27.5er at NAHBS (Pacenti 650b)- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 121 of 121
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sean350's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    310

    27.5er at NAHBS (Pacenti 650b)

    Wow... I know some have asked for an in between size... here you go:
    http://www.frameforum.net/forum2/ind...showtopic=3034
    -Sean

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,841
    He's done well to get a tyre and a Cane Creek rim done... Interesting!

  3. #3
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,017
    Nice for riders between 5'0" and 5'4", till the greater offset suspension fork hit.
    I don't believe that with wheelsize the middle road is the best. Such tiny differences in wheel size, while it's just been proven that even 36" rides pretty "neutral and "like a bike" as some very respected members of the MTB community have reported.
    With the in-between size, (who will be able to tell them apart when not knowing the size, 1 inch between them) you of course only get half the advantages for half the disadvanatages. Is that worth swapping over another size for, whatever you're riding now?
    This was bound to happen at some point (why didn't it happen decades earlier? Must be thanks to nothing but 29"...) and I wouldn't be surprised of some 26" holdouts will grab the opportunity to rave all about this "perfect" size. Thuth is, if 29" sucks for your riding, this will only suck less, you'll want a 24" bike. Plenty of tires to choose from, just only <5' riders seem to have found worth it.

    Had 26" never happened, as our pioneers saw the light first time trying, would 27.5" now be all the rave, or would we have accepted 24" and 29" as 2 nice sizes to fit all adults on? My guess : 32" would have happened before 26", at least for adult application.

    It's a nice looking bike though. Looks like a 26"er more than a 29"er.
    What's that rim size again?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,841
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    I don't believe that with wheelsize the middle road is the best.
    There's a surprise :-)

  5. #5
    Where's Toto?
    Reputation: endure26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,188
    Seems like 650b is kinda catching on with non-racer road riders in the sorta way 29 is taking over the off road scene (similar but different). Lots of new 650b frames popping up all over. Conversions of racer boy frames using shorter wheels, wider tires, and longer brakes. Not sure I get it - if I'm going frame up I can spec clearance and get wider 700c tires that soften the ride.

    BTW - appears from the photos that WTB is making a 650b off road tire?

    Can a 650b MTBR forum be far behind?

    Argh!

  6. #6
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,254

    Confusing the masses?

    I did a post on my blog in referance to 650B bikes just a couple of weeks ago. The concept is not new to mountainbiking. Raleigh and a couple of others tried the size out in the early 80's when mountain biking was still finding itself in state of experimentation, which we seem to have revisited now. ( 29"er, 650B, 36"er)

    Rivendell has a proto type already in existence that Grant Peterson is really excited about. So, this Pacenti bike with the Cane Creek rims, WTB (?) tire, and a Panaracer tire seem to legitimize the concept further in the eyes of builders. I wonder though, how will another choice in wheel size be accepted by the average mtb'er. I'm guessing it'll be confusing to alot of them.

    I can see how something like this will be an enthusiasts next "must have" bike, due to it's being "different" and unique. I suppose now we'll start seeing 650Niners, or 26/650ers and other such nonsense! It's just a matter of time!

    Also, didn't Frischnecht run some Dugast tubular 650 sized hoops in some races awhile back? Not 650B, but the outer diameter was bigger than 26/ 522 if I'm not mistaken.

    Ahh! I thought the tire madness of the past was getting sorted, now we are returning to multiple tire standards once again. As a bike shop mechanic this can only lead to mass confusion if this stuff ever hits the store shelves!
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  7. #7
    Welsh Dave
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    254
    And the French-inspired Kogswell Porteur seems to have been a big hit with their intended customers (Those Mary bars get everywhere!).

    Search Flickr for "Kogswell" or "Porteur" to see how many ways people are building them up.

    Go on Brant, do us a 650B "everything but mountain" bike with maximum retro-grouch touches like integrated luggage racks and beard-guard.

  8. #8
    i also unicycle
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,043
    in my shop 90% of the customers think 29 inch wheels are weird and don't understand them. I've tried to evangelize. this is just one more size to confuse most people with. it's like all the schwinn specific sizes. "no. your 26 inch tire won't fit on there, it's an S6 rim. sorry, but you need a very specific tire size with about 3 choices."
    mtbr says you should know: i work in a bike shop.
    bikes & beers (on my blog) http://idontrideenough.blogspot.com/

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fillet-brazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,696
    27"/650b has already been done. Tom Ritchey made 12 bikes with this size wheel (of which I've luckily got one) right at the point when purpose-built mountain bikes started to be built. Tom had heard about the Marin thing going on over the bridge on 26" wheels and he thoght 650b would do the trick and built a few up. Rumor has it GF got one too. Tom said he really liked that size and since at that point there were no aluminum 26" rims available it was a huge improvement.

    The only problem was the tires were a little hard to get and only about 1.75" wide or so. They imported Nokian Hakkapalita (sp?) tires from Finland, but sometime soon after this mtb thing started happening, Russia ordered Nokian's entire production of the tire and that was the end of it. Then aluminum 26" rims happened with Ukiah and Araya and that was that.

  10. #10
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,017
    Some XC racers are using 650c (13mm larger) rims with custom tubular tires (~1.9's typically), making for a very much 26"-like 26.5" overall wheel size.

    With such minute wheel size differences, the real difference will be in the rider's head. Whatever makes you think is better will feel better. Too little actual difference to to correct a mindset.
    Will this 650B WTB tire fit a standard 26" fork that happens to be a bit roomy? Will it fit my 26"ers?

    Odd, WTB thinks there's not enough market to make the tires we plead for (be it a true 29x2.5 or 32x2.3"), yet they do make a 650B. In-between less scary than larger yet?

  11. #11
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,606
    Quote Originally Posted by markf
    in my shop 90% of the customers think 29 inch wheels are weird and don't understand them. I've tried to evangelize. this is just one more size to confuse most people with. it's like all the schwinn specific sizes. "no. your 26 inch tire won't fit on there, it's an S6 rim. sorry, but you need a very specific tire size with about 3 choices."
    I say the more sizes available, the merrier.

    BB (Who has a garage full of wheel sizes for various applications and family members as it is including 20", 24", 26" and 700c)

    Here's my 20/26"er:
    Attached Images Attached Images

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,841
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    Odd, WTB thinks there's not enough market to make the tires we plead for (be it a true 29x2.5 or 32x2.3"), yet they do make a 650B. In-between less scary than larger yet?
    Well, at least this size fits in existing tyre molds.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: grawbass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    This was bound to happen at some point (why didn't it happen decades earlier?
    It did....well not decades, but one decade. GT used 700D, which is pretty close to 650B in the early to mid 90s on some bikes. Never caught on though. I have a really nice set of NOS 700D mtb tires with no rims available for them. Don't ask me why.

    Maybe MTBR could start a new forum called 650B/700D/36"........or just call it "any wheelsize besides 26" and 29".....oh and I guess we can't forget 24" for the occasional rear DH tire forum"
    Wanted: broken Titec 2 bolt seatpost, any size

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: grawbass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    Some XC racers are using 650c (13mm larger) rims with custom tubular tires (~1.9's typically), making for a very much 26"-like 26.5" overall wheel size.

    With such minute wheel size differences, the real difference will be in the rider's head. Whatever makes you think is better will feel better. Too little actual difference to to correct a mindset.
    Will this 650B WTB tire fit a standard 26" fork that happens to be a bit roomy? Will it fit my 26"ers?

    Odd, WTB thinks there's not enough market to make the tires we plead for (be it a true 29x2.5 or 32x2.3"), yet they do make a 650B. In-between less scary than larger yet?
    I agree 100%. Seems like 650B doesn't really solve much of anything, but if people want to make that size and use it, more power to them. I just don't see an advantage myself.

    32 x 2.3 or 2.1 would be awesome. I'd buy that size in a heartbeat and have a custom frame designed around it. I've said this before, but I'll say it again.....the first time I rode a 29er, one of the first thoughts that came to mind after a few minutes on the bike, was "these wheels don't seem too big at all, in fact, a few inches larger would be perfect" and I had been riding 26" mtbs for almost 20 years prior.
    Wanted: broken Titec 2 bolt seatpost, any size

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ernesto_from_Wisconsin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,006

    but...

    but how does it accelerate?

  16. #16
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Fillet-brazed
    27"/650b has already been done. Tom Ritchey made 12 bikes with this size wheel (of which I've luckily got one) right at the point when purpose-built mountain bikes started to be built. Tom had heard about the Marin thing going on over the bridge on 26" wheels and he thoght 650b would do the trick and built a few up. Rumor has it GF got one too. Tom said he really liked that size and since at that point there were no aluminum 26" rims available it was a huge improvement.

    The only problem was the tires were a little hard to get and only about 1.75" wide or so. They imported Nokian Hakkapalita (sp?) tires from Finland, but sometime soon after this mtb thing started happening, Russia ordered Nokian's entire production of the tire and that was the end of it. Then aluminum 26" rims happened with Ukiah and Araya and that was that.
    I was going to mention this, too. You have the details much better than I remembered.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  17. #17
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,017
    So, will 27.5/27.5 kill the whole 29/26 halfbreed thing in the race for absolute fine tuned wheelsize for all things bike?

    Please someone tell me where 650B sits between 559 and 622? If memory serves me (it would be a lucky guess, 650B is the size used on 584mm wheeled transport bikes, thus closer to 26". Yes, I know, too lazy to check Sheldon Brown today...

    Will we now see MTB wheels in 650c/572mm (now in clincher) and something like 610mm, as 29" just accellerates that little bit "too slowly".
    Go really small like 20" (for weight/acceleration/frame design convenience/handling quickness), or properly large like 32" (roll-over, rolling resistance, grip, traction, endo factor, steep climbing, comfort).

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fillet-brazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    So, will 27.5/27.5 kill the whole 29/26 halfbreed thing in the race for absolute fine tuned wheelsize for all things bike?

    Please someone tell me where 650B sits between 559 and 622? If memory serves me (it would be a lucky guess, 650B is the size used on 584mm wheeled transport bikes, thus closer to 26". Yes, I know, too lazy to check Sheldon Brown today...

    Will we now see MTB wheels in 650c/572mm (now in clincher) and something like 610mm, as 29" just accellerates that little bit "too slowly".
    Go really small like 20" (for weight/acceleration/frame design convenience/handling quickness), or properly large like 32" (roll-over, rolling resistance, grip, traction, endo factor, steep climbing, comfort).

    FYI, I checked out that Pacenti today and the tire is a modified 26" unit. The right tires arent quite in.

  19. #19

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    252
    iso=584

  20. #20
    highly visible
    Reputation: GlowBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,202
    I like the idea, and I'm amazed to see someone actually got a MTB tire made for 584mm. Not so much as a middle ground for riders big enough for 29"ers, but for riders too short to take advantage of 29" wheels, but who could handle a size somewhat bigger than 26". Granted that's a small market, but it includes my wife!

