650B...ollocks?

YeehaaMcgee

650B is only a tiny ickle biddy bit bigger than 26".

The Rookie

On that basis 29ers are only 2.5 times that tiny ickle bit bigger......

YeehaaMcgee

The Beginner wrote:

On that basis 29ers are only 2.5 times that tiny ickle bit bigger......

So, conclusive proof, that 29ers are more than two and a half times more likely to collapse on you than a 26" wheel

supersonic

I think Rockmonkey does have a point, or people can (and will) read things into the lack of big wheels on the DH circuit. On the roughest and most testing ground that bikes are ever going to encounter, where the touted benefits of big wheels should be at an advantage, it appears that good long travel suspension is the key.

felix.london

supersonic wrote:

I think Rockmonkey does have a point, or people can (and will) read things into the lack of big wheels on the DH circuit. On the roughest and most testing ground that bikes are ever going to encounter, where the touted benefits of big wheels should be at an advantage, it appears that good long travel suspension is the key.

...and obviously, cojones the size of Mount Kilimanjaro

bennett_346

Another 650 in the works...

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/GT-2014-Fo ... 50B-S.html

"Dan Atherton, the spear point of GT's Enduro team, swore off 650B wheels at first, but after helping to dial in the geometry and ride of the new 150-millimeter-travel Force, he changed his mind. "

Or, roughly translated to "GT Bicycles wanted their pro rider to advertise their new 650b and threatened to drop him if he didn't force himself to like it".

felix.london

another 2 bite the dust...

rockmonkeysc

650B has been extensively tested in DH by Trek, Specialized & Giant. I'm sure others have tested it as well. They must have had the parts to be able to test them. I think KHS have a production 650B downhill bike.
You can be sure that if any of the big manufacturers found 650B to be an advantage when they tested last year they would have race bikes this year ready to hype up and sell the production models next year.
Suspension travel isn't everything in DH, bikes used to have 9" - 10" of travel but most are now 8".

ddraver

bennett_346 wrote:

Another 650 in the works...

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/GT-2014-Fo ... 50B-S.html

"Dan Atherton, the spear point of GT's Enduro team, swore off 650B wheels at first, but after helping to dial in the geometry and ride of the new 150-millimeter-travel Force, he changed his mind. "

Or, roughly translated to "GT Bicycles wanted their pro rider to advertise their new 650b and threatened to drop him if he didn't force himself to like it".

Again you have absolutely nothing other than pure cynicism to make such a claim...

bennett_346

Oh come on...

ddraver

Someone hysterically pro big wheels could argue that "650b wheel won over a pure cynic once he'd stopped whining and tried them" and it would have as much basis as your comment...

bennett_346

He is a racer, if he actually did think 650b wheels made him faster he would have taken them a year ago and not kicked up a fuss about them saying he didn't like them. In racing there is no like or dislike, just what's faster and what's being pushed by your manufacturer. Give me a break.

YeehaaMcgee

ddraver wrote:

bennett_346 wrote:

Another 650 in the works...

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/GT-2014-Fo ... 50B-S.html

"Dan Atherton, the spear point of GT's Enduro team, swore off 650B wheels at first, but after helping to dial in the geometry and ride of the new 150-millimeter-travel Force, he changed his mind. "

Or, roughly translated to "GT Bicycles wanted their pro rider to advertise their new 650b and threatened to drop him if he didn't force himself to like it".

Again you have absolutely nothing other than pure cynicism to make such a claim...

Well, that and the fact that his siblings are kicking some serious arris, on 26" wheels.

ddraver

see mine or Beginner's post above

bennett_346

IMO there is such a minute difference between the two that i fail to see how anyone can step on a 650b and suddenly have a revelation. It's like suddenly touting 180mm cranks as the next big thing, fair enough but you cant suddenly come from 175mm cranks and act like its life changing, the way they go on about people "seeing the light" is just total bollocks.

