650B vs. 700C on gravel- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 58 of 58
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    884

    650B vs. 700C on gravel

    1. Is the debate between 650B vs 700C the same as 27.5 vs 29 on MTB?
    2. Is the main advantage of running 650B on gravel wider/high volume tires?
    3. How about carrying speed on flats?
    4. How about rollover capability (is this on MTB thing)?
    5. How about handling – I don’t really intend to attack tight squirmy lines on a gravel bike?

    Being 5’5” I personally ride a 27.5 FS trail bike. But many years ago, when I had a road bike it was 700c. I haven’t really taken a liking to 29er MTB yet, but my skill level has improved significantly since I last test rode one – so maybe I will.

    So let’s say I want to run up to 2” tires (that’s what I have on my old school 26er) am I better offer get a gravel bike with 650B or 700C?

  2. #2
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,408
    Quote Originally Posted by smoothmoose View Post
    1. Is the debate between 650B vs 700C the same as 27.5 vs 29 on MTB?
    2. Is the main advantage of running 650B on gravel wider/high volume tires?
    3. How about carrying speed on flats?
    4. How about rollover capability (is this on MTB thing)?
    5. How about handling – I don’t really intend to attack tight squirmy lines on a gravel bike?

    Being 5’5” I personally ride a 27.5 FS trail bike. But many years ago, when I had a road bike it was 700c. I haven’t really taken a liking to 29er MTB yet, but my skill level has improved significantly since I last test rode one – so maybe I will.

    So let’s say I want to run up to 2” tires (that’s what I have on my old school 26er) am I better offer get a gravel bike with 650B or 700C?


    Get 700c that will fit 2" 6fiddy
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  3. #3
    Bikesexual
    Reputation: jcd46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    7,337
    It seems like the newer gravel bikes are being built with 650b.

    I run 700c 40f/38r and it works for my intended use.

    Surly MS and the All City GM are both 650b.

    Sent from my LGMS210 using Tapatalk
    Surly Krampus
    All City MMD
    Kona Unit
    Surly Cross-Check

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by jcd46 View Post
    It seems like the newer gravel bikes are being built with 650b.

    I run 700c 40f/38r and it works for my intended use.

    Surly MS and the All City GM are both 650b.

    Sent from my LGMS210 using Tapatalk
    Yes - I've noticed that. While in MTB it is trending to 29er from XC all they way to DH. It seems 29er is the current MTB hype cycle, while 650B is the current gravel hype-cycle.

    What I'm trying to understand is why? I think for MTB 29er is about rollover and plowing through chunk for ultimately faster speeds down. For XC - they say it's about carrying speed and momentum...I guess so.

    While for gravel it seem to be run 650B with the widest highest volume tire for most cush - since most gravel bikes don't have suspension. What if a new generation of gravel bikes could clear 700C x 3.0 tires? Would 650B even in the conversation - except for XS, Small frame sizes?

    I wanted to disseminate all the relevant values that both wheel size possesses while downplaying the hype cycle values marketing is highlighting so I can understand what values and attributes matters most to me.

  5. #5
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,408
    Quote Originally Posted by smoothmoose View Post
    Yes - I've noticed that. While in MTB it is trending to 29er from XC all they way to DH. It seems 29er is the current MTB hype cycle, while 650B is the current gravel hype-cycle.

    What I'm trying to understand is why? I think for MTB 29er is about rollover and plowing through chunk for ultimately faster speeds down. For XC - they say it's about carrying speed and momentum...I guess so.

    While for gravel it seem to be run 650B with the widest highest volume tire for most cush - since most gravel bikes don't have suspension. What if a new generation of gravel bikes could clear 700C x 3.0 tires? Would 650B even in the conversation - except for XS, Small frame sizes?

    I wanted to disseminate all the relevant values that both wheel size possesses while downplaying the hype cycle values marketing is highlighting so I can understand what values and attributes matters most to me.


    It's because a 2" 650 tire has the same (or near same) diameter as a 700x45 tire.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    It's because a 2" 650 tire has the same (or near same) diameter as a 700x45 tire.
    Is that really the case? 2" is 51mm even with a larger casing, it doesn't make up the 38mm difference is rim size (584mm vs. 622mm).

