Results 1 to 42 of 42
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    54

    why go with 650B when a 2.4 26" has the same circumference?

    i am comparing the conti mountain king 2.4 (610g) and wtb mutano raptor race 2.4 (570g) vs. a pacenti quasi moto 2.0 (559g). the conti and wtb have an axle to tread radius of 345mm and the pacenti has a 344mm radius.

    so for an XC setup, why bother with a 650B when it seems a big 26" wheels/tires are lighter or are on par?

    (all figures from mtbtires.com)
    Santa Cruz Blur XC carbon - lefty carbon SL | GT zaskar pro carbon HT - lefty carbon | Scott CR1 | Look 595

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by venga venga venga
    i am comparing the conti mountain king 2.4 (610g) and wtb mutano raptor race 2.4 (570g) vs. a pacenti quasi moto 2.0 (559g). the conti and wtb have an axle to tread radius of 345mm and the pacenti has a 344mm radius.

    so for an XC setup, why bother with a 650B when it seems a big 26" wheels/tires are lighter or are on par?

    (all figures from mtbtires.com)
    650b are taller,if you like I'll post some picture,also I just did a big A.M. 26ER /650b A/B session over the weekend...650b was the pure winner !!!!
    Last edited by AMCAT; 04-27-2010 at 07:12 PM.

  3. #3
    Rhino
    Reputation: urbanseeds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    562
    It's about being cool, that's all.
    I don't think a 2.4 will fit in the rear of my bike, where. As a 2.0 and 2.1 650B does. A 2.4 is really wide for XC (for me). You make a valid point, I am sure others will have a more logical reasons, as mine is just based on preference.

  4. #4
    Enthusiast
    Reputation: JonathanGennick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,348
    Quote Originally Posted by venga venga venga
    so for an XC setup, why bother with a 650B when it seems a big 26" wheels/tires are lighter or are on par?
    Because not everyone wants to run a 2.4" tire? Because if I do run a 2.4" tire, then 650B gives me greater diameter than the same tire in a nominal 26" size.

    Your question is like asking why to run a 38mm 700c on my urban bike when my 2.2" 650B tires give the same diameter.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,768
    Lots of rubber is heavy and flexy.My 2.3 650-b sure looks bigger than my 2.5 /26 inch setup.650-b is way lighter.Even with the biggest rim I could find (velocity p35)

  6. #6
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by venga venga venga
    i am comparing the conti mountain king 2.4 (610g) and wtb mutano raptor race 2.4 (570g) vs. a pacenti quasi moto 2.0 (559g). the conti and wtb have an axle to tread radius of 345mm and the pacenti has a 344mm radius.

    so for an XC setup, why bother with a 650B when it seems a big 26" wheels/tires are lighter or are on par?

    (all figures from mtbtires.com)
    I do not even have a Mountain King 26x2.4 on my site.

    Then you are comparing the smallest Pacenti to much larger volume tires. All of the 650B tires are 10-13mm larger radius than the same width 26" models.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    54

    ... and if we just ...

    ok. so like i said, i am taking about an XC SETUP so big heavy 2.0+ 650B tires are out of the question.

    let's talk about the tires i mentioned. they are lightweight 2.4" tires.... as light as the pacenti 2.0 quasi moto. that leaves a slightly heavier 650B wheel (when using same hubs, spoke count and same grade rim).

    so maybe i should have added, is there a difference in performance, i.e., faster, if the circumferences are the same?

    it is much cheaper do go with bigger tires than to go with new 650B setup.
    Santa Cruz Blur XC carbon - lefty carbon SL | GT zaskar pro carbon HT - lefty carbon | Scott CR1 | Look 595

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    I do not even have a Mountain King 26x2.4 on my site.

    Then you are comparing the smallest Pacenti to much larger volume tires. All of the 650B tires are 10-13mm larger radius than the same width 26" models.

    my bad. i saw the continental rubber queen. ok we can scratch that off my list.

    so i am comparing the quasi moto 2.0 (344mm axle to tread radius) and a WTB mutano raptor race 2.4 (345mm axle to tread radius).

    i dont mind using big fatty 2.4 tires for XC, for the added squish, and i'd only use the 2.0 QM if i went with a 650B.
    Santa Cruz Blur XC carbon - lefty carbon SL | GT zaskar pro carbon HT - lefty carbon | Scott CR1 | Look 595

  9. #9
    The White Jeff W
    Reputation: jeffw-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,563
    I have 2.4 Mountain Kings on my Yeti and 2.0 Quasi's on my 650B bike. The Quasi's are definitely bigger.

