• 04-16-2008
    juansevo
    Why 650b is an ill conceived idea
    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."
  • 04-16-2008
    troll killer
    Oh, this should be good....
    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."


    My troll-senses are tingling.... the troll killer thinks he smells a troll.:nono:
    This should be an interesting thread.

    TK
  • 04-16-2008
    ohpossum


    op
  • 04-16-2008
    Hand/of/Midas
    i agree. 650b is stupid.
  • 04-16-2008
    CharacterZero
    What is the diameter of a 26r with a 2.4 big betty or 2.5 nevegal?
  • 04-16-2008
    themanmonkey
    I totally understand the shop inventory thing and agree 100%, but you're 100% wrong about the advantages the 650B can provide. The main problem is from a fit perspective 29er wheels are just too bid for most riders. I know lots of short folks on 29ers and they're all fit poorly or are compromised in some way. I'd also love to see a 30" road wheel for tall riders. When Georgina Terry came out with her 24" front wheel bikes in the '80s folks said she was crazy. All the folks that had their fit problems solved by this design said she was genius. Just because the size isn't applicable to you doesn't make it wrong.

    Also we must look at the 650B is not a new standard, it existed before 700c and (559) 26" tires I believe. It's also still a pretty standard size in Europe. Again just because a size isn't applicable to your region doesn't make it wrong. Personally I'm not convinced about the benefits of 650B beyond the sizing issue, but I am going to build a few frames for it to see if does have merit. One of my favorite old adages is, "Don't knock it 'till you try it." I tried 29ers for 15 years and went back to 26" because I felt that the benefits of the larger wheel size wasn't for me in the end. I do, however, understand why people would choose that size wheel.
  • 04-16-2008
    theodash
    I both agree and disagree. 650b was created by the French so is automatically suspect. By your logic, 26 and 29 are the johnny-come-latelies and should be eliminated as 650b combines the best of both. You don't like it? Don't buy it. The marketplace will determine the viability. You are entitled to your opinion. You are NOT entitled to force your opinion on anyone else. Thats MY opinion, and I'm not forcing it on anyone.
  • 04-16-2008
    derby
    It's just evolution. The fitter will survive.

    I predict in 10 years mountain bikes with 67.5 (650b front, 26 rear) wheels will be standard with optional 97.5 (29 front 27.5 rear). The larger front wheel has proven to work best off road for decades with motorcycles.

    After going to 67.5 and back to 26/26, 67.5 feels better balanced in handling and bump hit to me than 26/26. I've never been comfortable on 29 wheels but I see how they would rule for singlespeed use.
  • 04-16-2008
    fritzaholic
    I dunno, my GF is 5'0" tall, and races Expert SS, cat 3 road. She's getting warm to the idea of a 650 b/c she really can't run a 29er.
    I think the only thing that's gonna change is tire/ rim sizes...
  • 04-16-2008
    JonathanGennick
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by themanmonkey
    I totally understand the shop inventory thing and agree 100%, but you're 100% wrong about the advantages the 650B can provide. The main problem is from a fit perspective 29er wheels are just too bid for most riders. I know lots of short folks on 29ers and they're all fit poorly or are compromised in some way.

    I really should be working, but I want to dive in and respond to this. I agree with the above. Actually, to be more precise, I believe that both tire and frame size matter. I believe that for a given tire size, that there is a reasonable span of frame sizes that work well. Think of it as a "sweet zone" of sorts.

    When I was a kid, bikes were sized by tire size. As one grew up, one would move from 12" to 16" to 20" to 24" to 26" to 27" (this was back in the 1970s). Tire size drove frame size. For some reason, mountain-biking stopped at 26-inches. But given the size of many adults, I believe there is room for one or two more tire (wheel) sizes above 26.

    When my son was eight, I could have found a really small frame for him with 26-inch tires. Instead, I bought him a bike with 24-inch tires. The result was a combination of tire and frame size that suited him better. Today my son is on a bike with 26-inch tires. I'm sure I could go out and buy a small-sized 29er for him, but the 26-inch tire size seems a whole lot more suitable to his body size. He'll likely grow taller than I, and I can see him on a 29er in the future.

    I further believe that there's a lot of overlap in what a given tire size can accommodate. I can ride 26-inch tires comfortably, as well as 29er tires. (Haven't had a chance to try 650b yet). I could ride a 24-inch tire too, but I would not enjoy riding a 17-inch frame on 24-inch tires. Likewise, I can see where someone six feet or more tall would strongly prefer the 29er size.

    Do we need 650b in between 26 and 29? I keep an open mind. Frankly, if I could squeeze a slightly bigger tire diameter onto my 26-inch bike (an Enduro SL), I'd do it in a heartbeat.

    I look forward to someday trying out 650B. In the meantime, I remain strong in my belief that tire size matters as much as frame size. The two go hand-in-hand. For too long we've been stuck at 26 inches.
  • 04-16-2008
    themanmonkey
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fritzaholic
    I dunno, my GF is 5'0" tall, and races Expert SS, cat 3 road. She's getting warm to the idea of a 650 b/c she really can't run a 29er.
    I think the only thing that's gonna change is tire/ rim sizes...

    650C is an excellent tire size for smaller frames. As a general rule I won't build a frame with 700c wheels unless the toptube length is at least 50cm c-to-c. In the past geometry would get all messed up to trying to fit 700C wheels and short toptubes and that's not the way to go. I've also built a few small MTB frames that use 24" wheels that worked great for smaller wheels. I use a regular 26" sus. fork and a disc brake and it helped smaller riders get fit like they've never had before. If you want some more input on smaller frames for women drop a line on Margo Cronover at Luna Cycles.
  • 04-16-2008
    scottzg
    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."

    :thumbsup:

    15mm thru axle is also stupid.
  • 04-16-2008
    juansevo
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by theodash
    I both agree and disagree. 650b was created by the French so is automatically suspect. By your logic, 26 and 29 are the johnny-come-latelies and should be eliminated as 650b combines the best of both. You don't like it? Don't buy it. The marketplace will determine the viability. You are entitled to your opinion. You are NOT entitled to force your opinion on anyone else. Thats MY opinion, and I'm not forcing it on anyone.

    Actually its not opinion it's fact. 20 years of industry experience too. 650b could have been the perfect solution had it been utilized to begin with....but it wasn't. And now there are two STANDARDS in mountain bike tires for adults. 650b solves nothing,

    You also aren't following the logic I'm employing, it's not about who was first it's about what is established. 650b may have existed already but it's hardly a standard of any sort unless you are buying a commuter in France. Also, 1" was first but if you re-read my post you'll see I voted for 1 1/8" because it solved a problem (fork race standardization) and one I forgot to mention is strength/longevity over 1".

    I will state though it's a brilliant marketing ploy by Pacenti it's gotten a relatively unknown young industry guy in the spotlike and I think he's brilliant for that. I'd really like to meet him. Plus I think his lugs are beautiful. And well beauty rules over all! :)
  • 04-16-2008
    theodash
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by juansevo
    You also aren't following the logic I'm employing, it's not about who was first it's about what is established. 650b may have existed already but it's hardly a standard of any sort unless you are buying a commuter in France.

    Not to pick nits, but I would venture to say that a tremendous amount of 650b equipment is sold worldwide. Its very popular in India and Brazil. Just because its not as popular in the USA does not make it unestablished and unstandard. If one looks at the history of cycling, there have always been ebbs and flows of particular wheel standards. Because we are not privy to worldwide comprehensive sales info about sales of any particular size, we will probably never know the sales of each particular size. My guess is that more money is made with the 26" size just because the US market is the most robust, with higher profit margins. I don't see how sales of one size over another dilutes the market in any way. It just makes the total market bigger. Variety IS the spice of life.

    I would agree 100% about your opinion of Pacenti.
  • 04-16-2008
    juansevo
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by theodash
    Not to pick nits, but I would venture to say that a tremendous amount of 650b equipment is sold worldwide. Its very popular in India and Brazil. Just because its not as popular in the USA does not make it unestablished and unstandard. If one looks at the history of cycling, there have always been ebbs and flows of particular wheel standards. Because we are not privy to worldwide comprehensive sales info about sales of any particular size, we will probably never know the sales of each particular size. My guess is that more money is made with the 26" size just because the US market is the most robust, with higher profit margins. I don't see how sales of one size over another dilutes the market in any way. It just makes the total market bigger. Variety IS the spice of life.

    I would agree 100% about your opinion of Pacenti.

    Actually that argument is null. Keep in mind that 650b while popular in Brazil and India, we're talking department store level bikes if event that. In short, junk. It's not the kind of rims/tires/frames/forks we'll be using on performance orientated bikes.

    Also in the last 30 years we've seen really two sizes for adult bikes hold fast....700c (29ers use the same rim specs) and 26". We also have 650c but that I'll say has merit for smaller riders. We saw (thank God) the deaths of that weird Schwinn specific tire (think it was a weird 26" size can't remember details just that it was lame) and 27". This has been a God send for bike shops across the country. Fewer tubes/rims/tires to stock as these two sizes took hold.

    Once again, 650b really does not solve anything. Would it have been good if mtb's started with 650b? Yes because then we could have one wheel size vs the two we have which would be a great deal for shops and manufacturers. But we didn't and changing things in the next 10 years ain't going to happen.

    Afterall....look at how long our derailer systems (very ancient when you think about it) have lasted? Well over 100 years. But then again....they work.
  • 04-16-2008
    TNC
    Tire weight?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by CharacterZero
    What is the diameter of a 26r with a 2.4 big betty or 2.5 nevegal?

    I don't know much about the Big Betty, but the last 2.5 Neval I looked at was very heavy...and I don't think it was nearly as tall as the NeoMoto. The NeoMoto is just a tiny bit taller than a Michelin 2.8 DH32 which is a huge, tall tire. I kind of doubt the Big Betty is as tall as that Nevegal. A NeoMoto weighs about 725g and is an excellent AM, gnarly trail tire. Most people who ride trail and general AM type stuff don't want 2.5-3.0 tires on their bikes. I've done it. I want the tallest tire I can stick in equipment that is in relative existence now...especially the front. My Nomad has a 160mm AM fork with a 650B, and it is a worthy advantage. I'm fixing to make one of my trail Bullits into 650B on the front and back to see how a whole 650B package works. The beauty?...they won't weigh any appreciable difference than what they weigh right now with 6.5" in the front and 6.5" in the back. Try that with a 29'er. The 29'er is a great concept, but it has its limitations. This is where 650B will allow one to get the tallest, lightest wheel/tire setup into a more conventional bike without upsetting the applecart of geometry and long travel.
  • 04-16-2008
    NoahColorado
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by scottzg
    :thumbsup:

    15mm thru axle is also stupid.

    I'm with ya on that! Especially when lighter 20mm axles are being developed. Then there are the 24mm and 25mm axles.....grrreat!
  • 04-16-2008
    swift
    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."


    This thread is ill conceived.

    Do you tell your neighbor that Hondas suck because you drive a Toyota?

    If you don't like the standard, vote with your dollars and buy something else. There are plenty of folks out there that may be interested in a large wheeled bike but are not of the stature to entertain the thought of a 29er. There are others that want long travel suspension but can't make the frame geometry fit a 29" wheel. Still other people out there actually eat blue cheese. Who the heck are we to determine what someone else should or shouldn't buy? If you want some influence over someone's product choices, don't go hatin' on others (Kirk) for what they're contributing to the cycling world, get creative and bring some of your own ideas to market. End rant.
  • 04-16-2008
    ATBScott
    I agree and disagree also... I think that there may be a place for the 650B, for a bigger wheel for smaller riders, and also from an industry side, think that the requirement for additional inventory of tires, tubes, rims, spokes, etc... creates more complexity and expense. On the note of derailleurs, the "modern" style derailleurs that we use now are based on a design from the early 1950's - Campagnolo's parallelogram design - while the other mechanisms DID move the chain from one cog to another, they were clumsy, rod-actuated mechanisms that usually only supported two cogs - but they were invented in 1905, so the idea is over 100 years old! We'll have to vote with our wallets - but I do think that the trend will be to stick with 559 and 622 rims. Smaller riders, ride 26" - bigger riders, or those who want a larger wheel, go with wagon wheels. I do have to say that I like the 29'er, and don't feel much difference between a 650B and 26" - a little, but not enough to buy a new bike! Just my .02
  • 04-16-2008
    TNC
    Well, I notice Juan is apparently a 29'er owner. And while most 29'er folk are logical and rational about their choice and the choices of others, obviously juan is one of those "holier than thou" 29'er folks who knows what's best for all of us. I'm glad someone like Juan wasn't in charge of the consideration of the 29'er concept for real mountainbiking when it was breaking onto the scene. In the stone age, a guy like Juan was one of those fellows sitting at the cave entrance when the first wheel rolled by and said, "Blah...it'll never work!" Thanks Juan...we appreciate your input...not!...LOL!
  • 04-16-2008
    Cracked Headtube
    I'm taking my wheels and going home.
  • 04-16-2008
    AllRounder
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by juansevo
    You also aren't following the logic I'm employing . . .

    You can keep your logic, I'll keep my 650B Neo Motos. To rip off Oliver Wendell Holmes, "The life of the mountain biking has not been logic, it has been experience." I've been riding my 650B Surly 1x1 for a few months now and absolutely love it. The wheel size really hits a sweet spot and it is here to stay. And this is from a 6 ft guy who has owned three 29ers over the past 6 years and seven 26 inch wheeled bikes over the past eighteen years. (I've been riding 29ers long enough to remember when the sailboat people were pissed about our use of term "29er.") My Sycip 650B will be in the works soon.

    Yes, my experience is that my 650B rides better than my IF 29er when it comes to railing on tight singletrack and clearing trail obstacles. Until you have a few hours on some Neo Motos, your "logic" will just amount to uninformed opinion.
  • 04-16-2008
    reformed roadie
    Another 2 cents...what do we have, about a buck twenty now...
    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."


    How long did it take for the 29er trend to take hold? The answer is much longer than the 650B (relatively speaking). But that is not important.

    I am taking your point to be that 29er wheels are for the most part superior to 26", and that two wheels sizes are plenty. Speaking to the mechanics at my LBS, one actually said "great, another standard".

    There is a significant difference between the ridiculous number of seat post diameters or BCDs - they really have no bearing on performance.
    Will carrying 650B tires/tubes/rims cause bike shops any more of pain than 135BCD chainrings for their clients on Campy cranks? I doubt it.

    What matters is the optimum wheel size for the a given frame geometry that fits the individual.
    Clearly, shorter individuals are going to have problems with 29ers.
    Even for average to tall rider, some of the 'solutions' for full-suspension 29ers are 150mm rear hubs and 83mm bottom brackets...talk about increasing the number of standards...

    Unlike 1 1/4" headsets, 650B is a pre-existing size, albeit a bit obscure in the US. Gary Fisher didn't make up a new size for his 29ers, he took it from the road bikes on the other side of the shop (I know Gary Fisher did not initiate the 29" mountain bike, but is arguable the most high profile proponent of the size).
    Was that the ideal size? Or was it the best / least compromises from what was available?
    Or the easiest to adapt? (Hey why not 28" or 30"?)

    Kirk has done the same with the 650B.
    The beauty of the 650B size is that it requires little adaptation from existing frame designs...hell, it even fits many existing forks.
    I can order a front wheel and slide it right into my Fox float and have the rolling and traction advantage with a very slight weight increase. Geometry is almost intact.

    It remains to be seen how far it will go. It may go the way of the browning electric front shifter...or it may become the new standard. Kind of the way the guy at Niner is predicting 29" wheels will be THE mountain standard. Where do I place mywager on that one?
  • 04-16-2008
    ~martini~
    Juansevo - there's a flaw in your OP. While it may SEEM like there is an established industry standard - there is evidence of the industry actually moving away from such things. Case in point:
    FSA and the BB 30
    Trek [namely] and the 11/8 top 1 heasets
    The whole square taper/octalink/isis/external BB thing.
    There is still a large variety of post sizes out there. 27.2 and 31.6 being the most popular.
    Two styles of integrated headsets.
    'Compact road' and standard road cranks.

    I don't think 650b will go the way of the dodo. I think it will thrive, maybe not on the scale of 29", but it'll be around for a good while. As a shop owner, I don't mind having the option there if some one asks the question. I'm probably not going to stock tires on a regular basis, but as long as I know the option is there, its my job to know about it.
  • 04-17-2008
    SteveF
    Funny, I can remember exactly this sort of debate happening among road riders when Rivendell introduced the Saluki. Some folks really take "new," standards personally!

    For me, and I can't really say why, this idea just really clicked the moment I read about it, and I pre-ordered a Saluki from the very first batch. In fact, I worked with Grant on picking a color for it and he so liked the butterscotch/caramel color that we eventually hit upon that it became one of the standard colors for the model in future runs. (but mine was the first one, durn it!)

    I like this wheelsize because it's a proportional fit--on a 54cm road frame like mine, it looks very nice with fat tires. A 37mm wide, 650b tire looks perfectly fine, whereas a 700c tire in that size looks huge and hybrid-ey. And tires this wide are so versatile and fun! I can roll easily over the cracked and potholed pavement we enjoy here in Michigan, fly down dirt roads, sail along hardpacked trails--it's a blast having a versatile bike! Plus no toe-clip overlap like I have with many 700c road bikes in my size.

    Proportional fit is really the key here. Twenty four inch for tiny bikes, 26" up to say 15-16", 650b up through say 20", and 29 beyond that. This would cause lots fewer geometry compromises trying to fit huge tires on small frames or visa versa.

    Twentysix inch wheels really only happened accidently for mountain bikes--it was the size that was most available at the time dirt riding was catching on. In fact, 650b mountain bikes were offered in the early-mid 80's; Schwinn and Raleigh both had several. My ex-wife and I owned a couple, a matched set (isn't that cute?) of '84 Schwinn Miradas. Don't know about hers, but mine's still being ridden and enjoyed as a townie by a friend.

    This size is just going to click and make sense for some people. Others not so much. I personally wouldn't buy a 29er in my size--they just don't look right to me (no offense to those who love 'em) But I like the idea of a larger wheel that allegedly rolls easier over obstructions. I've been pretty happy on a 26" mtb (I ride a 16-17" frame) and a 700c road bikes for the 15 or so years I've been riding, but I love my 650b road bike, and I want a 650b mountain bike, and if I had to choose today just one size for all my riding, 650b would "b" it! B-)
  • 04-17-2008
    ssmike
    I notice the words "new" and "standard" being tossed around a bit as a way to discount 650B. I don't think anyone can argue that 650B is already a standard sized wheel. Applying this size to a mountain bike is relatively new (however, if the Russian military hadn't snapped up an entire year's production of 650B tires and Ukai not come out with an aluminum 26" rime, we might all be on 650B and not even having this conversation).

