokes before trying the setup as you may understand!
    Today I'm used to Maxxis Highroller 2.35 (42A) and Ardent 2.4 (60A) that delivers a predictable feeling and confident riding characteristics.
    Can anyone compare the NeoMoto 2.3 with one of those tires?
    Thanks!

    PS - I also never tried a 29er... Have to find a dealer with one experimental bike or something! 29er and 650B are not that usual over here...

  148. #348
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tkul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    611
    +/-

    Macario (Spanish distributor) doesn't sell directly and I don't want to shed +$170.00 in a new tire+rim+spokes before trying the setup as you may understand!
    Today I'm used to Maxxis Highroller 2.35 (42A) and Ardent 2.4 (60A) that delivers a predictable feeling and confident riding characteristics.
    Can anyone compare the NeoMoto 2.3 with one of those tires?
    Thanks!

    PS - I also never tried a 29er... Have to find a dealer with one experimental bike or something! 29er and 650B are not that usual over here...

  149. #349
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,050
    Oregon Public Broadcasting has three job openings:

    1. An editor
    2. A maintenance engineer
    3. A marketing director

    Here's the link:

    http://www.opb.org/insideopb/careers/jobs/

    If you become the editor, you can report on the endless dispute between HOHAs and mountain bikers about the city of Portland's Forest Park trails. I'm sure the Oregon forum on this site will have plenty of information.

  150. #350
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,050
    Oops, wrong thread. Sorry.

  151. #351
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,487
    Im sorry you feel the way you do, but I appreciate your opinion.
    Why not create something if it is a better idea, look how far we have come in the last 100 years, not to speak about the last 10 years.
    I believe that if bike designers had thought of 650b before 29ers, there would be no need for 29ers. I have ridden and owned bikes of all tire sizes and I came to the conclusion that 650b is superior to the others in my riding applications. Im not going to say everyone is going to feel this way.
    While most everything was designed around the 26" wheel, when 29ers came around, it created problems with gearing, stand over hieght, suspension travel and toe overlap...am I missing anything else? the 650b bikes dont have those issues
    I believe the industry is reluctant about 650b, just like they were with 29ers, "oh no, another wheel size" but the existing movement is strong and I admire the companies that came aboard.

    The Specialized slogan from a few years back "Innovate or die" is not just the American way, but the way of the world. In years to come, we will see things that will blow us away, and not just in biking.
    Just maybe, the 650b wheel size will make the others irrevelant, I dont know what you prefer, wheels size wise, but if it works, keep using it, but please dont discount 650b unless you have put some time (more than the parking lot ride) riding this wheel size.

  152. #352
    Mr.650b - Mr.27-5
    Reputation: Kirk Pacenti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,630
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane Jeff
    Im sorry you feel the way you do, but I appreciate your opinion.
    Why not create something if it is a better idea, look how far we have come in the last 100 years, not to speak about the last 10 years.
    I believe that if bike designers had thought of 650b before 29ers, there would be no need for 29ers. I have ridden and owned bikes of all tire sizes and I came to the conclusion that 650b is superior to the others in my riding applications. Im not going to say everyone is going to feel this way.
    While most everything was designed around the 26" wheel, when 29ers came around, it created problems with gearing, stand over hieght, suspension travel and toe overlap...am I missing anything else? the 650b bikes dont have those issues
    I believe the industry is reluctant about 650b, just like they were with 29ers, "oh no, another wheel size" but the existing movement is strong and I admire the companies that came aboard.

    The Specialized slogan from a few years back "Innovate or die" is not just the American way, but the way of the world. In years to come, we will see things that will blow us away, and not just in biking.
    Just maybe, the 650b wheel size will make the others irrevelant, I dont know what you prefer, wheels size wise, but if it works, keep using it, but please dont discount 650b unless you have put some time (more than the parking lot ride) riding this wheel size.
    Well said.

    Cheers,

    KP

  153. #353
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    I'm a big supporter of 650b, and prefer it as my wheel size of choice. But some of these comments make me wonder.

    Again, there's nothing magical about 650b. It just happens to be another size option in between the two established sizes. That's pretty much it. It may work for some, may not work for others. It's not the be all end all of anything, and it certainly won't make anything irrelevant. People should choose what works best for their own body size and weight, and for the trails and style they intend to ride.

    Would you put your 10 year old kid on a 29er? No. Would you put a 6'10" guy on a bike designed for 24" wheels? No. So clearly in my mind, both wheel size and frame size are directly related to the specific rider in question. Maybe I'm in the minority with this belief, but that's how I see it.

    Just look at road bikes, they have what at least 3 different common sizes, 27", 650C, and 700C. And they don't even have obstacles to run over, like rocks, roots, logs, etc. The weight differences are almost nil between those sizes as well due to using such thin lightweight components, and they still have all those choices available.