YeehaaMcgee

ddraver wrote:

see mine or Beginner's post above

you have a LOT of posts above, which one specifically would you prefer I read?

ddraver

The one where we discuss why log travel DH bikes may be better with 26in wheels

felix.london

bennett_346 wrote:

He is a racer, if he actually did think 650b wheels made him faster he would have taken them a year ago and not kicked up a fuss about them saying he didn't like them. In racing there is no like or dislike, just what's faster and what's being pushed by your manufacturer. Give me a break.

Indeed. And also, why would he of said this?

"Atherton says, however, that he will continue to develop the 26-inch wheel prototype enduro GT he uses on the racing circuit."

* and after that he said "because, you know, I fookin love 26ers..you know"

YeehaaMcgee

ddraver wrote:

The one where we discuss why log travel DH bikes may be better with 26in wheels

Recap, please?
I can't find anything of note.

You really don;t seem to "get" how a discussion works do you?

ddraver

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

I would 'expect' that in DH suspension travel is more important than rolling resistance, in XC it is clearly the other way round.

Yeah, I agree, on the whole.
I also reckon that the size of the obstacles on DH courses mean that a minor scaling up of a wheel will offer no practical advantage. When the rocks ruts and bumps are wheel swallowing chasms, then a slightly bigger wheel will make no difference. Were they to switch to 40" wheels, well, yeah, maybe the current courses would be smoothed out a little bit.

ddraver wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

ddraver wrote:

I think its also fairly clear that any sort of mountain bike racing relies on speed over rough ground so I think that's pretty irrelevant.

Not really irrelevant at all.
DH racing is specifically about covering very technical terrain at high speed, the technical demands of XC racing are nowhere near as high.

I know you like to argue Yeeha, but seriously think about what you ve just said...Any sort of MTB racer will optimise how the bike covers technical terrain. For DH it is better to have more travel so 26in wheels are better, but for bikes where more pedalling is needed, more travel is less efficient so the benefits of bigger wheels can be used.

Oh abuse, well you must be right then obviously...

You even quoted it FFS didntcha smarty pants!

bennett_346

Calm down dear.

ddraver

In the incredibly adult, mature direction this discussion (and every other wheel size discussion) has gone, he started it! :P

YeehaaMcgee

ddraver wrote:

You even quoted it FFS didntcha smarty pants!

I'm sorry, I still don't see what exactly you're bringing to the discussion.

ddraver

Ok we know where it goes from here...

Anyone else got anything to add?

Cue "well you clearly don't" quip from Yeeha...)

YeehaaMcgee

ddraver wrote:

In the incredibly adult, mature direction this discussion (and every other wheel size discussion) has gone, he started it! :P

Oh, I see, you're bringing that to the discussion again :roll:


I think the Olympics last year highlights how much B.S. there is surrounding wheel sizes. There was a healthy mix of wheel sizes, with none of them dominating the results.
If bigger wheels were unequivocally faster, then the 26"ers wouldn't get a look in. That's not what happened.
However, how that all the manufacturers want to sell new bikes, they're making their athletes go to big wheels, and removing the 26" option.
So, I guess in two or three years time, we'll ONLY see 29" and 650B bikes at races (due to availability), and 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.

ddraver

yeah you said that before, got anything new to add?

YeehaaMcgee

Wait till tomorrow morning, maybe have a brew first, then go back and read your last few posts here. Then you might realise what an utter spazwangle you're being.
you're not engaging in any meaningful debate or discussion, you don't appear to have anything at all to add.

The Rookie

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?

ddraver

Have nt we done all this already? We know what happens now, it either goes round in another circle or we all start sniping at each other, the mods lock it, Yeeha gets banned again and we all move onto the next discussion. We have nt done Shimao v SRAM for a while....

YeehaaMcgee

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.
I do not subscribe to the theory that they simply are, or are not faster, rather, I believe that they are simply an option, much like tyre choice, to a rider or racer.