    I'm not sure where the obvious dislike of 650B is coming from (what did it ever do to you juansevo?), but it does have benefits that have been expounded upon in other areas of this forum.

    The way I look at it, it is not a "new standard," but rather a NEW OPTION for riders to choose from. The argument that it means a shop now has to stock more tires and rims fails in light of the fact that there are an incredible multitude of: seat post sizes, bottom bracket/crank interfaces, crank lengths, tire configurations (26" alone has folding bead, wire bead, 1.5, 1.95, 2.0, 2.1, 2.25, 2.35, 2.5, 2.7...), headset (internal, integrated, tapered, 1", 1 1/8"), handlebar diameters, stem lengths, handlebar rises, handlebar sweeps, handlebar widths, clipless pedals, shifting systems, brake systems...

    It's just an option.
  • 04-17-2008
    TNC
    I don't know, mike...there's way too much logic in yours and other's posts about options to probably convince juan of anything. While indeed there have been some silly attempts at the "next great thing" for mountainbiking over the years, where in the heck would we be if such attempts were stymied by curmudgeon style philosophy? Some come to mind right off the top of my head...

    Turn 700C road wheels into something useful for MTB'ing? What are you smoking?

    6" travel 34lb mountainbikes for trail riding? Do you want a hernia?

    Full suspension bikes for hardcore XC racing? Are you some kind of sissy?

    You think anyone will actually want to ride a rigid, SS mountainbike? Why do you think God and Gary Fisher invented gears?

    The list goes on, but you get my drift.
  • 04-17-2008
    yogiprophet
    Yea, what the hell is this talk of "standard" anyway? There is no damn standard! This industry is about innovation and options.

    If I were to ride a hardtail (not in this lifetime) it would be a full 29er. Otherwise, I agree with Derby about having a bigger wheel up front. It works for me and from a physics standpoint (taking into consideration all the factors involved in mountain bikes/biking), it makes the most sense.
    After 13 years of riding mountain bikes, the 650b/Neo-moto is just one more big jump in my enjoyment....another step towards perfecting the mountain bike. I am at the point of bliss now when I jump on my bicycle. What is the logic in bashing that?

    Judging what you don't understand or cannot grasp....it's time for humans to evolve now - don't you think....because thinking too much is not a good thing ;)
  • 04-17-2008
    juansevo
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by themanmonkey
    I totally understand the shop inventory thing and agree 100%, but you're 100% wrong about the advantages the 650B can provide. The main problem is from a fit perspective 29er wheels are just too bid for most riders. I know lots of short folks on 29ers and they're all fit poorly or are compromised in some way. I'd also love to see a 30" road wheel for tall riders. When Georgina Terry came out with her 24" front wheel bikes in the '80s folks said she was crazy. All the folks that had their fit problems solved by this design said she was genius. Just because the size isn't applicable to you doesn't make it wrong.

    Also we must look at the 650B is not a new standard, it existed before 700c and (559) 26" tires I believe. It's also still a pretty standard size in Europe. Again just because a size isn't applicable to your region doesn't make it wrong. Personally I'm not convinced about the benefits of 650B beyond the sizing issue, but I am going to build a few frames for it to see if does have merit. One of my favorite old adages is, "Don't knock it 'till you try it." I tried 29ers for 15 years and went back to 26" because I felt that the benefits of the larger wheel size wasn't for me in the end. I do, however, understand why people would choose that size wheel.


    Fit? It doesn't do anything more for small people than the lighter 26" wheel can't do (of which you have 100's of tire/rim/wheel options) and on the other end a 29er wheel does it better for big people. There is not a significant size difference between 26 and 29 to warrant it.
  • 04-17-2008
    juansevo
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TNC
    Well, I notice Juan is apparently a 29'er owner. And while most 29'er folk are logical and rational about their choice and the choices of others, obviously juan is one of those "holier than thou" 29'er folks who knows what's best for all of us. I'm glad someone like Juan wasn't in charge of the consideration of the 29'er concept for real mountainbiking when it was breaking onto the scene. In the stone age, a guy like Juan was one of those fellows sitting at the cave entrance when the first wheel rolled by and said, "Blah...it'll never work!" Thanks Juan...we appreciate your input...not!...LOL!

    I actually own a 29er and a 69er. I like 29ers because they fit me. Likewise 26" wheel bikes make sense for smaller people which 29ers don't offer as much an advantage for or frame sizing will be compromised. Oh and I was for 29ers from the get go it made sense because it offered a significant advantage over 26" wheels for taller folks. I was testing full suspension designs before you even started riding in '95. By then I'd been riding 6 years and had tried carbon, aluminum, steel, and ti frames as well as Aermet (see who remembers that).

    So far no one has offered a real reason 650b should go on. Its' all for the sake of having something different with no rational reason for doing so. FYI I hear Pacenti is starting a colony for 650b lovers in Latin America. Don't forget to drink the Kool Aid when he hands it out TNC. ;-)
  • 04-17-2008
    juansevo
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by reformed roadie
    How long did it take for the 29er trend to take hold? The answer is much longer than the 650B (relatively speaking). But that is not important.

    I am taking your point to be that 29er wheels are for the most part superior to 26", and that two wheels sizes are plenty. Speaking to the mechanics at my LBS, one actually said "great, another standard".

    There is a significant difference between the ridiculous number of seat post diameters or BCDs - they really have no bearing on performance.
    Will carrying 650B tires/tubes/rims cause bike shops any more of pain than 135BCD chainrings for their clients on Campy cranks? I doubt it.

    What matters is the optimum wheel size for the a given frame geometry that fits the individual.
    Clearly, shorter individuals are going to have problems with 29ers.
    Even for average to tall rider, some of the 'solutions' for full-suspension 29ers are 150mm rear hubs and 83mm bottom brackets...talk about increasing the number of standards...

    Unlike 1 1/4" headsets, 650B is a pre-existing size, albeit a bit obscure in the US. Gary Fisher didn't make up a new size for his 29ers, he took it from the road bikes on the other side of the shop (I know Gary Fisher did not initiate the 29" mountain bike, but is arguable the most high profile proponent of the size).
    Was that the ideal size? Or was it the best / least compromises from what was available?
    Or the easiest to adapt? (Hey why not 28" or 30"?)

    Kirk has done the same with the 650B.
    The beauty of the 650B size is that it requires little adaptation from existing frame designs...hell, it even fits many existing forks.
    I can order a front wheel and slide it right into my Fox float and have the rolling and traction advantage with a very slight weight increase. Geometry is almost intact.

    It remains to be seen how far it will go. It may go the way of the browning electric front shifter...or it may become the new standard. Kind of the way the guy at Niner is predicting 29" wheels will be THE mountain standard. Where do I place mywager on that one?

    29er wheels are only superior to 26" if they fit your riding and your size.

    I'll disagree with the guy at Niner about 29" wheels becoming "THE" standard. While I love mine it's not as strong as a 26" wheel without adding significant weight. That said, for downhill, dual slalom, free riding you'll have a very hard time convincing me 29er is the way to go no matter what size you are. Also I don't see it being the best choice for tandems. And last, I think trying to squeeze short people into 29ers is silly.

    I also kinda like my 69er SS but will probably switch to a 29er one simply for simplicities sake (less tires and only the need to have one spare tube for all bikes in the Camelback).

    And once again, IF 650b had started it all there would be no real reason to go to 26" or 29er...but it didn't. I want World Peace and Free beer for all and one wheel size would be better than two....but 2 is better than 3.

    Kirk Pacenti overall I admire to. I think his other innovations are great and would be excited to see what he can do for suspension design or other areas of bikes. I'm just not keen on 650b though I think even if it dies it'll forever put him on the map which I think he is a genius for. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the big companies picks him up to do R&D for other things.
  • 04-17-2008
    ohpossum
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by juansevo

    So far no one has offered a real reason 650b should go on. Its' all for the sake of having something different with no rational reason for doing so.

    Ok, here ya go, but pay attention..

    The moment of inertia of a ring rotating about its Z axis (as in a wheel rotating on it's axle), is calculated as MR^2. M is the mass of the ring and R is the radius of the ring.

    For a Stan's 26" ZTR rim (lets say its 365g), I (the moment of inertia) is 0.365*(540/2)^2 = 26608 kgm^2.

    For a Stans 650b ZTR rim (lets say its 380g), I = 0.380(564/2)^2 = 29026kgm^2

    The Kinetic Energy of a rotating object is .5*I*w^2, where w is the angular velocity of the object. For a given angular velocity, the Kinetic Energy of a 650b rim will be 1209 J more than the KE of a 26er rim.

    The analogy can be extended to whole wheels if the hubs, spokes and tires have similar weights between both 26er and 650b.

    In overly simplistic terms, when striking an object on the trail, the object exerts a force against the wheel. The magnitude and duration of this force attempts to reduce the KE of the moving wheel. If the force and duration is sufficient it will reduce the KE of the wheel to zero and the wheel will no longer be rotating. (= bad)

    For the same object, a 650b wheel will have more Kinetic Energy to start with, such that the reduction in KE will result in more Kinetic Energy after object strike when compared to a 26er wheel.

    That is why larger wheels "flow" over obstacles.

    To truly maximize this, the wheel could be made larger (29" or greater) or heavier. Since I goes up with the square of the radius, a small change in the size of the wheel can have a significant affect. That is a much better solution than creating a heavy wheel that hinders climbing.

    But, we have other factors to worry about, such as wheelbase, head-tube angle, chainstay length, etc. Also, the design of full suspension bikes require quite a lot of hardware to be placed within the confines of the frame.

    650b, at its core, is a compromise. The larger wheel size results in greater KE of the rotating wheel which makes it feel to "flow" better. At the same time, frame manufacturers don't need to spend 6 months working on a 650b design. The changes needed to fit the wheel in the frame are negligible. Lastly, it is a known standard of wheel size, regardless of where/when/how it is used in the world today.

    Bicycle frames are all about compromise, thats why this is no "one-size-fits-all" solution for anything. The 650b wheel brings to the table all the current benefits of full suspension designs with the added KE benefits of its size. Seems like a win-win situation for me..

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by juansevo
    FYI I hear Pacenti is starting a colony for 650b lovers in Latin America. Don't forget to drink the Kool Aid when he hands it out TNC. ;-)

    I can only speak for myself Juan, and I don't know you from anyone, but its stuff like this that sinks whatever argument you had down the can..

    You can rail against "another standard", or say that there are no "real" differences between 26 and 650b to make it worthwhile (despite what the math says), but when you turned the corner to attack one individual, you left all your credibility behind.

    So, thats plenty enough time I've spent on this..

    op
  • 04-17-2008
    laffeaux
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by juansevo
    So far no one has offered a real reason 650b should go on. Its' all for the sake of having something different with no rational reason for doing so. FYI I hear Pacenti is starting a colony for 650b lovers in Latin America. Don't forget to drink the Kool Aid when he hands it out TNC. ;-)

    You have spent to much time on the 29er form if you think that this is rational. There is no "kool aid," there are just bikes. If you don't like the 650b size, that's fine. Don't buy one.

    I don't particularly like handlebars with a lot of sweep. They don't work for me. But I understand that for some people they work great. I don't complain that shops need to stock handlebars like this, even though from my perspective they are inherently inferior. Who cares? Let people ride what they want.

    I curently own more than one 26" bike, and have ridden a lot of 26ers over the years. I currently own two 29ers, and I'm happy with both. However, even though I'm 6'1", there are some compromises with the 29er that I think can be solved with a 650b. I'm having a custom 650b bike made that I hope rides as well as my rigid 29er, but avoids some of the pitfalls. After I get that bike, I do not expect that I will stop riding my 26" bikes, or my 29er bikes. Why would I?

    Your original post and your most recent one, make you sound like a zealot: "do it my way or you're wrong." Whatever... choices are good.

    And as far as bike shops stocking 650b components... Currently nearly every time I stop by a bike shop I get, "No, we don't stock that, but we can order it and have it next week." 650b is no different. QBP will need to offer more products, but bike shops are still going to sell whatever particular components the local market regularly asks for.
  • 04-17-2008
    mtnbiker4life
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ohpossum
    Ok, here ya go, but pay attention..

    The moment of inertia of a ring rotating about its Z axis (as in a wheel rotating on it's axle), is calculated as MR^2. M is the mass of the ring and R is the radius of the ring.

    For a Stan's 26" ZTR rim (lets say its 365g), I (the moment of inertia) is 0.365*(540/2)^2 = 26608 kgm^2.

    For a Stans 650b ZTR rim (lets say its 380g), I = 0.380(564/2)^2 = 29026kgm^2

    The Kinetic Energy of a rotating object is .5*I*w^2, where w is the angular velocity of the object. For a given angular velocity, the Kinetic Energy of a 650b rim will be 1209 J more than the KE of a 26er rim.

    The analogy can be extended to whole wheels if the hubs, spokes and tires have similar weights between both 26er and 650b.

    In overly simplistic terms, when striking an object on the trail, the object exerts a force against the wheel. The magnitude and duration of this force attempts to reduce the KE of the moving wheel. If the force and duration is sufficient it will reduce the KE of the wheel to zero and the wheel will no longer be rotating. (= bad)

    For the same object, a 650b wheel will have more Kinetic Energy to start with, such that the reduction in KE will result in more Kinetic Energy after object strike when compared to a 26er wheel.

    That is why larger wheels "flow" over obstacles.

    To truly maximize this, the wheel could be made larger (29" or greater) or heavier. Since I goes up with the square of the radius, a small change in the size of the wheel can have a significant affect. That is a much better solution than creating a heavy wheel that hinders climbing.

    But, we have other factors to worry about, such as wheelbase, head-tube angle, chainstay length, etc. Also, the design of full suspension bikes require quite a lot of hardware to be placed within the confines of the frame.

    650b, at its core, is a compromise. The larger wheel size results in greater KE of the rotating wheel which makes it feel to "flow" better. At the same time, frame manufacturers don't need to spend 6 months working on a 650b design. The changes needed to fit the wheel in the frame are negligible. Lastly, it is a known standard of wheel size, regardless of where/when/how it is used in the world today.

    Bicycle frames are all about compromise, thats why this is no "one-size-fits-all" solution for anything. The 650b wheel brings to the table all the current benefits of full suspension designs with the added KE benefits of its size. Seems like a win-win situation for me..



    I can only speak for myself Juan, and I don't know you from anyone, but its stuff like this that sinks whatever argument you had down the can..

    You can rail against "another standard", or say that there are no "real" differences between 26 and 650b to make it worthwhile (despite what the math says), but when you turned the corner to attack one individual, you left all your credibility behind.

    So, thats plenty enough time I've spent on this..

    op

    A well put together explaination on physics of a bicycle wheel. Albeit, larger wheels have greater KE to enhance the trail "flow" over a 26er. But that KE has to be purchased somewhere and it's down point is increased rider effort to spin those big wheels up to speed.

    The bottom line is every design has compromises and every rider has different needs....so the combinations are endless.
  • 04-17-2008
    NEPMTBA
    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:

    It's your "OP" and what others ride is having the handlebars in their hands Don't like'em Don't ride'em. It's not like 650B police came and took your rides away and left a 650B to ride!

    Do you own a shop? If you don't then stop worrying about them stocking stuff. If you do then you'll have to be a smart businessman and attend to the sales of the new innovation! I don't care if your bike has 26 inch tires mine doesn't and I'm going riding and I'm buying a 650B just because you don't like them so there.......:prft:

    Now leave me alone I have to go change the "TRAILS" to accommodate 650B riders... jeeze after getting done fixing them for 29ers now I gotta change them again!

    Just mess'in with ya! Ride man ride!:thumbsup:
  • 04-17-2008
    MichauxYeti
    FWIW, 650B would be perfect in my neck of the woods. We have tight technical trails with lots of rock gardens. Most riders currently are on hardtail 29ers or FS 26ers. I suspect the perfect trail and race bike on local stuff would be a 3-4" travel bike with 650B wheels. Now if only Yeti would build it!
  • 04-17-2008
    MW
    Was just reading this on Walt's blog last night: http://waltworks.blogspot.com/2008/0...-thoughts.html

    Seems appropriate to the discussion.

    Couple other thoughts . . .

    1) If 650b lets some folks enjoy the benefits of a larger wheel who cannot be fit on a 29er without significant compromises (standover, bar height, toe overlap, etc.) . . . this is goodness.

    2) If 650b opens the door for longer-travel bikes that -also- enjoy some benefits of a larger wheel . . . this is goodness, too.

    3) The market--not the opinions / rants of folks on these forums--will determine whether 650b takes off. If the market supports 650b, and if we see a proliferation of 650b rims, wheels, forks, frames, and riders . . . this is still more goodness.

    4) 26in is still the dominant standard, largely because it was here (on the MTB scene) first and has proven itself viable for a broad range of mountain-bike applications. However, the fact that 26in was first (for MTBs), and the fact that it's still the most deeply-entrenched MTB wheel format can in no way represent an argument against 650b or any other wheel format. That'd be like saying we should never have adopted disc brakes, because 12 years ago we didn't have frames with disc tabs/posts or hubs with rotor mounts . . . but we did have a plethora of v-brake/cantilever options. Analogies suck as a form of argument, but the point should be clear: "accepted" standards can, do, and should evolve. Again (say it with me now): this is goodness.

    For whatever it's worth, I'm not personally looking to go 650b any time soon. I'm stoked with my 26in mountain bikes, and I'm tall enough to ride 29in without making frame / fit compromises if I ever wanted to go that route. But I get that 650b may make a -lot- of sense for some people right now, and I get that 650b may create some new opportunities for riders and manufacturers across our sport . . . so I really struggle to understand the anti-650b pushback.

    --MW
  • 04-17-2008
    themanmonkey
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by juansevo
    Fit? It doesn't do anything more for small people than the lighter 26" wheel can't do (of which you have 100's of tire/rim/wheel options) and on the other end a 29er wheel does it better for big people. There is not a significant size difference between 26 and 29 to warrant it.


    Bucko you really don't know what's going on in this game do you? I've been fitting people on bikes for about 2 decades, and been riding for about another decade beyond that, and can say with 100% confidence that you don't have any idea what you're talking about. I'm also officially going to call troll.
  • 04-17-2008
    juansevo
    So why did you leave out the comparison to a 29er? Could you please show those numbers considering all? Thanks.

    I hardly consider that an attack BTW. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen I say. :-)

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ohpossum
    Ok, here ya go, but pay attention..

    The moment of inertia of a ring rotating about its Z axis (as in a wheel rotating on it's axle), is calculated as MR^2. M is the mass of the ring and R is the radius of the ring.

    For a Stan's 26" ZTR rim (lets say its 365g), I (the moment of inertia) is 0.365*(540/2)^2 = 26608 kgm^2.

    For a Stans 650b ZTR rim (lets say its 380g), I = 0.380(564/2)^2 = 29026kgm^2

    The Kinetic Energy of a rotating object is .5*I*w^2, where w is the angular velocity of the object. For a given angular velocity, the Kinetic Energy of a 650b rim will be 1209 J more than the KE of a 26er rim.