    I'm with BB - the more the merrier! The next thing we need - and unfortunately is not a preexisting standard -- is another size up from 29", for the over-6' riders. 36" is cool (and I want one for beach riding), but impractical for mountainbiking. Something around 31-32" might be ideal for a lot of taller riders.
    "People like GloyBoy are deaf. They are partisan, intellectually lazy & usually very angry." -Jaybo

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Thylacine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,224
    Yeah, inbetween sizes *cough*oneandoneeighthheadsets*cough* will never take off.
    No longer member of the bike industry nor society, so don't hassle me.

  22. #22
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,017
    Someone who's been in the MTB bizz since the very moment it was called a mountainbike has told me a story about those headset sizes. He was also present when kids bike wheels became the global standard for above mentioned offroad bicycles when used by adults.
    apparently for the bizz it's more important to win the battle to a standard with lobbying and power, not which standard actually makes sense.
    For instanceI think that if we never had 1 1/8", not half the fork-hits-downtube issues would have happened. One Point Five would not have had to bother us. Fork steerers would actually be lighter, crowns stiffer.

    But what do I read : a 584 tire made out of a 559?? Did they just stretch the wire beads perhaps?

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: grawbass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Thylacine
    Yeah, inbetween sizes *cough*oneandoneeighthheadsets*cough* will never take off.
    I hear what you're saying, but its really a case of apples and oranges. For one, 1 1/8" didn't start out as an inbetween size, it started out as the next size up from 1" then came 1 1/4" which sort of fizzled out. I'm not sure why because I think it makes more sense on a mtb. Perhaps it was just more convenient to drop the few 1 1/4" setups rather than the millions of 1 1/8" in creating some sort of standard. Either way, I really don't think it was picked for performance reasons. Plus, a headset doesn't effect the way a bike rides the way a wheel size does.

    So yeah, I guess you're right after all, it probably will take off considering the past logic or lack of logic in the bike industry.
    Wanted: broken Titec 2 bolt seatpost, any size

  24. #24
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,017
    The way my source brought it, 1 1/4 was actively being used on MTB's, and someone chose to force 1 1/8 upon the world. ewveryone will have a different vision though.
    He also likes the idea of 1 1/2 crowns for 29" MTB's with their short head tubes (longer welds), which I would agree with. The fork clearance thing would be an unexpected bonus.

    The 650b for me wins prices if the tires were really made from something desined to be a different size. Now if they'll make it possibly to push fatty 26" DH rubber to 29"...

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fillet-brazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    The way my source brought it, 1 1/4 was actively being used on MTB's, and someone chose to force 1 1/8 upon the world. ewveryone will have a different vision though.
    He also likes the idea of 1 1/2 crowns for 29" MTB's with their short head tubes (longer welds), which I would agree with. The fork clearance thing would be an unexpected bonus.

    The 650b for me wins prices if the tires were really made from something desined to be a different size. Now if they'll make it possibly to push fatty 26" DH rubber to 29"...

    1 1/4" was called Fisher Evolution (Gary came up with it) and probably came out a year before 1 1/8". Only a few mfgers jumped on the Evolution bandwagon (Yeti, Manitou, and a couple others. 1 1/8" had many more followers and became the standard. THere were a few 1" hold outs throughout most of the 90s. Most notably, and probably the only ones were Fat Chance and Ritchey.

    regarding the 26" tire on the 650b rim; the tire beads were not stretched. A small section maybe about 30mm was sort of stitched/grafted in place. I should have looked closer but didnt at the time. Its not a tire I would exceed 20mph on I dont think. But he said hes got the real tires on the way. He's got two other builders buying into it that helped him meet his minimum order. Panaracer is the mfger.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    278
    so i got all excited about this 27.5er for my 5'2" gf and showed it to her. first thing she said was, "but it doesnt look like a monster truck. i want a monster truck." she is full aware that a full custom non-sus corrected 29er frame is in her future to make it fit right. i figured shed be all about a middle size, consider me surprised!

    personally i think its a good idea, but 3 different wheel sizes? geez!...we'll see what happens.

  27. #27
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,017
    Aah, your girlfriend know what's good for her!

    Gary Fisher - Yes, that's the guy I must have spoken to regarding those headsets :-)
    Some LBS's still have 1 1/4 headsets in their Chrs King cases. Hmmm, for a custom bike with custom fork...

    Hey, if they can add 30mm (must have been a bit more, pi * 25mm?) stitching a tire like BCD has been treatening to, what about making custom 29" tires and better : 36" tires?
    A 36" version of the Weirwolf LT will offer sickening grip and good speeds. Then, making a truly fast tire could be even more interesting. A 36x2.4" Racing Ralph? That will definately cross deserts...

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    283
    I'm surprised that you 29er fans haven't been more receptive to this idea. I don't think that Kirk is looking for world domination and a new international standard for mountain bikes. It wasn't that long ago that we were accused of being the weirdos trying to confuse the world with a new standard.

    I'd be really curious to try this one out. If someone comes up with a "Karate Monkey 650b," i.e. a well-designed, inexpensive, legitimizing (is that a word?) frame, I'll give it a shot! Surly? Brant? Soma? Anyone?

    I say:

  29. #29
    conjoinicorned
    Reputation: ferday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,525
    i say no way

    a lot of us have just spent a bunch of $$ on switching over gear to 29er. so now we want another size in the mix? these guys are trying to make some quick cash on the new interest in wheel size, and screw up our standards in the process. cloxxi is right, middle ground does not a winner make.

    IMO, of course.
    what would rainbow unicorn do?

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    847

    I like it

    Pacenti has cool stuff for framemakers and IMO he has a good idea here.

  31. #31
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,017
    Breathin life into a new standard, in between the 2 main adult standards around, suggests that when for someone the one size is too large, the other can be too small. Like there is a huge world between them. There's 9.4% in terms of tire diameter now.
    650b is 1" taller than 26", less than 4%. An improvement for sure in my view, 26" is bmx/dirtjump and transport bike only for me.
    The perceived advantage may be great. But if you so the math, based on the idea of proportionate wheels to rider height, the height range for this 650b size will be very very small. 26" and 29" are well overlapping anyway. 29" riders range from 5'0 to 7'5". 26" from 4'0" (real kids bikes) to 7'5" I would say. Comfort zones should be 9.4% apart only.

    People will sure notice the reduced disadvantages over 29" AND 26", but will also get less advantages in return.

    But I'll say again : if they managed to hand-craft a 650b tire from a 26", that's über-cool, and I want a procedure for it!
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    410

    What about 650a and 27"?

    Creating an additional standard will increase prices and eliminate useful products in the 559mm and 622mm sizes. Pacenti and Rivendell may gain noteriety selling betamax, but they'll profit at our expense.

    Quoth Jobst Brandt:
    "If enough riders ask for 24", 25" and 26" wheels, manufacturers will increase prices as their product lines expand, total sales remaining constant. Tires and spokes would follow as a whole range of sizes that were not previously stocked become part of inventory. Meanwhile, bike frames will come in different configurations to take advantage of the special wheel sizes. Sizes whose advantages are imperceptibly small but are touted by riders who talk of seconds saved in their last race or while riding to work."

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fillet-brazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,696
    Quote Originally Posted by slim_pickens
    Creating an additional standard will increase prices and eliminate useful products in the 559mm and 622mm sizes. Pacenti and Rivendell may gain noteriety selling betamax, but they'll profit at our expense.

    Quoth Jobst Brandt:
    "If enough riders ask for 24", 25" and 26" wheels, manufacturers will increase prices as their product lines expand, total sales remaining constant. Tires and spokes would follow as a whole range of sizes that were not previously stocked become part of inventory. Meanwhile, bike frames will come in different configurations to take advantage of the special wheel sizes. Sizes whose advantages are imperceptibly small but are touted by riders who talk of seconds saved in their last race or while riding to work."

    I agree, its probably a nice size for a wheel. But not now, its too late. It would have been cool if in 1979 this trend caught on... but it didnt. Blame it on the Russians.

    26 and 29 will work just fine and is plenty to offer a range of different riding characteristics.

  34. #34
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Fillet-brazed
    I agree, its probably a nice size for a wheel. But not now, its too late. It would have been cool if in 1979 this trend caught on... but it didnt. Blame it on the Russians.

    26 and 29 will work just fine and is plenty to offer a range of different riding characteristics.
    I agree. 650B lost its chance around '79. If it had become the standard wheel size for mtbs (and it could/should have) we may not have had the 700C/29" mtb develop but the 24" wheel may have gained more acceptance as an alternative.

    BTW Raleigh US sold a mtb/touring bike with 650B wheels in the '80s.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  35. #35
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,440
    the size is not new, it's still around and strong in Europe. rims are in production. the same 26 gears. even if it does not catch now it can always catch later. there is no hurry. meanwhile the bleriot is the great all around bike to have.
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  36. #36
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,254

    Here's the Raleigh 650B

    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    .................

    BTW Raleigh US sold a mtb/touring bike with 650B wheels in the '80s.
    Originally sold with a Bull Moose bar and Suntour friction shifters. Just for your curiosity. It was a Tamarack model, by the way.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    283
    Just for the record, I'm a die hard 29er convert. But I will be checking out the Panaracer 650b tires when they come out, just for giggles. I already have a set of 650b rims laced to XTR hubs that are ready to roll. I might try to convert an existing 26 in. wheeled SS frame if I can find one with a lower than average bottom bracket. (Anyone know of a possible candidate?)

    And looky here, I think I can use a Fox fork without modification. Sweet!
    Attached Images Attached Images

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,779
    Come on it is like 622 new misnomer 28", 630 old 27", 635 old 28" and long ago obsolete 640mm. Confusement and complicacy
    I am a 29" zealot and anything under 622mm rim is unacceptable and impractical. Build 29er instead and establish mtb 622mm give it a stable fundament without manufacturers lingering. Spreading thin the market for halfway batch is not a lucrative move, shops will stock some parts for 650B to the detriment of 622mm/28"29" MTB and for now the leading way is reserved for 29er and keep it like that, if not, both 29er and 650B will not be mainstream. Summarizing 650B just for XC fun, albeit no sooner than 29ers equal 26ers or exceed. Pacenti switch to AM/Enduro 29ers and expand the market. We desperately lament for those.
    Last edited by Davidcopperfield; 03-05-2007 at 05:57 PM.

  39. #39
    WAWE
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,428

    My 650B-er!

    Yea, about 30 years too late for modern mountain bikes.

    Here's my 650B-er!



    584

  40. #40
    graps the nettle
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    515

    wow

    for a group of people who were begging the industry for acceptance a few short years ago, it is kind of ironic to witness the newfound closemindedness going around in this forum.

    why condemn this before trying it? cloxxi can spout all the backward math he wants, people can quote jobst brandt til the cows come home (who, if he had his way, would be happy to see everyone still riding around on 40-spoke fiamme red labels with 28c tires as the ultimate expression of off-road readiness), and every single armchair market analyst and bike industry expert here can label this as some new travesty...