    So there.
    No moss...

  10. #10
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,861
    Fine, you go ride those 2.4" wide Mutano Raptors... they're not that great a tire design, have thin casings, and dismal traction but whatever lame ass reasoning makes you happy.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    Fine, you go ride those 2.4" wide Mutano Raptors... they're not that great a tire design, have thin casings, and dismal traction but whatever lame ass reasoning makes you happy.
    wow, what an a-hole. can't even come up with a good answer. laaaaaame
    Santa Cruz Blur XC carbon - lefty carbon SL | GT zaskar pro carbon HT - lefty carbon | Scott CR1 | Look 595

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffw-13
    I have 2.4 Mountain Kings on my Yeti and 2.0 Quasi's on my 650B bike. The Quasi's are definitely bigger.

    So there.

    good to know. thx
    Santa Cruz Blur XC carbon - lefty carbon SL | GT zaskar pro carbon HT - lefty carbon | Scott CR1 | Look 595

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffw-13
    I have 2.4 Mountain Kings on my Yeti and 2.0 Quasi's on my 650B bike. The Quasi's are definitely bigger.

    So there.
    hey can you do me a favour? i'm not second guessing shiggy's measurements (well... i guess i am ) but can you measure the diameter of your 2.0 quasi moto... tread to floor?
    Santa Cruz Blur XC carbon - lefty carbon SL | GT zaskar pro carbon HT - lefty carbon | Scott CR1 | Look 595

  14. #14
    Rhino
    Reputation: urbanseeds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    562
    Quote Originally Posted by venga venga venga
    wow, what an a-hole. can't even come up with a good answer. laaaaaame
    Relax man. Think these guys are misunderstanding your questions and reasons for comparison. 650B riders are defending the B like the 29ers of yesterday.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by urbanseeds
    Relax man. Think these guys are misunderstanding your questions and reasons for comparison. 650B riders are defending the B like the 29ers of yesterday.

    thx. really that response was directed towards DeeEight. i've been following MTBR for years (even though my post count doesn't show it... i had a different handle back then). he was a dick then and, ooooh big surprise, he's a dick now. his response was only to mock me. what a sad person, i feel sorry for him. anyway, he's on my ignore list now.
    Santa Cruz Blur XC carbon - lefty carbon SL | GT zaskar pro carbon HT - lefty carbon | Scott CR1 | Look 595

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by venga venga venga
    ok. so like i said, i am taking about an XC SETUP so big heavy 2.0+ 650B tires are out of the question.

    let's talk about the tires i mentioned. they are lightweight 2.4" tires.... as light as the pacenti 2.0 quasi moto. that leaves a slightly heavier 650B wheel (when using same hubs, spoke count and same grade rim).

    so maybe i should have added, is there a difference in performance, i.e., faster, if the circumferences are the same?

    it is much cheaper do go with bigger tires than to go with new 650B setup.
    Your 100% wrong across the board,just drop it and go to bed....

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    Quote Originally Posted by venga venga venga
    i am comparing the conti mountain king 2.4 (610g) and wtb mutano raptor race 2.4 (570g) vs. a pacenti quasi moto 2.0 (559g). the conti and wtb have an axle to tread radius of 345mm and the pacenti has a 344mm radius.

    so for an XC setup, why bother with a 650B when it seems a big 26" wheels/tires are lighter or are on par?

    (all figures from mtbtires.com)
    It doesn't sound like you really understand the difference between how larger volume tires behave compared to smaller volume tires, and their intended use. They react in a completely different manner. Most XC racers like smaller volume, for a nice firm, low rolling resistance, fast tire. When is the last time you ever saw a 2.4 XC race tire?