    The analogy can be extended to whole wheels if the hubs, spokes and tires have similar weights between both 26er and 650b.

    In overly simplistic terms, when striking an object on the trail, the object exerts a force against the wheel. The magnitude and duration of this force attempts to reduce the KE of the moving wheel. If the force and duration is sufficient it will reduce the KE of the wheel to zero and the wheel will no longer be rotating. (= bad)

    For the same object, a 650b wheel will have more Kinetic Energy to start with, such that the reduction in KE will result in more Kinetic Energy after object strike when compared to a 26er wheel.

    That is why larger wheels "flow" over obstacles.

    To truly maximize this, the wheel could be made larger (29" or greater) or heavier. Since I goes up with the square of the radius, a small change in the size of the wheel can have a significant affect. That is a much better solution than creating a heavy wheel that hinders climbing.

    But, we have other factors to worry about, such as wheelbase, head-tube angle, chainstay length, etc. Also, the design of full suspension bikes require quite a lot of hardware to be placed within the confines of the frame.

    650b, at its core, is a compromise. The larger wheel size results in greater KE of the rotating wheel which makes it feel to "flow" better. At the same time, frame manufacturers don't need to spend 6 months working on a 650b design. The changes needed to fit the wheel in the frame are negligible. Lastly, it is a known standard of wheel size, regardless of where/when/how it is used in the world today.

    Bicycle frames are all about compromise, thats why this is no "one-size-fits-all" solution for anything. The 650b wheel brings to the table all the current benefits of full suspension designs with the added KE benefits of its size. Seems like a win-win situation for me..



    I can only speak for myself Juan, and I don't know you from anyone, but its stuff like this that sinks whatever argument you had down the can..

    You can rail against "another standard", or say that there are no "real" differences between 26 and 650b to make it worthwhile (despite what the math says), but when you turned the corner to attack one individual, you left all your credibility behind.

    So, thats plenty enough time I've spent on this..

    op

  • 04-17-2008
    TNC
    Very well put, MW. You were more patient than I was. I guess my troll alarm was ringing too loudly.
  • 04-17-2008
    TNC
    Juan, I've looked at your various responses on the 650B concept and the other wheel sizes along with some other interesting comments. I kind of chuckled at your assessment of your vast wealth of knowledge over my meager neophyte experience...LOL! I guess 13 years of serious bike riding, repairing, and modifying isn't as much as your 19, but maybe quality is sometimes superior to quantity. What was the problem? Were you a slow learner? I notice you said you were "testing" bicycle full suspension designs before I started riding in '95. You're right. For the 25 years before that I was riding, working on, and modifying dirt motorcycles...and that's where pretty much most of our bicycle suspension technology originated. In fact those bicycle suspensions you were testing during that period were pretty pathetic examples of high tech for the most part, so I don't know how much bragging I'd be doing on that. Between motorcycle shops and bike shops, I've put in about 20 years of employment in both...and that on top of a regular full-time career in another profession. Well, enough of personal crowing about our big heads and obviously superior wealth of knowledge.

    I notice you indicated that you don't believe the 29'er concept will take over the DH, FR, slalom, etc. categories. Finally...an area that we agree on. And like you, I dont say that as a slam to the 29'er...just an assessment based on mechanical and physical constraints of the 29'er...though time and technology could change that too. And I throw that last caveat out there because things can change...including wheel sizes. Bicycles have evolved to a degree that the sweeping technological advantages may not be coming as quickly. I'd say that every advantage that can be squeezed out of a design or component issue should be pursued. Since 650B is taller than a 26 but not so tall as to require dramatic design and geometry changes, then why wouldn't I want to incorporate it onto my bike. I quickly saw the advantage of the 29'er front wheel, though for reasons that I've mentioned frequently, the full 29'er didn't work for me personally. I liked the 69'er ML8 that we built at the shop but couldn't quite warm up to the reduced fork travel. So instead of drinking Kool-Aid, I decided to get the most of everything that I possibly could...the tallest wheel possible while retaining the long travel fork that works so well on my Nomad. Drinking Kool-Aid?...I see some logic in my decision and not change for change's sake. And back to your DH, FR, slalom, 4X4, etc assessment?...this sounds like the perfect place for an option to 26".

    One of your comments actually did make me laugh..."beauty rules overall"??? I would hope that was a joke. While beauty is somewhat important, I'll take function over form every time. To do otherwise requires drinking Kool-Aid.
  • 04-17-2008
    Clutchman83
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by juansevo
    So why did you leave out the comparison to a 29er? Could you please show those numbers considering all? Thanks.

    I hardly consider that an attack BTW. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen I say. :-)

    I think you missed the point of the post. The argument so far for 650B has been that it offers benefits similar to 29er wheels but without having to buy 29er specific equipment. Everybody understands the benefits of 29er wheels and the benefits of a 26" wheel. 650B is something that 26" guys can take advantage of without having to buy a 29er compatible bike. To compare 650B to 29" wheels wouldn't have made sense regarding this discussion.
  • 04-17-2008
    mofoki
    I'd like to add my .02 cents to this. I'm for the the 27.5" wheels. Ventana will be building me a bike to fit the wheels in two months ( as soon as the come back from Spain). I've always felt, because of my size, 26" wheels were to small and sketchy and I've tried a couple of rides on 29r's and don't like em at all. As for the bike shops stocking all these parts for so many formats, I could care less. I don't have use for bike shops and I feel they should just cater to the comfort bike crowd anyway. I shop online for everything because it's been my experience that the shops don't carry what I want anyway and you have to end up ordering. Wrenching isn't difficult anymore either and only requires a few tools so. That's all I'm going to say.
  • 04-17-2008
    MW
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TNC
    Very well put, MW. You were more patient than I was. I guess my troll alarm was ringing too loudly.

    Your radar was spot-on: the OP was all troll, all the way.

    I guess for my part, I just don't get what all the 650b fuss is about: if folks want to try it, and if the industry wants to support it, what's the problem? :confused:

    --MW
  • 04-17-2008
    scottzg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mofoki
    I don't have use for bike shops and I feel they should just cater to the comfort bike crowd anyway. I shop online for everything because it's been my experience that the shops don't carry what I want anyway and you have to end up ordering. Wrenching isn't difficult anymore either and only requires a few tools so. That's all I'm going to say.

    I agree with you, but this logic will make it difficult to get more people interested in actually biking, rather than 'just fireroad, you know, nothing extreme.' Bleh.

    I think the real question is "how many wheel sizes do we need for adults?' As the number of wheel sizes goes up, the number of wheel-size-specific parts go down for every size- so where the benefit/parts availibility ratio is the highest should determine the worth of 650b. I think with 26 and 29 we've already covered the spread pretty darn well.
  • 04-17-2008
    TNC
    scott, you make some logical points about different wheel sizes, parts, supply, etc. I wish, however, that you could ride at least a 650B front for a week or two in some decently technical or rough terrain, and I feel you would detect a small but noticeable improvement in cornering performance and rollover improvement...and noticeable enough to be...noticeable. While I was having to putz with the poor Velocity rim sizing and my attempts to continue to run tubeless, I was using the 26'er. There is that small but albeit nagging loss of cornering stability, and rollover quality in rock gardens was detectable. Last evening I went with a tube and slime on my 650B setup. I've run tubeless for several years, so I really hated to do this. However, when I was scooting along on the trail last evening during a group ride, pedaling my guts out over the technical sections of our trail, I knew I made the right choice. Tube or tubeless, this setup still provided a worthy improvement. Hey, it's not like going from a hardtail to a fully, dropping 10lbs off your bike, or some other outlandish claim. It's just an improvement. If I could run one on the back of my Nomad, I would. I will be outfitting one of my trail Bullits on both front and rear. Honestly I didn't expect this result to be this positive.
  • 04-17-2008
    Ray Lee
    Would it not be more logical to try something before forming an opinion?, so many words for something you have never tried.



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by juansevo
    Actually its not opinion it's fact. 20 years of industry experience too. 650b could have been the perfect solution had it been utilized to begin with....but it wasn't. And now there are two STANDARDS in mountain bike tires for adults. 650b solves nothing,

    You also aren't following the logic I'm employing, it's not about who was first it's about what is established. 650b may have existed already but it's hardly a standard of any sort unless you are buying a commuter in France. Also, 1" was first but if you re-read my post you'll see I voted for 1 1/8" because it solved a problem (fork race standardization) and one I forgot to mention is strength/longevity over 1".

    I will state though it's a brilliant marketing ploy by Pacenti it's gotten a relatively unknown young industry guy in the spotlike and I think he's brilliant for that. I'd really like to meet him. Plus I think his lugs are beautiful. And well beauty rules over all! :)

  • 04-17-2008
    cruzean
    Who needs choices and evolution
    WOW! If that was the opinion of anyone involved in winning at any competitive sport they would soon be left behind. As a long time rider I have discovered that as you get better your equipment can become limitting depending on what you want to accomplish with it. Small improvements over time is what keeps the industries alive. Look at the motorcycle industry. Every year they make small improvements and the bikes keep getting better, if Honda decided they did not want to try something that would obviously make a small, but noticable improvement then they would soon be left behind. I have been riding 29ers and there has been something that just has not felt quite right so I put a 650b on the rear. It is there to stay because it just feels right and is just that much better than the 26 to make it worth it. Let the market decide. These guys, like Kirk, are keeping the sport exciting and innovative, our sport will only get better because of it. I would hate to go into a bike shop and have too many choices:rolleyes: The inovative shops will stay alive because of their commitment to the sport, even if it does require a bit more work. The internet seems to work well for the fringe of the sport, once it gets rolling the first shops to carry it will be :) .
  • 04-18-2008
    frisky_zissou
    juansevo, I completely agree with your principles however, these ideas that make it mainstream (such as 650b) are generally just big enough to fill a small niche of the market which allows them to grow and require attention but never become common enough to make it into regular stock in LBS and replace the current standards. Because of this the number of standards will always be growing, thus being no standards.

    It is horrible.
  • 04-18-2008
    frisky_zissou
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cruzean
    WOW! If that was the opinion of anyone involved in winning at any competitive sport they would soon be left behind. As a long time rider I have discovered that as you get better your equipment can become limitting depending on what you want to accomplish with it. Small improvements over time is what keeps the industries alive. Look at the motorcycle industry. Every year they make small improvements and the bikes keep getting better, if Honda decided they did not want to try something that would obviously make a small, but noticable improvement then they would soon be left behind. I have been riding 29ers and there has been something that just has not felt quite right so I put a 650b on the rear. It is there to stay because it just feels right and is just that much better than the 26 to make it worth it. Let the market decide. These guys, like Kirk, are keeping the sport exciting and innovative, our sport will only get better because of it. I would hate to go into a bike shop and have too many choices:rolleyes: The inovative shops will stay alive because of their commitment to the sport, even if it does require a bit more work. The internet seems to work well for the fringe of the sport, once it gets rolling the first shops to carry it will be :) .

    What you are saying is that these innovations are just sucking more and more money out of the consumers thus keeping these companies alive.
    I know that the idea hear is that as a result of these money eating companies innovations, is that we get a better product. But in this day and age with all the marketing and false advertising we generally just end up with something that is basically the same but require more time and effort to keep running.
  • 04-18-2008
    MW
    This thread has me scratching my head.

    One of the premises I'm hearing is that once we have something that the industry at large identifies and supports as a standard, that standard should never be changed. Um, what? :skep:

    I agree that many super-hyped products don't offer real or measurable advantages (31.8mm handlebars come to mind) . . . but the bottom line is that -the market- is the ultimate arbiter in these situations. If the industry invests in "New Festoon X" and consumers invest in "New Festoon X" and people like "New Festoon X" enough to continue re-investing in "New Festoon X" over time . . . guess what? "New Festoon X" stabilizes as an accepted standard within the sport. If any of those links fail, "New Festoon X" will probably fail, too. It's almost elegant, really . . . even it allows for the success of some products that don't offer real advantages (or the failure of some that do).

    One of the things I find interesting about 650b for MTBs, however, is that it's -not- coming out of some super-hype marketing machine of the major bike manufacturers. It started with Pacenti at the NAHMBS in San Jose: that's not some big manufacturer flooding shops with a new festoon and basically forcing it on customers, it's not page after page of glossy advertisements featuring big-air glam-shots, and it's not even a smallish bike company offering up it's latest production item to an existing customer base.

    I may not have all the facts straight, but as I understand it Pacenti showed up at NAHMBS in 2007 with a mountain bike built around one-off 650b tires. That's a guy with an idea who made the idea into something tangible and did a show-and-tell with his colleagues. If folks at that show (and wherever else Pacenti looked for an initial audience) had just shrugged and walked off, 650b for MTBs may have died right there. But the fact remains: it generated interest from manufactures, custom framebuilders, and consumers alike. That's pretty cool.

    Compare that to, say, any number of Shimano-driven festoons: oblong biopace chainrings (remember those?) and reverse-action rear derailleurs come to mind. Consumers were not -asking- for those products. They were dreamed up by Shimano engineers, evaluated, put into production, marketed, and then simply -appeared- on whole fleets of production bikes. That's not to say Shimano-style innovation is somehow bad or that the latest Shimano festoons don't offer any advantages . . . but it is a markedly -different- path-to-market than what we're seeing with 650b right now.

    In this vein, I'm not sure that accusations of "market hype to line the coffers of industry types" really applies to 650b.

    --MW
  • 04-18-2008
    frisky_zissou
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MW
    This thread has me scratching my head.

    One of the premises I'm hearing is that once we have something that the industry at large identifies and supports as a standard, that standard should never be changed. Um, what? :skep:

    I agree that many super-hyped products don't offer real or measurable advantages (31.8mm handlebars come to mind) . . . but the bottom line is that -the market- is the ultimate arbiter in these situations. If the industry invests in "New Festoon X" and consumers invest in "New Festoon X" and people like "New Festoon X" enough to continue re-investing in "New Festoon X" over time . . . guess what? "New Festoon X" stabilizes as an accepted standard within the sport. If any of those links fail, "New Festoon X" will probably fail, too. It's almost elegant, really . . . even it allows for the success of some festoons that don't offer real advantages (or the failure of some that do).

    One of the things I find interesting about 650b for MTBs, however, is that it's -not- coming out of some super-hype marketing machine of the major bike manufacturers. It started with Pacenti at the NAHMBS in San Jose: that's not some big manufacturer flooding shops with a new festoon and basically forcing it on customers, it's not page after page of glossy advertisements featuring big-air glam-shots, and it's not even a smallish bike company offering up it's latest production item to an existing customer base.

    I may not have all the facts straight, but as I understand it Pacenti showed up at NAHMBS in 2007 with a mountain bike built around one-off 650b tires. That's a guy with an idea who made the idea into something tangible and did a show-and-tell with his colleagues. If folks at that show (and wherever else Pacenti looked for an initial audience) had just shrugged and walked off, 650b for MTBs may have died right there. But the fact remains: it generated interest from manufactures, custom framebuilders, and consumers alike. That's pretty cool.

    Compare that to, say, any number of Shimano-driven festoons: oblong biopace chainrings (remember those?) and reverse-action rear derailleurs come to mind. Consumers were not -asking- for those products. They were dreamed up by Shimano engineers, evaluated, put into production, marketed, and then simply -appeared- on whole fleets of production bikes. That's not to say Shimano-style innovation is somehow bad or that the latest Shimano festoons don't offer any advantages . . . but it is a markedly -different- path-to-market than what we're seeing with 650b right now.

    --MW

    That is an excellent reply there. I realize that I probably sounded over critical of changes in my previous post and that view was not the one I now hold. Kinda ranting on like an old man remembering old times.
    But I still think that we should at least try to keep some things standardize as soon we will all fall apart by not being able to keep up with the developments.
  • 04-18-2008
    MW
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tom2304
    But I still think that we should at least try to keep some things standardize as soon we will all fall apart by not being able to keep up with the developments.

    Totally agreed. Can you imagine building or maintaining a bike if we had 8 competing QR / axle sizes, a half dozen viable steerer diameters, 5 different pedal-axle diameters, and 7 different bar/grip diameters? :eekster: I'm just making up silly examples here, but you get the point: it'd be a pain in the @ss . . . and not really good for anyone. (though I think we -already- have 6 QR/axle standards, if you look at both front and rear)

    I also agree that major manufacturers introducing "new and improved, gotta spend your money on this" items every year can get pretty annoying . . . especially if the "new and improved" is -not- compatible with existing gear and does not offer any significant advantages. It's hard to defend stuff like that, and it -does- happen all the time.

    I guess my point--and I didn't mean to sound harsh about this--is that the market does a decent job of sorting this stuff out over time. Where 650b is concerned, I think it's going to be interesting to watch . . . but early adoption (especially where it requires a nontrivial initial investment) isn't for everyone, myself included.

    --MW
  • 04-18-2008
    snowdrifter
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Clutchman83
    I think you missed the point of the post. The argument so far for 650B has been that it offers benefits similar to 29er wheels but without having to buy 29er specific equipment. Everybody understands the benefits of 29er wheels and the benefits of a 26" wheel. 650B is something that 26" guys can take advantage of without having to buy a 29er compatible bike. To compare 650B to 29" wheels wouldn't have made sense regarding this discussion.

    Huh? So you just slap some 650B wheels in any ole 26er and roll. I don't think so. Unless you like crackhead geometry, and poor tire clearance.
  • 04-18-2008
    TNC
    snow, the point of 650B is that it avoids "crackhead" geometry to apply the tallest wheel possible. It's not as dramatically tall as the 29'er, so it doesn't require reduced travel issues or the highly modified frame constraints.

    I agree with you that you can't just slap a 650B wheel/tire setup into just any bike or fork, but there are many that you can. In the future, just about any frame or fork could be designed at the point of manufacture to accomodate 26 or 650B without dramatic alterations. My current trail Bullit will accept 650B on both ends, and I'm going there to see how the whole package works. My Nomad has a 650B on the front, and it's a noticeable improvement. I think most riders who have tried 29'ers or 69'ers clearly see the benefits of taller wheel/tire applications. Everything's a compromise, however, and 650B seems to be a "getting the most without upsetting the rest" scenario as far as bike geometry and suspension go.
  • 04-18-2008
    blahwtf?
    this (650b) is not new! the use of offroad tires on them is.

    think of it this way. take a person my size. (5'5" 28"inseam) i have been riding 26-ers for about 10 years. they all work well. now over the past few years 29-ers show up and become a "fresh standard". 700c has been around forever. some body just got enough pull / money etc. to make a production run and the idea took off. this most likely had something to do with cx-ers wanting agressiver tires for their setup. then they were made. voila! natural progression. 650b rims have been around a while. they're just getting a revamp.

    the whole 650b idea doesnt need to take off, lots of people buy/ride it overseas. just the tire size. and if the industry (consumer) cant support different rim sizes, then it'll in turn cut back / end production. i agree with whoever said "vote with your dollars!" i like the idea of 650b race tires i am too small to get full enough benefits from 29's but 26's are slightly too small to keep up with comparable 29-ers gearing wise. i like riding with friends, but hate being the guy at the end whom every one is waitng for. and switching to 29 isnt going to make me faster.
  • 04-18-2008
    ohpossum
    This picture sums up 650b perfectly:



    New from Pivot Bicycles is the Mach429 29er bike. The bike shares the DW link design of the Mach 4. It features 100 mm of rear wheel travel. Head angle is at 71.2 degrees and chainstay length is at 17.9 inches.