    They said the same thing about 27.5+ and 29er for MTB, but reality is 27.5+ is still significantly smaller than 29er.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,190
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    It's because a 2" 650 tire has the same (or near same) diameter as a 700x45 tire.
    Not quite. 650B + 2" is about 684mm diameter; a 700 with the same diameter would have 30mm tyres.

    A possible advantage for the manufacturers is the geometry is the same, wheelbase, chainstay length, toe overlap etc, and the silhouette remains the same as a road bike.

    But having used large volume tyres on 700 rims, I'd sooner go for the larger size if my riding was predominantly gravel.

    However there are some really nice supple large volume tyres coming on the market for 650b and the tyre is the most important component on a gravel bike IMO.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by smoothmoose View Post
    1. Is the debate between 650B vs 700C the same as 27.5 vs 29 on MTB?
    2. Is the main advantage of running 650B on gravel wider/high volume tires?
    3. How about carrying speed on flats?
    4. How about rollover capability (is this on MTB thing)?
    5. How about handling – I don’t really intend to attack tight squirmy lines on a gravel bike?

    Being 5’5” I personally ride a 27.5 FS trail bike. But many years ago, when I had a road bike it was 700c. I haven’t really taken a liking to 29er MTB yet, but my skill level has improved significantly since I last test rode one – so maybe I will.

    So let’s say I want to run up to 2” tires (that’s what I have on my old school 26er) am I better offer get a gravel bike with 650B or 700C?

    at 5'9"; my own experience strictly amongst 650b:-

    re 3. A 650b x 48 carries speed on gravel flats better than a 42. The rougher it gets, the better the 48 over the 42. The 42 best suited to smooth gravel.

    re 4. A 2.1"/2.2" has the best roll-over ability, compared to 48 or smaller.

  9. #9
    chasing simplicity
    Reputation: MattMay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,106
    I don't make the choice, I have both. Actually, 3 wheel sets:

    700 x 26 for road
    700 x 38 for 75% of my riding
    650 x 47 for when single track, especially descent, is involved

    my 650 x 47 wheelset is nearly identical in diam to my 700 x 26...side by side and a level spanning the two sets...pretty darn close to level.
    Never underestimate an old man with a mountain bike.

  10. #10
    smartass
    Reputation: amish_matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    680
    If I can fit 700x45, is there still an advantage to something like 650bx47?

    I have a nice set of 650b wheels from my last mtb. Considering keeping them for an option on my gravel bike, but I don't really want to drop $100 on tires to experiment if it's not worth it.

  11. #11
    poser Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,716
    Quote Originally Posted by amish_matt View Post
    If I can fit 700x45, is there still an advantage to something like 650bx47?

    I have a nice set of 650b wheels from my last mtb. Considering keeping them for an option on my gravel bike, but I don't really want to drop $100 on tires to experiment if it's not worth it.
    just spit balling but since both are similar width wouldn't the 700C have more air volume in it allowing you to run less air for the same suppleness return as on the 650b which would allow more fine tuning capabilities? Just wondering out loud not stating fact or anything.

    The difference between tiny increments of pressure in my fat tire is substantially more noticeable than my 29x2.3 tire, though this is obviously a more extreme example.
    MTBR Posting Guidelines
    calories>electrons

  12. #12
    jrm
    jrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jrm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,270

    you could

    purchase a frame that will take both and use two wheelsets. theres also the rollover benefit of a 700c 40+ sized tire on a wide rim.
    Last edited by jrm; 09-02-2018 at 06:47 AM. Reason: add

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by jrm View Post
    purchase a frame that will take both and use two wheelsets.
    Yes. That is sell point in both gravel and MTB bikes now. But convenience and budget still makes me want pick the right wheel size out of the gate.

  14. #14
    smartass
    Reputation: amish_matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    680
    MTB is definitely moving towards, if not setting on 29” wheels, and gravel bikes are becoming more MTB all the time. 650b on a gravel bike seems like a step backwards if you can run an equal, or nearly equal, width tire on a 700c rim.

  15. #15
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,124
    700c all. Day. Long.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,156
    Having just done another round of trying lots of bikes....