    Sorry, but you really don't have much ground to stand on here. Do me a favor, go over to the 29er forum and ask them why not just use a 2.8 26er tire for XC instead of a 2.0 29er, it's the same concept right? Yea, good luck with that

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by venga venga venga
    ok. so like i said, i am taking about an XC SETUP so big heavy 2.0+ 650B tires are out of the question.

    let's talk about the tires i mentioned. they are lightweight 2.4" tires.... as light as the pacenti 2.0 quasi moto. that leaves a slightly heavier 650B wheel (when using same hubs, spoke count and same grade rim).

    so maybe i should have added, is there a difference in performance, i.e., faster, if the circumferences are the same?

    it is much cheaper do go with bigger tires than to go with new 650B setup.
    I'll keep it as simple as it gets.
    26" FAT: pros: comfy, grippier, "cheaper" cons: wobbly, significant drag

    650B: pros: faster (much lower rolling resistance and lower friction), better handling (more metal on the wheel= accuracy, cosinstency when pressed), better obstacle clearance
    cons: need new components, slightly slower acceleration

  19. #19
    Enthusiast
    Reputation: JonathanGennick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,348
    I remember having a similar question when I first heard of 650b. I just came at it from a different angle. My 26 had been running some tires from Specialized that had a very high profile to them. So my diameter was close to 27.5". I remember wondering at the time why Kirk did not make his tires with a similarly high profile.

    Monday I rode with a friend riding a 26er from Specialized. We compared his wheel+tire diameter with that of my Beasley. My Beasley had the greater diameter, but the difference was not a full 1.5". It was probably on the order of an inch or less.

    In the long term though, the larger rim will allow for generally larger diameters after mounting tires. If you take something like the Schwalbe Marathon that is available in all three sizes, you can compare apples to apples to apples, and see that you step up in diameter as you go from 26 to 650b to 29.

    In the short term, sure, playing around with width and casing profile will give you options for increasing diameter on a 26-inch rim.

  20. #20
    Mr.650b - Mr.27-5
    Reputation: Kirk Pacenti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,630
    Quote Originally Posted by venga venga venga
    i am comparing the conti mountain king 2.4 (610g) and wtb mutano raptor race 2.4 (570g) vs. a pacenti quasi moto 2.0 (559g). the conti and wtb have an axle to tread radius of 345mm and the pacenti has a 344mm radius.

    so for an XC setup, why bother with a 650B when it seems a big 26" wheels/tires are lighter or are on par?

    (all figures from mtbtires.com)
    Fwiw, the Quasi-Moto has a 350mm radius.

  21. #21
    Rhino
    Reputation: urbanseeds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    562
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Pacenti
    Fwiw, the Quasi-Moto has a 350mm radius.
    @kirk - does the diameter change noticeably when mounted on different rims. Blunt, P35, WTB, EQ27, etc. Just curious?

  22. #22
    The White Jeff W
    Reputation: jeffw-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,563
    Quote Originally Posted by venga venga venga
    hey can you do me a favour? i'm not second guessing shiggy's measurements (well... i guess i am ) but can you measure the diameter of your 2.0 quasi moto... tread to floor?

    2.0 Quasimoto mounted on a 28mm Velocity Blunt @ 25PSI was 27.25" tall or 692.15mm

    For comparison a 2.4 Mountain King Supersonic on a 23mm rim @ 35 PSI was 26.5" or 673.1 mm
    No moss...

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Pacenti
    Fwiw, the Quasi-Moto has a 350mm radius.
    cool! thx for clearing this up. the QM is actually bigger than what mtbtires states.
    Santa Cruz Blur XC carbon - lefty carbon SL | GT zaskar pro carbon HT - lefty carbon | Scott CR1 | Look 595

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by salimoneus
    It doesn't sound like you really understand the difference between how larger volume tires behave compared to smaller volume tires, and their intended use. They react in a completely different manner. Most XC racers like smaller volume, for a nice firm, low rolling resistance, fast tire. When is the last time you ever saw a 2.4 XC race tire?

    Sorry, but you really don't have much ground to stand on here. Do me a favor, go over to the 29er forum and ask them why not just use a 2.8 26er tire for XC instead of a 2.0 29er, it's the same concept right? Yea, good luck with that
    i am here to find answers, not to try to convince YOU guys.

    fwiw. i've used the wtb 2.4 s on my XC hard tail. it was like i had a soft tail. so for my purpose, a high volume tire was great. it is a different case for my FS rig though.

    good answers
    Santa Cruz Blur XC carbon - lefty carbon SL | GT zaskar pro carbon HT - lefty carbon | Scott CR1 | Look 595

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    54
    @Giant - thx. the extra rolling resisitance is something i don't need. i'll have to weigh the pros and cons for my HT.