    Look at what they had to do to the seat tube to get everything to work right. In order to make room for the main pivot and at the same time not have 20" chainstays, they had to move the main pivot forward. That requires the funky segmented seat tube. That sort of complexity requires higher tolerances. Higher tolerances mean more expensive manufacturer costs and unfortunately more chances for failure. All that to get 4" of rear travel. Going to 5" of travel would require even more work with the ST...and I bet its just impossible to get all of that working within the confines of a 16" or smaller frame.

    Now compare that to:



    The .55" longer chainstay required by the 650b wheel slightly affects the geometry (overall wheelbase), but not nearly the same as the 20" chainstays a full suspension 29er would need if you didn't have manipulated seat tubes. The Ventana is a 5" bike out of the box and I bet (just guessing) that it could be run with 6" rockers without issue and it will come stock in a 16" frame.

    Less complexity means lower manufacturer costs and less chances for failure.

    1) Benefits of bigger (but not the biggest) wheels
    2) No added complexity to get 4"+ rear wheel travel
    3) Lower costs due to #2
    4) Sizing benefit for smaller riders (like me! I'm 5'4")

    Honestly, what is there not to like?



    op
  • 04-18-2008
    laffeaux
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ohpossum
    1) Benefits of bigger (but not the biggest) wheels
    2) No added complexity to get 4"+ rear wheel travel
    3) Lower costs due to #2
    4) Sizing benefit for smaller riders (like me! I'm 5'4")

    5. You don't have to own a bike with a butt-ugly seat tube on it like the Pivot has. I'll bet lowering saddle is tough. :(
  • 04-18-2008
    TNC
    possum...does Lenz do a better job of getting long travel out of a 29'er full suspension package? I realize that the Lunchbox and Behemoth are still fairly large bikes, but they seemed like they may have nailed the 4-5 inch travel 29'er setup a little better than that Pivot. I am not well versed in the overall geometry numbers of the Lens lineup, but they just looked more like a "conventional" longer travel MTB. That said, I just have too much effort required to pedal one with authority for some reason, and yes, that's coming from someone riding a 33lb Nomad. David Copperfield said I had "meager" legs. I was quite hurt...LOL! I think in reality it was more like meager youth.
  • 04-18-2008
    snowdrifter
    Bottomline, does 1.5" actually add a perfomance advantage? There's high volumne 26" tires that stand over 27" tall.
  • 04-18-2008
    ohpossum
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TNC
    possum...does Lenz do a better job of getting long travel out of a 29'er full suspension package?

    Both the Behemoth and the Lunchbox have a manipulated seat tube, though nowhere close to what Pivot did. Also, neither comes in a size smaller than 17".

    Their 4" bikes have straight seat tubes, but have 18" chainstays to fit the big wheels in. Also, 17" is the smallest size listed on their website.

    The seat tube issue probably doesn't bother many people now that Gravity Dropper posts are getting more and more market.

    op

    EDIT: I vote this thread should be Sticky'ed. It won't be the last time the subject it brought up.
  • 04-18-2008
    scottzg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TNC
    scott, you make some logical points about different wheel sizes, parts, supply, etc. I wish, however, that you could ride at least a 650B front for a week or two in some decently technical or rough terrain, and I feel you would detect a small but noticeable improvement in cornering performance and rollover improvement...and noticeable enough to be...noticeable.

    I can't say i've ever ridden a 650b, but i have ridden a FS 29'er, and had no issue whatsoever spinning up those wheels, although I'll admit that i'm young and huge. If 650b establishes itself because smaller riders want the same proportions between themselves and their wheel size that i get with 29s, good for them, my opinion that an extra size is superfluous and dilutes parts availability is in the minority.
  • 04-18-2008
    MW
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by snowdrifter
    Bottomline, does 1.5" actually add a perfomance advantage? There's high volumne 26" tires that stand over 27" tall.

    Armchair response, since I haven't ridden 650b or 29in (looking forward to completing my 69er SS project, though), but here's my two cents, anyway . . .

    Can you tell the difference between a 2.1in and a 2.3in tire, assuming they're the same tread and same relative volume? In my experience: heck yes.

    Can you tell the difference between a pinner 2.1in and a high-volume 2.1in tire? In my experience: again, heck yes.

    I'm sure some smart folks out there could break this down in terms of physics, biomechanics, and power output . . . but seemingly small changes can and do result in very noticeable changes to how a bike rides / handles / feels (think about 5psi in your fork or shock, 1in width on your handlebar, 2cm length on your stem, etc. etc. etc). My tire examples above aren't really about "performance advantages" so much as "different applications" (i.e. that pinner 2.1 is probably great for racing . . . but the high-volume 2.3 is probably better for trail-riding) . . . maybe something similar applies to the 26in / 650b / 29in question?

    Regardless, it seems entirely reasonable that 650b would give a noticeably different ride than 26 or 29in, even given the same tire width, tread, and relative volume. Others here with first-hand experience of 650b seem to confirm this assumption, too.

    --MW
  • 04-18-2008
    MW
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by blahwtf?
    this (650b) is not new! the use of offroad tires on them is.

    ....

    650b rims have been around a while. they're just getting a revamp.

    the whole 650b idea doesnt need to take off, lots of people buy/ride it overseas. just the tire size. and if the industry (consumer) cant support different rim sizes, then it'll in turn cut back / end production.

    ....

    I don't think anyone is contesting that 650b is "brand new" from the ground up, or that the fate of 650b as a format is somehow linked to its adoption for mountain bikes.

    At the same time, this isn't merely a matter of getting 650b mountain bike tires into the market. While there's some cool retrofitting going on (I think there's a sticky thread about it), industry-wide adoption of 650b for mountain bikes will involve application-specific rims, frames, and forks . . . in addition to tires.

    Even if I don't really agree, I do understand some of the "too many formats for the industry," "too confusing for consumers," and "do the gains really justify 650b?" arguments being tossed around in this thread.

    --MW
  • 04-18-2008
    laffeaux
    I think taht peope are a little to caught up into "standards." There are probably more "standards" today then ever, but things still vary widely.

    In the old days if you wanted a bottom bracket, was it for an Enlish, Italian, French or Swiss threads? If you wanted a 26" tire, which of the three 26" tires did you want? If you wanted a 1" headset, was it for a BMX, ISO, or JIS bike?

    Cassette spacing and derailler pull ratios still don't match up bewtween Shimano, SRAM, or Campy. And have you ever tried to buy a Campy caseette lock ring? They are unique to 11 and 12 tooth cogs, and are not compataboe from 8 to 9 to 10 speeds.

    "Standards" are a good idea but they really don't exist to any great extent. And when they do exist it's only to allow manufacturers to work together. Who cares how many tires sizes or headset sizes exist. Everyone has the abilty to chose the one that works best for them, and is most easily supported by shops and/or places where they live.
  • 04-18-2008
    snowdrifter
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MW

    Regardless, it seems entirely reasonable that 650b would give a noticeably different ride than 26 or 29in, even given the same tire width, tread, and relative volume. Others here with first-hand experience of 650b seem to confirm this assumption, too.

    --MW

    There's 26 tires that roll taller than 27". So what are you gaining by using a taller heavier rim?
  • 04-18-2008
    SuspectDevice
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by snowdrifter
    There's 26 tires that roll taller than 27". So what are you gaining by using a taller heavier rim?

    A lighter wheel with better handling. Tall 26" tires need to have heavier casings to provide optimial lateral roll and deformation for grip. Once we get more 650b tires we'll have considerably lighter weights at the outside of our wheels than with equivalent diameter 26" tires.

    That means better acceleration, lower possible tire pressure and the opportunity to ride significantly larger diameter tires, if that's what your looking for. All in a package that is lighter and stronger than a 29er....
  • 04-18-2008
    TNC
    snow...got any examples?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by snowdrifter
    There's 26 tires that roll taller than 27". So what are you gaining by using a taller heavier rim?

    I've run one 26" tire that was just a tiny bit shorter than the NeoMoto. It was a 2.8 Michelin DH32 that weighed 1400g. It's a tall, huge tire. It just barely fits into some forks that the Neo will not fit. The Neo weighs about 720g. And hey...I'm not saying there aren't some other tall 26" tires out there, but I think any that truly come close to the Neo are going to be very heavy.

    Here are some real numbers on a couple of my wheelsets. I normally run a CrossMax XL 20mm front wheel with a WTB 2.5 Weirwolf Race in tubeless setup. That Weirwolf is not a true 2.5. It's more like the 2.3 NeoMoto in true width sizing. The Weirwolf weighs about 730g. My Blunt/20mm hub/14-15 DB DT spokes/NeoMoto setup weighs a total of 2030g in tubeless mode with Stan's. My CrossMax 20mm/Weirwolf setup weighs 2070g in tubeless mode with Stan's. That's pretty much a wash for weight, and I get a tire a tiny bit taller than a huge DH tire with the same footprint as my Weirwolf and all with no weight penalty.
  • 04-18-2008
    snowdrifter
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TNC
    I've run one 26" tire that was just a tiny bit shorter than the NeoMoto. It was a 2.8 Michelin DH32 that weighed 1400g. It's a tall, huge tire. It just barely fits into some forks that the Neo will not fit. The Neo weighs about 720g. And hey...I'm not saying there aren't some other tall 26" tires out there, but I think any that truly come close to the Neo are going to be very heavy.

    Here are some real numbers on a couple of my wheelsets. I normally run a CrossMax XL 20mm front wheel with a WTB 2.5 Weirwolf Race in tubeless setup. That Weirwolf is not a true 2.5. It's more like the 2.3 NeoMoto in true width sizing. The Weirwolf weighs about 730g. My Blunt/20mm hub/14-15 DB DT spokes/NeoMoto setup weighs a total of 2030g in tubeless mode with Stan's. My CrossMax 20mm/Weirwolf setup weighs 2070g in tubeless mode with Stan's. That's pretty much a wash for weight, and I get a tire a tiny bit taller than a huge DH tire with the same footprint as my Weirwolf and all with no weight penalty.


    Maxxxis Advantage 2.4 800-900 grams.. Runs over 27" tall. The problem with this tire, it doesn't fit most 5" or less trail bikes, it's too tall!
    It fits my Ventana, but not much room for debri. It's a great front tire :thumbsup:

    650b will be cool when there's more tire and frame choices, until then, it's not for me.

    peace.
  • 04-18-2008
    cruzean
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tom2304
    What you are saying is that these innovations are just sucking more and more money out of the consumers thus keeping these companies alive.
    I know that the idea hear is that as a result of these money eating companies innovations, is that we get a better product. But in this day and age with all the marketing and false advertising we generally just end up with something that is basically the same but require more time and effort to keep running.


    Are you saying I should only be supporting the big manufacturers. I do not see how these innovations are sucking more money out of me. I'm just diverting my $ to the little guy who is truely trying to make the sport better. Look what Bill Gates did in his garage. We have to give these guys a chance. Yes, there is false advertising and hype in any industry, that is why we are here reading this.

    Yes there is a lot of different sizes available for all kinds of components and I am sure the bike shops are not real fond of it but it seems to me that for the most part it has not been a major problem. Let the market sort it out.
  • 04-19-2008
    moondoggy
    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."

    Gee, if facilitating the bike shops inventory management was the biggest priority, then I'd be riding some 26 inch wheeled quasi-motorcycle looking "free-ride" bike. I wouldn't be riding 29'ers- that's for sure. Taking your illogic to it's logical conclusion, we'd still be riding 1 inch quill stems and cage pedals. :madman:

    Every criticism that you have leveled against 650B's could just as well be leveled at 29'ers- chic component accoutrment, and the whole "having something different for the sake of being different" bit can both apply to the 29 inch wheels movement. If you're upset by meaningless equipment innovation and trends, I can think of many other components and dynamics that deserve ridicule. Any drive train with more than 21 speeds, 31.8 handlebars, 29 inch tires that approach the 1000g mark, and anyone who ponies up to pay the prices that Seven Cycles charges. Also, the terms "all mountain" and "free ride". Come to think of it, "monstercross" is starting to get on my nerves as well.

    Choices, choices and more choices. Let the market decide, and let innovation run wild.

    If bike shops are suffering from too much crap from "dumbass ideas in the past"- who's problem is this? It sounds like a bike shop dumbass's are ordering too many dumbass parts and dumbass bikes. Anyone interested in some Biopace chain rings ?

    Frankly, I think the 29'er market is going to shrink up a bit when some start to realize that "big" has it's limits when it comes to tire sizes and rotational mass. I'm a satisfied 29'er devotee, but the big wheels have some drawbacks, even more so in some applications. Full suspension bikes come to mind. 650B's seem like a much better platform for the majority of folks looking for big wheeled squishy fun.

    You know, on second thought maybe you're right. We should just all go back to 26 inch wheels- just to keep it simple ;)
  • 04-19-2008
    TIGMAN
    I dunno........but I think 650b 's are going to rule the mtb world someday so just get used to the idea you friggin nonconformists ! :) TIG.
  • 04-19-2008
    ericmoss
    Being 5'10" with a 88.5cm PBH, it turns out my 650b commuter is *perfect* for me. The 700c I had was fine, except for toe-clip overlap. The 26" bike I had was great for jumping off things, but it just didn't roll over mediocre pavement nearly as well, and was just pathetic on open road. The 650b is plenty fast, comfy, well-proportioned, and strong.

    Although I have a custom 29'er on order, every week or so I wonder if I should change it to a 650b, I'm so happy with the results.

    Let's stop pretending that what is perfect for us in one specific kind of riding is naturally perfect for everyone else and their kind of riding. Yes, at some point it's silly to introduce another size, but that is at a point beyond 650b.
  • 04-19-2008
    blahwtf?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ericmoss
    Let's stop pretending that what is perfect for us in one specific kind of riding is naturally perfect for everyone else and their kind of riding. Yes, at some point it's silly to introduce another size, but that is at a point beyond 650b.

    :thumbsup:
  • 04-20-2008
    chinaman
    I think market forces will decide if a certain wheel size will stay. We are all made to different proportions and to add it all up we all have different ideas and dislikes and sometimes some of us even want to impose their own idea as the one to use. Some even go to the extent of making blanketing statements that a certain 'standard'/sizing is the most ideal.

    Manufacturers will decide what sizing that will become more common place in future. If no one jumps on the 650b sizing, it will just remain another size that only a few manufacturers will accomodate. The moment it becomes not feasible to manufacture it at a profitable level, how is the company able to continue to call it R & D. They need a demand for it. They can support it for awhile but not forever. The demand need to increase or be at a sustainable level.

    Will the 650b become what the 29" used to be? or even surpass it? I do not know. But we certainly need more people to get into biking and so the demand will increase and so manufacturers will be able to make money and so they will continue to support it. Economics of scale. Which then gives us as consumers more choice. Choice is good. But i do know that a 26" will fit some people better, and that goes for the 650b and 29".

    I think more than anything, possibly, this thread is an ill conceived idea.

    We have an inherent need to improve and be different and as a result the contraption gets better and we evolve and so need better contraptions. That is how we moved from the stone age to where are right now. Why would anyone want to go to the moon? There are no single tracks there unless it is on the other side. Some just like the idea of being the first to be there, but the result is technology leaped forward and that technology actually imporved our lives in other areas, which is a good thing.

    Innovation is good. Choice is good. Democracy is good. Then maybe this thread is NOT an ill conceived idea then as it is his/her choice to post it. ;)
  • 04-20-2008
    jk
    You can post whatever you wish. However, think of this: should the ski industry just stick with a couple of different lengths and widths of skis? Its just a matter of who's riding what terrain and where they are riding. East coast skiing tends to have less snow, west coast more, however if you ski lift served on either coast some prefer a ski that can handle groomers more than off piste. Others prefer more float off piste and the trade off is less performance on piste. Then there are some who want a ski that can rip both the groomers and the "hors piste". So we end up with ski companies making mega fats, fats, mid fats, cross skis, race skis, and a shitload of sizes in between all that. Meanwhile they need molds for not just the different widths, but also the different lengths. Those who bike rocky terrain may prefer a wheel that goes over the big stuff....well whatever. At this point you understand what I am saying. I am stoked about the new/reintroduction/whatever of 29ers (I'm 5'9" and ride/own two 29ers) and now 27.5ers. They all have their advantages and disadvantages...you must find whatever works for you and literally roll with it. Just understand that you are the only gear head out there. We come in all shapes, sizes, skill levels, and from all part of the singletrack world.

    Cheers to all.
  • 04-20-2008
    MW
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by snowdrifter
    There's 26 tires that roll taller than 27". So what are you gaining by using a taller heavier rim?

    Kinda not the point, really.

    Seems like an honest evaluation of different wheel sizes--one that assesses inherent advantages, disadvantages, and applications for each respective format--would compare similar tread designs and relative tire volumes across the formats. What you're talking about is a comparison between a tall, high-volume 26er and shorter, lower-volume 650b . . . that wouldn't really tell us anything about 650b as a format relative to 26in as a format, would it?

    --MW
  • 04-20-2008
    TNC
    I kinda get where he's coming from, MW, but after looking at some material and reviews on the Maxxis he's using as the example, I'm not seeing the exaggerated height he's claiming...so I think the whole comparison is kinda null. It does indeed appear to be a high volume tire, but its max height doesn't appear to be as tall as the 2.8 Michelin...and I don't think he's actually seen a 650B/NeoMoto setup to truly compare. I also notice a ton of thin sidewall complaints with lots of easily cut tires on that model. That might explain how Maxxis got a fairly large tire to only weigh 850g.
  • 04-20-2008
    blahwtf?
    well, perhaps this should be seen as a 650bx3.0 = diameter of 29'r but in essence its a subtle shift in gearing creating a midpoint for reference in relative sizes. 20-24-26-27.5-29.

    i think it'll take a while before department store 650b's are a standard but at this point, it acts as another idea/innovation for relative sizing to excel beyond fit/finish/build for mid -> upper level bikes. if it becomes the status quo is yet to be seen, but i definately think it is a good point to base enough sales to warrant production. again: vote with yer dallahs!!!
  • 04-20-2008
    laffeaux
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MW
    Seems like an honest evaluation of different wheel sizes--one that assesses inherent advantages, disadvantages, and applications for each respective format... blah, blah, blah...

