650b... next big thing or just another gimmick?

ddraver

There are nt many thin but thick tyres though Sonic - To put a bigger tyre on means putting a wider one on which might be fine for trail riding but is rubbish for racing or long distance stuff.

650b would allow the benefits of a thicker tyre with the benefits of a thin one for racing snakes...

pilch

ddraver wrote:

Size small will have 26in, M will have 650b and L will have 29er....

Particularly on XC race bikes which are designed for all out speed above everything else...

"lol"

robertpb

650b might have become the standard back in 1981 but for the shortage of Hakka tyres from Nokia.

Charlie Kelly and Garry Fisher tried them after Geoff Apps had sent them some and were wanting supplies but Geoff just could not get decent supplies of them.

So we ended up with 26" as the standard

paul.skibum

We have a Norco demo tent on the mountain today - I am going to wander over and take a look at the Emperors New Clothes - will report back if I get a chance to have a little pedal on some.

YeehaaMcgee

ddraver wrote:

650b would allow the benefits of a thicker tyre with the benefits of a thin one for racing snakes...

Eh?
How do narrow 650B tyres offer the advantages of a thicker 26" tyre?

paul.skibum

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

ddraver wrote:

650b would allow the benefits of a thicker tyre with the benefits of a thin one for racing snakes...

Eh?
How do narrow 650B tyres offer the advantages of a thicker 26" tyre?

Sonic is talking about a large volume 26er tyre being the same effectively as a smaller thinner 650b tyre in terms of circumference. Ddraver is suggesting that that would be a fat ar*e tyre for a racer where as a 650b tyre will be a 2.0 lightweight jobby in comparison - I think. I dont really care though. Its all BS.

YeehaaMcgee

But if you have a narrow 650B tyre, then you don't have the benefits of a high volume 26 tyre - you don't get "the benefits of a thicker tyre".
What you do get is a tiny increase in outer diameter.

paul.skibum

Had a chat with a Norco rep about the 650B bikes - (no pedals so no chance to have a pedal) - he gave the same old arguement - attacking trail geometry, bigger wheels but more nimble than 29er, we're really loving it, next big thing, blah blah.

Bike look nice and without a 26er next to them its hard to tell the wheel is any bigger but then I was looking at thier 29er FS and on its own it wasnt that obvious that wheels were 29ers either - they are all nice lookig bikes and I am sure have sorted geometry and set ups, would love to take a Sight, Range and whatever the 29er is out for a run back to back on the same trail and see what was happening. But I cant and I cant afford a new bike at present anyway!

supersonic

When people go on about how bigger is better, I say, well, why aren't you riding 30 inch wheels? 35? Surely you can carry on the principle for even more gains? But you can't - there seems to be an optimum - 24 to 29... this range fits 99% of the population.

mcnultycop

I had to help a stranger out on my local loop over a fence with his bike, as his 29er wheels wouldn't fit through the barrier designed to make cyclists dismount for one section. I got my 26" wheeled bike through with no difficulty.

I think this offers some form of conclusive proof.

YeehaaMcgee

mcnultycop wrote:

I had to help a stranger out on my local loop over a fence with his bike, as his 29er wheels wouldn't fit through the barrier designed to make cyclists dismount for one section. I got my 26" wheeled bike through with no difficulty.

I think this offers some form of conclusive proof.

Even if he stuck the bike on the back wheel and pushed it round like that?
Hmm, I'm dubious.

chez_m356

mcnultycop wrote:

I had to help a stranger out on my local loop over a fence with his bike, as his 29er wheels wouldn't fit through the barrier designed to make cyclists dismount for one section. I got my 26" wheeled bike through with no difficulty.

I think this offers some form of conclusive proof.

conclusive proof that the barrier worked, as he had to dismount

dogboy73

lawman wrote:

Norco have made the range 650b specific, likewise rocky mountain with the altitude.

I really like the look of the new 2013 Altitude. I always thought the jump from 26" to 29" seemed like too big a change. 27.5" I can live with. In fact it really makes sense when you read what Rocky Mountain are saying about the 650B size - the benefits of a bigger wheel size without the restrictions imposed by going too big. Couple this with the Ride 9 geometry system on the new Altitude ........... Ah, I'm just bigging up this bike as part of my latest bike lust object!!

angry_bird

I don't give a damn what different wheel sizes can do and how each is supposedly better. I have a bike, I like the way it rides, I'm more than happy with it and have no intention of changing it. As long as I can still get the tyres I like in 26 inch and can replace the rims if I bust them I'm happy.

The biggest issue I have with the massive take off of 29ers and 650b is the risk that manufacturers forget about 26 and we see a reduced availibility and/or choice of bits that fit, so forks, tyres and rims really.

pilch

mcnultycop wrote:

I had to help a stranger out on my local loop over a fence with his bike, as his 29er wheels wouldn't fit through the barrier designed to make cyclists dismount for one section. I got my 26" wheeled bike through with no difficulty.

I think this offers some form of conclusive proof.

Conclusive proof that you are a pair of Darwin candidates possibly...

stuisnew

Personally I have no real desire to try 29 or 650. I'm quite tall (6.3) and ride 'normal' red trails and x country so apparently would be a target audience, but just don't see any advantage.
And i'd agree with others, have only seen one 29er in the flesh out and about which makes me think there is a disconnect between how popular we are told they are and how popular they really are. I'm the UK at least.

felix.london

dogboy73 wrote:

In fact it really makes sense when you read what Rocky Mountain are saying about the 650B size...