    @JonathanGennick - i am somewhat limited in that my 26er frame can only take so much of a wheel/tire diameter increase. so unfortunately i am limited to the QM 2.0. ideally i would like to go with a 650B rear and a 29er front.


    @jeffw -13 - thx, i appreciate it
    Santa Cruz Blur XC carbon - lefty carbon SL | GT zaskar pro carbon HT - lefty carbon | Scott CR1 | Look 595

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SuspectDevice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    647
    Lateral tire roll is an essential element of tire dynamics. Big casings put a lot of moment on the bead/rim connection and require more material or a thicker tube to preserve the optimal level of deflection. You'll notice the difference if you do back to back testing. You can run lower pressure for increased contact patch and lower rolling resistance with a smaller overall casing while preserving optimal tire characteristics. One big advantage of higher volume 26" tires is pinch flat resistance if you are the type of advanced rider that uses bump-jumping to generate lift for forward flight. The smaller diameter tire produces a little more upward lift. The feel the rider percieves with the smaller diameter tire, interestingly enough is tracjectory that flattens out more quickly, with a larger amount of initial "lift". A 650b tire, conversely produces what feels like a "livelier" more horizontally oriented feeling. For me, it's horses for courses. If I am riding in rougher, more downhill oriented terrain on a hardtail, I often choose 26" wheels. It's easier to slam into objects and use them for vertical lift. The **** get's even more complicated when you get on a full suspension bike and take mass projection to the next level.
    All that mumbo-jumbo equates to a basic idea- it's easier to go "faster" on the larger wheel because it has a flatter trajectory over rough crap, and it has an increased contact patch. Increased optimal corner radius and a more "damped" feeling has it's benefits- but if you want to totally shred and get loose, aggressive riding is more fun with less grip and a higher angle of attack.

  27. #27
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Pacenti
    Fwiw, the Quasi-Moto has a 350mm radius.
    Not when Shiggy measured them... he's listing them on his site as 344. Of course he's also given one of the inflated widths as 2.1" or so, and I just haven't seen that with my pair.

  28. #28
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,764
    Quote Originally Posted by urbanseeds
    @kirk - does the diameter change noticeably when mounted on different rims. Blunt, P35, WTB, EQ27, etc. Just curious?
    I've found from measuring fork arch clearance loss going from a Blunt (28mm) to a P35 (35mm), both made by Velocity, that the same Neo-moto tire radius across the top of the knobs grew by nearly 2mm with P35. The width of the tread did not change. The tread profile became slightly flatter (radius from the axle of the outside tire knobs grew a little more than the center grew).

    It would follow that narrower rims than the 28mm would shorten the tire radius and more "round" the profile of the same tire.

    I've also noticed that gradually over time, my Neo-Moto tires stretch up to 2mm in radius as it ages, about as fast as the knobs wear down, so the fork and stay clearance increases less than the center knob's wear shorter.

    Hope that wasn't too confusing!

    Edit: spelling and grammar of previous hastily posted.
    Last edited by derby; 04-28-2010 at 06:44 PM.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    Quote Originally Posted by venga venga venga
    i am here to find answers, not to try to convince YOU guys.

    fwiw. i've used the wtb 2.4 s on my XC hard tail. it was like i had a soft tail. so for my purpose, a high volume tire was great. it is a different case for my FS rig though.

    good answers

    I guess the question was posed in a rather disregarding manner with your thread title, as in "why bother with what you're doing if..." so one could expect people to respond with intent.

    If it was asked more along the lines of "what's the difference between this and that" then I'm sure the earlier name calling and confusion could have been avoided. But IMO the original thread title is slightly less than innocent, I wouldn't recommend using the phrase "why bother" if you are truly not trying to instigate. Do you see the difference?