    The toe overlap thing might be right but it's not been much of a problem with our Fargo rocking 29 x 2.2, and a Kona Sutra Ltd. with 700 x 50.

    In the early days of 29rs many did not feel right even when I was aware of and comfy with the axle height. Now it seems like most larger wheel bikes handle well. With that I'm all about and all for diameter.

    When it comes to rides and encountering all sorts of stuff, my MTB riding posse will do rail trail, urban and gravel rides when rain or freeze/thaw time has single track closed. I see those riding 29r or 40 mm - 50 mm tires don't slow or freak out if the terrain goes bad and they can also stay with the group overall. YMMV, but some time ago I moved to the crowd that appreciates the roll over and traction with big wheels. Now quite a few have drop bar bikes that are 700 or 29 that hold big tires too. I'm happy to give up speed or carry weight for the traction and control.

    Running 29 x 2.2 Race Kings and 700 x 50 MSOs, I am not ready for a road race but I'm always comfy with a lot of confidence. I can always find a whole lot of tires to fit those rims.
    ƃuoɹʍ llɐ ʇno əɯɐɔ ʇɐɥʇ

  17. #17
    Student of the Bike
    Reputation: CBaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by MattMay View Post
    I don't make the choice, I have both. Actually, 3 wheel sets:

    700 x 26 for road
    700 x 38 for 75% of my riding
    650 x 47 for when single track, especially descent, is involved

    my 650 x 47 wheelset is nearly identical in diam to my 700 x 26...side by side and a level spanning the two sets...pretty darn close to level.

    On what bike?
    -CJB

  18. #18
    chasing simplicity
    Reputation: MattMay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,106
    3T Exploro LTD
    Never underestimate an old man with a mountain bike.

  19. #19
    Student of the Bike
    Reputation: CBaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by MattMay View Post
    3T Exploro LTD
    Mmmmm...that bike (frame) ticks so many boxes for me. But I get choked on the price of the frame set. Do you mind sharing some of your feedback from being an owner?

    How the bike is in road (700c) and gravel (chunky rubber) modes?
    Is it a twitchy gravel bike? But not as responsive of a roadie?
    How do you have yours set up drivetrain-wise? Weight? Your size?
    Peculiarities of the build up? I've heard some have had issues with the seat posts?

    Feel free to send it over in PM, if we think this may be too much of a thread derail?

    Thanks
    CJB

  20. #20
    chasing simplicity
    Reputation: MattMay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,106
    ^PM sent!
    Never underestimate an old man with a mountain bike.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    323
    If I can fit 650bx55/27.5x2.2 or 29x2.0/700x50, which would be better for gravel/off-rod riding?

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    60
    I posted a similar thread a few months back when I was looking at buying a new bike and one of the models I liked (Canyon Grail XS) was only available in 650b and not 700c ... I'm guessing due to toe overlap in that size.
    Quite a few of the responses were from people who'd bought a 700c and then got a 2nd set of 650b tyres and reported that having tried both the 650b's were up for sale.

    In summary it seemed as long as you can go fairly wide with 700c's you keep all the advantages of a bigger wheel and if either the terrain was that lumpy for extended periods or tight and twisty where 650b may have have some advantages you're probably better off on a MTB / 29er anyway where wider bars giving more control would probably help as well.

    I'd never actually tried them so it's just me reporting on other peoples experiences but the comments made me decide having bought a bike with 700's as I didn't want the limitation there probably wasn't any point in buying a 2nd set of 650's .

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    323
    I am coming back to this thread, cause I am a bit tempted to try 650b. Right now running 29x1.95 on my Wolverine, but it can fit 27.5x2.2 while having the chainstay a bit shorter by sliding the rear forwards more. How much fo a weight difference would between 27.5x2 vs 29x2 running the same tires? Would it be noticeable? Which would be better at climbing?