:roll:

And that is where I stopped reading

Why oh why would you base your purchase on what the manufacturer of the product you are buying says!? Go to the manufacturer for the spec and the geo don't believe all the guff they write/say

What do you think they're gonna say? "There's actually no real benefit of having a wheel that's a tiny bit bigger (or smaller) but we figure it'll sell more bikes or at least give people the idea that what they're riding now is useless and they need one"

Come on people..make your own decisions and don't be told what you need....baaaaaa

ddraver

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

But if you have a narrow 650B tyre, then you don't have the benefits of a high volume 26 tyre - you don't get "the benefits of a thicker tyre".
What you do get is a tiny increase in outer diameter.

The benefit of angle of attack, better rolling more grip and all that noise...

or what Paul said

Sonic, clearly there is a balance where the draw backs of big wheels out weigh the benefits - It appears to lie somewhere between 24-29in. However that does nt mean that everyone's "perfick wheel" is 26 though...

YeehaaMcgee

Nobody here is saying that 26" is perfect. What we're getting at is that 29ers aren't perfect either, and that 650b is just a pointlessly small change.

ddraver

I agree with you that what is being said is that ***EVERYONE should have a 29er*** and i agree that that's rubbish

However, I do think that different people riding different trails will have a wheel size that suits them best. So having the option is a good thing. As I said I doubt it ill filter down to the 500 pound budget bike for everyone, but I think for the top of the range bikes it will be like having 6 sizes in said of 3...

YeehaaMcgee

Yeah, choice is fine, but the industry seems to be having a collective circlejerk about bigger wheels right now.
And that's just irritating. It's almost seen as a weakness if you don't offer bigger wheels, despite, as Sonic points out, race results not indicating the superiority of either size.
Those of us old enough to remember may recall the previous "emperor's new clothes" issue of 24" wheels.

rockmonkeysc

I think it's all a conspiracy.
Next year's big thing on road bikes will be flat bars and triple chain sets, then it will be cx tyres & carbon forks for mountain bikes and by 2015 everyone will be riding identical hybrids.
A few years later some American hippies will invent the klunker.

Anonymous

I'm waiting for off-road penny farthings. They have awesomely huge front wheels that should roll over everything.

bennett_346

And the small back wheel means you can manual like a pro.

rockmonkeysc

Nose manuals would be easier on a penny farthing.

paul.skibum

Like I say I'd love to test ride all three wheel sizes on similarly oriented bikes back to back on the same trail and see if I could tell the difference, feel the benefits and so on. Be great if it was a varied track with roots, flat sections, berms, jumps, tight corners, climbs etc etc to try out all aspects in one short section. I guess a route like the Wall or Penhydd would be a good test track actually.

dogboy73

felix.london wrote:

dogboy73 wrote:

In fact it really makes sense when you read what Rocky Mountain are saying about the 650B size...

:roll:

And that is where I stopped reading

Why oh why would you base your purchase on what the manufacturer of the product you are buying says!? Go to the manufacturer for the spec and the geo don't believe all the guff they write/say

What do you think they're gonna say? "There's actually no real benefit of having a wheel that's a tiny bit bigger (or smaller) but we figure it'll sell more bikes or at least give people the idea that what they're riding now is useless and they need one"

Come on people..make your own decisions and don't be told what you need....baaaaaa

What I was saying is that what RM are saying about the new Altitude makes a lot of sense. It might be marketing spiel but it's not just about the wheel size i.e. stick 27.5"/29" wheels on a bike and everything's better. The new Altitude is built around the 650B standard and it sounds like they've done a good job with it. But it's not just the wheel size that floats my boat. It just looks like a great bike.

Anyway, I'm a bit sceptical on the whole about the wheel size thing. It does reek a lot of the latest fad. You could say the same thing about tapered head tubes, 2x10 rings, maxles etc... Bikes worked just fine with 26" wheels and none of this other stuff (my 12 year old rebuilt Ellsworth Isis is still going strong ). I read something on the cover of the latest MBR about electronically controlled shocks!! Spare me! :?

andy_welch

The fact that we spend so much time talking about wheel size must tell us something. Whether it is down to the brilliance of the marketing people or the our own ignorance is debatable though. We don't, for example, seem to spend nearly as much time debating the merits of different head angles, which surely have just as bit an effect on the way a bike handles. As far as I can see, wheel size is just another parameter that a designer can play with when trying to develop their ideal bike. There is so much interplay between the various factors (wheel size, angles, tube lengths, travel etc etc) and so much difference in what we prefer and the trails we ride that I'd be very surprised if there aren't lots of equally valid solutions. Some based around bigger wheels and some around smaller. What I find hard to believe is that there is one global best solution. I doubt we could even agree on how to measure "best" for a start.

So, unless you are into designing bikes, your best bet is just to ride whatever takes your fancy over the trails that you enjoy riding and pick whichever feels best to you. Trying to work out why it felt best is probably futile and ultimately pointless. One thing you can say for sure though; it wasn't just due to the size of the wheel.

Cheers,

Andy

YeehaaMcgee

andy_welch wrote:

The fact that we spend so much time talking about wheel size must tell us something. Whether it is down to the brilliance of the marketing people or the our own ignorance is debatable though. We don't, for example, seem to spend nearly as much time debating the merits of different head angles, which surely have just as bit an effect on the way a bike handles.

You must be new here

mrmonkfinger

I saw some awesome BMX riding the other day.

All bikes should have 20" wheels.

Fact.