    Anyway, no worries, I hope you got the answers you were looking for

  30. #30
    Chronic 1st-timer
    Reputation: lubes17319's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    2,416
    Quote Originally Posted by venga venga venga
    i am comparing the conti mountain king 2.4 (610g) and wtb mutano raptor race 2.4 (570g) vs. a pacenti quasi moto 2.0 (559g). the conti and wtb have an axle to tread radius of 345mm and the pacenti has a 344mm radius.

    so for an XC setup, why bother with a 650B when it seems a big 26" wheels/tires are lighter or are on par?

    (all figures from mtbtires.com)

    Brilliant!

    I went out & did some comparisons - found that my 700 x 28c tires were taller than my 26" x 2.5" wrapped Double-Wide rims.
    Next time I ride some gnar gravity, I'll be rolling on the 28s!
    Trailwrecker at large

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    96
    Seriously, the OP's question is not that crazy. As a true engineering dork, I'm the first to concede that engineering often does not translate to human feel or preference. Going to settle this for myself this weekend in Moab, liquor will likely be involved. The test ride is a Mojo SL, pretty XC/BC @ 24 lbs., but I like running biggish rubber (compared to true XC) and often use 2.35 Kendas & 2.25 Maxxis @ 23psi. For me, a light XC/AM 4-5 bike with 2.35's is just about perfect for pure fun factor...tire casing width and tubeless is critical.

    Pair #1 is Stans 355 26" mounted with 2.25 Advantage/Ardent (these are very big 2.25's, much more volume than a Mt. King 2.4, even more than a 2.35 Kenda). Diameter is roughly 680mm (quite tall for a 26"). This is my relatively light go-to set-up for rough Idaho backcountry rides - it rocks.

    Pair #2 is Stans 355 650b mounted with Neo 2.3/Quasi 2.0. These are significantly lower volume tires than pair #1 (shiggy must measure rubber on a 28mm rim after riding, 'cause mine are still not close to his widths/heights, tho they still have some growing to do). They will need +2-4psi to be safe, rim-wise. Diameter is roughly 700mm. I might get an occasional rear seat tube buzz when we ride Lasal/Porc (yikes).

    1st impressions JRA here in closed-trail snow country: big 650b wheels improve both straight roll-over-rough-junk AND cornering on grippy or loose (Idaho kitty litter). I only slightly missed my 56mm+ wide casing suppleness. Mind you, the Mojo seems to be an ideal candidate for this, so YMMV. The geometrical stars are well aligned for 650b and that frame (esp with my 130mm fork), so do your research well.

    So, to the OP: The ride is differnet & your numbers are off (650b is bigger). You're comparing crisp Fuji's to old Red Delicious (both apples, totally different eating experience). If your frame & fork can safely fit 650b, you should try to get a loaner pair for a test ride. Kinda cool so far...

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schneidw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    369

    please post pics

    Quote Originally Posted by AMCAT
    650b are taller,if you like I'll post some picture,also I just did a big A.M. 26ER /650b A/B session over the weekend...650b was the pure winner !!!!
    That would be great if you could share your findings.. THX! I am trying to find a "tall" 26-in tire to better balance my Merlin HT that has a Pacenti 650b on the front.... I have had a hard time finding information ... THANKS
    WHS

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    38
    I'm riding a rigid steel 26" bike with a 650b up front (Neomoto) and on the back I have a 26 inch 2.55 WTB Weirwolf lt (sweet tire in dry conditions). Just by eyeballing it the 2 wheels dont look much different in diameter.

    Before I put the Weirwolf lt on the back of the project bike I was using them front and rear on a santa cruz superlight. To me having front and rear tires that big made the bike feel bulky and sluggish yet very supple.

    I guess my conclusion that the bike felt more lively having the 650b up front then the big volume 26" tire. On the back the big volume 26"tire works well for the extra squish factor but will be building up a true 650b when the wife allows. Hope that helps.

  34. #34
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    11,551

    Interesting

    Quote Originally Posted by carwash1
    I'm riding a rigid steel 26" bike with a 650b up front (Neomoto) and on the back I have a 26 inch 2.55 WTB Weirwolf lt (sweet tire in dry conditions)
    That is my current/will be my setup when I get a 650 built. Thinking 2.1 neo/nev up front first, then one for the rr.
    Wait whuuut, who did he tell you that!?!?....