  24. #24
    Student of the Bike
    Reputation: CBaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    773
    This is just my personal rule of thumb (and I've not run 650b), but I try to use 80+ grams per wheel for it to make a difference for me personally. If I can grab a 100 gram per wheel savings then I think it might be somewhat of a difference (YMMV). And just as FYI- 454 grams to a pound

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,489
    I've spent a lot of time on gravel with tires all the way up to 29 x 2.0. What I find is that the rollover of the larger tire is meaningless on gravel, since there really isn't anything to rollover when riding gravel. If you ride singletrack on your Gravel bike its a different story, the rollover then becomes a big benefit. What 650b allows is larger air volume while still allowing the bike to feel quick. This is because you can use shorter chainstays and wheelbase. You also have lighter wheels and tires which accelerate faster. So I have come to the conclusion that I prefer 650b x 2.0 to 29 x 2.0. I especially prefer 650b x 2.0 over 700c x 40.
    2015 Niner Jet 9 Carbon
    2014 Focus Raven 27R
    2017 Lynskey GR250
    2016 Niner BSB
    1987 Haro RS1

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    323
    I run single track from time to time, but also gravel trails with sand, and hard+loose rocks.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    130
    Current setup is 700 x 40mm in the rear and 45mm squeezed in the front. Can't get away with much wider tires. For most gravel/rocky roads, I'd love to try something with clearance up to 29 x 2.4, and hover somewhere around the 2.0-2.2 width. If I were up for a new bike, I'd stick with 700cc still and not even consider a 650b-specific frame.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    323
    Mines can handle both 650/27.5 and 700/29. Was at a LBS yesterday and one of the really helpful employees there told me that for my height and size I ride(bike wasn't with me) that 27.5 could be the better choice as it could fit a tiny bit better, and lower BB means handling improves a little.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    40
    I came from a 650b Cannondale Slate and now run 700c x2.25” on my Cutthroat. For my 6’1” height the 700c works better. I have updated my Cutty to a Lauf Trail Racer fork so I could keep suspension. The Large Cutty fits better than the Slate and for my riding performs better. With the right tire pressure anything feels amazing though...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    323
    Nice!

  31. #31
    Ovaries on the Outside
    Reputation: umarth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,400
    I think there is also a tire consideration. Most of the gravel bikes can fit a 2" or slightly larger 650b, but 45mm is the limit for 700c and you are just going to get a different selection of tires. I don't think there is a real trail shredder in the 45mm range for 700c outside the Fire Cross and I think it would suck on all of the other surfaces.

  32. #32
    psycho cyclo addict
    Reputation: edubfromktown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,730
    I have a Soma Wolverine running tubeless 2.1" front and 1.8" Schwalbe Thunder Burt's on somewhat narrow 29er rims (Stan's 355's and WTB i23's). There is sufficient tire clearance but no extra room to go any wider front or rear.

    I prefer the larger wheel on gravel.

    I also hit some trails and hammer a couple times/week on ~40 mi round trip work commutes that leave a good helping of roadies in the dust
    【ツ】 eDub 【ツ】

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    323
    I'm running 29x1.95 Kenda Karma front and rear on my Wolverine and I think I could get away with 2.1 front and rear if I wanted, but I feel 1.8-1.9 is the sweet spot for 29 tires. That said I bought a pair of 27.5 Alexrims with WTB Beeline 2.2 tires for a fair price and will see how that performs for me on the Wolverine as that's the max clearance.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    884
    OP here. I actually ended with both 650B and 700c wheelsets.
    - 700x38mm slicks for commuting and light/moderate gravel
    - 650b (27.5x2.2") XC race tires for singletrack and nasty gravel

    At those sizes the wheel/tire roll-out diameter is almost identical.

    Why choose only one right :-)

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    323
    That sounds like a good call. I am going with a similar route. Just installed 27.5x2.2 rim and tire set tonight to replace my 29x1.95 setup, but probably swap that out for 35 or 38 Panaracer or Schwalbe G One for more road-oriented rides. 2.2 is max for either size, though I feel like 27.5x2.3 might fit unless WTB BeeLine tires are not true 2.2.

  36. #36
    Ovaries on the Outside
    Reputation: umarth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,400
    Quote Originally Posted by smoothmoose View Post
    OP here. I actually ended with both 650B and 700c wheelsets.
    - 700x38mm slicks for commuting and light/moderate gravel
    - 650b (27.5x2.2") XC race tires for singletrack and nasty gravel

    At those sizes the wheel/tire roll-out diameter is almost identical.

    Why choose only one right :-)
    Cause the second one is more fun on your mountain bike?