    How are you going to measure how much fun I will have on a bike on a given trail? It can't be done. There's nothing scientific about people's choices for fun. I can tell you which bike that I own is fastest when I ride it. I can also tell you in's rarely the bike that I ride.

    People who need to measure everything need to relax. The "fun meter" is the most important thing when I ride my bike. For each person on any day on a given trail, what makes it fun will be different.

    Ride your bike and enjoy the scenery, regardless of the diameter or width of your tire.

    And if you want to have more fun on a trail that you know really well... take the "wrong" bike for that trail. You may find that it's more fun. :)
  • 04-21-2008
    MW
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by laffeaux
    How are you going to measure how much fun I will have on a bike on a given trail? It can't be done. There's nothing scientific about people's choices for fun. I can tell you which bike that I own is fastest when I ride it. I can also tell you in's rarely the bike that I ride.

    People who need to measure everything need to relax. The "fun meter" is the most important thing when I ride my bike. For each person on any day on a given trail, what makes it fun will be different.

    Ride your bike and enjoy the scenery, regardless of the diameter or width of your tire.

    And if you want to have more fun on a trail that you know really well... take the "wrong" bike for that trail. You may find that it's more fun. :)

    Hey, relax . . . agreed on all fronts. :thumbsup:

    Just responding to some posts about 650b not being "different enough" from 26in to make any real difference on the trail. Seems like the only way to tell would be some back-to-back riding of the formats while eliminating as many other variables as possible.

    Certainly not a scientific measure of "fun" . . . and not suggested as such. ;)

    Job one: ride.
    Job two: ride bikes that make you happy.

    The rest falls into place.

    --MW
  • 04-21-2008
    DeeEight
    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.

    Lemme guess... you work for a brand caught short with a late switch to introducing 29ers and now finding out that there's more demand for 650b's.


    Quote:

    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?
    You claim a few messages down to have twenty years experience in the bike industry... from WHEN to WHEN ? 1" headsets only had a couple fork race sizes... Japanese standard was 27.0 and English/French/Italian were all 26.4. That's not very hard. If your fork came with setup for the 27mm race size and your fancy new headset was only made for the 26.4 size then 5 mins with the correct shop tool and you could ream your fork crown down to take the other size.

    As to 1 1/4 headsets, they were the first oversized offering made for mountain bikes specifically and it was a bad idea for the simple reason that GF is a moron. His brand had a rash of failed steerer tubes due to bad materials. Instead of admitting the goof and correcting the problem (using HiTen steel instead of CrMo for the steerer tube as a cost saving switch) he tried to lay the blame on the steerer diameter and made up these excuses to invent a larger size. Sure lots of brands adopted it for marketing purposes mainly, but it certainly wasn't required. MOTORCYCLES still to this day use 1" steerer tubes. You do not need to increase the steerer diameter to have stronger frames with bigger headtubes. You simply need to make the headtubes larger and make the headsets bigger to match, using larger more durable bearings.


    Quote:

    Or how about pre-31.8 handlebars when you had two different road handlebar diameters?
    More like three sizes.... 25.4, 26.0 and 26.4.

    Quote:

    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.
    Well the standard was 74/110 but it limited the smallest chainring size, so for lower gears you had to go to larger and larger cogs. Suntour invented microdrive to offer the same gear range as 74/110 offered, but with a significant weight savings. Shimano tried copying suntour but rather than adopt the same bolt pattern (56/94) they just had to be different and go with 58/94. Then later, again for claimed weight savings reasons they went to four bolt setups. As to the 30 different post sizes... we STILL have that problem. I was in a trek/fisher dealer yesterday and noticed they have lots of Bontrager 29.2 posts on the display for sale... obviously its used by some model of Fisher or Trek bicycle. But its a size hardly any other post maker supports currently. So like specialized and their 30.9 (which could have easily just used 30.8 and thus not forced a new oddball size on the bike world.... giant uses 30.8 on a lot of models) Trek is trying to use a post size none of their competing brands use.
  • 04-21-2008
    madnessmoose
    It's obvious this guy has never been on a 650B mountain bike. But he's been riding 29ers for 3 years so that automatically makes him the head of team awesome.....he's so rad.

    I have 3 bikes with each tire size...when ever I ride my 29er I wish I was on my 650B. When ever I'm on my 26er I wish I was On my 650B. Whenever I'm on my 650B I wish I had more tire options and maybe a few more gears from time to time. The B in 650B stands for "better" as in better than 29ers!
  • 04-23-2008
    Jory
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by juansevo
    ... FYI I hear Pacenti is starting a colony for 650b lovers in Latin America. Don't forget to drink the Kool Aid when he hands it out TNC. ;-)

    I've got a big ol' red mustach from guzzling the Kool-Aid!

    I came to this forum after recently test riding a few 29ers, but having just purchsed a brand new Heckler frame. My initial thoughts were to put a 29 up front. But the wise ones within this fourm suggested that a 650B would be just about right for two compelling reasons:

    1) It fits with most existing 26" forks.

    2) The contrast between 26/29 and 26/650B is a lot less. Won't throw off the geometry too much.

    I for one couldn't be happier. :thumbsup:
  • 04-23-2008
    downhilljill
    A word to the haters: if you don't like 650B, don't buy it. We've got enough other people out there who love it to sell bikes to.
  • 04-23-2008
    Davidcopperfield
    26-559mm ought to be defeated and withdrawn form the market. 584mm will replace it even better, however I do not want 584mm cannibalize my wide 622mm tyres. I would like manufacturers to concentrate more on 29ers rather than 27,5ers.
    For long travel 29ers we need different suspension solutions, usage of flipped stems for lower handlebars.
    584mm still has many downsides as well as 559mm possesses.
  • 04-23-2008
    madnessmoose
    I don't understand these people with their frustrations about this "new" 60+ year old wheelsize? Is it hurting them? Should we stop innovation because it will somehow take away from existing tire sizes? Do people think it's trendy because they don't understand it?

    Don't let anyone from the two-niner forum hear this but I can never quite get accustomed to any niner I've owned. They're fun to ride and the big wheel rolling sensation is their best attribute...but they lack the agility and flick-ability I need in a mountain bike. I understand their place in the industry though. I'm not gonna knock them because I know for some people, riding a 29er is probably very much what the 650B is like for me. It's like all the heavens have opened up and the shlt eating grin I get from riding 'em is stuck on my face for hours afterwards. It just feels on point. I always feel on my game on the B's. They have that big wheeled rolling sensation without the lag or the up in the air begging hampster position I can't rid of with 29's.
  • 04-24-2008
    krolik
    I actualy don't want to take part in this silly debate.
    I just ride 650b in front and love it.
    We might all be better off with riding bikes we like instead of debating on what's better, blonds or dark haired.
    Anyway my 36talas just arrived and I'm building new wheelset with 650b front - even if blunt has occured to be as cheap as i predicted:P
  • 04-24-2008
    troll killer
    News Flash
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    26-559mm ought to be defeated and withdrawn form the market. 584mm will replace it even better, however I do not want 584mm cannibalize my wide 622mm tyres. I would like manufacturers to concentrate more on 29ers rather than 27,5ers.
    For long travel 29ers we need different suspension solutions, usage of flipped stems for lower handlebars.
    584mm still has many downsides as well as 559mm possesses.


    The troll killer thinks Davidcopperfield and Jaun are trolls.
  • 04-25-2008
    Davidcopperfield
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by madnessmoose
    Don't let anyone from the two-niner forum hear this but I can never quite get accustomed to any niner I've owned. They're fun to ride and the big wheel rolling sensation is their best attribute...but they lack the agility and flick-ability I need in a mountain bike.

    Oh please flickability and agility were adresses in Genessis II by GF in his new 2008 collection, just give it a try and attend a demo day before you stick a memo onto all 29er consttructions "Sluggish and heavy"
    See how little geometry differentiation change the handling of 26ers. When it comes to 29ers the geo must be dialed even more meticulously.
    29ers are too young to judge the whole 622mm in mtb. I am sure that in ten years time 29ers will be a completely different things.
  • 04-25-2008
    Cracked Headtube
    DAVIDCOPPERFIELD, can you make this thread disappear?
  • 04-25-2008
    TNC
    The new GF 2008 Collection
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Oh please flickability and agility were adresses in Genessis II by GF in his new 2008 collection, just give it a try and attend a demo day before you stick a memo onto all 29er consttructions "Sluggish and heavy"
    See how little geometry differentiation change the handling of 26ers. When it comes to 29ers the geo must be dialed even more meticulously.
    29ers are too young to judge the whole 622mm in mtb. I am sure that in ten years time 29ers will be a completely different things.

    So DC, do you know if Gary Fisher has any gold lame' riding shorts in his 2008 collection? My current supply of Liberace Collection gold sequin riding shorts are just about shot. I've searched every issue of Vogue and other magazines for any word on availability, but info on the GF 2008 collection is extremely lacking. You seem to be highly knowledgeable about this, so I was hoping you could help me out.

    Wow, DC..."in ten years time 29'ers will be a completely different things". I can't argue with logic like that. I also got a kick out of your assessment, "650B should be defeated". Defeated???...strap on your combat helmets, boys...we're in a shootin' war here!...LOL! DC, that particular comment is what we call a Freudian slip and provides some interesting insight into your mindset.

    DC...who writes your material?
  • 04-25-2008
    troll killer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TNC
    So DC, do you know if Gary Fisher has any gold lame' riding shorts in his 2008 collection? My current supply of Liberace Collection gold sequin riding shorts are just about shot. I've searched every issue of Vogue and other magazines for any word on availability, but info on the GF 2008 collection is extremely lacking. You seem to be highly knowledgeable about this, so I was hoping you could help me out.

    Wow, DC..."in ten years time 29'ers will be a completely different things". I can't argue with logic like that. I also got a kick out of your assessment, "650B should be defeated". Defeated???...strap on your combat helmets, boys...we're in a shootin' war here!...LOL! DC, that particular comment is what we call a Freudian slip and provides some interesting insight into your mindset.

    DC...who writes your material?


    The troll killer has heard tell that DC has never actually ridden a 29er.
  • 04-25-2008
    madnessmoose
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Oh please flickability and agility were adresses in Genessis II by GF in his new 2008 collection, just give it a try and attend a demo day before you stick a memo onto all 29er consttructions "Sluggish and heavy"
    See how little geometry differentiation change the handling of 26ers. When it comes to 29ers the geo must be dialed even more meticulously.
    29ers are too young to judge the whole 622mm in mtb. I am sure that in ten years time 29ers will be a completely different things.

    Too much G2 marketing....can't resist getting Gary Fisher G2 genesis geometry bicycle with 29" wheels!!!! Gary Fisher genessis geometry...greatest geometry ever!!!

    It's not the geometry....it's the wheel son. Too big for my liking. The wheels make the bikes sit up to high. The front end is always up in my grill. There's a bit more of a delay when pulling the front end up for wheelies manuals and bunny hops. I'm not saying it's to big for you, Hank, Carl, Frank, or even Bruce. But for my riding style and tastes I prefer the B's buddy.
    How many BMXers do you think like riding 26ers?
  • 04-26-2008
    Davidcopperfield
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TNC
    I also got a kick out of your assessment, "650B should be defeated". Defeated???

    Read again my post
    I wrote:
    26-559mm ought to be defeated and withdrawn form the market. 584mm will replace it even better, however I do not want 584mm cannibalize my wide 622mm tyres.
    Where did you get 650B from? I mostly refer to it as 584mm which is more accurate.

    madnessmoose
    Quote:

    The wheels make the bikes sit up to high. The front end is always up in my grill.
    Just flip the stem up side-down.
    Quote:

    There's a bit more of a delay when pulling the front end up for wheelies manuals and bunny hops
    Are you assessing 622mm format in mtb by perfoming stunts?
    29ers were conceived to provide stability and secure riding and to prevent crashes. Stoopies and wheelies require you to throw off the balance, which is against big wheel idea.
    There are 20" wheels flanked by pegs for a reason in bike parks.
  • 04-26-2008
    Cloxxki
    It's total and utter bollucks to state that 650B is filling a void in sizing.
    There is NO such thing as a frame size range between 26" and 29"

    Remove your cycling-nut glasses, and see things the way they are. 29" was 9.4 per cent up.
    In rider height, that's the difference between (average human in 1976 when 26" because used for adults while being marketed for kids) 1m70 and 1m185 or so. Now, over 3 dacades farther, 1m85 is closer what the average male stands, and I've dated girls that height.
    While 24" has always been there for young kids, the S sized riders (typically 1m58-1m71) never ever go for it, in XC application. That's the smallest 10% of riders on the market, and they are showing that 26" is a good fit.
    Now do the math. 1m58 plus 9.4%, makes? And the <4% of 650B?

    If there is a superbeing out there, it will denounce its presence by getting into the head of the ignorant and explaining them about the rules of proportions, and getting it to stick there.

    If bike were to be made truly properly to FIT the riders, this is what we'd be looking at, using the currently accepted 2" frame height increments:
    - S, M, L, XL frame to serve 90% of the market, as now.
    - 10mm crank length increments, starting with 165 for S. These riders do fine with 175mm even now, but 165 or 170mm seems more appropriate. 10mm inrements? For 2" taller frames, legs are 2" taller on average too. If not more. 2" (51mm) longer legs at a very conservative 20% of inseam, gives 10mm cranklength increments.
    - Let's use the 26.5" wheels for the 1m58+ S rider. 10m longer riders (M) will warrant 1,67" wheel size increase. That's by-passing 650B, and getting close to 29" right there. Imagine how normal 32" would be on an XL bike.

    Think of tire widths, those would need to grow along, as should rim widths.

    The difference betwen 650B and 26" is just enough to give a positive ruler reading. A kid fitting a 26" bike will grow past 650B within a year of its life. Insiginifiane has been christened, and alled 650B.

    One day Pacenti will step forward to proclaim it was all just a pratical joke that went out of hand. Meaning to piss off the arrogant (who, me?) 29" folks, and succeeding at that so well he won credibility with the kiddy wheelers. Like 650B (a whole inch more) is going to make it an adult whel, in the year 2008.
    In my country, Giant markets kids bikes (10-13y/o) with 29x2.35" tires. They're immensely loved by the kids. Tell those kids they're doing it wrong, and should use the 26.5" size that was so popular for paper boys before we started eating groth hormones with our meat, and feeding outselves to the maximum of our stomach all through childhood.
  • 04-26-2008
    yogiprophet
    Here's some math for you Kloki, I can use a 27.5" tire and have 130mm travel up front...or I can put a 29" tire and have 95mm of travel at the same headtube height/strength/rigidity. I'll go with the 27.5" tire.
    Not only that, but the trail will be less with the 27.5" tire which gives me better control at the head angle I prefer.
    But you go ahead and ride a 32" wheeled bike. Nobody is gonna stop you or talk sh!t about your choice because we're all adults here...I think.
  • 04-26-2008
    Cloxxki
    Which of us has his math wrong? .75" wheel radius difference, but ~1.4" travel difference?

    If you don't get the right bike from the start, sure you en up with small wheels. Head angle, same. Bikes are supposed to be made to work with the whels that will be fitted. You don't get a bike first and then try 3 different wheel sizes to see which works out best.

    I'll get a properly made 29"/130mm FR bike over a 26.5/27.5" one any day. But then, I don't NEED 130mm with 29" wheels if I prefer that travel for 26".
  • 04-26-2008
    yogiprophet
    Which one of us has our math wrong???
    Hate to be the one to spring this on you, but the difference in wheel DIAMETERS add to the height of the head tube.

    The joke is not on Kirk, it is on the one who is run by an ego that really really thinks it knows it all and is compelled to tell all the world the"truth", but being separate from the whole falls quite short of fully understanding.
  • 04-26-2008
    AllRounder
    All this "logic" and "math" just crack me up! Seriously, I am laughing at you Cloxki and Juansevo. Some folks just don't want to hear from those of us that have actually tried 650B and liked it. Again, I've been riding 29ers for years and 26 inch wheeled mountain bikes for decades and yes, 650B is superior for my local trails and style of riding. Y'all can keep foaming at the mouth over this, but Kirk nailed it - the 650b Neo Moto is a very good thing.

    Relax. Go back to the 29er forum and discuss your nifty 29er-specific handlebars and your search for the smallest granny gear in the world, and just pretend we are not here. You will feel better, I promise!
  • 04-26-2008
    TNC
    Cloxxki...apparently you seem to acknowledge that...within reason...the taller wheel/tire setup that one can ride generally results in a positive benefit. If I want at least 160mm of travel up front and out back, what's wrong with the 650B option to get the tallest tire possible without having to resort to huge and heavy DH/FR style tires?
  • 04-26-2008
    troll killer
    this just in...
    Cloxxki is a troll.
  • 04-26-2008
    SuspectDevice
    Ahahahaha, math, about wheelsizes, but no mention of lap-times? Math is for winning races. Smaller wheels will still win all the races, because they are lighter, and races are won on climbs.

    On the intangible front, people who aren't from the Lowcountries have a different perspective on mountainbiking. For one thing, we do it in the the mountains, and for another, if it isn't about winning, it's about fun. Here in America, fun on dirt is pretty much all about Skids and Wheelies. IE riding agressively, getting loose, finding some things to jump and pump when you can.
    A stronger, Lighter, stiffer, smaller wheel is going to last longer, be easier to get off the ground (because it doesn't just roll over bumps, sucking all the fun and excitement out of riding).
  • 04-27-2008
    Cloxxki
    Glad to hear you're having a good time with this.

    160mm travel and 650B? Just stick with 26". Do you honestly think 1" of wheel matters when you hae 160mm of travel? When in doubt, by all means pick the most common size. it will nett a better bike. If you're a believer of travel over wheelsize, then at least go with the smallest wheel you can get to roll.

    That's easy, telling a lowlander he doesn't know about riding mountains or real trails. We do travel you know, and we do bring our bikes. And having more challenging trails around doesn't change the laws of nature. The wheels will do what wheels do.
    Perhaps that's why 29" caught on so well in the US, and not at all in the low countries around here?

    But it's good to notice you prefer to argue with me on stuff I've not yet explained. Makes me feel you agreed with my rant ;-)
  • 04-27-2008
    juansevo
    I was just in Fruita talking to a bunch of industry types over beer. 650b is considered a joke amongst those in the know and will agree.....go 26" or go 29er. 650b does not offer a big enough advantage over either to justify it's existence. Most of the custom companies are doing "650b" frames because it's still custom and your money still buys beer. Really doesn't matter to them.
  • 04-27-2008
    laffeaux
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by juansevo
    I was just in Fruita talking to a bunch of industry types over beer. 650b is considered a joke amongst those in the know and will agree.....go 26" or go 29er. 650b does not offer a big enough advantage over either to justify it's existence. Most of the custom companies are doing "650b" frames because it's still custom and your money still buys beer. Really doesn't matter to them.

