650B...ollocks?

rockmonkeysc

Even if 650B wheels do roll faster* over rough ground then why are bikes getting more suspension travel? 140mm - 160mm now seems to be becoming standard for trail/AM bikes. The new Rockshox Pike has 160mm travel for the 650B version, surely that should only be needed on freeride bikes at the Redbull Rampage but I suspect that most will end up doing laps of Afan every weekend. When 26" wheels were the only choice 120mm - 140mm was fine.





*actual results may vary from manufcaturers claims

The Rookie

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

we'll be spoonfed nonsense along the lines of "see, we TOLD you big wheels were faster" even though there's still no actual basis to it.

They either are, or are not, faster, you challange any evidence they are buy saying it's flawed, but can you porduce any that proves they aren't?

my challenge to the theory is that, in a high level race with a mix of wheel sizes, there was no big wheel whitewash.

So different riders all ride with the same power output at the same point in the course all the time - wow I never knew that......because if they did the small changes from the wheels would get drowned out by the different riders.....

It is very likely that on any given terrain one will be faster than another, it may equal out over a course, it may not.

I'm still awaiting your contrary evidence......

YeehaaMcgee

The Beginner wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

we'll be spoonfed nonsense along the lines of "see, we TOLD you big wheels were faster" even though there's still no actual basis to it.

They either are, or are not, faster, you challange any evidence they are buy saying it's flawed, but can you porduce any that proves they aren't?

my challenge to the theory is that, in a high level race with a mix of wheel sizes, there was no big wheel whitewash.

So different riders all ride with the same power output at the same point in the course all the time - wow I never knew that......because if they did the small changes from the wheels would get drowned out by the different riders.....

It is very likely that on any given terrain one will be faster than another, it may equal out over a course, it may not.

I'm still awaiting your contrary evidence......

I don't follow. Why does my thinking require all riders to have the same power output at the same time? It's not a scientific study in a controlled environment. I do not have the resources to perform such a study.
However, from observation, it can be shown that 26" wheeled bikes were not at any particular advantage, since the results were a mixed bag of 26" wheels. If the 29ers had a clear advantage, then at that level of competition, there's no way the 26ers would have had any decent results.

I've seen no evidence that bigger wheels are faster in practical use. If you're going to require scientific rigour on my part, then surely you should honour that by giving such evidence in favour of bigger wheels being faster?

rockmonkeysc

MBR & MBUK both say big wheels are faster so they must be. Do you need any more evidence?

The Rookie

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

we'll be spoonfed nonsense along the lines of "see, we TOLD you big wheels were faster" even though there's still no actual basis to it.

They either are, or are not, faster, you challange any evidence they are buy saying it's flawed, but can you porduce any that proves they aren't?

my challenge to the theory is that, in a high level race with a mix of wheel sizes, there was no big wheel whitewash.

So different riders all ride with the same power output at the same point in the course all the time - wow I never knew that......because if they did the small changes from the wheels would get drowned out by the different riders.....

It is very likely that on any given terrain one will be faster than another, it may equal out over a course, it may not.

I'm still awaiting your contrary evidence......

I don't follow. Why does my thinking require all riders to have the same power output at the same time?

Because if they didn't you can't use teh fact they are on different wheels to prove the wheels have no effect, obvious to a blind man really, to make the comparison you can only change one feature, change rider and wheel size and cause and effect are unknown.

bennett_346

This is all the proof you need

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWl6BsMbnjo

Thewaylander

RockmonkeySC wrote:

MBR & MBUK both say big wheels are faster so they must be. Do you need any more evidence?

yarp someone with half a braincell saying it other than those guys.. :oops:

pesky_jones

The Beginner wrote:

Because if they didn't you can't use teh fact they are on different wheels to prove the wheels have no effect, obvious to a blind man really, to make the comparison you can only change one feature, change rider and wheel size and cause and effect are unknown.

Basically just describing a "fair" test. There can only be one variable in a fair test

YeehaaMcgee

The Beginner wrote:

Because if they didn't you can't use teh fact they are on different wheels to prove the wheels have no effect, obvious to a blind man really, to make the comparison you can only change one feature, change rider and wheel size and cause and effect are unknown.

Ok, I see where you're coming from, but we don't have, and can never have such a comparison, without making a cycling robot of some sort.
But I believe that in a field of elite athletes, we can draw a reasonable conclusion that those riders on big wheels didn't get a clean sweep. Elite athletes are pretty much the closest thing to robots we can have
Anyway, if the smaller wheels were slower, then those riders would be filtering towards the bottom of the results.

I can't think of a better, practical, real world demonstration, to be honest. We're not comparing weekend warriors going round a trail centre here.

But, as a counter to this, can you provide any more scientific proof that the bigger wheels are indeed faster?

bennett_346

Don't you guys have, y'know, jobs and stuff to do?

YeehaaMcgee

oh yeah!

pesky_jones

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

oh yeah!

Han's not going to get famous, drawn into drugs and eventually paedophillia without you, y'know.

ddraver

Anyway, getting this somewhat back on topic...

Mavic have gone 26 & 650b for enduro - http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/news/artic ... hed-37664/ - but not 29

Surprising as Mavic are usually behind the curve...

Basil Hume

I suspect that the 650b / 29er wheel changes are having some impact in the aftermarket - i.e. people who buy bike bits rather than complete bikes.

Three months ago, I needed some new forks for my 2010 Mk2 Cotic Soul and found that most forks were available only with a taper steerer. The Mk3 Soul has now gained a taper steerer tube - but the cost of taper forks and Soul Mk3 was >£1k; for a bike with few discernable differences to my current Mk2 Soul.

This prompted me to look into a Solaris, which would require new forks and wheels in addition to the frame itself. While this option would give me something "different", the cost was over £1.5k for my preferred spec... before I even started thinking about different tyres, bars, chainset and cassette setups.

Both options were clearly an alarming pecuniary prospect - and then there was the uncertainty of 650b on the horizon.

I then took another look at what was available for my current Soul... Okay, so the Mk2 Soul doesn't allow for taper steerers, but there's nothing else really to write home about that's better on the Mk3.

I then found some totally bargainous straight-steerer Fox 32 120 RLC QR15 forks to plug into my existing Soul (no doubt being cleared out due to impending 26er doom). The beauty of Fox forks is that the steerer can be changed to a taper in due course. I also committed myself to a respray of the Soul once the summer season is over. Hey presto - a fully modernised classic is re-born.

The net result is that the bike industry has missed out on at least some of my spending for the time being. The emergence of 650b is keeping more of my money in my wallet... not making me spend more!

I didn't get around to answering the 29 / 27.5 / 26 dilemma, but I did at least sidestep the question for the time being. I'm also fairly confident that there will be an active and interesting market for 26er stuff for ever - just as there is for rigids, singlespeeds, steel frames etc. For example, the big bike companies don't make steel hardtails any more - but the likes of Cotic, On One etc have done much to advance the concept in the last 10 years.