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    1,173
    Quote Originally Posted by amish_matt View Post
    MTB is definitely moving towards, if not setting on 29” wheels, and gravel bikes are becoming more MTB all the time. 650b on a gravel bike seems like a step backwards if you can run an equal, or nearly equal, width tire on a 700c rim.
    Those of us who are smaller do not fit on 700c bikes with huge/wide tires. A road or roadish bike is not as slack as a mountain bike. With a 71 degree head angle, a 700x42 even would smack my foot when I turned (not good when you're clipped in). A 650b, or even better yet, 26, doesn't do that, even if it's over 2 inches wide.

    I prefer 26 at my body size (5'5"), but if I didn't already have a 26" touring bike to ride on gravel, I'd go 650b just for the tire selection. 700 does have good tire selection too, but there are virtually endless 650b gravel/wider tires for gravel riding.

    I don't see any benefit for any size rider to go from 650b to 700c, but for us smaller people, not getting our feet knocked off the pedals or crashing from toe overlap is a genuine concern.

  38. #38
    Armature speller
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,237
    Quote Originally Posted by twodownzero View Post
    I don't see any benefit for any size rider to go from 650b to 700c, but for us smaller people, not getting our feet knocked off the pedals or crashing from toe overlap is a genuine concern.
    After riding my Stumpy with 700x42 and 650x45 Specialized Sawtooths, the better rollover of the 700's is very noticeable.

    If the seat stays had 2mm more clearance per side, I'd be building up a better set of 29'er wheels for it.

    But the 650's still work very well.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    819
    I’m running 700x38c Teravail Ramparts, probably measure closer to 700x40 of other brands. My gravel serves as my road bike and I mostly ride pavement, broken pavement and utility roads.
    I do think 650 size is something to consider for the following.
    1. If your bike fits you with 700x40 tires, 700x50 will take away stand over height.
    2. A 650 size gives you more tire options but that is changing.
    3. A 650 wheel set will lower your BB height so beware of tire size.
    4. A 650x55c tire or 27.5 2.2” tire will give you a plush ride and open up more off pavement options.
    5. Why not get a bike that you can use both sizes?
    Seven Sola fully rigid MTN SS
    #1⚙️All year
    Seven Evergreen gravel grinder
    #ride4lifefit4life
    Esker Hayduke hardtail

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    323
    Soma Wolverine can do 29x2.2 or 27.5x2.2. I just went from 29x1.95 to 27.5x2.2. I am riding a 52cm Wolverine V2 & prefer the height of the 27.5 tire setup. Lower BB gives me the feeling it handles better, & smaller size gives me the feeling it is handling better. So far a yes from me!

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    28
    The new Lynskey GR300 I am building will take 700x45 or 650bx2". Default will be the 700c wheels since that is what I already have but I may add a set of the 650b at some point for gnarlier rides. Many new bikes come set up to use either.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    323
    Been riding 27.5x2.2 for a few weeks now and compared to 29x1.95, I am finding 27.5 to be a bit easier at climbing. It could be a placebo or it could be the tires; which, are WTB Beeline on 27.5 vs Kenda Karma Sport 29. This was tested on the same trails different days. If had the cash I'd test it out with the same tires at 2.1in.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Funoutside View Post
    Been riding 27.5x2.2 for a few weeks now and compared to 29x1.95, I am finding 27.5 to be a bit easier at climbing. It could be a placebo or it could be the tires; which, are WTB Beeline on 27.5 vs Kenda Karma Sport 29. This was tested on the same trails different days. If had the cash I'd test it out with the same tires at 2.1in.
    On paper, your 27.5x2.2 wheel-tire combination is about an inch smaller in diameter than your 29x1.95 combo, which means your gearing is effectively lower with the former. That alone would explain the easier climbing, so not likely placebo.

  44. #44
    Armature speller
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,237
    Quote Originally Posted by tofudog415 View Post
    On paper, your 27.5x2.2 wheel-tire combination is about an inch smaller in diameter than your 29x1.95 combo, which means your gearing is effectively lower with the former. That alone would explain the easier climbing, so not likely placebo.
    Only if you were in the same gear on both.