    Yes, you are correct. We will stop talking about 650b. It has absolutely no value. Any all issues that we have with 26 or 29 wheels are really non-issues, and we will no longer try to resolve them. The only options that we will ever consider will be those approved by you. Thank you for correcting us.
  • 04-27-2008
    big err
    +1
    Thanks, Juan! Youre neat!:thumbsup:
  • 04-27-2008
    laffeaux
    I'll start my crusade against 120mm travel forks now. We already have 100mm forks and we have 140mm forks? Why must we have anything in between? Don't the guys that buy 120mm realize that they are diluting the market, and limiting my choices for 100mm forks? Oh, and an industry buddy of mine told me that 120mm is a joke anyway. People that use them really should be on a 140mm fork, but they're too dumb to know it.

    Imagine those schmucks on adjustable travel forks too! The TALAS is a joke with all of it's adjustments, when we all know that ther are only 3 acceptible settings: 80, 100, and 140mm. Why would anyone waste their time?
  • 04-27-2008
    ssmike
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by laffeaux
    I'll start my crusade against 120mm travel forks now. We already have 100mm forks and we have 140mm forks? Why must we have anything in between? Don't the guys that buy 120mm realize that they are diluting the market, and limiting my choices for 100mm forks? Oh, and an industry buddy of mine told me that 120mm is a joke anyway. People that use them really should be on a 140mm fork, but they're too dumb to know it.

    Imagine those schmucks on adjustable travel forks too! The TALAS is a joke with all of it's adjustments, when we all know that ther are only 3 acceptible settings: 80, 100, and 140mm. Why would anyone waste their time?

    (applause) :thumbsup:
  • 04-27-2008
    TNC
    Juan, frankly I'm amazed that you take time out of your obviously busy and important schedule to honor us with your knowledge...considering the more important responsibility of schmoozing with "industry types" and such in Fruita. I just want to say "thank you" for trying to set people straight on many of these new fangled and obviously ludicrous ideas floating around out there. I'll be in Moab for the next couple of weeks, and I'll definitely pass on your words of wisdom when I meet with "industry types" on my visit.
  • 04-28-2008
    Crash_Burn
    1 Attachment(s)
    Smart or Smarta$$?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    I'll get a properly made 29"/130mm FR bike over a 26.5/27.5" one any day. But then, I don't NEED 130mm with 29" wheels if I prefer that travel for 26".

    I've seen where you ride - You area of expertise is FLAT!

    Wake up Batman YOU ride an overbuilt Fat Tire CX bike.

    It appears you have not grasped the importance of wheel size/weight, the gyroscopic effect is exponential not linear.

    Big wheels help you stay up and smaller wheels allow you to get sideways easier.

    P.S. I actually raced a 29er on a short track crourse last week and love it - I'm looking forward to racing a 650B when I get my dirty little hands on one.
  • 04-28-2008
    blahwtf?
    x2:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
  • 04-28-2008
    Cracked Headtube
    Ok, so I'm gonna put a 100mm fork on my 650B bike, size Medium mind you, and ride in the midwest. Is this kosher to the average population? Or am I missing something?
  • 04-28-2008
    blahwtf?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ssmike
    (applause) :thumbsup:

    x2 :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
  • 04-29-2008
    Davidcopperfield
    I wish all that fuss with manufacturing 584mm was applied into 29er movement. I'd love to have more options more forks and bikes form decent manufacturers, which export all over the globe not just USA and not custom-working-out-of-bedroom blokes. Let's drop that silly 584 - all 25mm bigger than 559mm, size and bring about 29ers from Merida, Scott, Giant, Santa Cruz. After 29ers mautre eniugh 584mm will be a useless, unless on S frames and hucking/stunt machines, from M all bicycles will be 29ers.
  • 04-29-2008
    troll killer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    I wish all that fuss with manufacturing 584mm was applied into 29er movement. I'd love to have more options more forks and bikes form decent manufacturers, which export all over the globe not just USA and not custom-working-out-of-bedroom blokes. Let's drop that silly 584 - all 25mm bigger than 559mm, size and bring about 29ers from Merida, Scott, Giant, Santa Cruz. After 29ers mautre eniugh 584mm will be a useless, unless on S frames and hucking/stunt machines, from M all bicycles will be 29ers.

    DC,

    Well why not wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets filled first. :thumbsup:
  • 04-29-2008
    fomenter
    Haven't ridden a 650b? So you have no frame of reference here, Juan. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie...
  • 05-03-2008
    wardfoto
    got a 26er, just got a new 29er, and really want to convert my old peugeot orient express out to 650b.
    why, you say? funny. i can tell you that very thing.
    26er is my full squish super plush, go to moab rip porc, and still have a back and arms for hanging out and eating, chillin' at the pepper.
    29er, simply put, makes trails feel as comfortable as the full squish does, but rigid and single, so no power loss, and smooth riding, with more speed kept. my only discontent to date ( two rides, on my home trail) front end is not as easy to get up when approaching obstacles. biggest advantage? descending. bigger wheels fill in the drops nicer, so smoother over hairy obstacles.
    650b on the express? well, nothing like breathing new(er) life into an old friend. this bike was my first trail riding bike, rigid geared. some homies told me "you can't ride that on these trails, it'll kill you, and kill the bike" so full squish kona. then, all of a sudden, everybody went rigid ss. i, not being made of cash, was still full squish, and missing out on the fun.
    so, express gets a conversion, now rigid ss. and i've got all kinds of personality in that bike, and love it. the 29er has given me a taste of the plushness that a fully rigid can attain, and now i see that 650b should give me that bit of advantage, while keeping the snappiness and response of the 26er. front end pull up, throw the bike through the corner, even make really tight corners, all easier than the 29er.
    and i can keep my old friend, and the bond between us can grow stronger. too many choices, you say? i say just enough.
    enjoy the ride, whatever it may be, and may your old friend grow old with you.
    26er? yessir.
    650b? not yet but it'll be nice.
    29er? yessir, and what took me so long?
    oh, and juan- just a thought, and i hope it helps. don't buy a 650b. some guy on mtbr says it's overkill, and that there is too much choice. just wanted to help, if i could.
  • 05-03-2008
    Sim2u
    I think I remember when spesh opted to have their FSR (I think it was this model) out fitted with a 24"Rr wheel and a 26" Fr wheel...

    How many of those can we see today...? MTB riding is not Motor bike riding and they both have different power plants with different characteristics that effect the bike and the rider in different ways and well, thats not even getting into the real techy side of it either.

    In reference to some comments further up the thread.
  • 05-03-2008
    reformed roadie
    umm, why is any of that significant?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by juansevo
    I was just in Fruita talking to a bunch of industry types over beer. 650b is considered a joke amongst those in the know and will agree.....go 26" or go 29er. 650b does not offer a big enough advantage over either to justify it's existence. Most of the custom companies are doing "650b" frames because it's still custom and your money still buys beer. Really doesn't matter to them.

    That's funny...I recall it was custom builders that were doing all of the 29ers for years before Gary Fisher started pushing the concept. Then several more years before any other major manufacturer followed.

    Were these the same industry types - those in the know - that spec'd bio-pace chain rings, under the chain stay mounted brakes, 140mm stem on my first mountain bike?
    After I got some experience, I bought a Bridgestone MB-3, which was spec'd by Grant Peterson. It had round rings, cantilevers and a reasonably long stem.
    (if you need to know why that is significant to this thread, look up his interview on bikeradar.com)

    650B is catching on WAY FASTER than 700C did for mountain bikes.
    Please contact Kenda, Stan NoTubes, Sun, Ventana, et al. before they all commit a grave mistake.
  • 05-04-2008
    PissedOffCil
    Quote:

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

    We're you thinking about integrated stems?
  • 05-04-2008
    JMac47
    Who's trying to solve anything?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by juansevo
    Once again, 650b really does not solve anything.

    :confused: I don't see it as a marketing ploy being shoved in anyones face either. Wait, could it be a French conspiracy getting back at us for all the TDF victories??:skep:

    Some might go the 650b for it's individual benifit, some for the simple idea of difference.

    C'mon people, just go ride what ever wheel is stuck to your frame and enjoy, either way it's all about bike passion, right?
  • 05-05-2008
    Davidcopperfield
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by reformed roadie
    650B is catching on WAY FASTER than 700C did for mountain bikes..

    Because 700C paved the way of being the questioner of perfect wheel size. 584mm comes when the people's eye are wide open to new sizes in mtb, moreover it is much easier to build a 584mm with old stuff, which cannot be said with 29ers.
    Your comparison is not fair for 622mm.

    584mm would not catched so fast back there in 90s
  • 05-05-2008
    colker1
    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."


    2 words: attention whore.
  • 05-06-2008
    reformed roadie
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Because 700C paved the way of being the questioner of perfect wheel size. 584mm comes when the people's eye are wide open to new sizes in mtb, moreover it is much easier to build a 584mm with old stuff, which cannot be said with 29ers.
    Your comparison is not fair for 622mm.

    584mm would not catched so fast back there in 90s


    I hear your point, but then you make an arguement why it would have.
    29ers took longer because you couldn't just build it with old stuff.
    Geometry had to be re-worked.
    You had to make compromises.
    As you can see, 650B wheels can be used on some 26" bikes with no other changes.
    If 650B had come first, would anyone have bothered w/ 29ers?
  • 05-06-2008
    kapusta
    Quote:

    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.
    Actually, you just made a great argument for 650b over 29er

    Quote:

    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.
    Another great argument for 650b as it would replace the two current designs (26 and 29) with one size.

    Quote:

    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
    See above.
    Quote:

    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.
    Same was said of 29ers.
    Quote:

    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.
    To each his own. I have both a 29er and 26er and can plainly see the advantage of a compromise between the two.
    Quote:

    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.
    Neither were 29" wheels when they hit mountain bikes.

    Quote:

    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."
    Yes, and if we were talking about giving birth to dinosaurs whose DNA was mixed with frog DNA, this might somehow be relevant. Or are you worried about 650b's getting lose, reproducing on their own, and eating tourists?:out:
  • 05-06-2008
    colker1
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by juansevo
    I was just in Fruita talking to a bunch of industry types over beer. 650b is considered a joke amongst those in the know and will agree.....go 26" or go 29er. 650b does not offer a big enough advantage over either to justify it's existence. Most of the custom companies are doing "650b" frames because it's still custom and your money still buys beer. Really doesn't matter to them.

    so... you talk to guys "in the know". awesome! great success!
  • 05-06-2008
    kapusta
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by juansevo
    I was just in Fruita talking to a bunch of industry types over beer. 650b is considered a joke amongst those in the know

    Same was true for years for 29ers.

    Furthermore, 650b has caught on faster in the industry than 29ers did. 3 years ago there was barely a whisper of the size. It's growth in the past 3 years took 29ers at least a decade to achieve. How long did people have to push for a real 29" mtb tire? There were real 650b tires available by the time most people even knew the size existed.
  • 05-06-2008
    Davidcopperfield
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by reformed roadie
    If 650B had come first, would anyone have bothered w/ 29ers?

    Of course they would as 584mm is still a small wheel and people would have sought for another size not necessarily 622mm but 640?
    If you pay attention there is will within tall riders to build a 32er with 698mm rims. As long as weight ratio is preserved it is good. For instance a light rider 160cm on 26er vs tall and heavier rider 185-195 on 32er.

    To sum up my take:
    I am contented with another option and perhaps replace 559mm, yet I am not happy with the attention drawn to it as it drives manufacturers from proliferating 622mm in mtb for a sake of another kiddy wheel size.

    Why not making a 32er with 698mm rims? We need a quantum leap not a tip-toe steps!
  • 05-06-2008
    colker1
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Why not making a 32er with 698mm rims? We need a quantum leap not a tip-toe steps!

    because 29er wheels are already weak and heavy.

    because if 29ers didn't roll in europe nor in south america and neither in asian markets you can guess 32ers are going nowhere.

    so good luck w/ your quantum leap.
  • 05-06-2008
    Davidcopperfield
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by colker1
    because 29er wheels are already weak and heavy.

    So are 26er wheels in comparison with 24" (assuming they are built with this same material& hi-tech geometry etc.)
    All is relative.
  • 05-06-2008
    colker1
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    So are 26er wheels in compared with 24" (assuming they are built with this same material& hi-tech geometry etc.)
    All is relative.

    26 wheels are light strong and fast enough for technical singletrack riding I do.
    a 29er wheel as light and strong as my 26ers would cost 3x more.
  • 05-06-2008
    Davidcopperfield
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by colker1
    26 wheels are light strong and fast enough for technical singletrack riding I do.

    Just for you
    Wouldn't a 24" wheel be faster and stronger for someone smaller?
    Wouldn't a 32 or 29" wheels be faster and if properly built with 29er specific hub&flanges stronger for someone else?

    Quote:

    a 29er wheel as light and strong as my 26ers would cost 3x more.
    This is not an inherent construction failure but economical.
  • 05-06-2008
    colker1
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Just for you
    Wouldn't a 24" wheel be faster and stronger for someone smaller?
    Wouldn't a 32 or 29" wheels be faster and if properly built with 29er specific hub&flanges stronger for someone else?

    This is not an inherent construction failure but economical.

    i like the 650B idea. can't wait to try it. where i live no one cares about 29ers. not a single bike built w/ those wheels. it's deemed too weak for our conditions. 650B otoh receives a warm expectation.
    you like your 29ers. good luck.
  • 05-06-2008
    BumpityBump
    juansevo wrote:
    Quote:

    I was just in Fruita talking to a bunch of industry types over beer. 650b is considered a joke amongst those in the know and will agree.....go 26" or go 29er. 650b does not offer a big enough advantage over either to justify it's existence. Most of the custom companies are doing "650b" frames because it's still custom and your money still buys beer. Really doesn't matter to them.
    So I hope you solved all of our problems while you and the "industry types" were at it. You must have had quite a few people crammed into a bar to get adequate representation and feedback. You took notes, right? I just hope you weren't drinking that Fat Tire swill.:lol:
  • 05-07-2008
    troll killer
    Beware!
    a friend once told the troll killer never to argue with people on the internet.

    he said something like:
    "tk, don't argue with people on web forums. arguing with people on the internet is like being in the special olympics; even if you win your still retarded!"


    the troll killer probably would not have phrased it that way, but the troll killer took his point, and agrees completely. what the troll killer means is that what other conclusion can be drawn about people arguing against a thing they have never experienced for themselves? the troll killer thinks that is pretty retarded. seriously, would anyone here go on the 29er forum and say "i have never ridden a 29er because I KNOW they don't work!" ??? arguments based in ignorance a pretty amusing to the troll killer!

    i have found ignoring the likes of jaun a davidcopperfield to be the best way to get them to go away. it hurts their ego too much when no one responds to their ludicrous and intentionally incendiary comments. the game isn't any fun for them when they can't get a rise out of people. responding only gives credence to their claims, fuels their need for attention, make a point, have the last word, or what ever it is they are looking for by posting negative comments on a positive forum.

    the troll killer is still wondering if there is any truth to the rumor that davidcopperfield has never actually ridden a 29er.


    viva le 650b,

    tk
  • 05-07-2008
    MW
    How is this thread still alive???

    --MW
  • 05-07-2008
    nightfire
    I can't be bothered to read all of the posts but I am all for 650B, I was and in many ways am a complete convert to 29er. But... 650B has solved a technical problem I have in reducing toe overlap,

    I would love to see a time when rims of all designs are available in 26/27.7/29" and similarly all tyres.

    Saying there should be one standard is like saying I should make to with size 15 shoes and wear thicker socks.
  • 05-07-2008
    bricycle
    You're logic is narrow-minded, if not ill conceived. Bike shops have always had, and will always have, odd-ball items in stock. Get used to it. I've been in the industry 40yrs and the only things that change are products. This is the same discussion that went on when Dia-Compe introduced 1-1/8' headsets, and that was not a vast improvement over the existing, Fisher 1-1/4 and 1". The problem it solved wasn't a problem in many peoples opinion. Time will tell whether 650b catches on in the industry. As one who has ridden 26" for years, tried 29'er (not a fan personally), and is currently riding 650b (jury's out but I prefer it over 29"), I say change is the life blood of the bicycle industry. With your line of thinking we wouldn't see single speeds on the trails today - and I see a lot SS out there.

    As to your comment about derraileurs, do your homework before you go off half cocked. Tulio invented the modern derrailuer in 1951. Prior to that the Campys Cambio rod shifter was used for only about 6 years.

    You have your opinions, great! It sounds as though you may be affiliated with a bike shop so I can understand the frustration. My guess is that more savvy shops will embrace this technology for as long as it lives while more intimidated stores will wait and see; and suffer the same fate as those manufacturers who thought mountain bikes were merely a fad.
  • 05-08-2008
    Davidcopperfield
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by colker1
    i like the 650B idea. can't wait to try it. where i live no one cares about 29ers. not a single bike built w/ those wheels.

    This does not mean anything, it may only confirm that 29ers up to now were not perfected. See the history of 29er geometry, read about fork offsets and you'll know. They are still many 29ers built like 26ers with short offset Reba 38mm and you jugde the whole 622mm in mtb by ill conceived bikes why?
    I have met a plethora of such balloney opinions based on little immersion into the topic.

    Try Hi-fi pro 29er from fisher and jet9 if you want to race. They receive pretty good feedback. Beyond that test as many 29ers as possible, wheels can be built strong enough as these videos show:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1MdldhyPJE – Behemoth Lenz

    http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?...0&postcount=21

    http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?...0&postcount=20

    http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?...88&postcount=1

    http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?...9&postcount=18

    http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?...4&postcount=36

    http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?...7&postcount=52
    With boulders
    http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?...03&postcount=1
    small drops
    http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?...31&postcount=9

    I do not see any advantage there on 584mm. How can a smaller wheel compete with traction, rolling resistance.
    here is a thread showing what is it really about
    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=410005

    In the future you will notice that handling traits of 29ers will improve and 26ers will be pushed out and some part of 27,5ers as well, since 584mm is still a small wheel.
  • 05-08-2008
    kapusta
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    I have met a plethora of such balloney opinions based on little immersion into the topic.

    Is the irony of this statement not apparent?:rolleyes:
  • 05-08-2008
    Sim2u
    +1...:thumbsup:

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kapusta
    Is the irony of this statement not apparent?:rolleyes:

  • 05-08-2008
    ohpossum
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    I do not see any advantage there on 584mm.

    Sweet! I'll take a 16" 29er with 5" of travel, ~17" chainstays and a uninterrupted seat tube!

    ..oh wait...nevermind :rolleyes:

    op
  • 05-08-2008
    Davidcopperfield
    1 Attachment(s)
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ohpossum
    Sweet! I'll take a 16" 29er with 5" of travel, ~17" chainstays and a uninterrupted seat tube!