    ...but it's still a pretty cool bike. and kirk can sew a tire into a rideable size better than anyone else out there. too bad you all couldn't see it at the show. it looked mighty sweet and very well proportioned in person.

    (odd flashback. i seem to recal when kirk and ian moore were working at bontrager together, mid-90's sometime, and cobbed together a couple blem frames to fit 700x45c tires. they didn't call anything a revolution, and just rode around laughing a lot.)

    rant off. time for me to go wedge some 700x35 tires into my blurLT for the 25-mile road/dirt commute tomorrow. then over to my bud's house to play around with leading link fork designs. yay, anachronism!

  41. #41
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,254

    Hold on there, podner!

    Quote Originally Posted by MtotheF
    for a group of people who were begging the industry for acceptance a few short years ago, it is kind of ironic to witness the newfound closemindedness going around in this forum.
    S'cuse me, but haven't you been accusing this forum of "closemindedness" and over the top zealotry since you first appeared here?

    why condemn this before trying it? cloxxi can spout all the backward math he wants, people can quote jobst brandt til the cows come home (who, if he had his way, would be happy to see everyone still riding around on 40-spoke fiamme red labels with 28c tires as the ultimate expression of off-road readiness), and every single armchair market analyst and bike industry expert here can label this as some new travesty...
    Well, this idea has come up before "the jury", so you are going to see some "judgements". Kinda the way it works around here, if ya haven't noticed.

    ...but it's still a pretty cool bike. and kirk can sew a tire into a rideable size better than anyone else out there. too bad you all couldn't see it at the show. it looked mighty sweet and very well proportioned in person.
    Looks- schmooks, this is about a tire size and why or why not we would need such a thing. (I'll admit, it does look nice, but then again, that's not necessarily dictated by tire diameter.) I'll say this: It's not a very marketable concept from my experience selling retail in a bike shop. This point has been brought up previously in this thread, so suffice it to say that we don't need another reason to confuse people further. Besides, I wonder if most folks would even notice, (visually) any difference between this 650B mtb and a 26"er sitting next to it on a shop floor. Then you have the added SKU's that something like this generates, and I think it's marketability becomes questionable at best.

    Now that leaves us (I am including myself here) bike freaks that live and breath this stuff. Yeah, I'd love to try this wheel format out. Would I buy one? I'd probably do my own "frankenbike" conversion on a 26"er rigid bike first, just to test the waters. Others that are more cash flush, but bike freaks just the same, might buy one of these purpose built ones.

    So, yeah, it's got a limited appeal, I think. Mass marketability? Jury's still out on that one, but I'd say probably not.

    (odd flashback. i seem to recal when kirk and ian moore were working at bontrager together, mid-90's sometime, and cobbed together a couple blem frames to fit 700x45c tires. they didn't call anything a revolution, and just rode around laughing a lot.)
    Bike freaks just love riding bikes. I can totally relate to that.

    rant off. time for me to go wedge some 700x35 tires into my blurLT for the 25-mile road/dirt commute tomorrow. then over to my bud's house to play around with leading link fork designs. yay, anachronism!
    I hope whatever bike you're riding puts a smile on your face. Have a good one!
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  42. #42

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,079
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    I agree. 650B lost its chance around '79. If it had become the standard wheel size for mtbs (and it could/should have) we may not have had the 700C/29" mtb develop but the 24" wheel may have gained more acceptance as an alternative.

    BTW Raleigh US sold a mtb/touring bike with 650B wheels in the '80s.
    Raleigh tried importing 650b bikes into the states to try to get around the higher import duties associated with 26" wheel bikes. Theirs was an economical decision only and had no basis in function.

    That being said, I'd really like to try a 650b mountain bike - heck, I'd like to have me a 650b randoneur bike too. I give props to Kirk for giving it a go. He's not trying to start a revolution - just putting out another option. I like bikes - wheel size be damned.

  43. #43
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
    S'cuse me, but haven't you been accusing this forum of "closemindedness" and over the top zealotry since you first appeared here?



    Well, this idea has come up before "the jury", so you are going to see some "judgements". Kinda the way it works around here, if ya haven't noticed.



    Looks- schmooks, this is about a tire size and why or why not we would need such a thing. (I'll admit, it does look nice, but then again, that's not necessarily dictated by tire diameter.) I'll say this: It's not a very marketable concept from my experience selling retail in a bike shop. This point has been brought up previously in this thread, so suffice it to say that we don't need another reason to confuse people further. Besides, I wonder if most folks would even notice, (visually) any difference between this 650B mtb and a 26"er sitting next to it on a shop floor. Then you have the added SKU's that something like this generates, and I think it's marketability becomes questionable at best.

    Now that leaves us (I am including myself here) bike freaks that live and breath this stuff. Yeah, I'd love to try this wheel format out. Would I buy one? I'd probably do my own "frankenbike" conversion on a 26"er rigid bike first, just to test the waters. Others that are more cash flush, but bike freaks just the same, might buy one of these purpose built ones.

    So, yeah, it's got a limited appeal, I think. Mass marketability? Jury's still out on that one, but I'd say probably not.



    Bike freaks just love riding bikes. I can totally relate to that.



    I hope whatever bike you're riding puts a smile on your face. Have a good one!

    it's a wheelsize that builds into a mtb w/ less compromise. shorter than 18in chainstays, slacker than 74 seat angles and front wheels that won't bang your feet while riding without waiting in line for a custom build. sounds like a winner from the start.
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  44. #44
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,440
    Quote Originally Posted by ssmike
    Raleigh tried importing 650b bikes into the states to try to get around the higher import duties associated with 26" wheel bikes. Theirs was an economical decision only and had no basis in function.

    That being said, I'd really like to try a 650b mountain bike - heck, I'd like to have me a 650b randoneur bike too. I give props to Kirk for giving it a go. He's not trying to start a revolution - just putting out another option. I like bikes - wheel size be damned.

    thanks mike.
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  45. #45
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,440
    Quote Originally Posted by aosty
    Yea, about 30 years too late for modern mountain bikes.

    Here's my 650B-er!



    584
    too late? so where do jones ideas come from? where do all bicycle solutions come from? the past.
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  46. #46

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    512
    I am really interested in a 32er...

  47. #47
    trail rat
    Reputation: slocaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,823
    Quote Originally Posted by hamachi
    I am really interested in a 32er...
    Troublemaker!!

    We gots (sic) 26" and 29" and now a 27.5 'tweener is trouble (with a capital T, right here in river city).

    Now Benwitt is doing a 36" and you want a 32" 'tweener......

    I'm with
    Quote Originally Posted by ssmike
    I like bikes - wheel size be damned.
    "The physician heals, Nature makes well" - real fortune cookie

    CCCMB trail work for trail access - SLO, CA

  48. #48
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,017
    Quote Originally Posted by AllRounder
    Just for the record, I'm a die hard 29er convert. But I will be checking out the Panaracer 650b tires when they come out, just for giggles. I already have a set of 650b rims laced to XTR hubs that are ready to roll. I might try to convert an existing 26 in. wheeled SS frame if I can find one with a lower than average bottom bracket. (Anyone know of a possible candidate?)

    And looky here, I think I can use a Fox fork without modification. Sweet!
    Get a Surly 1x1. It even works with 29" wheels.
    650B will raise the BB of a 26"er with exacty 1/2" only, the size is THAT close...
    It's 1" better. I hope I can fit 650B x 2.1" in my VooDoo's.
    A frame just needs an extra 1/2" of vertical tire clearance. Built for fat tires, it will fit. Maybe with longer V-brake arms even.

    Details about those sown tires please!!! where can I place my order for a Schwlabe 29x2.35"? Or should I explore my idea of stretching a 26" wire bead by a good 10%? It may work, and it also may not... At least it would make a tire that fits the loosest fitting rim nice and tight :-)
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  49. #49
    graps the nettle
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    515

    that's just sad

    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
    Looks- schmooks, this is about a tire size and why or why not we would need such a thing. (I'll admit, it does look nice, but then again, that's not necessarily dictated by tire diameter.) I'll say this: It's not a very marketable concept from my experience selling retail in a bike shop. This point has been brought up previously in this thread, so suffice it to say that we don't need another reason to confuse people further.
    calling a proliferation of choices "another reason to confuse people" is a pretty weak copout. i recall that argument being used against wes williams in 1999, amongst others. you, of all people, would probably find it insulting if someone referred to 29" wheels as "one choice too many." but, since this is a wheelsize smaller than your dedicated absolutely perfect wheelsize, you can see fit to deem it unworthy and just a hindrance in the market.

    yes, it would be another wheelsize. one that has, like the 29" wheel, been around as a rim size for a very long time already. yes, it could lead to confusion if you want to label it as such. but it could also be another arrow in the quiver. another choice for riders to hone in on a trait, a certain something, a ride characteristic that they are looking for. and yes, blanket dismissal of it is closeminded.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: grawbass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Come on it is like 622 new misnomer 28", 630 old 27", 635 old 28" and long ago obsolete 640mm. Confusement and complicacy
    I am a 29" zealot and anything under 622mm rim is unacceptable and impractical. Build 29er instead and establish mtb 622mm give it a stable fundament without manufacturers lingering. Spreading thin the market for halfway batch is not a lucrative move, shops will stock some parts for 650B to the detriment of 622mm/28"29" MTB and for now the leading way is reserved for 29er and keep it like that, if not, both 29er and 650B will not be mainstream. Summarizing 650B just for XC fun, albeit no sooner than 29ers equal 26ers or exceed. Pacenti switch to AM/Enduro 29ers and expand the market. We desperately lament for those.
    You make a good point.........IF 650B ever gets big enough, but I doubt it will.
    Wanted: broken Titec 2 bolt seatpost, any size

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: grawbass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,044
    Quote Originally Posted by hamachi
    I am really interested in a 32er...
    Same here. I think a 32er would be the bees knees.

    Personally I'd like my wheels to be as big as possible just short of becoming cumbersome, which I feel a 36er might be. I think somewhere around 36, you start getting into the law of deminishing returns, but I'd still like one just for messing around.
    Wanted: broken Titec 2 bolt seatpost, any size

  52. #52
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,254
    Quote Originally Posted by MtotheF
    calling a proliferation of choices "another reason to confuse people" is a pretty weak copout. i recall that argument being used against wes williams in 1999, amongst others. you, of all people, would probably find it insulting if someone referred to 29" wheels as "one choice too many." but, since this is a wheelsize smaller than your dedicated absolutely perfect wheelsize, you can see fit to deem it unworthy and just a hindrance in the market.
    No, no. Not a cop out, but an opinion born out of the reality of dealing with your common cyclist out on a sales floor for nine years now. Look, I realize that yes: 29"ers are even confusing to folks, but at least you don't have another ISO bead diameter that's not compatible with currently used, widely available wheel technology. Tyranny of choice is a factor here, absolutely. And do you deny that manufacturers are not keen on adding SKU's to already taxed budgets and inventories?

