650B...ollocks?

b45her

unless the test is blind it's irrelevant anyway, a scientific test has to be done blind any other test is open to preconceptions.

does anyone remember the ridiculous 26 vs 29 videos that bike radar did. . .

Chunkers1980

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


Utter rubbish. I'd realistically get a lot closer.

plugp7

Thelonegroover wrote:

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.

Good point, well made.

ddraver

b45her wrote:

unless the test is blind it's irrelevant anyway, a scientific test has to be done blind any other test is open to preconceptions.

does anyone remember the ridiculous 26 vs 29 videos that bike radar did. . .

This all got discussed (and dispatched) at the time. You can remove as many variables as you like and test the bikes but then people like you would be saying that the test is irrelevant becasue it's not "real world"enough.

The Rookie

Testing different wheels blind is obviously not going to happen!

Go-one Chunkers how would you have got 'closer' to perfect then?

lawman

The Beginner wrote:

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.

As I said in my first post, get 3 intense tracers one of each wheel size, fit identical kit, say xt all-round, keep the finishing kit the same, Fox 34's, Stan's Arch Ex's on whatever hubs and identical spokes and schwalbe Hans Dampfs. The only variable then is the wheel size and appropriate geometries, that's as close as you can get! Much closer than 3 completely different bikes with varied kit, XX vs xt as I seem to remember. The ballasted part has very little impact, it's artificial and is probably more of a hindrance than a help in such a comparison. A good test as it was, there's a better, fairer and possibly more accurate way of doing it.

Chunkers1980

By not ballesting. Exactly the same kit. Like for like. The bigger wheeled bike would weigh more as they'd have more tyre, spoke and rim.

Possibly more fork and chain stay, but that is offset somewhat if you keep the riding position the same as best you can as there is no way to get away from higher hubs and bb (if the geo remain the same)

Thewaylander

indeed, in fact ballast is like to completly mess up the balance of the bike...

it's was from a scientific stand point as silly test IMO.

b45her

its simple, computer modeling these days is so complex that it would be quite simple run simulations of just about anything with hard data to prove the outcomes, the fact this hasn't been done (or has been done with the data not being favourable) speaks for its self.

The Rookie

Perhaps...or not, who would do it, whose tyre data, would that company want the tyre data to be shared with theri competitors, one tyre company could do it but without sharing the hard data people would claim the result was fix unless it said 26ers anyway!

As for using a tracer, really bad idea, it needs to be an HT for obvious reasons (and if I have to laboriously explain it to you.....)

lawman

Errrr, why does it have to be a hardtail?

ddraver

b45her wrote:

its simple, computer modeling these days is so complex that it would be quite simple run simulations of just about anything with hard data to prove the outcomes, the fact this hasn't been done (or has been done with the data not being favourable) speaks for its self.

Yeah, it says that people with access to that kind of computing have far better things to model that wheel sizes for a load of overgrown kids throwing themselves down muddy hillsides...

milko9000

lawman wrote:

As I said in my first post, get 3 intense tracers one of each wheel size, fit identical kit, say xt all-round, keep the finishing kit the same, Fox 34's, Stan's Arch Ex's on whatever hubs and identical spokes and schwalbe Hans Dampfs. The only variable then is the wheel size and appropriate geometries, that's as close as you can get! Much closer than 3 completely different bikes with varied kit, XX vs xt as I seem to remember. The ballasted part has very little impact, it's artificial and is probably more of a hindrance than a help in such a comparison. A good test as it was, there's a better, fairer and possibly more accurate way of doing it.

Can still argue that the first run is unfairly advantaged because the rider is fresh. Or the second because the rider is warmed up. Or the third because the rider is now so used to the trail they're really dialled into it. But they're tired on the third run! And the conditions changed slightly! Basically it's the internet so someone has to argue.

Kowalski675

The Rookie

lawman wrote:

Errrr, why does it have to be a hardtail?