    Mountain bikes should have at least that many and possibly more, considering the larger weight differences, our gearing not being as closely spaced, and the varied terrain we typically encounter. Obstacle rollover ability comes into play heavily for MTB wheels, where in road bikes it's barely even given consideration. And this attribute is directly related to wheel size.

    Anyone complaining about having an additional choice in MTB wheel size is almost surely a 29er fanboy feeling their exclusivity is being threatened, nothing more. Pure vanity.

    There isn't a single argument that holds water against offering an additional choice in MTB wheel sizes, not a one.

  154. #354
    Mr.650b - Mr.27-5
    Reputation: Kirk Pacenti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,630
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    I'm a big supporter of 650b, and prefer it as my wheel size of choice. But some of these comments make me wonder.

    Again, there's nothing magical about 650b. It just happens to be another size option in between the two established sizes. That's pretty much it. It may work for some, may not work for others. It's not the be all end all of anything, and it certainly won't make anything irrelevant. People should choose what works best for their own body size and weight, and for the trails and style they intend to ride.

    Would you put your 10 year old kid on a 29er? No. Would you put a 6'10" guy on a bike designed for 24" wheels? No. So clearly in my mind, both wheel size and frame size are directly related to the specific rider in question. Maybe I'm in the minority with this belief, but that's how I see it.

    Just look at road bikes, they have what at least 3 different common sizes, 27", 650C, and 700C. And they don't even have obstacles to run over, like rocks, roots, logs, etc. The weight differences are almost nil between those sizes as well due to using such thin lightweight components, and they still have all those choices available.

    Mountain bikes should have at least that many and possibly more, considering the larger weight differences, our gearing not being as closely spaced, and the varied terrain we typically encounter. Obstacle rollover ability comes into play heavily for MTB wheels, where in road bikes it's barely even given consideration. And this attribute is directly related to wheel size.

    Anyone complaining about having an additional choice in MTB wheel size is almost surely a 29er fanboy feeling their exclusivity is being threatened, nothing more. Pure vanity.

    There isn't a single argument that holds water against offering an additional choice in MTB wheel sizes, not a one.
    Again, well said.

    Cheers,

    KP

  155. #355
    mtbr member
    Reputation: D.F.L.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,840
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    There isn't a single argument that holds water against offering an additional choice in MTB wheel sizes, not a one.
    Devil's advocate would argue that resources spend on 650 take away from cool product for other wheel sizes. I surely don't blame 650b for the lack of the ideal 29er front tire (my wish), but if we didn't have 650b tires, the likelihood of new models in other sizes would be (slightly)greater.

    Resources are limited and product managers have to choose which segment gets the money. The success of 29er has hampered the potential of 650 by demanding nearly all of the resources. If the timing had been different, who knows what might have been.

    When people grow bored of 29er, 650b may become the new black29er.

  156. #356
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,886
    Road bikes, well touring ones anyway also have 650B available for a really long time. Its what the size was developed for originally (among other things). There have been many wheel sizes over the years, but none were ever developed specifically for mountain bikes and adopted by the industry. Arrow Racing came closest in the 90s with a 25" wheel but other than a few prototypes and a review in MBA, nothing came of it.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  157. #357
    Mr.650b - Mr.27-5
    Reputation: Kirk Pacenti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,630
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    Arrow Racing came closest in the 90s with a 25" wheel but other than a few prototypes and a review in MBA, nothing came of it.
    I remember that review. Iirc, they used a cut and sewed 26" tire for the prototype... exactly what gave me the idea to cut down a 29er tire for my first 650b prototype.

    Cheers,

    KP

  158. #358
    bikeboatbrewski
    Reputation: scottybinwv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Pacenti
    I remember that review. Iirc, they used a cut and sewed 26" tire for the prototype... exactly what gave me the idea to cut down a 29er tire for my first 650b prototype.

    Cheers,

    KP

    It's all your fault!

  159. #359
    mtbr member
    Reputation: laffeaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,981
    Quote Originally Posted by D.F.L.
    Devil's advocate would argue that resources spend on 650 take away from cool product for other wheel sizes.
    Conversely, if product managers would stop wasting their time with the whole 29er thing then we'd likely have more 650b options.

    Other than the impact on retailers who "in theory" now need to carry a larger inventory to meet the needs of many different wheel sizes - from kids bikes with 12" wheels to 700c or larger, there's no negative to having multiple wheel sizes. Consumers should be elated that they have more choices. I currently own and ride bikes with 26", 650b and 700c rims, and I think that it's great that I get to choose what I want to ride.

    Oh, and I think that there are plenty of good 29er front tires, but I'd sure like a great one for the rear (same with 650b). My favorite rear tire of all time is the Tioga Factory XC 26er tire - I'd love to have a 650b and 29er version of that tire available.
    Each bicycle owned exponentially increases the probability that none is working correctly.