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    54
    ya, my numbers are off, i was just quoting what's on the mtbtires.com site.

    i mounted my wtb 2.4 onto a mavic rim and measured the radius to be 340mm

    so my real world measurements are off by 8mm in diameter. also the 2.4 mutano raptor race IS NOT 2.4, it's more a 2.1". quite a bit off. still more volume than my mountain king 2.2.

    i've been calling around to see if i can get a loaner pair but no LBS has any on hand. i will have to bite the bullet and buy one and see. it looks like it will fit though. my WTB is 10mm smaller in radius than a QM2.0. it seems both my frames would fit... the HT just barely. my lefty has plenty of clearance even without changing the travel.

    Quote Originally Posted by redbarn
    Seriously, the OP's question is not that crazy. As a true engineering dork, I'm the first to concede that engineering often does not translate to human feel or preference. Going to settle this for myself this weekend in Moab, liquor will likely be involved. The test ride is a Mojo SL, pretty XC/BC @ 24 lbs., but I like running biggish rubber (compared to true XC) and often use 2.35 Kendas & 2.25 Maxxis @ 23psi. For me, a light XC/AM 4-5 bike with 2.35's is just about perfect for pure fun factor...tire casing width and tubeless is critical.

    Pair #1 is Stans 355 26" mounted with 2.25 Advantage/Ardent (these are very big 2.25's, much more volume than a Mt. King 2.4, even more than a 2.35 Kenda). Diameter is roughly 680mm (quite tall for a 26"). This is my relatively light go-to set-up for rough Idaho backcountry rides - it rocks.

    Pair #2 is Stans 355 650b mounted with Neo 2.3/Quasi 2.0. These are significantly lower volume tires than pair #1 (shiggy must measure rubber on a 28mm rim after riding, 'cause mine are still not close to his widths/heights, tho they still have some growing to do). They will need +2-4psi to be safe, rim-wise. Diameter is roughly 700mm. I might get an occasional rear seat tube buzz when we ride Lasal/Porc (yikes).

    1st impressions JRA here in closed-trail snow country: big 650b wheels improve both straight roll-over-rough-junk AND cornering on grippy or loose (Idaho kitty litter). I only slightly missed my 56mm+ wide casing suppleness. Mind you, the Mojo seems to be an ideal candidate for this, so YMMV. The geometrical stars are well aligned for 650b and that frame (esp with my 130mm fork), so do your research well.

    So, to the OP: The ride is differnet & your numbers are off (650b is bigger). You're comparing crisp Fuji's to old Red Delicious (both apples, totally different eating experience). If your frame & fork can safely fit 650b, you should try to get a loaner pair for a test ride. Kinda cool so far...
    Santa Cruz Blur XC carbon - lefty carbon SL | GT zaskar pro carbon HT - lefty carbon | Scott CR1 | Look 595

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    54
    well, i ordered a set of ztr 355 650Bs and 2.0 quasi motos.
    Santa Cruz Blur XC carbon - lefty carbon SL | GT zaskar pro carbon HT - lefty carbon | Scott CR1 | Look 595

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,018
    Quote Originally Posted by venga venga venga
    well, i ordered a set of ztr 355 650Bs and 2.0 quasi motos.

    That's my race combo. Love'em.

  38. #38
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,764
    Quote Originally Posted by redbarn
    Seriously, the OP's question is not that crazy. As a true engineering dork, I'm the first to concede that engineering often does not translate to human feel or preference. Going to settle this for myself this weekend in Moab, liquor will likely be involved. The test ride is a Mojo SL, pretty XC/BC @ 24 lbs., but I like running biggish rubber (compared to true XC) and often use 2.35 Kendas & 2.25 Maxxis @ 23psi. For me, a light XC/AM 4-5 bike with 2.35's is just about perfect for pure fun factor...tire casing width and tubeless is critical.

    Pair #1 is Stans 355 26" mounted with 2.25 Advantage/Ardent (these are very big 2.25's, much more volume than a Mt. King 2.4, even more than a 2.35 Kenda). Diameter is roughly 680mm (quite tall for a 26"). This is my relatively light go-to set-up for rough Idaho backcountry rides - it rocks.