    Copout? Are you kidding me? The man who is responsible for "The Grimy Handshake" ought to know exactly what I'm talking about here.



    ...yes, it would be another wheelsize. one that has, like the 29" wheel, been around as a rim size for a very long time already. yes, it could lead to confusion if you want to label it as such. but it could also be another arrow in the quiver. another choice for riders to hone in on a trait, a certain something, a ride characteristic that they are looking for. and yes, blanket dismissal of it is closeminded.
    And if you had quoted my sentiments about "bike freaks" you might read that I am with you on this thought of yours. I still hold that this only applies to a small segment of the cycling public. Call us "enthusiasts", "serious cyclists", or "bike freaks", I don't care. I'm talking about the large percentage of folks roaming these forums, who would possibly buy into this extra choice and add it to the "stable" of bikes they already have.

    The other, much larger group of folks out there that the industry is trying to reach would not be inclined to "experiment". It is these folks that will have a harder time accepting that this 650B bike is something worth buying for it's "certain something" as you put it.

    Look, I'll say it again: I'm as curious as the next guy on this forum about this wheel size. Yes, it might prove to eek out a certain "trait" that other wheel sizes don't capitilaize on. It might be, ( and probably is) a whole lotta fun. I'm just saying that from a business perspective, and from a retail sales perspective in particular, this wheel size is in for a long uphill battle, if it even gets that far.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  53. #53
    mtbr memeber
    Reputation: jpre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    543
    Quote Originally Posted by grawbass
    I agree 100%. Seems like 650B doesn't really solve much of anything, but if people want to make that size and use it, more power to them. I just don't see an advantage myself.
    Off road I don't see it being any sort of huge breakthrough. If it follows the general course of the road resurgence I could see it appealing to one interested in simplicity and little pretention of being hardcore.

    On road, I'm planning on building up one of those Kogswell P/R's. Toe overlap bugs me. My Van Dessel 29"er doesn't have any. I rode a 700c fendered bike in the rain recently, and the lack of spray was wonderful, but the toe overlap was extremely annoying to me. I tried out a fully fendered 650B bike, and I was pleased to find no overlap with the front fender. It was really close. And the specifications I want might make it just a few mm closer, but I'm going to try anyway.

  54. #54
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,017
    Quote Originally Posted by grawbass
    Same here. I think a 32er would be the bees knees.

    Personally I'd like my wheels to be as big as possible just short of becoming cumbersome, which I feel a 36er might be. I think somewhere around 36, you start getting into the law of deminishing returns, but I'd still like one just for messing around.
    Amen brother!
    I do want a 36"er, but realized 32" will likely be the sweet spot for me. I can have no-compromize geometry and maximum roll.
    For the past years I've felt that one's ideal tire size offroad is the largest that isn't cumbersome. Increased weight is more than compensated by improved grip/speed/control/stability.

    32" had already been around had my bank balance been 6-figure rather than 4. I know 32" will work when executed correctly, and riders would be impressed at the first ride.
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  55. #55
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,440
    Quote Originally Posted by grawbass
    You make a good point.........IF 650B ever gets big enough, but I doubt it will.
    but it's already bigger than 29. it's an established wheel size in randonneuring, brevets, tourings..
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  56. #56
    Steel and teeth.
    Reputation: b1umb0y's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    577
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
    No, no. Not a cop out, but an opinion born out of the reality of dealing with your common cyclist out on a sales floor for nine years now. Look, I realize that yes: 29"ers are even confusing to folks, but at least you don't have another ISO bead diameter that's not compatible with currently used, widely available wheel technology. Tyranny of choice is a factor here, absolutely. And do you deny that manufacturers are not keen on adding SKU's to already taxed budgets and inventories?
    Where was this line of logic when you were lauding the development of the 36er?

    Closemindedness is exactly the problem.

    Look at your comments alone… they always follow this simple paradigm:
    Anything less than 29” is bad… anything equal to or greater than 29” is good.

    This form of zealotry doesn’t instill respect from those individuals roaming these forums.

    After reading this, I reminisced about hearing these exact same arguments when Fisher first introduced the 29er (as a shop salesman, mechanic, manager for who knows how many years). It is ironic that 29er zealots are saying the same thing about 27.5ers… (albeit, while extolling the almighty 36er.)

    Just remember, bikes are a lot of things...
    You can use them for transportation, a means to express yourself, an art form, an outlet for tinkering or building, etc. It doesn't matter if they have gears, a freewheel, suspension, different sized wheels, if it is steel/aluminum/carbon, etc. They are bikes and they are a beautiful thing no matter what their purpose.

    bb

  57. #57
    One Colorful Rider
    Reputation: Normbilt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,204
    Quote Originally Posted by markf
    in my shop 90% of the customers think 29 inch wheels are weird and don't understand them. I've tried to evangelize. this is just one more size to confuse most people with. it's like all the schwinn specific sizes. "no. your 26 inch tire won't fit on there, it's an S6 rim. sorry, but you need a very specific tire size with about 3 choices."

    It all sounds weird at first. Tire Choice will always be the why it will either float or sink. When I was doing the Chequamegan 40 in 2002 this guy flew by me on a 29er. I though that wheel size makes sense for long endurance races. So I picked up a X-Caliber. At that time there was about 3 fork choices and very limited tires. Since 29er is really 700c rims were available but mostly narrow. Sun Ringle started making wide 700c rims for cyclecross and since i knew this I was Builting sweet wheels early. I work in a shop also.
    When Qualifing a customer finding out what wheel size can be more effective for his or her riding style. I know the benifit of riding a 29er. I have run 26" much in the past couple years.

    I Remember the 650B/700D. Now 650b is not a new Idea. Schwinn used that size on 2 models in the early 90's. Now a days with disc brakes you can realy run any wheel size easily. That was another problem back then, Rim Brakes. Sun might be even making wheel chair rims this size.

    So is 650b better than 26 or 29 inchers? I know that 26" wheels will be stronger and 29" wheels are faster on long runs and better on log overs.What's 650b got to offer me??

  58. #58
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Normbilt
    So is 650b better than 26 or 29 inchers? I know that 26" wheels will be stronger and 29" wheels are faster on long runs and better on log overs.What's 650b got to offer me??
    Tire strength is IMO mostly dependent on the relations between size, spoke count and flange spacing. Increase the former and keep the latter two the same, and the wheel will weaken for sure. But is there a reason to stick with 32 spokes when wheel size is increased, or hold on to the silly-narrow flange spacing forced upon us by the first 8-speed cassette bodies on a hub only 5mm wider than standard for road bikes?
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  59. #59
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,440
    you either love cycling or you don't. cycling has many expressions and wheel size is one of them. if you dislike or "hate" one wheel, hate gears, hate road bikes.. then you don't like cycling at all.
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  60. #60
    graps the nettle
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    515
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
    No, no. Not a cop out, but an opinion born out of the reality of dealing with your common cyclist out on a sales floor for nine years now. Look, I realize that yes: 29"ers are even confusing to folks, but at least you don't have another ISO bead diameter that's not compatible with currently used, widely available wheel technology. Tyranny of choice is a factor here, absolutely. And do you deny that manufacturers are not keen on adding SKU's to already taxed budgets and inventories?

    Copout? Are you kidding me? The man who is responsible for "The Grimy Handshake" ought to know exactly what I'm talking about here. .
    look, it's a choice. just like you can condemn many manufacturers right now for missing the boat and not jumping on the bandwagon, and in so doing cluttering up their own inventories with yet another run of rims and spokes and tires, because they are choosing not to build 29ers. and you can condemn retailers for not embracing a wheelsize that you personally find to be a wonderful thing out there in the flyover states. i'm not advocating a new wheelsize here. i'm not urging anyone to build it. i'm not asking shops to sell it. i'm not touting it as having any benefits. i'm curious to ride it, and it think that it's a good piece of craft.

    but i also think you are using the same arguments to condemn it that have already been used, to your chagrin by others who don't get it, to condemn your beloved 29er. and i think that is a bit hypocritical.

  61. #61
    One Colorful Rider
    Reputation: Normbilt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,204
    ISO-584

    Hell I was riding around on ISO-597 back went some of you were dumping in your
    Huggies.

    I am still riding it also
    Attached Images Attached Images

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,779

    Caution;  Merge;  Workers Ahead!

    Quote Originally Posted by b1umb0y
    Closemindedness is exactly the problem.

    Look at your comments alone… they always follow this simple paradigm:
    Anything less than 29” is bad… anything equal to or greater than 29” is good.

    This form of zealotry doesn’t instill respect from those individuals roaming these forums.

    After reading this, I reminisced about hearing these exact same arguments when Fisher first introduced the 29er (as a shop salesman, mechanic, manager for who knows how many years). It is ironic that 29er zealots are saying the same thing about 27.5ers… (albeit, while extolling the almighty 36er.)
    This simply because it is <29ers' forums. If you need appluase go to 26" forums 650B is 584mm and original 26" is 559mm just 25mm difference in rims and between 559 and 622mm you have 63mm. Apart from that we do love really decent grip, traction, speed, confedence in mud.
    Imagine you are asking for new 29 er tires and the factiory tells you that they are very busy introducing& testing 650B and 29" tires' production has been interrupted since they must patch a hole in 650B market. In my opinion the market will be spread thin and 29ers tires, forks, frames generally bikes will suffer and any outsider may state
    "What do they introduce so many standards, they are all crap expect for 26" for others it is close to impossbile finding an apparel." Keep that i mind that before 29 equal 26 nobody will advocate anything threatening proliferation and eventually 36er is almighty indeed, however for strong muscular over 190 cm weenies. Full suspension 36ers 120mm will weight about 18 kgs and is far to much for XC or Trail.

    Just remember, bikes are a lot of things...
    You can use them for transportation, a means to express yourself, an art form, an outlet for tinkering or building, etc. It doesn't matter if they have gears, a freewheel, suspension, different sized wheels, if it is steel/aluminum/carbon, etc. They are bikes and they are a beautiful thing no matter what their purpose.
    bb
    I agree nonetheless in business there are some priorities we do not want any reatrdation which now with proper 29 tires and forks and none XTR 622mm wheels.

