650B...ollocks?

felix.london

Just read Dirt's (Feb) little pre-review of the Banshee Rune 26/650.

One frame for both wheel sizes. Fine. Adjustable head angle. Fine. Adjustable dropouts to change BB height. Fine. Custom tuned shock. Fine...hold on, for both wheel sizes? :?

hmmm....no comment

ddraver

I'm not sure what's causing you problems? Seems you could adjust everything else....

warpcow

The dropouts are angled so fitting the 650b ones moves the wheel up and back, keeping the BB height and angles 'normal'.

felix.london

From Rune;

"The suspension anti-squat varies very little with the dropout change...so it's not really necessary to make any adjustments for the different wheel sizes"

I read that as...the different wheel sizes make little to no difference at all and we just want you all to buy new bikes...but hey, I'm a cynical old sod

ddraver

All of Giant XCO team now on 650b or 29 - http://live.redbull.tv/events/213/uci-m ... try-women/

(on now). Even Warner saying 26in bikes are "done"

supersonic

It's if you want the 'smooth riding benefits of 29ers with none of the drawbacks'...

b45her

oh come on lets be realistic, 650b is as near as makes any difference a 26er, they have simply come up with a size that is as close as possible to traditional sized wheels but still makes just about all your major components obsolete, surely even the most obsessive gear junkie can see through hype.
26 to 29 i can understand as wagon wheelers have their place but is anyone really going to notice a difference from an extra 11mm of wheel radius?

ddraver

Thus far everyone that has ridden one disagrees with you b45sher, but hey don't let that stop you...

supersonic

Not everyone mind, I have seen a few testers not notice a difference between certain models.

97th choice

I recently tried out some 29ers and didn't like them at all, I believe that effectively pigeon holes me as a creationist Luddite.

Giraffoto

cyd190468 wrote:

Out here we have two main mtb mags AMB and Mountainbiking Australia. All the testers in one can't tell the difference between 26 and 650B and all the testers in the other claim that 650B is revolutionary. I won't spoil it by saying which is which

Does this mean you can't tell the difference between the magazines? Is one printed on A4 and the other on US letter?

thelonegroover

I’ve seen lots of mountain bikes being ridden, in places like Gisburn, Dolby and Whinlatter. Most being ridden like I ride.
I now have a 29er and although it rolls over bumps, rocks and roots smoother, there isn’t a great difference. It climbs much the same; it goes down technical rocky descents much the same, but it is smoother when going faster on rough tracks.
Testers in magazines are riding bikes to the limit; I suspect most normal riders will never reach these limits.
I think it’s a bit like car reviews, one car might go round a track two seconds faster than another, but in normal driving that’s just not relevant.

.blitz

ddraver wrote:

Even Warner saying 26in bikes are "done"

He's right no one rides 26" any more
http://www.pinkbike.com/news/whistler-b ... bikes.html

ddraver

Yeah, none of these guys either - http://enduro-mtb.com/en/enduro-world-s ... -on-today/

err...oh.

Let's try and be adults about it shall we?

The Rookie

Many hardtail frames will take 650B wheels/tyres, after all if they will take a 26x2.4, then 650Bx1.8 is near enough the same rolling radius...and most frames are lmited on width not radius.

supersonic

Seems rather pointless to me though - may be slightly lighter overall, but I'd personally take the larger tyres and the increased benefits they give ie lower pressure and rolling resistance.

lawman

I'd love to see how many people slating 650b have actually ridden one... I bet it's very, very low number. Everyone just seems to be so cynical about anything new these days and just dismiss it as crap or unnecessary. Why not reserve judgement until you've actually tried the things? Oh no wait that's far to sensible, we're English we'll just have a good old moan and spurt the same crap out time and time again.

The Rookie

Matts excellent article in MBUK comparing 26", 27" (650B) and 28.5" (called 29er) wheels - nuff said.

pesky_jones

lawman wrote:

Everyone just seems to be so cynical about anything new these days and just dismiss it as crap or unnecessary. Why not reserve judgement until you've actually tried the things?

Thats what your thread was about a while ago wasnt it? Thought it got pretty well answered

Thelonegroover wrote:

Testers in magazines are riding bikes to the limit; I suspect most normal riders will never reach these limits

This is too true

lawman

The Beginner wrote:

Matts excellent article in MBUK comparing 26", 27" (650B) and 28.5" (called 29er) wheels - nuff said.

While that test was good, IMO they could have made it more accurate. The test was mostly about speed, but the specs of the bikes were completely different and the weights varied by too much IMO. Now that intense make the tracer in all 3 wheel sizes, fox do the 34 in all sizes and likewise Stan's and schwalbe make rims and tyres you can have a much more accurate look at what difference the wheels actually make. Would be much better than 3 random bikes like that test.

felix.london

lawman wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

Matts excellent article in MBUK comparing 26", 27" (650B) and 28.5" (called 29er) wheels - nuff said.