    ..oh wait...nevermind :rolleyes:

    op

    Look no farther than S Behemoth from Lenz it has almost exactly what you say.

    Edit: See these threads about 16" FS 29ers
    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=370509

    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=384998
  • 05-08-2008
    kapusta
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Look no farther than S Behemoth from Lenz it has almost exactly what you say.

    Edit: See these threads about 16" FS 29ers
    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=370509

    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=384998

    A bent seat tube is, for most practical purposes, the same as an interrupted seat tube.
  • 05-08-2008
    ohpossum
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Look no farther than S Behemoth from Lenz it has almost exactly what you say.

    Edit: See these threads about 16" FS 29ers
    https://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/faq-show-your-tiny-29ers-smaller-than-equal-16-frames-370509.html

    https://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/small-frames-small-riders-384998.html

    Check out Lenz's own site:



    Smallest they advertise is a 17". The small you pictured is either not available to the public yet or the website needs some updating (probably its the website).


    But if you read the threads you linked to, you'd see DirtGurl's comments:

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DirtGurl
    Devin's first small Lenzsport Behemoth.... Top tube is 22.8" and standover is 29.6" at the lowest spot by the saddle. I am 5'7", wear 33" inseam jeans, and have little extra room on this bike so this "small" frame is defintely not for a tiny person.

    She's 5'7" and is saying the "small" has "little extra room", which to me says the "small" is closer to a "medium". It has the same standover as the medium. Sounds like Lenz made a medium with a short(er) TT and called it a "small".

    Face it, when making a full suspension 29er, something has to give to make room for the bigger wheels.

    op
  • 05-08-2008
    blahwtf?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Just for you
    Wouldn't a 24" wheel be faster and stronger for someone smaller?
    Wouldn't a 32 or 29" wheels be faster and if properly built with 29er specific hub&flanges stronger for someone else?

    This is not an inherent construction failure but economical.

    yes! except their ratios would have to be different and that would take ground clearance away,unless everybody was running internal setups, and with todays technology, no. you see, there is a thing called a happy medium. each persons is different. my happy medium is on a bike that is the right size for me, its a personal thing, i feel comfortable on a 20" bmx, and a 24" DJ, and a 26" FR and a 700c road bike. all these are fine. now, the example you have used "dirtgirl", is 5'7" and her inseam is about 33", i am not even 5'6" and my inseam is about 29". and now i'm not on here trying to argue about 29" being a bad idea. because i think its very good, otherwise people wouldn't be making as much product support for it as they do. I however have owned xc race bikes, with external gearing. and at the point in personal training that im at right now, im sacrificing gearing for ground clearance in XC situations. i do not like 29's but i'd love a size larger than 26" i do not know how many others are in a similar boat as me, so others reasons for buying could be different. but it sounds to me like you're just all sour grapes, because you like 29's better and you feel that there isnt enough support for them. why not try some positivity and the the sport of 29-ing, rather than going and crapping on 27-5ers just cause they do not fit into your happy medium.
  • 05-08-2008
    Davidcopperfield
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ohpossum
    Face it, when making a full suspension 29er, something has to give to make room for the bigger wheels.

    op

    Rip9 comes in small 16" even pictured in those links. User Rainman rides one for example.
    It looks quite normal with WB 135mm front.
    Yep something has to give, but you take lesser roling resistance, general smoother ride, more traction. security, less endo proness.

    Yous seem to consider 584mm having all benefits of 622mm while not having its downsides, which is not truth. 584mm is not a solution to 622mm limits in terms of small frames.
    Marketing guys wanting to sell you new hype will tell you that there are no tangible benefits in 622mm over 584mm.
    Going with 20" and wanting to end up with this same front end height you could have 300mm of suspension, the same for rear. I could say then "hey guys there are limits with 584mm, only shorter travel possible and long CS"

    Building a 140mm FS 29er within 16" frame is much harder, however possible. Flip the stem and use flat bar and you'll get lower front end. Only several rear suspnesion designs can work freely within 16" confines. Perhaps over steepish STA like 76 + setback seat post and you get normal STA.
    Yeah some compromises, but do not hinder the rider and you get full benefits of big wheel.

    This same works conversely- 584 or 559 is a a compromise offroad in comparison to 622mm. For some number of tall guys 622mm is a compromise to unexistant 698mm. They know that they can get more from bigger wheels

    If you prefer landing off high drops onto flat then stick to 26", 24" or ,if you will, to 584mm/27,5

    If you would rather cover distances on epic rides in rough both uphill and downhill slimy and nasty terrain stick to 29ers with 120-140mm. At this point both 559 and 584mm are worse.

    As it was pointed out before- here
    http://twentynineinches.com/2008/03/...g-travel-29er/
    584mm will nedd 27,5er specific frames to be viable for AM/FR or DH and this is not a quick fix. It will be like with 29ers but easier to design around.

    This comment actually displays the whole buzz

    17 Vandal
    on Mar 4th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

    I don’t understand why there would be any fewer headaches involved in designing a 650b long travel bike compared to a 29er long travel bike.
    The top reason riders choose 29er bikes is not one of smoother rolling or a lower angle of attack, it’s because they fit tall riders better. It seems that the typical 29er customer is over 5′10″ (often over 6′) for a good reason. The tall rider has a higher centre of gravity. The longer wheelbase and higher wheel centre of rotation enhances the tall rider’s stability. The b.b. height is no different to a that of a 26er. That the larger wheel has some enhanced rolling characteristics is a nice bonus.
    It makes sense that a 650b-wheel bike would accomplish the same for a different segment of riders.

    However, the bike MUST be engineered around the wheel size. Simply stuffing larger wheels in a 26er frame will only raise the b.b. height and the rider’s c.o.g. yielding no improvement over the stability that rider would feel on a 26er. We’re fooling ourselves to believe that 650b long travel is in any way cheaper or easier to do than than 29er long travel.
    If 650b wheels are stuffed into 26er frames, then tire size would be restricted to about 2.1″. On long travel bikes, the whole point is to be able to attack more gnarly terrain with more confidence. 2.1″ tires are not the right tool for this job. In order for a 650b to be worthwhile with long travel suspension, the frame must accomodate 2.5″ tires with plenty of frame and fork clearance. This would necessitate a distinct frame designed for 650b wheels thereby making it NOT a quick fix.


    So then, is the increment between 26″ and 650b significant enough to make a detectable difference in fit or in bump-eating ability? If it is, then everything else is a matter of economics. Offering things in more sizes increases the manufacturers costs. If Giro Helmets made only one model of helmet in one size, all they would have to do is make enough helmets to to fit all the heads out there. And it would be cheap to make helmets. But, introduce three sizes, and Giro must guesstimate how many of each to make, they need to buy three sets of molds instead of one, they must hold a larger inventory which means it takes longer to convert cost of manufacturing into revenue, they’ll have to sell off unsold inventory at the end of the year at virtually no profit. All these factors of offering three helmet sizes make helmets cost more money and the only place that money comes from is the end-customer’s wallet.
    If Haro can convince customers that they need a 650b bike, Haro needs to take the risk of providing them. Since a new product will only be accepted by the market if it either performs better or is just as good but cheaper, Haro will certainly loose money on this venture for quite a few years before the cost of manufacturing can be diluted over a large enough market. But the only way they’ll be able to accomplish this is if the product actually works and does something that a 26″ long travel bike cannot.


    I see merits for 584mm as a fun wheel stuffed into 26er frames with little to no adjustments however starting from Medium frames there is nothing that a 27.5er can do better than a properly designed 29er - with 29er specific parts as forks, tyre prints, redesigned suspension (excluding stunt related stuff)

    In offroad it will simply "perish" smilarly to 26ers. Having said that many of you would be better off on 29ers. If you feel too weak to propel a 29er train harder, lift weights, strenghten your legs.

    Edit: Is there any point where a 584mm bike with 140mm is more suitable than 622mm 140mm? Perhaps on S frames only.
    CS not much shorter, Weight- not much lighter. Streability: Not at all because of longer offset on newer/ future 29er forks and 29er specific frame designs. More over small increase in contact patch and traction over 26er when compared to 29ers.
  • 05-08-2008
    kapusta
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    This does not mean anything, it may only confirm that 29ers up to now were not perfected. See the history of 29er geometry, read about fork offsets and you'll know. They are still many 29ers built like 26ers with short offset Reba 38mm and you jugde the whole 622mm in mtb by ill conceived bikes why?
    .

    So, how many 650b bikes have you ridden?
  • 05-08-2008
    MMcG
    Why are we even arguing about this? Seems pretty wasteful to me.

    If you like 26" wheels - ride em

    If you like 650bs - ride em

    If you like 29ers - ride em

    If you like em all - ride em all.

    Simple as that.
  • 05-08-2008
    JMac47
    Wait! I'm confused....
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MMcG
    If you like em all - ride em all.

    ......at one time? Is this possible?
  • 05-09-2008
    Sim2u
    This is fast degenerating into mud scenario (simple anagram), speaking of which, go ride.......
  • 05-09-2008
    drewactual
    interesting idea (to me anyway).... :

    All this talk about 650B seems to be driven by the consumer. The consumer is pushing, and pushing hard for another choice. The industry is behind, not the consumer... The industry would have to make dramatic changes to the way they do things (in terms of manufacturing equipment/procedures) so it is well understood that they are going to drag their collective feet until they realize this is not a fad and that the investment warrants consideration...

    Here is a reason why I am a proponent of the notion: 650B's will give me a large hoop to roll on without the inherit weaknesses a 29'r has. At #270 this is a big consideration for me. The limitation I speak of is the hub being further from the rim on the big hoops which means lateral forces have more leverage and I will be having taco's for lunch... A 650B is a good compromise for me..

    btw... anyone attempted a 650B on a SC Bullit?
  • 05-11-2008
    Davidcopperfield
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drewactual
    Here is a reason why I am a proponent of the notion: 650B's will give me a large hoop to roll on without the inherit weaknesses a 29'r has

    The problem is that 584mm is not a large hoop and also has drawbacks as well as 559mm. All sellers of 584mm want to tell you that 584mm is the same as 622mm. That's a hype.

    Quote:

    . At #270 this is a big consideration for me. The limitation I speak of is the hub being further from the rim on the big hoops which means lateral forces have more leverage and I will be having taco's for lunch... A 650B is a good compromise for me..
    Just reenter 29ers when there will be a plethora of extra wide hubs like 165mm with tall flanges and then you get a wheel equally strong as 559mm or 584mm. For 29ers in Dh there will be such hubs. Perhaps more spoke count, at your weight the weight gain of the bike will be untangible.
  • 05-11-2008
    drewactual
    never heard anyone say the 584 is as good as a 622 just for the record. I have heard folks say it is a compromise. The strength of the hoop/spoke/hub is a notion of my own opinion that I haven't heard too much about at all, but it makes sense to me.

    The greatest advantage I think the 650B enjoys is the design and engineering that went into 26'rs doesn't have to be lost in every case, just slightly modified. I figure a 29'r with 7+ inches of travel will disallow many riders by their sheer trail, height, and stand-over alone. A 650B would not.

    I would like to see the 622 developed in that manner, but honestly I think the 650B will get there first. It seems beenie smugglers are ruling the development of the bigger wheel/tire market, while a 650B may be more at home with gravity types.
  • 05-11-2008
    Davidcopperfield
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drewactual
    The greatest advantage I think the 650B enjoys is the design and engineering that went into 26'rs doesn't have to be lost in every case, just slightly modified.

    For AM and FR usage you need separate forks and frames for 584, as ordinary 559 forks will not clear tyres over 584mm 2,3 with decent mud clearance and pitching high BB.

    Quote:

    I figure a 29'r with 7+ inches of travel will disallow many riders by their sheer trail, height, and stand-over alone. A 650B would not.
    There are several custom DH 29ers and the limit seems to be 175cm about 5'8"-5'9" which for US average height is short.
    http://waltworks.com/dev/pricing/DHbuild.php
    BCD -Alex's picture on his DH 29er compare it with ordinary DH 26"
    http://www.transcendmagazine.com/gal..._web_steanne07
    see the picture 25
    Quote:

    I would like to see the 622 developed in that manner, but honestly I think the 650B will get there first.
    For me 584mm is better than 559 however much worse than 622mm ,if properly built of course. 584 serves as a 26er renovator.
    The 584 does not split the difference as between 559 and 622m there is 63mm so the rim inbetween would be 590.5mm which is 1/4 bigger than 584mm is from 559.
    A 25mm bigger rim does not fix much, mostly it is in your head.

    1 http://bcdracing.com/psycho-billy-cadillac/inedible.htm
    2 Comments
    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=294107
    Photos
    http://www.rotos.lv/forum/viewtopic....073e20fc720e2c
    http://www.littermag.com/techno/bcd29er/5.htm
    http://www.littermag.com/techno/bcd29er/1.htm
    http://www.sicklines.com/2007/06/20/...fiber-dh-bike/
    4 His work http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=179308
    5 An older thread FR 26" vs 29" http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?p=2180804

    Quote:

    It seems beenie smugglers are ruling the development of the bigger wheel/tire market, while a 650B may be more at home with gravity types.
    Yep, smaller wheels will alwys feel better flying, wheelies&stoppies- preforming stunts, landing to flat yet not while climbing, rolling down, traction, security, endoproness are at stake. The excellent wheelsize for the above is the largest you can fit it can be even bigger than 622mm like 698- a candidate for a 32er.

    Try contacting Mike Curiak ( http://lacemine29.com/index-ny.html )
    he will lace you a bombproof 29er wheelset f. ex. salsa Gordo, flow rims or even Kris Holms rims 36h used for DH 622mm. At your weight you must be a big guy, under whom small wheels look unproportionate, try some 29ers and you'll get what I mean.
  • 05-11-2008
    kapusta
    Yep, smaller wheels will alwys feel better flying, wheelies&stoppies- preforming stunts, landing to flat yet not while climbing, rolling down, traction, security, endoproness are at stake. The excellent wheelsize for the above is the largest you can fit it can be even bigger than 622mm like 698- a candidate for a 32er.

    You'd have a point there if it were that simple. Unfortunately, it's not, so you don't.
  • 05-11-2008
    bricycle
    DC-it's real difficult to follow what you're trying to say here. While larger wheels have better traction and therefore stop better, I think your logic is a bit off-maybe not-but still... 29'r wheels are inherently weaker and flexier (is that even a word?) overall so for bigger stuff 26 probably still fills the bill. 650b (584/27.5) has the possibility to improve on both or highlight the weakness' of each. The truth is somewhere in between.

    I previously posted that the jury was out on my impressions on 650b was still out; well, the jury's in-this bike rocks! To the haters out there that haven't tried it yet; don't knock it 'til you try it!
  • 05-13-2008
    DieselAndDust
    I got to demo a Pacenti 650b bike this past weekend. I liked the performance of the 650b wheels so much I stripped down one of my 29ers that afternoon to sell off for the 650b I'm going to build. Today I took my other 29er out for a ride and I couldn't shake the thought that I wish I still had the Pacenti 650b to ride instead.
  • 05-17-2008
    TNC
    1 Attachment(s)
    650B Bullit
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drewactual
    interesting idea (to me anyway).... :

    All this talk about 650B seems to be driven by the consumer. The consumer is pushing, and pushing hard for another choice. The industry is behind, not the consumer... The industry would have to make dramatic changes to the way they do things (in terms of manufacturing equipment/procedures) so it is well understood that they are going to drag their collective feet until they realize this is not a fad and that the investment warrants consideration...

    Here is a reason why I am a proponent of the notion: 650B's will give me a large hoop to roll on without the inherit weaknesses a 29'r has. At #270 this is a big consideration for me. The limitation I speak of is the hub being further from the rim on the big hoops which means lateral forces have more leverage and I will be having taco's for lunch... A 650B is a good compromise for me..

    btw... anyone attempted a 650B on a SC Bullit?

    drew, I'm preparing to 650B my '99 trail Bullit. It appears that it's going to be a relatively easy transformation. The Bullit is one of the easiest bikes to experiment with geometry, travel, etc. due to the shock shuttle design and the roomy stays. I have a Van 36 on that Bullit and have already run the 650B in that fork with excellent results and adequate clearance at the arch and bottom of the steerer under full compression. I still have to build a rear wheel which will use one of our Sun CR18 rims we have at the shop. Here's a pic of the intended victim. This bike is now running a Van 36 instead of that Z150SL hybrid fork in the pic.
  • 05-17-2008
    bricycle
    Are you sure you're not going to run in to any clearance issues on the rear wheel? SP's rotate toward the seat tube and with the extra diameter of the wheel there could be an issue. If you're good there, prepare to fall in love with the 650b format. The traction for climbing and braking is incredible and the increased rotational weight, unlike 29'r, is hardly noticable. Enjoy!
  • 05-29-2008
    SystemShock
    650B: Here to stay
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    There are several custom DH 29ers and the limit seems to be 175cm about 5'8"-5'9" which for US average height is short.

    LOL, not that short... US average male height is 5'10". So, how much of that market are 29ers writing off, then? A third? That's quite a big chunk.

    Oh, and what about women? Most of them are under 5'8"-5'9".


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    The 584 does not split the difference as between 559 and 622m there is 63mm so the rim in between would be 590.5mm which is 1/4 bigger than 584mm is from 559.

    Yawn. 584 is 40% of the way between 559 and 622... close enough. And of course there'd be little difference between 584 and 590.5. So, you're complaining about what, again? :out:


    Quote:

    A 25mm bigger rim does not fix much, mostly it is in your head.
    Seems like you haven't ridden a 650B, then. :D

    And if an inch allegedly doesn't do much, why are you complaining about 584 being only 6mm off of exactly halfway between 559 and 622, above? :skep:

    To be honest, all this antagonism from the 29er crowd against 650B seems a bit childish and misplaced. The fear seems to be that 650B will somehow rob momentum/attention from the 29er movement, but that's silly... 650B and 29ers serve different segments of the market, heck, as you yourself pointed out, many ppl are simply too short to ride 29ers, plus there's others who simply do not like the trade-offs. Conversely, there are others who don't like the trade-offs that 650B represents. So, two DIFFERENT audiences.

    Did pickup trucks cease to exist because SUVs were invented? No. Because they serve different needs.

    So stop railing against 650B, because 1) you don't need to, and 2) it won't matter anyway. 650B fills a need (whether you think so or not doesn't matter... other people do, and will vote with their wallets), and is gaining momentum. It won't be going away just because you think it should.

    Heck, I would even like to see the 650B movement expanded to road bikes in a major way... with 700C wheels, it's hard to design a roadie bike properly in sizes 52cm and lower. So, if you're under 5'6" or so (maybe 15-20% the guys, and the majority of women), you're kinda screwed. 650B is needed on the asphalt as well. :thumbsup:

    Sorry you don't like 650B, but really, your opinion is worth jack and ****, and jack just left town. There's going to be a lot more 650B products and bikes coming out over the next few years, so you can whine about it, but you can't stop it.