  160. #360
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    Quote Originally Posted by D.F.L.
    Devil's advocate would argue that resources spend on 650 take away from cool product for other wheel sizes. I surely don't blame 650b for the lack of the ideal 29er front tire (my wish), but if we didn't have 650b tires, the likelihood of new models in other sizes would be (slightly)greater.

    Resources are limited and product managers have to choose which segment gets the money. The success of 29er has hampered the potential of 650 by demanding nearly all of the resources. If the timing had been different, who knows what might have been.

    When people grow bored of 29er, 650b may become the new black29er.
    29'ers have been in commercial production for MTB since when, 1999? I believe 650b has only been in commercial production for MTB since 2007. If the 29er producers weren't able to put together good enough tires to make you happy in the first 8 years of production, I don't see how anyone can point the finger at 650b just because they continued to disappoint the last 3 years as well. It sounds to me like they are just not listening to the customer base, if what you say is correct about there not being an ideal front tire, or whatever the case may be.

    Personally I'm pretty excited about the current 650b tires available, especially considering how short a time they have been in production. Sure there is always room for improvement, but so far I think the 650b designers have done a great job of taking feedback and offering products people are happy with.

  161. #361
    Mr.650b - Mr.27-5
    Reputation: Kirk Pacenti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,630
    Quote Originally Posted by scottybinwv
    It's all your fault!

    Guilty as charged.

    Cheers,

    KP

  162. #362
    mtbr member
    Reputation: carverboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    551

    retailers can handle 650b

    Other than the impact on retailers who "in theory" now need to carry a larger inventory to meet the needs of many different wheel sizes - from kids bikes with 12" wheels to 700c or larger,
    As someone who works in Ski and snowboard retail and used to do bike,. We are facing very similar stocking pressures with the addition of all the "new" camber/sidecut/base configurations being brought to market. Does it complicate our lives as sellers and service providers? Yes but we feel this proliferation of models is well worth the hassle. More options is always a plus. The market will shake out the weak products sometimes not fairly but things tend to move forward for the most part. In these tough economic times retailers need to be more flexible and quicker on there feet. To this end we special order the more exotic/expensive skis and snowboards along with a lot of soft goods. I think bike shops need to follow this model as well.

  163. #363
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by carverboy
    Other than the impact on retailers who "in theory" now need to carry a larger inventory to meet the needs of many different wheel sizes.
    They already stock 12, 16, 20 (406 and 451), 24, 26 and 700c, 29 for kids, city, MTB, road.

    650b is the missing piece. Exactly what is needed for long travel MTB that fits the shorter half of the population well.

    It needs to get a less complicated name. Maybe 26" should go as "M", 650b as "L" and 29" as "XL" (24 "S" and 20 "XS").

  164. #364
    TNC
    TNC is offline
    noMAD man
    Reputation: TNC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,059
    Man...lots of good comments here with good insight. I have nothing else to say. That's gotta be a first.

  165. #365
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    369
    To toss my $0.02 in this old(!) thread:

    The fact that 650b is accidentally compatible with many 26" forks and frames pretty much guarantees that it will be at least moderately successful with enthusiasts over the long term.

    In time, once the engineers, marketers, and lawyers have a few meetings without stabbing each other and everyone realizes they can intentionally add 650b-compatibility to their next product cycle without incurring much cost:
    - the marketers will advertise it as a new feature
    - a few people will be motivated to buy them on the basis of "future proofing" their rides or as a "tie-breaker" feature
    - the accountants will eventually sift a correlation of increased sales out of the data

    and next thing you know, it will be a semi-common feature like cable guides for dropper seatposts.

    Not much cost or compromise to add, not much penalty if you never use it. It'll happen eventually.

  166. #366
    mtbr member
    Reputation: michael9218's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    277
    I've been following this thread like many, and though I don't have anything new to add, did want to throw my comment out there.

    I fail to see why anyone would see a new innovation as a bad thing. I can't understand why the 29er crowd in particular is offended.

    From a marketing perspective, anything that creates a buzz will drive new consumption. There are always people that are willing to spend their hard earned dollars on something new and exciting, whether that's disk brakes, carbon fiber, or a new wheel size that is billed as "just right". I just don't see 650b as a replacement for 29", or even 26", wheels threatening their existence. It's another choice and this is a good thing.

    Now personally, I've taken a bite from the apple and have tried the 650b as a front wheel and gotta say that for me it's a nice improvement to my bike and am glad it's an available option.

    For all of us in the cycling community, let's hope this wheel size stays around for the sake of choice.

  167. #367
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by kestrel242
    To toss my $0.02 in this old(!) thread:

    The fact that 650b is accidentally compatible with many 26" forks and frames pretty much guarantees that it will be at least moderately successful with enthusiasts over the long term.