  63. #63
    Steel and teeth.
    Reputation: b1umb0y's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    577
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    This simply because it is <29ers' forums. If you need appluase go to 26" forums 650B is 584mm and original 26" is 559mm just 25mm difference in rims and between 559 and 622mm you have 63mm. Apart from that we do love really decent grip, traction, speed, confedence in mud.
    Imagine you are asking for new 29 er tires and the factiory tells you that they are very busy introducing& testing 650B and 29" tires' production has been interrupted since they must patch a hole in 650B market. In my opinion the market will be spread thin and 29ers tires, forks, frames generally bikes will suffer and any outsider may state
    "What do they introduce so many standards, they are all crap expect for 26" for others it is close to impossbile finding an apparel." Keep that i mind that before 29 equal 26 nobody will advocate anything threatening proliferation and eventually 36er is almighty indeed, however for strong muscular over 190 cm weenies. Full suspension 36ers 120mm will weight about 18 kgs and is far to much for XC or Trail.


    I agree nonetheless in business there are some priorities we do not want any reatrdation which now with proper 29 tires and forks and none XTR 622mm wheels.
    Maybe this will help you...

    Requested:
    -> an open mind (synonymous with less zealotry.)

    Never really mentioned, expected, or requested:
    -> applause
    -> that 650B be introduced as a business model

    How these things get confused? I blame the government.

    bb

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    410

    If you can fit a 650b in a 26" fork why bother?

    It's not big wheel bigotry, it's that the 584mm bead tire offers so little relative to it's cost.

    Good 559 tires have ODs from 25.3 to 27.3 inches (1.7-2.7s). Good 622 tires pick up where they leave off with ODs from 27.8 to 29 inches (1.7-2.3s). A 584 X 2.1 is within the 559 range. If they ever make a 584 x 2.3 it will be in the 622 range.

    Everyone here has fun with esoteric bike stuff, but this wheel size is unusual for the sake of being unusual, and people are bashing it for the same reasons they bash Shimano for their compatibility issues and Specialized for their weird seatpost size (do they still do that?).

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PeanutButterBreath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,565

    CX Bikes.

    IIRRRC (if I recall Rivendell Reader correctly), the appeal (or at least an appeal) of 650b is the ability to have a higher volume tire without needing to stray too far away from existing frame designs.

    I like riding my CX bikes everywhere, but there are limitations to tires below 40C (IMO). Above that, you have an effective wheelsize that won't fit into existing frames. You also end up with a wheel that it noticably sluggish (again, IMO).

    Building around a true 29" wheel introduces certain hassles with small frames & toe-overlap. Nothing insurmountable, but a hurdle nonetheless. A true 29" MTB wheel is also overkill for mixed paved/fire road/single track riding (yet again, IMO)

    A wheelsize that allowed me to fit something with the cush of a 50ishC tire into a standard 700C frame would be interesting. Decent ride, less weight penalty, no need to re-invent the frame.

    I don't think anything is going to threaten the 29" wheel at this point, but given the hassles of fitting shorter riders to 29er frames, fitting new 29" tires into existing molds etc., I think 650b could get a lot of people wondering if 29" was the wisest new standard to pursue.

  66. #66
    rigid bruce
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    179
    >>BTW Raleigh US sold a mtb/touring bike with 650B wheels in the '80s.<<

    My wife had one of these. It was impossible to get good offroad tires for it which wasn't really a problem since she never rode her bike.

    I'm with the people who want to get a 32er. I lost all interest in riding my Fat City Cycles Ti Fat when my 29er arrived from the builder (Curtlo). I ride rigid SS and bigger wheels were a big improvement. I don't know if I'd prefer 32 over 29, but the only way to know is to try it. At some point ever bigger wheels will become a disadvantage, I'd like to discover what diameter that will be for me.

    bruce boysen
    Last edited by Rigid; 03-06-2007 at 01:19 PM.

  67. #67
    Welsh Dave
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    254

    Why the long face?

    This is all quite amusing. Why the resentment?

    I'm sure that Kirk Pacenti, Kogswell, Rivendell and the millions of old European roadster owners couldn't care less if 700C riders (oh, OK then, "29ers") join their party or not - They're just glad that it's getting easier again to source the rim and tyre size they use and like.

    As has already been said: 650B was previously a popular size in France, sometimes the UK and also other parts of Europe. There are still shed-loads of them around Scandinavia (apparently - that's 2nd hand info).

    Diameter:
    Their diameter offers greater flexibility in frame design and clearance, particularly for smaller frames or those using mud-guards without toe overlap.

    Width:

    Also, the standard 650B rim and tyre widths were focused more towards touring, utility and comfort bikes than super narrow 700Cs and "older" 26 inch XC weight weenie rims from back in the day (relatively speaking) that came to be dominated by the "demands" of a market driven by race-imagery.

    So they were a pretty useful size on road, for utility trips, a spot of comfortable touring or those scorchers and dirt racers that led to the modern mountain bike. A "Do-everything" size, if you like (though ovbiously not the BEST at EVERYTHING).

    Now they're having a niche resurgence - If you don't like it, then just leave them to it.

    And, for the record, the bikes in my stable (make that basement) have 5 different bead diameters. It doesn't really get too complicated - They're all bikes - they're all good. In my experience, 650B works well for a lot of varied situations. No more, no less.

    Of course, what we REALLY need is a resurgence of 700B (635mm) so I could get some modern tyres for my 1964 Raleigh Roadster...

    DM

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    Quote Originally Posted by AllRounder
    I'm surprised that you 29er fans haven't been more receptive to this idea.
    ...
    why is that? in fact, i would expect the niners to shun any and all other wheel geometry offerings. it's all about the exclusivity factor right?

  69. #69
    highly visible
    Reputation: GlowBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,202
    C'mon guys, there's no need to call GT a zealot just because you disagree with him. Even though I'd love it if this wheelsize caught on, I think his points are valid.

    On the confusion issue, we wouldn't have to deal with it all if we followed standardized naming conventions like "559ers" and "622ers," instead of "26ers" "29ers" and "700c'ers" and whatever else. These new bikes would be "584ers," clearly distinct from other bikes, and no one would be confused. Don't laugh. We've all gotten used to saying "700c" (and - egads! - "650c") over the years.

    I agree with others that this wheelsize have much to offer -- for riders taller than 5'6" or so. You 6' guys bashing on 650b, think beyond your own needs. What 650b does is to open up the possibilities for riders from about 5' to 5'6". This is a huge potential market (even if it does include a large number of casual riders likely to be confused by the nomenclature). Although there are some riders in this size range who can ride 29"ers comfortably, there are also many who cannot without significant geometry compromises -- especially if they are uncomfortable with stretched-out racer-girl positioning. My wife is under 5'2", and even though I'm a staunch 29"er advocate I don't see how she's going to fit comfortably on a 29er. But she could easily go up to 584.

    Look at the geometry of the smaller 700c road bikes and you'll see similar compromises going on, hence the popularity of 650c "womens" bikes from some makers. Even on the road, 650b would be a much better size for most of the riders in question here. [some will question why geometry compromises would arise for the same rider on fat tired MTB tires as on skinny tired road tires ... the reason is that due to the use of drop bars and shorter top tubes, road bikes actually do end up running into toe overlap issues for about the same size rims and riders that mountain bikes do]

    I've long argued that the optimum wheelsize for most recreational mountain bikers is the largest wheel that can be used without significant geometry compromises. Approximate ranges of this are:
    • 559mm (26") for riders under 5'0"-5'1" or so.
    • 584mm (650b) for riders from about 5' to about 5'6".
    • 622mm (700c, 28", 29") for riders from about 5'6" to a bit over 6'.
    • Some currently nonexistent size between 650mm and 700mm for taller riders.
    Last edited by GlowBoy; 03-06-2007 at 02:29 PM.
    "People like GloyBoy are deaf. They are partisan, intellectually lazy & usually very angry." -Jaybo

  70. #70
    jl
    jl is offline
    climb
    Reputation: jl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,293
    Quote Originally Posted by PeanutButterBreath
    IIRRRC (if I recall Rivendell Reader correctly), the appeal (or at least an appeal) of 650b is the ability to have a higher volume tire without needing to stray too far away from existing frame designs.
    Pick up issue #126 of dirtrag mag and look for a bombadil.
    We don't need more to be thankful for; we just need to be more thankful.

  71. #71
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,254
    Quote Originally Posted by MtotheF
    look, it's a choice. just like you can condemn many manufacturers right now for missing the boat and not jumping on the bandwagon, and in so doing cluttering up their own inventories with yet another run of rims and spokes and tires, because they are choosing not to build 29ers. and you can condemn retailers for not embracing a wheelsize that you personally find to be a wonderful thing out there in the flyover states.
    I could do those things, but I don't. As a matter of fact, the whole retail 29"er thing is somewhat of a headache for us out here in "retail-land" Lot's of the things you point out are true in the business sense for 29"ers, just as they would be for 650B's. However; the benefits of riding a 29"er are more easily percieved by the public, both visually and experientially. 650B? Not so much. Not enough of a difference there from currently available 26"er stuff.

    It's kind of like Spinal Tap from the standpoint of 26 inch wheels, some of which are almost 29 inches in overall diameter. (Endomorph, several 3.0 DH tires) It's like saying your 650B is "11" and I'm saying "just make your 10 a little louder", as far as 26"ers go.



    i'm not advocating a new wheelsize here. i'm not urging anyone to build it. i'm not asking shops to sell it. i'm not touting it as having any benefits. i'm curious to ride it, and it think that it's a good piece of craft.
    I'm not accusing you of any of that. In fact, as I've said before, I'm curious too. In this sense we are in agreement, I believe, no?

    but i also think you are using the same arguments to condemn it that have already been used, to your chagrin by others who don't get it, to condemn your beloved 29er. and i think that is a bit hypocritical.
    Hmmm.........not feeling this at all. First of all, I'm not at all condemming the 650B wheel format. I owned a bike with the wheels up until recently. I'm just saying that from a retail/business sense, it's not appealing and that it's a "refined taste", if you will. A bike that bike afficianados would see as something kinda cool, a bike that randonnuers and some tourists would see as a cool bike, but not enough of a difference from currently, widely, and easily available technology. And certainly, many people have criticized "my beloved 29er", as you say, but really, I take no offense. In the end, they are all just bicycles. No big.

    I don't expect it to go away, but I certainly don't expect it to take off like 29"ers have either. My opinion. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I doubt it.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PeanutButterBreath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,565

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    captain obvious here, and although it may not seem like a very big difference from 26 to 27.5, when you're talking rotational mass, especially the mass on the outermost edge of the rotation, the difference can be more pronounced than one might think. and it's not only the mass of the wheel that gets pushed farther out, it's also the tire/tube/slime/nipples and whatever else that's attached to the rim. and yes i mention slime and nipples only in the context of bikes.

    i also think that there is a noticable difference in the amount of fine control you have between 26 -> 29 through the slower more technical stuff, and i personally thought the difference was too big for my liking. having an option in between is at least worth looking at. who knows it might be just the ticket for many people with similar thoughts or wanting a do-everything solution.
    Last edited by salimoneus; 03-06-2007 at 06:37 PM.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Thylacine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
    I'm just saying that from a business perspective, and from a retail sales perspective in particular, this wheel size is in for a long uphill battle, if it even gets that far.
    Hasn't stopped all the current suppliers of 29er products.