Because the two main benefits of larger wheels is traction and ability to roll bumps, as no two FS give that same effect, you have to use an HT for the data to be in anyway transeferable across different bikes, use an FS and the data will only be significantly relevant to that FS.

bennett_346

Or we could ignore it and just ride bikes.

thelonegroover

Consider a bike designer sitting down and designing a bike for say cross country use. They would experiment with different size wheels and geometries. Build a prototype and test. Make design changes and repeat. Eventually resulting in the best design for the particular type of test riding.
What they wouldn’t do is find some unused parts that happen to fit and coble them together, then try and refine the result. Which is effectively how we came to be using 26” wheels. It’s taken the industry and designers about 30 to realise this.
The result: different wheel sizes are better for different uses.

supersonic

But have the designers experimented with many new sizes before settling on 700c and 650b? Seems no coincidence that the two new sizes just happen to be the most popular rim sizes out their that already existed in tthe road world ;-). Seem just as arbitrarily chosen to me.

However, that doesn't take away that different sizes do have benefits for some. But why not bigger than 700c? Why did they chose 650A when 650A is almost right bang in the middle of 29er and 26er and would be more fitting for the 27.5 moniker?

The Rookie

36er is clearly the way forward...... yes I've ridden one (very very breifly)

thelonegroover

There must be a maximum practical size, before the front wheel and your feet want the same space. Just the same as there will be minimum practical size before the wheel won’t roll over obstacles. Between these practical wheel sizes there will be an optimum for each type of riding. The fact that 650b is mid way between 26 and 29 naturally means it’s more likely to be suited to all types. It’s not perfect for where a 29er would be better and it’s not perfect for where a 26er would be better. But it’s more likely to better than using the other sizes, out of their designed use.
If you see what I mean!

supersonic

650b is not midway though - it is 25mm larger than the rim of a 26er (559 vs 584) - so not even an inch! 29er is 622mm. '27.5' is very misleading - mind you, so is 29er and 26 in reality! If we take 26er as granted, then the sizes with the same depth of tyre are 27 and 28.5.

97th choice

Thelonegroover wrote:

The result: different wheel sizes are better for different uses.

Not really, geometry has a bit to do with it. Plus a few other things.

thelonegroover

supersonic wrote:

650b is not midway though - it is 25mm larger than the rim of a 26er (559 vs 584) - so not even an inch! 29er is 622mm. '27.5' is very misleading - mind you, so is 29er and 26 in reality! If we take 26er as granted, then the sizes with the same depth of tyre are 27 and 28.5.

I thought someone would spot that!

thelonegroover

97th choice wrote:

Thelonegroover wrote:

The result: different wheel sizes are better for different uses.

Not really, geometry has a bit to do with it. Plus a few other things.

I appreciate there's more than just wheel size, however it's still the case that different wheel sizes are better for different riding conditions.

The Rookie

Geometry of course being affecetd by wheel size anyway (the bigger the rear wheel, the bigger the MINIMUM length of the rear centre, noting that many 26er frames will actually take 650B, suggesting the GEO was chosen for what they felt was right rather than the smallest they can do.

The 36er I rode had the same wheelbase as a selection of production 29ers, toe overlap wasn't an issue with my size 11's (same size feet as the person who built it) but possibly would have been for size 12's, suggesting that a 36er is about as big as you can go....the builder has taken it to Cannock where it was fine if a little cumbersome on a few stretches.

thelonegroover

Interesting, what size is a 36er?

thelonegroover

Interesting, what size is a 36er?

The Rookie

Nominal wheel size 36" google them, my mate has (as far as we know) the only one in the UK. 36" is a unicycle rim and tyre built onto an MTB hub with bespoke spokes, frame and forks home built.

thelonegroover

The Beginner wrote:

Nominal wheel size 36" google them, my mate has (as far as we know) the only one in the UK. 36" is a unicycle rim and tyre built onto an MTB hub with bespoke spokes, frame and forks home built.

Are you refering to yourspokes in York?

The Rookie

I don't know where he bought them from, the supplier bought extra long DT Swiss and cut and threaded to his specs.