    In time, once the engineers, marketers, and lawyers have a few meetings without stabbing each other and everyone realizes they can intentionally add 650b-compatibility to their next product cycle without incurring much cost:
    - the marketers will advertise it as a new feature
    - a few people will be motivated to buy them on the basis of "future proofing" their rides or as a "tie-breaker" feature
    - the accountants will eventually sift a correlation of increased sales out of the data

    and next thing you know, it will be a semi-common feature like cable guides for dropper seatposts.

    Not much cost or compromise to add, not much penalty if you never use it. It'll happen eventually.
    I was wondering about this myself specifically with Cannondale. The lefty supports the 650b wheel, they just have to engineer some extra tire clearance at the back and that shouldn't be too complicated since they did it already with the prophet.

    This "dual personality" is what is attracting me to a SC superlight

  168. #368
    Life is a fun ride
    Reputation: safariofthemind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by kestrel242
    To toss my $0.02 in this old(!) thread:

    The fact that 650b is accidentally compatible with many 26" forks and frames pretty much guarantees that it will be at least moderately successful with enthusiasts over the long term.

    In time, once the engineers, marketers, and lawyers have a few meetings without stabbing each other and everyone realizes they can intentionally add 650b-compatibility to their next product cycle without incurring much cost:
    - the marketers will advertise it as a new feature
    - a few people will be motivated to buy them on the basis of "future proofing" their rides or as a "tie-breaker" feature
    - the accountants will eventually sift a correlation of increased sales out of the data

    and next thing you know, it will be a semi-common feature like cable guides for dropper seatposts.

    Not much cost or compromise to add, not much penalty if you never use it. It'll happen eventually.
    In the software business this is known as "feature creep". When you have a fixed or relatively fixed market that is only growing organically at the same rate as the general economy, product introductions start to cannibalize your own sales because the market size is relatively static. In other words, your sales plus other people's sales are a zero sum game and in order for you to gain market share you have to take it from existing users - either your own or someone else's. 650b, 29ers, and every doo-hickey invented in subject to this law.

    If you look at the recent sales data here
    http://nbda.com/articles/industry-ov...-2009-pg34.htm
    you'll see that the bike business is static relative to the economy. This changes the game from one of innovation to one of substitution. The sad part is that if you are a true believer and you build a good product you get left behind because it's hard to sell old iron against brand new titanium when people don't know any better on an LBS' showroom IMO.

    650b has merits, but are they enough to warrant a new standard? Time will tell.

  169. #369
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by safariofthemind
    In the software business this is known as "feature creep". When you have a fixed or relatively fixed market that is only growing organically at the same rate as the general economy, product introductions start to cannibalize your own sales because the market size is relatively static. In other words, your sales plus other people's sales are a zero sum game and in order for you to gain market share you have to take it from existing users - either your own or someone else's. 650b, 29ers, and every doo-hickey invented in subject to this law.

    If you look at the recent sales data here
    http://nbda.com/articles/industry-ov...-2009-pg34.htm
    you'll see that the bike business is static relative to the economy. This changes the game from one of innovation to one of substitution. The sad part is that if you are a true believer and you build a good product you get left behind because it's hard to sell old iron against brand new titanium when people don't know any better on an LBS' showroom IMO.

    650b has merits, but are they enough to warrant a new standard? Time will tell.
    You assume that existing standards had been either intelligently designed or established long enough to be selected by the market forces. That does not seem to be the case.

    Plenty of standards are being introduced quite successively - through axles, new headtube and bottom bracket dimensions, etc.

    This is not the feature creep - while market does not grow explosively any more, it is still does not seem to be mature. Give it another 40 years.

  170. #370
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LonesomeCowboyBert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    251
    The bike industry needs fads and thanks you all for buying them
    650b ranks up there with the most pointless

  171. #371
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    Quote Originally Posted by LonesomeCowboyBert
    The bike industry needs fads and thanks you all for buying them
    650b ranks up there with the most pointless
    Is that all you can offer is a one liner? Not even an attempt to make your case? Oh yea, that's right, you have no case to make, only hate. Don't let it consume you too much, life is too short to waste on hate.

  172. #372
    mtbr member
    Reputation: D.F.L.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,840
    Quote Originally Posted by kestrel242
    To toss my $0.02 in this old(!) thread:

    The fact that 650b is accidentally compatible with many 26" forks and frames pretty much guarantees that it will be at least moderately successful with enthusiasts over the long term.
    I have to wonder how many people are willing to run parts together when the manufacturer has forbidden it. I mean, you have to be pretty deep into the sport before you start mixing and matching things in ways other than the designers intended. In other words, that's a pretty small market.

    650-specific forks from RS and Fox would eliminate one of the known-unknowns about 650's potential.

  173. #373
    TNC
    TNC is offline
    noMAD man
    Reputation: TNC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,059
    Quote Originally Posted by D.F.L.
    I have to wonder how many people are willing to run parts together when the manufacturer has forbidden it. I mean, you have to be pretty deep into the sport before you start mixing and matching things in ways other than the designers intended. In other words, that's a pretty small market.