    Innovation doesn't come from consumers or your P&L statement. It comes from people who solve problems, create and try new ideas, and give **** a go.

    It's unfortunate that often the ones that take off, take off often purely because of superior marketing, but I wouldn't be surprised if given the right support by the right companies, this 'new wheel size' has every potential to gazump the 29er and religate it to the 1 1/4" headset bin.

    History - and marketing 101 - deem this to be entirely possible.
    No longer member of the bike industry nor society, so don't hassle me.

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PeanutButterBreath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Thylacine
    Innovation doesn't come from consumers or your P&L statement. It comes from people who solve problems, create and try new ideas, and give **** a go.
    Innovation sure -- by definition. But what about viable products?

  76. #76

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    673
    Ooh! How about a 7.59er (27.5/29)?

  77. #77
    Mr.650b - Mr.27-5
    Reputation: Kirk Pacenti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,630

    For the record....

    For those really interested in knowing more, I’ll give some basic specs below. Contact me off list if you’d like to know more.

    Frame: Pacenti / Eriksen Titanium.

    Fork: Custom built White Brothers 100mm Magic, 44mm rake, 27.5" / 650B specific.

    Rims / Wheels: Velocity Synergy A-syms, custom built into Cane Creek Zonos Disk Team Issue wheel system with the new 3.5 hub.

    Tires: Rolled down 29 x 2.3" WTB Exi-Wolfs.

    New tires: Pacenti 27.5 x 2.3” made by Panaracer. (available in June)

    Weather the project will succeed or fail I don’t know. I can say that every person and company involved with my project bike has been very supportive of it and excited by it’s potential. Frankly, I think that speaks volumes for the tires viability and personally, if I didn’t think it had some real merit, I wouldn’t have done it.

    As for the rest... I see little use in preaching to the converted. After all, I am not out to change the world. I look at the 584/650B/27.5” wheel only as providing one more option for the small custom builder [just like everything else I do] and I am happy to let the market sort it out.

    Respectfully,

    Kirk Pacenti
    Pacenti Cycle Design

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Thylacine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,224
    Quote Originally Posted by PeanutButterBreath
    Innovation sure -- by definition. But what about viable products?
    What do you expect, a small player to instantly burst out with 'concept stores' accross all 50 states overnight?

    Mate, Kirk introduced the concept to the masses last weekend! Maybe give it some time perhaps?
    No longer member of the bike industry nor society, so don't hassle me.

  79. #79
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,017
    Hey Kirk, welcome to the 29" forum!

    Thanks for responding! But please don't keep you info between yourself and the ones contacting you off board :-)

    Respect for making custom rim and expecially tire happen, respect!

    Please tell us about rolling down Exis, and what it might mean for use big tire craving nutcases.

    Why did you choose to use 584, which sits a bit closer to 26" than 29"? Right in the middle seems to make just as much sence, as you're going full custom anyway? I know, tiny difference, but 584 is all about that anyway :-)

    I hope this product will give you revenue for your time and cost, and might mean something for the current 29" gang by having tires made from 26" ones perhaps, and especially an example for those ready to try the obviously popular idea of a 32"er, right in the middle of the 5'+ 29"er and the 6'4"+ 36"er.

    Please share your secrets and knowledge on the board, please?

    Happy trails,

    J

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,779
    Kirk Pacenti will you make several 29ers. 32ers and continue with Ben idea 36ers? we could have several wheels' sizes please we want them

  81. #81
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,254

    The Big "if" strikes again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thylacine
    Hasn't stopped all the current suppliers of 29er products.

    Innovation doesn't come from consumers or your P&L statement. It comes from people who solve problems, create and try new ideas, and give **** a go.

    It's unfortunate that often the ones that take off, take off often purely because of superior marketing, but I wouldn't be surprised if given the right support by the right companies, this 'new wheel size' has every potential to gazump the 29er and religate it to the 1 1/4" headset bin.

    History - and marketing 101 - deem this to be entirely possible.
    Uh-huh, yeah....if. You nailed it right on the head there.

    As for "gazumping" the 29"er......another big if. Whatever.

    We can speculate all we want to. I know this wheelsize will find favor with some, and it's got something to offer, for sure. The thing is, the difference is in between 26 and 29 inch and by it's very nature is a limiting factor to it's appeal.

    You know, this smaller size has more merit in a 50/50 format bike than the current crop of 69"ers out there. This is an area that I think this 650B size might actually enjoy some success in. Especially in a full suspension design that has more travel than a 29"er rear wheel might allow. I'm sure we'll see some interesting concepts come to light due to Kirk Pacenti's vision and efforts.

    So, it's got some attractive attributes and possibilities. Is it going to become as popular as 29"ers? Again, I don't see that happening. I'm not convinced that it will.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  82. #82
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Pacenti
    For those really interested in knowing more, I’ll give some basic specs below. Contact me off list if you’d like to know more.

    Frame: Pacenti / Eriksen Titanium.

    Fork: Custom built White Brothers 100mm Magic, 44mm rake, 27.5" / 650B specific.

    Rims / Wheels: Velocity Synergy A-syms, custom built into Cane Creek Zonos Disk Team Issue wheel system with the new 3.5 hub.

    Tires: Rolled down 29 x 2.3" WTB Exi-Wolfs.

    New tires: Pacenti 27.5 x 2.3” made by Panaracer. (available in June)

    Weather the project will succeed or fail I don’t know. I can say that every person and company involved with my project bike has been very supportive of it and excited by it’s potential. Frankly, I think that speaks volumes for the tires viability and personally, if I didn’t think it had some real merit, I wouldn’t have done it.

    As for the rest... I see little use in preaching to the converted. After all, I am not out to change the world. I look at the 584/650B/27.5” wheel only as providing one more option for the small custom builder [just like everything else I do] and I am happy to let the market sort it out.

    Respectfully,

    Kirk Pacenti
    Pacenti Cycle Design
    i have emailed you already. the 650B mtb makes total sense. it's a do it all machine: long steady distances in the rough, street commuter, fire road climber.
    my next biike will be a 650B. beautifull...
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  83. #83
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
    Uh-huh, yeah....if. You nailed it right on the head there.

    As for "gazumping" the 29"er......another big if. Whatever.

    We can speculate all we want to. I know this wheelsize will find favor with some, and it's got something to offer, for sure. The thing is, the difference is in between 26 and 29 inch and by it's very nature is a limiting factor to it's appeal.

    You know, this smaller size has more merit in a 50/50 format bike than the current crop of 69"ers out there. This is an area that I think this 650B size might actually enjoy some success in. Especially in a full suspension design that has more travel than a 29"er rear wheel might allow. I'm sure we'll see some interesting concepts come to light due to Kirk Pacenti's vision and efforts.

    So, it's got some attractive attributes and possibilities. Is it going to become as popular as 29"ers? Again, I don't see that happening. I'm not convinced that it will.
    the format is already more popular than 29ers. it's been around for ages in europe. it's just a matter of knobs now. give it some knobs and it's massive. no geometry hassles, no fit issues, no inexistent 29 rings.
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  84. #84
    Mr.650b - Mr.27-5
    Reputation: Kirk Pacenti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,630
    Cloxxi,

    Thanks, I appreciate the warm welcome and the genuine interest in my project.

    The tires were made by cutting a section out of a 29” tire and rejoining it to fit a 650B rim. That was done by using a hot knife to cut off all the knobs on one end of the tire strip about an inch back, right down to the casing. Then by overlapping the tire seam and rejoining by using a rubber adhesive and some Kevlar thread. The tires were bonded together by laying them out flat in a press until the adhesive cured, then stitched together for good measure… they should hold up very well.

    The tire is a fully functional prototype… this will be enough to test the bike (coming up in Dirt Rag) and get a feel for what the bike / wheel size will really perform like. My initial impressions are very positive. Although I didn’t really get to ride it much before the show, it rolls really well and feels like it has a bit more “flick” factor than my 29’ers.

    The reason for going to 584 rather than 590 (which is right in the middle of 559 and 622) was simple. 584 wheels are widely used around the world on high quality bicycles of all types. Primarily in Europe and Japan as Cyclo-touring/ trekking/ commuting style bikes. The 590 is common too, but it is used only on low end bikes with steel rims, and viewed as inferior to 584.

    As much as would really have liked to have gone with 590, I knew it would have failed before it even began. By going with the 584 size I could at least count on some interest from the existing commitment to that size around the world. (see the confrerie des 650B for more info). as well as benefiting from the strong resurgence for the 650B wheel size here in the States. Plus there is historical precedence for the size among the pioneers of Mountain biking. The fact that two (maybe 3) companies are setting up to build around this size didn’t hurt either.

    As for the bigger wheels, I think I will leave that to someone else. The impetus for this design was my feeling that fundamental frame design was getting tossed out the window simply to accommodate the 29” wheel size. (with the 584 wheel, I was able to use nearly identical geometry to a 26" wheeled bike.) I find the compromises especially unsettling with some of the new FS bikes hitting the market. Going bigger still would only further compromise those fundamentals in my opinion. Also, the idea that “if 29” is good 32” must be better” just doesn’t sit well with me; even for fully rigid bikes. There may indeed be some merit to it, but I’ll have to leave it for someone else to experiment with.


    Best regards,

    Kirk Pacenti
    Pacenti Cycle Design

  85. #85
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,017
    Thanks Kirk!

    With the wheelsize under an inch bigger than 26", is going through all this trouble a "bigger is better, but not too much" idea, or rather bringing the beloved 650B to the trails, and no-one has before you? Is the 1" worth it over tried-and-true 26"?

    How did you re-join the beads, are they kevlar or steel?

    Now if someone has skills and machines to copy this craft, (I wish Kirk was into 29"er back in 1999 to make tires), we can have any 26" tire in 29"! Dream up your dream 29" tire that exists in 26", buy 2, MAKE IT 29", and show the manufacturer what it's missing out on! Hmmm, Racing Ralphs 2.4, Twisters 1.9...
    A tire made from 2 halves would have an advantage to be weight-neutral. Disadvantage : twice the work. :-) Someone make it happen though, please. An who'll roll a 32" rim while he's at it?

    This frankentire technique will till eternity be known as "Pulling a Kirk". Or "The Pacenti Procedure". :-)

    Personally I'm all for stronger wheels, just I would chose improve on the 700c not by making it smaller, rather improving hub specs and increasing spoke count.

    If 29" is appreciated so much, spreading based mostly on reviews and first hand experiences, riders of 5' and up, to me it's interesting to try and find how large we can go and still get more of what 29" did for us. 36" may be over the top for most of it (and fun because of it), the optimum for a rigid bike with male rider MAY just be in between 29" and 36", not 26" and 29".

    Not all criticism Kirk, 1" better than 26" is great to me! Had you guys done it and 29" had not happened, I'd be all over it.