While that test was good, IMO they could have made it more accurate. The test was mostly about speed, but the specs of the bikes were completely different and the weights varied by too much IMO. Now that intense make the tracer in all 3 wheel sizes, fox do the 34 in all sizes and likewise Stan's and schwalbe make rims and tyres you can have a much more accurate look at what difference the wheels actually make. Would be much better than 3 random bikes like that test.

Yep - that would be an interesting read for sure

...or even better an Enduro race with Jerome Clementz, Fabian Barel and Dan Atherton each on a different wheeled Tracer...what a sponsors wet dream that would be!

supersonic

I have seen a similar test repeated online - I'll try and find it - 26er was fastest overall.

It so much depends on the rider, terrain and bike. Quite simply wheel size is part of a larger equation of what is 'best'. As best is subjective, and is not always about sheer speed anyway over a set course anyway, unless you are a racer.

bails87

A while ago I tried a Yeti SB95 (29"), then a SB66 (26"), then a Cube 160mm 650B thing.

The 29er and 26er were very different, both very good at slightly different things. The 650B wheels didn't strike me as being noticeably different to the 26ers. (It was a very different bike to the others, lighter, more travel, fatter tyres, different suspension setup, so not a 'fair' comparison like the sb95 vs sb66) It certainly didn't feel 'better' at any one thing than either of the others. (the 29er felt faster, the 26er was more 'jumpable'/fun. Clichéd, I know).

But then until I rode the SB95 I'd hated every other 29er I'd tried, so who knows what a Yeti SB6505.5 would be like

Back to the OP....I can see why they wouldn't change the suspension tune between wheel sizes, especially if the frame has got the same geo and travel. I don't think that's an (accidental) admission that 650B is pointless.

The Rookie

lawman wrote:

the weights varied by too much IMO.

What with them all ballasted to the same weight (you did READ the report right?) they still varied too much.....interesting theory.....

EH_Rob

but they were still completely different bikes, so your theory that the article as a comparison is 'excellent' is also interesting.

Chunkers1980

Balasting is also testacals

lawman

The Beginner wrote:

lawman wrote:

the weights varied by too much IMO.

What with them all ballasted to the same weight (you did READ the report right?) they still varied too much.....interesting theory.....

In the same way that balasting Bradley wiggins to 16st would mean he's no faster than an average rider who's also 16st :roll: And yes I did read it, but if 650b was almost as fast as a 29er and loads quicker than 26, as the test results show, then why are people so adamant that 650b isn't worth over 26? Because from the times results of said test 650b is much, much closer to 29"... No doubt a good review but you can't honestly be saying that 3 bikes ballasted to the same weight, but from different manufacturers and wildly varied kit is fairer than 3 bikes of the same frame type, suspension design, from the same factory, with the same group set/fork and wheels/tyres that are identical other than wheel size?

Chunkers1980

That's why I just thought what's the point in that test full stop.

The only variable other than wheel size should be rider as you can't do it with an engine, but even they should have eaten and drank exactly the same for each test ect...

EH_Rob

but if was any good in the sense of a comparison it'd be a study designed by a team of scientists and/or engineers, going in a peer reviewed journal, not a quite well written article written by one bloke in a mountain bike magazine. In fairness to the article I did enjoy reading it, and it did clearly acknowledge its own weaknesses.

you need lots of riders doing lots of replicates of lots of different routes on similar bikes, with each individual rider treating each ride in a similar manner to make it a good comparison. plus some stuff i haven't thought of id imagine.

b45her

Thelonegroover wrote:

Testers in magazines are riding bikes to the limit; I suspect most normal riders will never reach these limits.
I think it’s a bit like car reviews, one car might go round a track two seconds faster than another, but in normal driving that’s just not relevant.

you've obviously never bumped into MBUK doing a bike test, "riding bikes to the limit" is a vast exaggeration from what i've seen.

The Rookie

lawman wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

lawman wrote:

the weights varied by too much IMO.

What with them all ballasted to the same weight (you did READ the report right?) they still varied too much.....interesting theory.....

In the same way that balasting Bradley wiggins to 16st would mean he's no faster than an average rider who's also 16st :roll: And yes I did read it, but if 650b was almost as fast as a 29er and loads quicker than 26, as the test results show, then why are people so adamant that 650b isn't worth over 26? Because from the times results of said test 650b is much, much closer to 29"... No doubt a good review but you can't honestly be saying that 3 bikes ballasted to the same weight, but from different manufacturers and wildly varied kit is fairer than 3 bikes of the same frame type, suspension design, from the same factory, with the same group set/fork and wheels/tyres that are identical other than wheel size?

Most the kit was irrelevant as the bikes were ballasted to the same weight, the tyres were all the same brand/model so cancelling the biggest single variable. Getting a single otherwise identical model from one manufacurer is going to be impossible.

Was the test 'perfect' - no, was it about as good a comparison as you will realistically get - yes.

Of course it was about speed, the fun and feel bit you can get from your own demo ride and is very personal, the speed bit you can't.