    650-specific forks from RS and Fox would eliminate one of the known-unknowns about 650's potential.
    I don't know, DFL. Some of these concepts catch on quite well when the people who participate in them see the benefit and pass on the results. At our relatively small bike shop in a town of about 125,000, we've probably put out about 2 dozen 650B wheelsets up to this point with nothing but positive feedback. Some of these customers were actual gearheads, and some barely knew how to change their own tires, but none of them were fearful to use these taller wheels in their existing 26'er bikes and forks, and none of them have had any issue because of it. Two dozen wheelsets will hardly turn the world on its axis, but the slow trickle over a wide area of the globe could make a dramatic difference. The biggest obstacle IMO is still the old concept of a lack of exposure or knowledge of the product...not fear of running the taller wheel in an existing fork or frame.

  174. #374
    TNC
    TNC is offline
    noMAD man
    Reputation: TNC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,059
    Quote Originally Posted by LonesomeCowboyBert
    The bike industry needs fads and thanks you all for buying them
    650b ranks up there with the most pointless
    Bert, that's a strange attitude for a guy with an alleged "downhill bike" background to take, if I'm reading your profile correctly. The term "fad" as you put it also often covers unique and ground breaking trends and components....the same components and trends that made the downhill scene and bikes what they are today. Did every new and unique concept and component that came out in the downhill chronology of technology work?...of course not. But to put the blanket "fad" label on the 650B wheel this early into the game is pretty narrow minded IMO. With thinking like yours, you'd still be riding a 3" travel Judy DH fork on a bike with a whopping 4" of rear travel. Thankfully we don't have to rely on your vision for the future of bicycle technology.

    I'm still amazed at the resistance to try what is a relatively easy step at an increased wheel size. You buy a tire, a rim, and some spokes. If it works for you, your investment is relatively small. If it doesn't work for you, you sell the wheel or lace up your hub to something else. You haven't commited to a special fork or frame size. This is small potatoes for the experiment.

  175. #375
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    627
    Let the people decide which size works best for them. I've owned and ridden all three and I just prefer 650b.
    Even this guy prefers to ride 650b's <a href="https://s129.photobucket.com/albums/p209/djembe975/?action=view&current=stiltbicycle.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="https://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p209/djembe975/stiltbicycle.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

  176. #376
    mtbr member
    Reputation: laffeaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,981
    Quote Originally Posted by safariofthemind
    The sad part is that if you are a true believer and you build a good product you get left behind because it's hard to sell old iron against brand new titanium when people don't know any better on an LBS' showroom IMO.
    This is a good point, and I agree a sad one. Rivendell Bikes immediately comes to mind. They have a distinct vision of what their bikes should be used for and stick to it. They still produce frames with steel forks with 1" steerer, because they work fine, they're plenty strong, and they are lighter than a 1-1/8" fork. Why change? Many view their stance as refusing to move forward. However, in this case change offer no advantages but does have a disadvantage. Why make it?

    New always seems better. But it's not always the case.
    Each bicycle owned exponentially increases the probability that none is working correctly.

  177. #377
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,487
    Whats kinda funny about that guys statement is, DH could really benefit from the 650b wheel size, unlike the 29ers, you could build a rideable 8" travel DH bike using 650b wheels that you could stradle. Just think, a wheel that could roll over obstacles rather than plow through them.
    Unfornately this closed minded-ness is what hurts this industry ( and others) from going forward.

  178. #378
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by LonesomeCowboyBert
    The bike industry needs fads and thanks you all for buying them
    650b ranks up there with the most pointless
    Indeed. And 175mm cranks is good for everyone, full suspension should be no more and no less than 100mm, and tires 2.1" only. Any other sizes are a pointless fad.

    Procrustean solution is the only solution.

  179. #379
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by laffeaux
    They still produce frames with steel forks with 1" steerer, because they work fine, they're plenty strong, and they are lighter than a 1-1/8" fork.
    They are not.

  180. #380
    mtbr member
    Reputation: laffeaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    They are not.
    For the intended purpose of the bikes in question, which part is "not"?
    Each bicycle owned exponentially increases the probability that none is working correctly.

  181. #381
    Life is a fun ride
    Reputation: safariofthemind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    You assume that existing standards had been either intelligently designed or established long enough to be selected by the market forces. That does not seem to be the case.

    Plenty of standards are being introduced quite successively - through axles, new headtube and bottom bracket dimensions, etc.

    This is not the feature creep - while market does not grow explosively any more, it is still does not seem to be mature. Give it another 40 years.
    You could be right of course. In my many years with software (which I no longer work in so I have the perspective of being outside it now) I saw new standards come and go. It was not always clear why one succeeded where another one didn't. Take C++ or Java or anything like that. For every one that made it there were 2 or 3 competing standards of equal or better technical merit. Success seemed quite arbitrary and due to soft factors such as which sponsors could muster the better user community, who could "spin" the product the best (Apple, anyone?) and who could just plain "sell" the concept to the developers out there. There's a lot of voodoo involved and the best man does not always win.