    The rougher the trail, the more rollover comes into it. You can compensate by adding width, but only to a certain extent.
    Some frames that can take both will be biased slightly in their geometry (unless you can adjust the trail with a flip-chip) and feel slightly more stable with one of the sizes.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by tofudog415 View Post
    On paper, your 27.5x2.2 wheel-tire combination is about an inch smaller in diameter than your 29x1.95 combo, which means your gearing is effectively lower with the former. That alone would explain the easier climbing, so not likely placebo.
    That's what a bike shop told me. Said 27.5 at essentially the same width would be easier climber & offer slightly better handling due to bottom bracket lowering a bit. I think it looks better 29x2 tires, but I like the standing height & slight improvement in handling more with 27.5.

    Wolverine has sliding dropouts & is currently set close to as back as it can go so it could have originally fit the 29x1.95 tires I purchased. Probably not going to change it just in case I wan to still run that size, but also suppose to be a bit more stable in decents vs when tucked.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    28
    The only time I would agree that a smaller diameter 27.5 vs 29 is "easier" to climb is if you are out of gears. Yes, it will feel a little easier comparing the same exact gear, but if you can still downshift the point is moot.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    1,173
    Quote Originally Posted by raylo View Post
    The only time I would agree that a smaller diameter 27.5 vs 29 is "easier" to climb is if you are out of gears. Yes, it will feel a little easier comparing the same exact gear, but if you can still downshift the point is moot.
    That's in interesting perspective in a world that seems to think weight, especially rolling weight, is everything.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    819
    I hadn’t thought about the gearing advantage but technically a smaller wheel would be geared easier.
    Another thing to consider is a slight drop in bike height and a lower BB. It will definitely give your bike a different feel.
    Seven Sola fully rigid MTN SS
    #1⚙️All year
    Seven Evergreen gravel grinder
    #ride4lifefit4life
    Esker Hayduke hardtail

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    442
    I've owned and ridden both. Each bike was designed solely for the size in question.
    I ride mixed surface and prefer 40's. That's the width I rode for both 27.5 and 700.
    Totally unscientific... but I loved both. Both felt equally good in all conditions until I did some competitive events. The 27.5 was S-L-O-W! I went to a 700c bike and it was like night and day faster. Again, totally un-scientific... YMMV, etc.

    Having said all that, the only reason I might consider going back to 27.5 would be if I were to want to run wider/taller tires... but that will never happen for me as I love the 700c bike on 40's and I love my MTB for anything that I can't ride on that bike... I see no need for wider tires on my Gravel bike.
    TTUB - Ventura County California

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    819
    I agree about and if the trail calls for a Mtn bike why would you wanna take a knife to a gun fight.
    My reasoning for 650 on my gravel with bigger tires would not be for longer distance and more mixed but not extremely technical trails.
    I’ve been riding along the roads in the Philippines and encountered everything from gravel to dirt/muddy roads. A 50c or bigger tire would be nice but agreed not as fast as a 700x40 on the hard surfaces.
    Seven Sola fully rigid MTN SS
    #1⚙️All year
    Seven Evergreen gravel grinder
    #ride4lifefit4life
    Esker Hayduke hardtail

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    323
    I may have to retract my previous comments. I had 27.5 25i rims & 2.2 WTB tires for a really good deal. It turns out it may have been a bit too good to be true as they got out of truened after a ride, 2 weeks after it was truened. I went to a lbs looking to get a cheap tire build done that will require less maintenance & this question came up again. I decided to go 29 in a 25 internal width size for the better rollover. The lbs also said that 27.5/650b are initially better climbers but on longer climbs, 700/29 in the same width would be better, which were I live is an advantage. Also said get swapping a front chainring to one size smaller(say 34t to 32t) would bring back some of that initial boost 27.5 would offer.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    442
    While we're talking about other factors... my current 700c bike came with 172.5mm cranks. I'm 6'-0" tall and all my bikes have been and are 175. I thought I would swap these out very quickly... but then I rode them and didn't hate it. I'm on 2 years with them now and I kinda like it. They lack a little of the raw leverage you get from 175s but the spin-up is so nice... they climb just as well if not better. They make it so easy to set a nice spin and maintain it.
    TTUB - Ventura County California

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    323
    I am starting to notice that if your bike takes 27.5 & 29/700 in 2.0"/50 size there are more tire options in the 27.5 range. At least that was what I noticed today. Max a Wolverine can take is 2.2 on 27.5 but on 29 is 2.1 and there are way more 29x2.2 tires than 2.0 & 2.1, same with 27.5x2.0/2.1 vs 29 equiv. Why?