    So learn to co-exist happily, or make yourself unhappy about something you can't change... it's your call. Otherwise, this is you: :madman:

    ...
  • 05-29-2008
    Clutchman83
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SystemShock
    Sorry you don't like 650B, but really, your opinion is worth jack and ****, and jack just left town. There's going to be a lot more 650B products and bikes coming out over the next few years, so you can whine about it, but you can't stop it.

    So learn to co-exist happily, or make yourself unhappy about something you can't change... it's your call. Otherwise, this is you: :madman:

    ...

    Epic first post :D .

    And I agree with everything you said.
  • 05-29-2008
    SystemShock
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Clutchman83
    Epic first post :D .

    And I agree with everything you said.

    Thanks. And is that a Battlestar Galactica avatar? If so, very cool. :thumbsup:
  • 06-05-2008
    Natedogz
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drewactual
    interesting idea (to me anyway).... :

    All this talk about 650B seems to be driven by the consumer. The consumer is pushing, and pushing hard for another choice. The industry is behind, not the consumer... The industry would have to make dramatic changes to the way they do things (in terms of manufacturing equipment/procedures) so it is well understood that they are going to drag their collective feet until they realize this is not a fad and that the investment warrants consideration...

    btw... anyone attempted a 650B on a SC Bullit?

    X2....................and anyone tried a 650B with a Specialized Rockhopper Disc? :D Mines all stock atm...
  • 06-10-2008
    Natedogz
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Natedogz
    X2....................and anyone tried a 650B with a Specialized Rockhopper Disc? :D Mines all stock atm...

    Measured my stock front forks and the RockShox Dart3 only has about 0.5" clearance between the top of the tire and the fork cross brace, so it won't work with the stock forks. Might with a different front fork though. Distance from the ground to the bottom of the BB is about 11.5" and from what I gather that is kinda low. Haven't measured the headset angle, but I have a protractor and will measure it later.
  • 06-12-2008
    Broccoli
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by juansevo
    Once again, 650b really does not solve anything. Would it have been good if mtb's started with 650b? Yes because then we could have one wheel size vs the two we have which would be a great deal for shops and manufacturers. But we didn't and changing things in the next 10 years ain't going to happen.

    Afterall....look at how long our derailer systems (very ancient when you think about it) have lasted? Well over 100 years. But then again....they work.

    Your blatant arrogance is amazing.

    Yes, it does solve a lot. I want a bigger tire, and 29r is too big. Chainstays are too long. Gap between available sizes is too big. I would like my wife to have the same size wheels, and 29r are too big for her.

    650b is a perfect size, it is a long overdue idea to adopt it to MTB use.

    My suggestion is that you take your opinion and shove it where sun does not shine.
  • 06-14-2008
    Natedogz
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Natedogz
    Measured my stock front forks and the RockShox Dart3 only has about 0.5" clearance between the top of the tire and the fork cross brace, so it won't work with the stock forks. Might with a different front fork though. Distance from the ground to the bottom of the BB is about 11.5" and from what I gather that is kinda low. Haven't measured the headset angle, but I have a protractor and will measure it later.

    OK, measured my headset angle and it is 70* at rest (no weight, rider on the bike).
  • 06-15-2008
    yater
    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."

    650b makes more sense than a 29er.
  • 06-15-2008
    Davidcopperfield
    Why is that? If there is no 584mm on road why should off-road? 584mm is a compromise from 622 for shorties, it is not a solution, the notion of which has been crammed up to your minds. No matter how much suspension you add it will not prevent smaller wheels to be stalled on obstacles similarly to 26ers. 584mm will not preserve enough forward momentum like 622mm. Ideal size is between 36er and 29er not 29er and 26er. If you feel you want a 584-650b, you have not tried all variations of 29ers!
  • 06-15-2008
    88 rex
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Why is that? If there is no 584mm on road why should off-road? 584mm is a compromise from 622 for shorties, it is not a solution, the notion of which has been crammed up to your minds. No matter how much suspension you add it will not prevent smaller wheels to be stalled on obstacles similarly to 26ers. 584mm will not preserve enough forward momentum like 622mm. Ideal size is between 36er and 29er not 29er and 26er. If you feel you want a 584-650b, you have not tried all variations of 29ers!


    Why do you think anything you just said makes any sense? Just ride what you ride and leave everyone alone.

    Stalling? Momentum? Suspension travel? IMO, I don't think these were "problems" with 26" wheels. People just prefer 29" for there riding style. The 29" would have been dead in the water without rigid SS'ers, again my opinion. I think the 650b will/is taking off with more downhill/all mountain/smaller riders.

    The more bikes the better!
  • 06-15-2008
    TNC
    DC, I disagree. Every inch of travel in a suspension and every mm of height in a wheel/tire combo will make "a" difference in the "stalling on obstacles" that you mention. Unless you try to throw in oddball variables into the mix...like screw up the compression damping, use ridiculous headangles, ultra-slow speeds, etc...some improvement will almost always occur. I can't imagine how a 6.5" full suspension bike with 29" wheels would roll over stuff. It would be impressive. But the design of the bike would be...how shall we say...weird and probably unwieldy.

    And what's your logic in the statement about there being no 650B on the road? I thought this wheel size started as a road/commuter/tourer or some other such road based wheel. And is that the qualifier for whether or not we should adopt something on a mountainbike?...it has to be on a roadbike first? That makes no sense.

    Now...I do disagree with yater. There is certainly "sense" for a 29'er wheel for MTB. It quite obviously works very well for lots of riders in lots of situations on lots of bikes. It's just not the only wheel to do it all, for everyone, all the time.
  • 06-16-2008
    perttime
    The economic and/or logistic side of this may be an issue.

    More variety while total numbers remain about the same must mean that there's pressures for the price of rims and tyres to go up.

    I don't see even 29ers getting a similar variety of tyres as 26ers do. Now add another standard. Sure, somebody will produce the components, at a price, but who is going to stock all that variety? I don't see my LBS doing that.
  • 06-16-2008
    TNC
    perttime, I think bike shops only stock a relatively small number of high end tires and wheels anyway. It's just too expensive to do otherwise. The key word is "relative". If you think even just how many model and sizes of a given brand of tire exist, it's pretty understandable. And when you get to wheels, it's not too different...and quality wheel units are unholy expensive. If you walk into our shop, you'd think we stock a lot of tires and wheelsets. In reality it's a small, small percentage of what's available. So...I don't think the idea of stocking 650B stuff is really much of an issue. Three of the six people who work regularly at our shop have 650B wheels on at least one of our bikes. We don't have any 650B wheels in stock. We're a decent advocate of 650B, so we'll let someone ride one of our bikes to test out the concept. Of course we'll order anything that they like. The odds of anyone walking into a shop and seeing the exact wheelset of any wheel size that they want is relatively slim anyway.
  • 06-16-2008
    Davidcopperfield
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TNC
    I can't imagine how a 6.5" full suspension bike with 29" wheels would roll over stuff. It would be impressive. But the design of the bike would be...how shall we say...weird and probably unwieldy.

    Niner WOF9 is 6" on the front and 165mm rear travel. Wait for it to be ready and try yourself.
  • 06-16-2008
    Rainman
    Me too, and i'm a confirmed 29'er rider. Until you have actually tried the 650B bike for yourself, you have no idea how good they are....and yes, I have tried one.

    Rainman.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Clutchman83
    Epic first post :D .

    And I agree with everything you said.

  • 06-17-2008
    Repoman84
    "If you feel you want a 584-650b, you have not tried all variations of 29ers!"

    Crapperfield, do you actually own a 29er yet?
  • 06-22-2008
    Tkul
    UUFFFF... 8 pages!!!

    I was reading a Spanish magazine, and they were speculating about the 27,5 wheels.
    Since I only knew the 29 (for MTB) have been searching this sub-forum.
    Never ridding other MTB besides 26 I can`t say what would be : advantages/ disadvantages.

    For road going... 700c rules (at least for me!), and always have been curious in using bigger wheels on MTB.

    Logic? Yes maybe!
    From the motorcycle world (MX & Enduro!!) you can see that the normal size (I hate the Standard word! :) ) is 80/100-21"; 110/90-19" (MX) and Enduro motorcycles 90/90-21"; 140/80-18" [This are from KTM 450 model!]
    Different terrains/competition different sizes... in width and diameter (rear at least!).
    Smaller diameter for Enduro motorcycles so that they can use larger tires without upsetting geometry.

    But the 21/19(18) is now days normal size! In the past there were bikes with smaller wheels on the back and different sizes on the front.
    MTB hasn`t settle yet! It`s to young and people NEED to experience and feel if it is worthy or not! And even todays bad ideas, can be excellent ideas in the future.

    What I am writing here is simple:

    What is important to overpass obstacles is the distance between the ground and the wheel axle.
    The greater the distance less force is necessary.
    29 I think have a little problem regarding suspension! But the fact the BB weight is smaller than the wheel axle weight makes me think.... uhhmmm... SWEET!
    24 I think makes bikes beautiful! (I know... it`s my point of view and wouldn`t like to discuss!)
    26 ... just normal!

    26/24 - ridiculous! and really don`t like the way bike looks (never ridden! can b e great!)

    650C/26 - ? looks cool! Has some advantages over 26in the front... doesn`t foul around too much suspension forks... And like we say at the office:

    If it looks simple/nice/beautifull (not only to one person!) than... it might work really great!

    Just one question:

    Placing a 650C won`t it place all the geo. wrong? HH angle/BB weight?


    PS: 26 inch tyres with same size as 650C will have higher tire halls making then less reactive/mushy.
  • 06-26-2008
    SystemShock
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Why is that? If there is no 584mm on road why should off-road?

    Actually, there IS 584mm/650B on-road. Makers like Rivendell, Kogswell, Rawland and others have been/are starting to popularize it for commuter/tourer/all-arounder bikes.

    Then there's all the 700C-->to-->650B conversions that are being done on existing road bikes.

    Why is nearly everything you say wrong? :confused:


    .
  • 06-28-2008
    Davidcopperfield
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SystemShock
    Then there's all the 700C-->to-->650B conversions that are being done on existing road bikes.


    .

    650C ,not B , which is 574mm used for triathlon bikes.
  • 06-28-2008
    88 rex
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    650C ,not B , which is 574mm used for triathlon bikes.

    You're wrong. They switch to 650b. :madman: :madman: :madman:
  • 06-30-2008
    Fillet-brazed
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by themanmonkey
    I totally understand the shop inventory thing and agree 100%, but you're 100% wrong about the advantages the 650B can provide. The main problem is from a fit perspective 29er wheels are just too bid for most riders. I know lots of short folks on 29ers and they're all fit poorly or are compromised in some way. I'd also love to see a 30" road wheel for tall riders. When Georgina Terry came out with her 24" front wheel bikes in the '80s folks said she was crazy. All the folks that had their fit problems solved by this design said she was genius. Just because the size isn't applicable to you doesn't make it wrong.

    Also we must look at the 650B is not a new standard, it existed before 700c and (559) 26" tires I believe. It's also still a pretty standard size in Europe. Again just because a size isn't applicable to your region doesn't make it wrong. Personally I'm not convinced about the benefits of 650B beyond the sizing issue, but I am going to build a few frames for it to see if does have merit. One of my favorite old adages is, "Don't knock it 'till you try it." I tried 29ers for 15 years and went back to 26" because I felt that the benefits of the larger wheel size wasn't for me in the end. I do, however, understand why people would choose that size wheel.


    you've tried 29ers for 15 years? you must have had some prototypes then about 6-7 years before they were even available. how did you make tires?
  • 06-30-2008
    Cracked Headtube
    Sorry Dave....
    You're wrong, sorta.
    Though many Triathletes use 650C wheesl for their TT bikes, many normal folk are converting their 700c road and old school road bikes to 650B. 650B, with a meatier tire gives a close circumference to a 700c. Thus allowing better rim protection and fender usage.

    View this link:

    http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=650b&w=all


    Thanks for playing.
  • 06-30-2008
    madnessmoose
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by perttime
    The economic and/or logistic side of this may be an issue.

    More variety while total numbers remain about the same must mean that there's pressures for the price of rims and tyres to go up.

    I don't see even 29ers getting a similar variety of tyres as 26ers do. Now add another standard. Sure, somebody will produce the components, at a price, but who is going to stock all that variety? I don't see my LBS doing that.

    If a shop is smart about their business they'd run a low inventory and turn it over. It doesn't make since to be the warehouse for everything. Think of how many different 26" and 29" tires are available. Now think of how many bike shops stock every single one of them. Probably none. It only take 2-5 days to special order items in anyways.
  • 07-01-2008
    SteveF
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Cracked Headtube
    Sorry Dave... You're wrong, sorta.



    Actually he's wrong entirely. See: http://www.bikeman.com/content/view/1161/33/ for details of the 650b conversion phenom. Ed Braley was if not the first, certainly one of the first to try this. I've converted a couple of 700c road bikes myself, and also ride a purpose built 650b road bike. (Rivendell Saluki)

    Ironically, some folks convert small road bikes that come with 650c wheels to 26"/559 wheels to be able to run fatter tires, similar to the 700c-650b conversions.

    And a further irony--folks started converting 700c road bikes to 650b wheels to fit fatter tires thanks to the smaller diameter rims. This new 650b mtb trend is converting 26" bikes to 650b wheels to fit bigger diameter rims. What a world! B-)
  • 07-01-2008
    perttime
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by madnessmoose
    It only take 2-5 days to special order items in anyways.

    Sometimes not even that...
    Still, the more there is variety, the more complicated and fragmented the supply gets.
  • 07-01-2008
    Tkul
    In car buisness it`s the same... so what?

    Wheels have different width... diam... offset, even 4/5 holes... different PCD...

    How many people use 650 A/B/C/.../WHAT EVER... compare it with the 26 market??
    It`s a bummer... yeah...Last rumor is that Kenda will embrace the 650 wheel.

    To have "critical weight"
    Big companys like TREK; SPECIALIZED; OTHER... or a group of high reputation low production: making it standard and asking for new forks... and other things....
  • 07-01-2008
    oldsalty
    are you the samr guy that penned Mein Kamph?
  • 07-01-2008
    troll killer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by oldsalty
    are you the samr guy that penned Mein Kamph?

    ouch! suggesting that a poster here my be evil incarnate like A,H. harshes the troll killers mellow, no matter how much of a troll that poster may (or may not) be. :nono:

    the troll killer suggests that you quote the person your referring to when making these types of statements. this should help avoid an unintended party taking this personally.

    peace,

    -tk
  • 07-01-2008
    oldsalty
    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."

    Are you the same dictator who penned Mein Kamph?
  • 07-02-2008
    troll killer
    much better....
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by oldsalty
    Are you the same dictator who penned Mein Kamph?

    oldsalty, ah that's better...though the troll killer still wouldn't liken this guy to a.h. :D the troll killer doesn't think he's that bad, though he does seem bent on imposing his view on others. the troll killer can see how you might draw that parallel between juan and that other guy.

    no, the troll killer thinks he's just a narrow minded troll who fails to see the flaw in his argument. the flaw of course being that his argument can be applied to any (insert brand name here) item, product or service in the bike industry... or the world for that matter. he doesn't seem to understand that the market ultimately decides what does and does not work. and that like it or not, the market seems to be responding positively to this particular product.

    he wrongly believes that because he doesn't see merit in the concept, that it should not exist. that somehow he's an authority on what's good or bad and that he's got the final solution to all the bike industries problems. and because this particular type of troll is typically very arrogant, he finds it difficult, if not impossible simply to "live and let live"....oh wait, that's another parallel to a.h. ...hmm, oldsalty, the troll killer thinks you may be onto something after all....


    saddened,

    -tk
  • 07-03-2008
    dirty29er
    1 Attachment(s)
    ill conceived....maybe
    but I'm having fun on it!!! And really isn't that what matters? :thumbsup:
  • 07-03-2008
    Kirk Pacenti
    gets it!
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dirty29er
    but I'm having fun on it!!! And really isn't that what matters? :thumbsup:

    Yup, having fun on your bike is the only thing that matters! Ride whatever size wheel makes you happy! :thumbsup:

    That is a clean looking rig. Is it a purpose built 650B bike or a converted 29er?

    cheers,

    KP
  • 07-03-2008
    MMcG
    Interesting take on a Vassago that's for sure. Can you shorten the chainstays for the 650b wheels with that sliding dropout frame??
  • 07-03-2008
    dirty29er
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Kirk Pacenti
    Yup, having fun on your bike is the only thing that matters! Ride whatever size wheel makes you happy! :thumbsup:

    That is a clean looking rig. Is it a purpose built 650B bike or a converted 29er?

    cheers,

    KP

    A converted 29er....I'm 5'2" and could ride the 16" as a 29 but it was super close - so I put on the 650B wheels and now I have a lot more room and the ride was a lot of fun. I made some climbs I really didn't think I could make! The wheels are Velocity Blunts. I've seen some people have problems with those but they worked fine. Had a 29er tube in there.
  • 07-03-2008
    dirty29er
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MMcG
    Interesting take on a Vassago that's for sure. Can you shorten the chainstays for the 650b wheels with that sliding dropout frame??

    Yes I can!
  • 07-03-2008
    MMcG
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dirty29er
    Yes I can!

    How far in could you put the 650bs? Any idea of what your resulting chainstay length is? bottom bracket height? Is that a 650b specific fork or a 29er fork up front?

    More closer photos please.
  • 07-11-2008
    SystemShock
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    [Road bike 700C-->650 conversions are using] 650C ,not B , which is 574mm used for triathlon bikes.

    Uh, nope, as many others have pointed out. So, yet again, Dave...








    ...
  • 07-14-2008
    dirty29er
    2 Attachment(s)
    Sorry - just getting back to this thread!

    Changed out the rear tire this weekend to test a Quasi. Neo up front. Definitely liked this pairing. Next we'll try Quasi on both front and rear.

    I will get back to you on how far I can put the wheels in. They could go further in than I have them now but I like where they are currently. I didn't measure the chainstay length but will check it.

    BB is 11 1/4. I have to watch the pedals but will change the cranks out. All it does it readjust my riding style but I can handle it!

    Fork is a WB Magic 80....no special changes.
  • 07-14-2008
    kapusta
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dirty29er
    Sorry - just getting back to this thread!

    Changed out the rear tire this weekend to test a Quasi. Neo up front. Definitely liked this pairing. Next we'll try Quasi on both front and rear.

    I will get back to you on how far I can put the wheels in. They could go further in than I have them now but I like where they are currently. I didn't measure the chainstay length but will check it.

    BB is 11 1/4. I have to watch the pedals but will change the cranks out. All it does it readjust my riding style but I can handle it!

    Fork is a WB Magic 80....no special changes.

    Huh, 11-1/4 bb is pretty low. What are the cranks now?