    I am not sure that's going to change in 40 or 400 years. People will keep stirring the pot just to see what happens IMO. I don't mind, really, as it can be entertaining - but I have a healthy skepticism of the stuff you hear at shows, on the media and in print.

  182. #382
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by laffeaux
    For the intended purpose of the bikes in question, which part is "not"?
    Obsolete standard does not "work as well", as it is harder to maintain and service. Such forks are not lighter then a 1-1/8" or tapered fork with the same functionality.

  183. #383
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by safariofthemind
    You could be right of course. In my many years with software (which I no longer work in so I have the perspective of being outside it now) I saw new standards come and go..
    It happens that I have been developing software standards (languages) for a while - I still work with W3C and OASIS for example, my name is on a few specifications. We rarely have a good understanding of how our work will be used, and it is very hard to test usability. Industry moves too fast. I think bike standards are in a much better shape in that regard.

  184. #384
    mtbr member
    Reputation: laffeaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    Obsolete standard does not "work as well", as it is harder to maintain and service. Such forks are not lighter then a 1-1/8" or tapered fork with the same functionality.
    Hmm... I tend to disagree. I own and still ride several bikes with 1" forks and have no issue with maintaining them, and servicing them is identical to servicing any other headset. Neither is an issue.

    And on weight, I believe that you listen to the marketing guys a little too much.
    Each bicycle owned exponentially increases the probability that none is working correctly.

  185. #385
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,762
    Quote Originally Posted by laffeaux
    Hmm... I tend to disagree. I own and still ride several bikes with 1" forks and have no issue with maintaining them, and servicing them is identical to servicing any other headset. Neither is an issue.

    And on weight, I believe that you listen to the marketing guys a little too much.
    Please, post the lightest 1" fork that you can find, and compare it with what is available in 1-1/8 or taper (which would also include a lot of carbon and aluminum steerer offerings of course).

    Tapered headtubes make for some very stiff frames it seems - mostly because of all the welding/carbon layup area on the head tube. Ever seen a 1" HT that can handle 160mm travel fork?

    And even for the bikes in question - they could have been made lighter and stronger with modern standards. Which was obviously not the primary design parameter.

    1" is an obsolete standard and does not work as well for modern frames and forks.

  186. #386
    mtbr member
    Reputation: laffeaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    Please, post the lightest 1" fork that you can find, and compare it with what is available in 1-1/8 or taper (which would also include a lot of carbon and aluminum steerer offerings of course).

    Tapered headtubes make for some very stiff frames it seems - mostly because of all the welding/carbon layup area on the head tube. Ever seen a 1" HT that can handle 160mm travel fork?

    And even for the bikes in question - they could have been made lighter and stronger with modern standards. Which was obviously not the primary design parameter.

    1" is an obsolete standard and does not work as well for modern frames and forks.
    Which goes back to intended purpose of the bike. My comments were in regards to a company that produces non-racing bikes with rigid forks intended to be used both on and pavement and often for touring. Steel is their material of choice for these frames because it can be repaired (if needed) fairly easily by many welders.

    Which of your reasons for obsolete matters for the intended purpose of these bikes? None of these frames will ever have a 160mm fork installed on them. Aluminum is lighter, but if it needs to be re-welded, it also needs to be heat treated, which if you're in the middle of a tour might not be something that you'll find in a small-town. And carbon does not like abrasions. Riding across the country with 20 pounds of gear (which is bouncing up and down with each bump) strapped to a carbon fork... hmmm, I'll pass.

    If you want to talk about downhill bikes, larger diameter steerers make sense. But that's not what Rivendell (the company that my post referred to) builds. They use what makes since for what they intend the bike to do - some people thing that means it's "old" instead of "smart." It's hard to market their bikes - which is what the original post was about.

    Not every bike needs to have the latest and greatest technology. Sometimes newer might have might have drawbacks for what a bike is supposed to do.
    Each bicycle owned exponentially increases the probability that none is working correctly.

  187. #387
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nagatahawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,188
    I thought I would through in my 2 cents.
    I currently ride a 26 5.5 inch bike. but I have tested both the 29 and 650. Naturally lthe 29 had the better roll over. I also though that the Jamis 650B2 felt much like riding a 26 bike. I am not short by I like the longer travel and handling similar to my 26. Yep the bike is much faster than my 26. With the trade off of a smaller wheel/tire the 650 still fits the handling i desire from a mt. bike. don't get me wrong. the 29r is awesome.I just wish Jamis made a AM 29r.

    My local dealer is a Jamis so I'm leaning toward the 650b2. Of course this all depends on what kind of deal I cut with him. maybe I can make a 29/650 out of it!