    Happy trails,

    J

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    15
    thats cool White Brothers made you a spic. fork that fit the bike for you

  87. #87
    Mr.650b - Mr.27-5
    Reputation: Kirk Pacenti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,630
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnedarkoo
    thats cool White Brothers made you a spic. fork that fit the bike for you
    Tim and the guys at White Brothers are super cool. They had no problem making the fork as their "modular" fork design and components were easily rearranged to create the new size. They will build them for me in relatively small quantities too, which makes in much easier to get the project off the ground.

  88. #88
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,254
    Quote Originally Posted by colker1
    the format is already more popular than 29ers. it's been around for ages in europe.
    You are referring to the format as it's currently used in the road bike world. If we are allowed to do this, then can we say that 29"ers, as a wheel format based on 622 ISO, is then more popular than 650B? I think you are a bit off base with this comparison.

    it's just a matter of knobs now. give it some knobs and it's massive. no geometry hassles, no fit issues, no inexistent 29 rings.
    Hmm.....same was true for 29"ers before "The Tire". Also, if 29"ers change fork trail numbers from 26"ers then how is it that 650B, being about an inch larger in diameter than a 26 inch wheel, doesn't change the geometry? I noticed that the special White Brothers fork had a longer offset number than a typical 26"er fork, did you?

    That said, a smaller sized bike, say for someone 5'4" and under, is much more doable in 650B, but then, why not run a 26 inch wheeled bike? Again, the differences between 29"er and 26"er make the leap seem worthwhile. The difference between 650B and 26 inch? Not so much, in my opinion.

    I'm glad you find this wheel size exciting. I'm just not convinced it's that big a deal.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,779
    Maybe promote another half like 29,5 with either 630 or 635mm instead of 622 or 584?
    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=262726 I think this is 630 or 635mm

  90. #90
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
    You are referring to the format as it's currently used in the road bike world. If we are allowed to do this, then can we say that 29"ers, as a wheel format based on 622 ISO, is then more popular than 650B? I think you are a bit off base with this comparison.



    Hmm.....same was true for 29"ers before "The Tire". Also, if 29"ers change fork trail numbers from 26"ers then how is it that 650B, being about an inch larger in diameter than a 26 inch wheel, doesn't change the geometry? I noticed that the special White Brothers fork had a longer offset number than a typical 26"er fork, did you?

    That said, a smaller sized bike, say for someone 5'4" and under, is much more doable in 650B, but then, why not run a 26 inch wheeled bike? Again, the differences between 29"er and 26"er make the leap seem worthwhile. The difference between 650B and 26 inch? Not so much, in my opinion.

    I'm glad you find this wheel size exciting. I'm just not convinced it's that big a deal.
    650B already have "balloon" tires. going from 700c w/ tiny cyclocross tires to 2.3in 29ers creates all kind of trouble. from front. derr. clearance. extra steep seat angles, front derr. issues, toe overlap.. adapting an already working 650B brevet bike to mtbiking seems like a breeze.
    and the "not enough difference to justify" argument is bull. every small increment of anything makes a big difference in cycling.
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  91. #91
    graps the nettle
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    515

    our own little petri dish of weirdness

    i've been thinking about this thread a lot lately, and trying to figure out why it is bumming me out so much. and i have had a real hard time pinpointing it.

    however, i've also been thinking about how in the motorcycle world, people go all over the place with wheel sizes, and oftentimes, the differences are so small as to seem insignificant. but people still do it. roadrace wheels went from a long time ago being 19" rim diamters front and rear, to 18, then 17, then 16, then back to 16.5, and are down around 16 again. unless you're talking supermoto bikes, and they run 17's front and rear, but are adapted from dirt bikes initially, which usually have around 18 rear and 21 front.

    usually. mx bikes now have 19 rears, but a smaller sidewall height, while enduro bikes use 18s, except a few dual sport pigs that have 17s, even though they all end up with around the same total diameter. meanwhile, mx bikes have dabbled back and foth with 20" fronts, and some of those same dual sport pigs are pretty happily running 19s up front. and honda, bless their misplaced soul, even tried a 23" front wheel for all of a single model year about two decades and some ago.

    cars, it gets even weirder. people change wheelsize at the drop of a hat. racers do it depending on tracks. dail drivers do it to match a certain look.

    as far as i can tell, it all just rolls along pretty well. sometimes, big wheels work well, sometimes they don't. sometimes little wheels rule the day, sometimes they don't. in each instance, these different wheelsizes came about because someone was experimenting and trying to find a performance edge. and each time, they found something, but each time, there were also some compromises to be had. that's just the way things are. you cannot have your cake and eat it too every single time. so, this proliferation of choice came about. lots and lots of wheelsizes, and most of them having a reason for their existence. none of them really fracturing a sport, or making one size suffer because the other was too close to it, or confusing the customer. well, not too much, anyway.

    and i think that's where i get to the crux of my bum-out. it seems that a lot of people here are convinced of the superiority of a wheelsize (29") REGARDLESS of terrain or intent. and that anything less is just not as good. and that kind of reasoning, singular absolutism to the point of believing everything else to ALWAYS be invalid (unless it gets bigger still, of course) regardless of conditions, just seems to be kind of myopic and not very well thought out.

    there. thanks for letting me rant. feel free to crucify me at will. i'm going for a ride...

  92. #92
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,440
    myopic is an understatement. cloxxki's reply to pacenti seemed like blindness.. he did not read what KP wrote.
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  93. #93

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,079

    All-Rounder revolution

    Quote Originally Posted by colker1
    650B already have "balloon" tires. going from 700c w/ tiny cyclocross tires to 2.3in 29ers creates all kind of trouble. from front. derr. clearance. extra steep seat angles, front derr. issues, toe overlap.. adapting an already working 650B brevet bike to mtbiking seems like a breeze.
    and the "not enough difference to justify" argument is bull. every small increment of anything makes a big difference in cycling.

    I think there is a lot mentioned here that makes a lot of sense. To me, I see a 650b as the ultimate all-rounder. Let's see how things stack up when trying to create an all-rounder with:

    26" wheels when designed around knobby tires - works great. Throw a set of skinny tires on and the bb height becomes very low. I tend to drag pedals in corners on my hardtails when shod with roadie type tires.

    700c - okay, you've got road bikes, modified road bikes with canti brakes and skinny knobbies aka cross bikes and you've got 29" wheel bikes. Can't throw on 2.1 tires on a cross bike and call it a 29er. Can't throw on cross tires on a roadie and call it a cross bike (mainly because those tires don't tend to fit) and again, when you throw on skinny tires on a 29er, the bb height drops too much but they work awesome with 2.1ish tires.

    So, that leaves this 650b thing. The way I'm seeing this potential availability of 650b 2.1 knobby tires is the ability to create a bike (rider height not withstanding) that has an appropriate bb height for 650bx38 tires, with a frame that has clearance for 2.1 sized tires, that would raise the bb to be appropriate for off-road trail riding, a set of quick release cables (edit: ah heck, the more I think about it, ditch the qr cables and just stick with drops ) and a Ritchey Break-Away system installed and you have the ultimate do-everything bike. And as a bonus, you wouldn't have to worry if Shimano is going to make an even wider link front mech. I'm sure I can convince my wife we need another bike in the garage

    Maybe this thread belongs in the custom framebuilders' forum or in the soon-to-be-created "All-Rounder" forum.

  94. #94
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,254
    Quote Originally Posted by colker1
    ..........and the "not enough difference to justify" argument is bull. every small increment of anything makes a big difference in cycling.
    What I'm saying is that a fat 26"er tire already acheives the outer diameter that 650B is at all the way up to and including 29". (Surly Endomorph) So, from an overall diameter standpoint, (which is what this really is all about) the 650B doesn't do a whole lot for mountain biking with knobby tires that a 26"er can't do already with currently available tires.

    Again, I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to own this type of bike/ wheel format. I'm glad you are excited about it. I'm just not convinced it gives us anything that we don't already have in mountain biking. In other words, it's not that big of a difference, in my opinion.

    I think I've wearied this thread enough with my viewpoint. Unless someone can bring a convincing argument for this format other than "it's cool, it's being used already" than I remain unconvinced.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  95. #95
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
    What I'm saying is that a fat 26"er tire already acheives the outer diameter that 650B is at all the way up to and including 29". (Surly Endomorph) So, from an overall diameter standpoint, (which is what this really is all about) the 650B doesn't do a whole lot for mountain biking with knobby tires that a 26"er can't do already with currently available tires.

    Again, I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to own this type of bike/ wheel format. I'm glad you are excited about it. I'm just not convinced it gives us anything that we don't already have in mountain biking. In other words, it's not that big of a difference, in my opinion.

    I think I've wearied this thread enough with my viewpoint. Unless someone can bring a convincing argument for this format other than "it's cool, it's being used already" than I remain unconvinced.
    a big fat 26 does not equal a 2.1 650b cause they will roll completely different. not only that.. see SSmike post: the 650B bike is a can do everything bike. it may not be the best choice for an industry who wants to sell you many many bikes but for the amjority of people who commute on their mountain bikes it's heaven and that's where lies the major strength of cycling: going from A to B on your bike. if this same bike can sport fat knobbied tires and rip the singletrack on weekends then it's beautifull. no other format will let you do it.
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  96. #96
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,849

    Yeah, it's rather a load

    A big "26 inch" tire is really 27-27.5 inches. I wish fans of yet another wheel size luck but I think we have it covered pretty well with what we have now. It was hard enough to get 700C accepted, we don't need much more different items for manufacturers, distributors and shops to keep inventory if we want 700C/29" selections expanded.

    Quote Originally Posted by slim_pickens
    It's not big wheel bigotry, it's that the 584mm bead tire offers so little relative to it's cost.

    Good 559 tires have ODs from 25.3 to 27.3 inches (1.7-2.7s). Good 622 tires pick up where they leave off with ODs from 27.8 to 29 inches (1.7-2.3s). A 584 X 2.1 is within the 559 range. If they ever make a 584 x 2.3 it will be in the 622 range.

    Everyone here has fun with esoteric bike stuff, but this wheel size is unusual for the sake of being unusual, and people are bashing it for the same reasons they bash Shimano for their compatibility issues and Specialized for their weird seatpost size (do they still do that?).

  97. #97
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    ...This frankentire technique will till eternity be known as "Pulling a Kirk". Or "The Pacenti Procedure". :-)
    Actually it has been done before. Robert Egger (sp) of Speciallized made a ~48" ridable Ground Control for a highwheeler show bike by grafting 26" tires together. I have seen tires widen by using two tires cut and glued.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  98. #98
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidcopperfield
    Maybe promote another half like 29,5 with either 630 or 635mm instead of 622 or 584?
    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=262726 I think this is 630 or 635mm
    Your reading comprehension is poor. That bike has nothing more than the usual 700C/622 rims with Schwalbe Big Apple 60-622 tires.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  99. #99
    Yes, that's fonetic
    Reputation: whoda*huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,892
    Quote Originally Posted by endure26
    Seems like 650b is kinda catching on with non-racer road riders in the sorta way 29 is taking over the off road scene (similar but different). Lots of new 650b frames popping up all over. Conversions of racer boy frames using shorter wheels, wider tires, and longer brakes. Not sure I get it - if I'm going frame up I can spec clearance and get wider 700c tires that soften the ride.