    Pair #2 is Stans 355 650b mounted with Neo 2.3/Quasi 2.0. These are significantly lower volume tires than pair #1 (shiggy must measure rubber on a 28mm rim after riding, 'cause mine are still not close to his widths/heights, tho they still have some growing to do). They will need +2-4psi to be safe, rim-wise. Diameter is roughly 700mm. I might get an occasional rear seat tube buzz when we ride Lasal/Porc (yikes).

    1st impressions JRA here in closed-trail snow country: big 650b wheels improve both straight roll-over-rough-junk AND cornering on grippy or loose (Idaho kitty litter). I only slightly missed my 56mm+ wide casing suppleness. Mind you, the Mojo seems to be an ideal candidate for this, so YMMV. The geometrical stars are well aligned for 650b and that frame (esp with my 130mm fork), so do your research well.

    So, to the OP: The ride is differnet & your numbers are off (650b is bigger). You're comparing crisp Fuji's to old Red Delicious (both apples, totally different eating experience). If your frame & fork can safely fit 650b, you should try to get a loaner pair for a test ride. Kinda cool so far...
    Redbarn, maybe use a 2.1 Neo-Moto in the rear of your 650b set up. I guess the Quasi could hold up for a short time in Moab, but there's not much to protect the casing from wear and punctures. I'm using Neo-moto 2.3's front and rear on my Mojo. But did shim my coil shock's bottom travel slightly 1.5mm under the bottom bumper. I used a couple layers of thin plastic cut out with scissors into washers with a slit opening one side to access the thin washers onto the shaft. An air shock can be shimmed with can removed around the damper shaft at the head of the shock in this location pictured in the link - except the bumper is not needed with the short shim (http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?...&postcount=49).

    Have fun!

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by derby
    Redbarn, maybe use a 2.1 Neo-Moto in the rear of your 650b set up. I guess the Quasi could hold up for a short time in Moab, but there's not much to protect the casing from wear and punctures. I'm using Neo-moto 2.3's front and rear on my Mojo. But did shim my coil shock's bottom travel slightly 1.5mm under the bottom bumper. I used a couple layers of thin plastic cut out with scissors into washers with a slit opening one side to access the thin washers onto the shaft. An air shock can be shimmed with can removed around the damper shaft at the head of the shock in this location pictured in the link - except the bumper is not needed with the short shim (http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?...&postcount=49).

    Have fun!
    _________________________________________
    Good beta, thanks. I considered the Neo 2.1, but could'nt find one in time. Good thing too, since even the (new) Quasi buzzes the seattube (heli tape installed now) and I like my sag setting! I may try taking one of my early 90's manitou elastomers, splitting it, then stuffing it into the air can. Not hopeful about that one staying put.

    The Quasi seems not a bad rear choice, Moab will probably end it pretty quickly even though slickrock proper kind of bores me. Both it and the Neo could use a bit more casing volume IMO, but then things get awfully squeezed in the rear. The MRD 130 has relative gobs of room at both crown & arch.

    All we need is a swingarm with +5-7mm dropouts & a 200mm x 45mm shock (bottom bumper acceptable). Then we can run some more manly rubber. Unfortunately that is one very expensive mold...I think I'd drag my feet too.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SteveF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,195
    Quote Originally Posted by venga venga venga
    well, i ordered a set of ztr 355 650Bs and 2.0 quasi motos.

    Cool, hope you like 'em! Honestly, I thought you were trolling but it's nice to see that you actually were looking for info and interested in giving the 650b thing a try...

    Good luck with them!

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveF
    Cool, hope you like 'em! Honestly, I thought you were trolling but it's nice to see that you actually were looking for info and interested in giving the 650b thing a try...

    Good luck with them!
    haha, i bet it sounded like i was trolling. i was going off numbers off the internet and i thought they were more true-to-life numbers. apparently they are not. finding this out pushed me over the edge to buy 650Bs. can't wait to try them out.

    thx.
    Santa Cruz Blur XC carbon - lefty carbon SL | GT zaskar pro carbon HT - lefty carbon | Scott CR1 | Look 595

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    215
    schneidw, if you are looking for a tall rear tire, check out the GEAX Sturdy 2.25. I have the 2.1 version of the front of my wife's bike because of the height and volume (ironic since it lack great side knobs and would therefore make a better rear tire).
    Check out these pictures from someone else's thread:
    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.ph...ht=geax+sturdy

Members who have read this thread: 1

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.