  188. #388
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by juansevo
    Seriously while I'm all for innovation I'm against making stuff just because. Perhaps we should start making road bikes in 27" again with that logic or perhaps the ultimate headset would be 1 1/16" and 31.8 is a bit heavy lets do a 29.9 bar instead. All are bad ideas because they would not offer a significant advantage over current product and when the fad dies you'll be stuck with stuff that's incompatible with the standard which just plain works.

    In short more junk for landfills.

    Bike shops have enough crap laying around because of dumbass ideas in the past. Remember making shims for your fork race for 1" headsets because there was no standard? Or Gary Fishers 1 1/4 headsets that were standard on his bikes pre-Trek? Or how about pre-31.8 handlebars when you had two different road handlebar diameters? Or when for mtb's you had standard, suntour compact, compact, and 4 arm bolt circles? Lets not even start with the 30 different size seatposts we had for awhile.

    We finally have some standardization which allows bike shops to run lower inventory and thus keep costs down. 1 1/8" headsets are now basically the standard on ALL bikes which means fewer items to stock. 31.8 handlebars are quickly becoming the norm for all bikes as today's stems can be used for road or mtb (with some exceptions of course) which means less inventory. Even seatposts we seem to have 27.2 as a standard with just a few bigger sizes for special bikes but were down to 3-4 that everyone seems to use

    650b has no merit other than a fringe item for people who just have to have something different for the sake of being different. It's like the guy who just has to have everything ti on his bike including applications like cranks were it's not the optimal material for the application.

    I'm for trying new concepts that can offer something different. I've been riding 29ers for 3 years now. I have a 69er and I would like a Pugsley. But all offer significant advantages or ride characteristics that outshine 26" wheels enough to justify them. 650b....does not.

    Specialized once had a slogan of "Innovate or Die"...well 650b is not an innovation and thus should and eventually will die for mtb applications.

    I'll close with this line from Jurassic Park:

    "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
    Why even bother,who would listen to some bozo that rides 29ers

  189. #389
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5
    nagatahawk jump on the Jamis you won't be let down. I have a b1 got mine for 2000.00

  190. #390
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nagatahawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,188
    Quote Originally Posted by jpmikey
    nagatahawk jump on the Jamis you won't be let down. I have a b1 got mine for 2000.00
    great price! I'll be looking at the 2011 bike, I like the change in the rear suspension set up.
    I test road the 2010 b2 it was much faster than what i am on.

  191. #391
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,886
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy
    Tapered headtubes make for some very stiff frames it seems - mostly because of all the welding/carbon layup area on the head tube. Ever seen a 1" HT that can handle 160mm travel fork?
    Yes, even longer travel that that. ALL MOTORCYCLES USE ONE INCH STEERERS. There's no rule that says the steerers had to keep getting greater in diameter to have larger headtubes. Motorcycle frames have huge headtubes and huge headset bearings... and still use 1" steerer tubes.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  192. #392
    mtbr member
    Reputation: D.F.L.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,840
    Show me a modern, single-crown motorcycle fork with a 1" steerer.

    Dual crown forks put a steerer in sheer, not bending. 1" can work in sheer, but not bending, even on a bicycle.

    Motorcycles don't need to be light.

    1" bicycle headsets were pretty much obsolete by the time dual-crown DH forks came around. Wouldn't have made much sense to reintroduce them just for dual crown, especially when these bikes have large diameter main tubes adjoining the HT.

    We can give the industry credit for not going to tapered-steerer or 1.5 dual-crowns. At least they didn't do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    Yes, even longer travel that that. ALL MOTORCYCLES USE ONE INCH STEERERS. There's no rule that says the steerers had to keep getting greater in diameter to have larger headtubes. Motorcycle frames have huge headtubes and huge headset bearings... and still use 1" steerer tubes.

  193. #393
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    172
    Interesting thread. I have a Surly Rat Ride. The 1X1 special edition with the 24" large marge rims. Some call it the junior Pugsly. Set up as original, a single speed, and love the ride out on the trail. For some variety I built a set of 26" wheels and run them alternatively when the mood strikes.

    I also have a geared 29er. Like most of us I've gone through a number of frames, sizes, configurations. Most would agree, I think, that the 26er is more quick and nimble while the 29er rolls like a train once you get going. At 62 I find I am not as strong as I once was and I get around a little more easily on the smaller wheels. At the same time I like the characteristics of the big wheel.

    This is what has led me to decide to give the 650b a try. If, as I've read many posters claim, they are the "sweet spot" in between the two sizes it will be money well spent. At the very least it will be yet another option for my Rat Ride. Here are a couple of pix of the rat with the two different sized tires. I'm stoked to go with the 650b. More options make life better in my experience.



    Last edited by tat2niner; 11-26-2010 at 12:04 PM.

  194. #394
    Shameless Plug!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    120

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by juansevo
    650b has no merit other than a fringe item for people who just have to have something different for the sake of being different. It's like the guy who just has to have everything ti on his bike including applications like cranks were it's not the optimal material for the application.
    You, sir, are wrong.