    BTW - appears from the photos that WTB is making a 650b off road tire?

    Can a 650b MTBR forum be far behind?

    Argh!
    In my experience, 650's on the road are mostly just for tiny people and tri-bikes. I don't see any roadies around here switching from the 700's.

  100. #100
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,440
    Quote Originally Posted by whodaphuck
    In my experience, 650's on the road are mostly just for tiny people and tri-bikes. I don't see any roadies around here switching from the 700's.
    those you mention are 650c wheels w/ 23' tires. the 650b is a brevet, rough terrain, touring, messenger, all around wheel w/ FAT slick tires. it's not made to change racing road standards. it's a completely different animal.
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  101. #101
    Yes, that's fonetic
    Reputation: whoda*huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,892
    Quote Originally Posted by colker1
    those you mention are 650c wheels w/ 23' tires. the 650b is a brevet, rough terrain, touring, messenger, all around wheel w/ FAT slick tires. it's not made to change racing road standards. it's a completely different animal.
    Thanks for the clarification. I guess I've never seen a 650b wheeled bike, certainly not among the rather large group of non-racing roadies I know.

  102. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,779
    I meant general resurgence of 630 old 27" and 635mm old 28" rims into 29,5

  103. #103
    Category Winner
    Reputation: teamdicky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,068
    Cyclingnews.com pic of the chopped tire
    WWW.TEAMDICKY.COM

    I get paid 3¢ every time I post on MTBR.

  104. #104
    Steel and teeth.
    Reputation: b1umb0y's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    577
    Quote Originally Posted by teamdicky
    Cyclingnews.com pic of the chopped tire
    Gotta admire a guy with these skills and the ability to think outside the box.

    bb

  105. #105
    Mr.650b - Mr.27-5
    Reputation: Kirk Pacenti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,630
    Quote Originally Posted by b1umb0y
    Gotta admire a guy with these skills and the ability to think outside the box.

    bb
    Thanks BB. Check out the full story here:

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2007...ults/nahmbs074

    click on the thumbnail of my bike to see some more pics.

  106. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,892
    Thanks for this Kirk! I am so fascinated with the small builders re-emergence - it's almost like the formation a cycling renaissance going on right now. Let the big companies shove carbon and to a degree unwanted technology in their mass production bikes - it's their perogative of course to do what they want. But I also think people are interested in seeing ingenuity unbounded, and to a degree you and a few others are breaking those boundaries. Who knows - perhaps someday custom tire production will be affordable and allow even more tire sizes. How on earth can that be a bad thing?

    To paraphrase MLK: "I have a dream that my bicycle will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the size of their tires but by the content of their character."

    ;-)

  107. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    10
    A lot of people are missing the point here. They’re just not “ getting it”. It’s not about “It’s all been done before” or “It’s nothing new”, blah, blah , blah - that’s not the point!

    Spokes have been done before, by plenty of people, but each new wheel that comes to market manages to escape the “oh, I had them on my wheels back in 1932.” kind of comments. Why, because most people “get” spokes - they don’t sidetrack the issue.

    The point is this: it’s a new application for a wheel size that’s been around for over a century and used to great effect, both on and off-road. I’m not going to make claims of “better” or “best” and neither is Pacenti. But consider this : why did Tom Ritchey choose 650b as his first choice of wheel size? Why did he compromise and settle with what was available, i.e. 26”?

    Ask yourself those questions and perhaps you might start to “get it”.

  108. #108
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by frameforum
    A lot of people are missing the point here. They’re just not “ getting it”. It’s not about “It’s all been done before” or “It’s nothing new”, blah, blah , blah - that’s not the point!

    Spokes have been done before, by plenty of people, but each new wheel that comes to market manages to escape the “oh, I had them on my wheels back in 1932.” kind of comments. Why, because most people “get” spokes - they don’t sidetrack the issue.

    The point is this: it’s a new application for a wheel size that’s been around for over a century and used to great effect, both on and off-road. I’m not going to make claims of “better” or “best” and neither is Pacenti. But consider this : why did Tom Ritchey choose 650b as his first choice of wheel size? Why did he compromise and settle with what was available, i.e. 26”?

    Ask yourself those questions and perhaps you might start to “get it”.
    Oh, I "get it." I understand why TR built his 650B mtbs and I understand why he settled for what was available--it was available, the cost of sourcing his own rims and tires was beyond his means at the time, and mtbs as we know them were developed in the USA. Basically why we have 507 (24"), 559, and latter 622 mtb tires now.

    I wish he or others had been able to develop mtb 650B knobbies and rims nearly 30 years ago and 584 wheels had become the "standard." We would probably be having this discussion about 559 and 622 wheel mtbs instead.

    I will not point out that percentage-wise the progression from 407 to 559 to 622 is more "even" than 507-559-584 but I am sure someone else would.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  109. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    10
    That's it in a nutshell - it is down to what is available at the time! Glad someone's awake!

  110. #110
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by frameforum
    That's it in a nutshell - it is down to what is available at the time! Glad someone's awake!
    Well, I and others had already mentioned it in this thread (a bit buried, though). You just let me restate it a bit differently.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  111. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation: salimoneus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    yes, thank you frameforum for allowing the supermod to restate what had already been stated. or something?

  112. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    10

    Clarity

    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    Well, I and others had already mentioned it in this thread (a bit buried, though). You just let me restate it a bit differently.
    “Whoever knows he is deep, strives for clarity; whoever would like to appear deep to the crowd, strives for obscurity." - Nietzchze

  113. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,779
    Can somebody clarify what has happened with 630, 635 and 640mm rims? they were used in old postman-like bicycles and market with 700B- 630 and 700D or A 635? 640mm 700E? I have no idea- they faded long ago and were not a mainstream. Why nor resurect them? They will fit in 29" frames maybe those a little spacious ones it would be form 622mm 8, 13 and 18mm difference.

  114. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    10
    630 = 27x1 1/4" ; still around, but only just.

  115. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    91

    Give the masses a little credit, GTed

    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted

    I can see how something like this will be an enthusiasts next "must have" bike, due to it's being "different" and unique. I suppose now we'll start seeing 650Niners, or 26/650ers and other such nonsense! It's just a matter of time!

    I laugh as I read this... I can't tell you how many times I heard that same thought process back in 2004 when we were trying to sell 29ers on the shop floor...

    Thank God not everyone thinks like that, or we wouldn't have nearly the 29er options we do today.
    --"In the summer we wore meat helmets..."

  116. #116
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,254

    And so..............

    Quote Originally Posted by lemonpedals23
    I laugh as I read this... I can't tell you how many times I heard that same thought process back in 2004 when we were trying to sell 29ers on the shop floor...

    Thank God not everyone thinks like that, or we wouldn't have nearly the 29er options we do today.
    If you heard that same thought process back then, and we have what we have now in 29"ers, what exactly are you saying then?

    I would think that using your logic you would be overjoyed.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  117. #117

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    248
    So I'm going to show my ignorance here most likely....

    I'm 5'5" tall and ride a 15" 29er... the frame size fits me great, but the 29er front tire on rare occassions will rub the tip of my shoe in turns. Nothing too bad and it hasn't been an issue for me. But I've very interested in the possibility of getting a 27"/650b wheelset.

    There are a few reasons for this:
    • I like the idea of a 27"/650b wheelset having acceleration more like a 26er wheel.
    • I like the idea of cutting a bit of weight in the wheelset and tires.
    • I like the idea of my foot not rubbing the tire while in a turn.
    • I like the idea that a 27"/650b would climb, corner, and roll over stuff better than a 26er wheelset. Obliviously it would not be as good as a 29er wheelset. But finding a wheel size in between a 26er and a 29er sounds like a good spare wheelset idea to me.

    So can anyone tell me where I can get a good 27"/650b wheelset built? And are there any good options in rim selections that would hold up for All Mountain style riding?

    Thanks,
    D

  118. #118
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,017
    Quote Originally Posted by DieselAndDust
    So I'm going to show my ignorance here most likely....

    I'm 5'5" tall and ride a 15" 29er... the frame size fits me great, but the 29er front tire on rare occassions will rub the tip of my shoe in turns. Nothing too bad and it hasn't been an issue for me. But I've very interested in the possibility of getting a 27"/650b wheelset.

    There are a few reasons for this:
    • I like the idea of a 27"/650b wheelset having acceleration more like a 26er wheel.
    • I like the idea of cutting a bit of weight in the wheelset and tires.
    • I like the idea of my foot not rubbing the tire while in a turn.
    • I like the idea that a 27"/650b would climb, corner, and roll over stuff better than a 26er wheelset. Obliviously it would not be as good as a 29er wheelset. But finding a wheel size in between a 26er and a 29er sounds like a good spare wheelset idea to me.

    So can anyone tell me where I can get a good 27"/650b wheelset built? And are there any good options in rim selections that would hold up for All Mountain style riding?

    Thanks,
    D
    D, there's so much more to tune your 29"er, rather than trying to turn it back into a 26"er.
    If you'd tell me your build, I bet I could find more weight to be lost in the wheels than you'd ever accomplish with any 650b tires. As long as there's no light ones, no weight it to be saved. Same reason as that for years, 29" added more weight than the 9.4% of additional tire.
    The toe overlap is also getting out of fashion in newer designs now. Find a Fisher dealer with an '08 15" bike, see how that fits. I bet the top tube is also shorter than what you've got now, too.

    650B is a tiny step up from 26", but a larger step down from 29". Especially your BB height would be greatly affected on a 29" frame/fork.

  119. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Thylacine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    650B is a tiny step up from 26", but a larger step down from 29".
    Wow, really? What's your experience with 650b that allows you to make that sweeping judgment?
    No longer member of the bike industry nor society, so don't hassle me.

  120. #120
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Thylacine
    Wow, really? What's your experience with 650b that allows you to make that sweeping judgment?
    I think he means in diameter. The increase in diameter from 26" wheels (25mm) is less than the decrease in diameter from 29s (38mm). And you left out this part:
    [QUOTE-Cloxxki]Especially your BB height would be greatly affected on a 29" frame/fork.[/QUOTE]
    Simple math.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  121. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Thylacine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,224
    I don't think Kirk ever expected people to be that unhappy with their current setup, that they would attempt to put an entirely different wheelsize on their bike to make up an perceived or otherwise shortcomings.

    Totally bizarre.
    No longer member of the bike industry nor society, so don't hassle me.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.