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Funoutside View Post
    I am starting to notice that if your bike takes 27.5 & 29/700 in 2.0"/50 size there are more tire options in the 27.5 range. At least that was what I noticed today. Max a Wolverine can take is 2.2 on 27.5 but on 29 is 2.1 and there are way more 29x2.2 tires than 2.0 & 2.1, same with 27.5x2.0/2.1 vs 29 equiv. Why?
    There aren't many gravel bikes that can fit the larger 29" tires, so they aren't going to make a bunch of tires in those sizes. There are a lot of 29 x 2.2 to fit actual 29er bikes. Most dual wheel size gravel bikes will fit 650b x 2.1 or 700 x 45 (1.8). The main reason is because the larger 29" tire sizes mean you need long chainstays and a very slack head angle to avoid toe overlap. Basically, building a bike around 29 x 2.0 tires means its going to handle more like a mountain bike and most people getting a gravel bike do not want that. And since they don't want that, they also don't want 29 x 2.0 tires.
    2015 Niner Jet 9 Carbon
    2014 Focus Raven 27R
    2017 Lynskey GR250
    2016 Niner BSB
    1987 Haro RS1

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tony_mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by ljsmith View Post
    There aren't many gravel bikes that can fit the larger 29" tires, so they aren't going to make a bunch of tires in those sizes. There are a lot of 29 x 2.2 to fit actual 29er bikes. Most dual wheel size gravel bikes will fit 650b x 2.1 or 700 x 45 (1.8). The main reason is because the larger 29" tire sizes mean you need long chainstays and a very slack head angle to avoid toe overlap. Basically, building a bike around 29 x 2.0 tires means its going to handle more like a mountain bike and most people getting a gravel bike do not want that. And since they don't want that, they also don't want 29 x 2.0 tires.
    Exactly!

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by ljsmith View Post
    There aren't many gravel bikes that can fit the larger 29" tires, so they aren't going to make a bunch of tires in those sizes. There are a lot of 29 x 2.2 to fit actual 29er bikes. Most dual wheel size gravel bikes will fit 650b x 2.1 or 700 x 45 (1.8). The main reason is because the larger 29" tire sizes mean you need long chainstays and a very slack head angle to avoid toe overlap. Basically, building a bike around 29 x 2.0 tires means its going to handle more like a mountain bike and most people getting a gravel bike do not want that. And since they don't want that, they also don't want 29 x 2.0 tires.
    I was looking at XC tires, not gravel tires because I know really one of the few 29x2 is the Soma Cazadero. The Soma Wolverine can handle 29x2.1 or 27.5x2.2. Crust Evasion, Salsa Cutthroat, and All-City Gorilla Monsoon all do 29x2.1 or 27.5x2.4. The Kona Sutra LTD and Salsa Fargo do even larger mtb size tires in both 29 & 27. I would have thought there would be more 29x2.0/2.1 XC/mtb tires(more so tubeless ready variants). That said I think I may just go Schwalbe Rock Rons, which is tubeless ready, but not in the 2.1 versions for some reason. Will try to run them tubeless and hope their site made an error.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    504
    Bontrager and Specialized both offer several MTB tires in 2.0 and 2.1" widths.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    323
    I'll have to check it out, cause the few I've found aren't tubleless ready in that size, like the rocket rons. Thank you.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-17-2019, 01:35 PM
  2. 700c gravel tire recommendation
    By MI-29er in forum Gravel Bikes
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-14-2017, 04:11 PM
  3. 700c Wheels for gravel and singletrack
    By Ross1200 in forum Gravel Bikes
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-30-2016, 05:25 PM
  4. Replies: 66
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 07:38 AM
  5. GRAVEL - 40mm Gravel tires on ENVE AM Rim..?
    By chpfly in forum Gravel Bikes
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-13-2014, 08:14 AM

Members who have read this thread: 271

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.