    Nah, but in all honesty I couldn't disagree more. I would love to have the technical knowledge to explain why I think 650B makes sense but, being a mere troglodyte, all I can say is that I've ridden all three extensively and like 650B the most, hands-down. The ONLY reason I use a 29er rather than a 650B is because I'm a bit taller than average and there's no 650B Mountain King.

    If you rode a 650B in a variety of terrains before this post, then we obviously differ grossly in our riding style (and many other qualities). If not, then you know exactly what you need to do, and it involves a bike.


    P.S. Check your facts on the shop junk theory. Maybe it's geographical preference, but we can't keep enough 650B **** in stock...it's the 'ole 26er that's starting to full up our furnace.

    P.P.S. You are a wizened and experienced troll. Do you offer private lessons?
    Last edited by Bear Spleen; 12-21-2010 at 05:04 PM.

  195. #395
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,780
    Common belief says that 29ers cannont be used in AM rides, but wfo9 shreds it. If it works so great there is no need to take a huge step backwards to 584mm rim.
    Gettin after it on the WFO 9

    http://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/ge...-a-804846.html

    » Review: Niner Bikes WFO 9 29er - Sick Lines – mountain bike reviews, news, videos | Your comprehensive downhill and freeride mountain bike resource

    Christopher Sauser is agaisnt a compromise, he prefers 29ers
    Bigger Is Better | Cyclingnews.com

    http://forums.mtbr.com/9557059-post6.html
    maneuverability.. Kind of a wide open topic and if there's one thing I've learned about 29'ers is that there are a lot of different little things happening as a result of the wheels and overall geometry. That said, in general things happen a little more slowly. I find that I have to initiate turns a bit earlier (but still take the wide line due to WB), bunny hops take an extra 1/2 second, and so on. In the air, I found it not all that different than my DH bike, real easy transition. In general, I found that I could whip, slot, pump, manual, table, blah blah blah much like a 26er with just a bit of adjustment in technique and timing.

    Nino Shurter 650b lost to a 29er Epic of Kulhavy. It only prooves that taking a smaller wheel is a step back. 29er is much better than a 650b than a 650b than 26er.
    If 27,5 were so revolutionary, then 584mm rim would be magical and smoke both wheelsizes. It is just marketing shill, physics and mechanics stands behind the biggest possible wheel out there.
    Jaroslav Kulhavy Wins Mountain Bike Gold Medal 2012 London Olympics - YouTube

    All in all manufacturers must work more on new standards for 29ers like upsidedown riser bars, 29er specific gearing- sprockets, cassettes etc rather than work around it by using a similar wheel size to a known 559mm rim. I do not like the way 650b parts are cannibalizing 29er would-be projects, which would exist if 27,5er never came into existence.
    Last edited by Davidcopperfield; 09-12-2012 at 03:08 PM.

  196. #396
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4,293
    And then at the World Championships....

    Good job on a 2 year old thread resurrection.

    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield View Post
    Nino Shurter 650b lost to a 29er Epic of Kulhavy. It only prooves that taking a smaller wheel is a step back. 29er is much better than a 650b than a 650b than 26er.

  197. #397
    just some guy
    Reputation: talabardio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    532
    zombie thread, zombie troll

  198. #398
    Zaf
    Zaf is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Zaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    526
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield View Post
    Nino Shurter 650b lost to a 29er Epic of Kulhavy. It only prooves that taking a smaller wheel is a step back. 29er is much better than a 650b than a 650b than 26er.
    If 27,5 were so revolutionary, then 584mm rim would be magical and smoke both wheelsizes. It is just marketing shill, physics and mechanics stands behind the biggest possible wheel out there.
    Jaroslav Kulhavy Wins Mountain Bike Gold Medal 2012 London Olympics - YouTube
    How does that prove anything to do with the wheel size being inferior? Kulhavy's 29er didn't ride itself, and the guy's a giant and likely feels more comfortable on the larger wheelsize, and has the power to drive it.
    He rode a bike he was comfortable on, as did Schurter, and Schurter went on to win the World Cup and World Championships this year on the 650b.

    Choose your reasoning a little better, the rider's won those races a lot more then the bikes they rode.

  199. #399
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,651
    Why is Err, in that video about the WFO, even riding a 29er? That stuff he is doing would be better done a 26er. He's just doing a bunch of jumps. No rocks, roots, or steep technical stuff. I am all about the benefits of a 29er or 650b for that matter, but they have their purposes as does the 26er.

  200. #400
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,503
    This whole thread is idiotic because the dude who started it was on here a few weeks ago talking about building a 650b bike.
    2015 Niner Jet 9 Carbon
    2015 KHS Sixfifty Team
    2019 Salsa Warbird
    2019 Canyon Endurace
    1987 Haro RS1

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.