How do 27.5"s feel?

Thewaylander

its definately no where like going 29er, its definately more subtle.

but once you ride one for a bit and go back you pick up on them more, i moved froma very similar bike to the new one so it gives a fairly decent perspective on it i think.

Hob Nob

It feels a little bit different, but nothing really of any note. It's more noticeable compared to a 29" though.

If I was buying a bike now, I wouldn't be buying a 26", it seems largely pointless when everything is now coming out as 650. I don't have a stock of wheels, or tyres left, so would just jump in. That said, I wouldn't buy a worse 650 bike than 26" just because of the wheelsize.

Conspiracy or not, it's happened, demand for 26 is virtually non existent now at the high end, a few of the brands have been quite vocal over how much of a pain in the ass the changeover is, for the very negligible difference, but their 26" bikes don't sell any more, so they had to make the switch.

lostboysaint

RockmonkeySC wrote:

The 27.5" bikes I have ridden feel just like 26" bikes.
I have ridden the 27.5 version of my own bike and I couldn't tell the difference other than it had rubbish tyres.
The whole 27.5 thing is just because they have run out of actual improvements to sell.

That.

Bear in mind that depending on the brand and size of tyre that you use on your 26 and what is already on a 650b then you may already be riding with the same overall diameter of wheel/tyre!

Hob Nob

lostboysaint wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

The 27.5" bikes I have ridden feel just like 26" bikes.
I have ridden the 27.5 version of my own bike and I couldn't tell the difference other than it had rubbish tyres.
The whole 27.5 thing is just because they have run out of actual improvements to sell.

That.

Bear in mind that depending on the brand and size of tyre that you use on your 26 and what is already on a 650b then you may already be riding with the same overall diameter of wheel/tyre!

Yes, if you compare a monster 2.5" 26" Schwalbe to a 2" 650b XC race tyre, they might be close, but not if it's like for like.

warpcow

Hob Nob wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

The 27.5" bikes I have ridden feel just like 26" bikes.
I have ridden the 27.5 version of my own bike and I couldn't tell the difference other than it had rubbish tyres.
The whole 27.5 thing is just because they have run out of actual improvements to sell.

That.

Bear in mind that depending on the brand and size of tyre that you use on your 26 and what is already on a 650b then you may already be riding with the same overall diameter of wheel/tyre!

Yes, if you compare a monster 2.5" 26" Schwalbe to a 2" 650b XC race tyre, they might be close, but not if it's like for like.

That's what 26+ is for

I seem to remember seeing a like for like test that put the difference at 1" for a particular tyre. 26" with a big tyre was really 27" and the 27.5" with the 'same' tyre was 28", or something like that.

rockmonkeysc

They aren't 27.5". The marketing goons decided that 27" sounded too close the 26" and not the compromise between the existing sizes that they want to sell it as.

BloggingFit

Owned 26" and 27.5" back to back with the same bike model and would say geometry change was more noticeable between the two bikes but at no point can I say I specifically could feel that the wheels were any bigger.

If I were to compare the two bikes I would say the 27.5" bike rides quicker up, down and through terrain. The best description to give is that it wants to just go. One of the guys I ride with has my old bike so I get a good view of the differences but we notice that when freewheeling mine is way quicker and I have to be on the brakes when following him and he struggles to keep up on smooth open downhills despite being out geared.

paul.skibum

I bought a new bike and its a 650B - I cant say I am comparing like for like against either the outgoing suspension bike or my hardtail as they are vastly different types of bikes in any case and indeed different sizes (as my new bike is Medium vs Small).

I feel the 650B with 2.3 tyres rolls very well compared to my 26er HT with 2.1 tyres both in terms of covering ground and getting through things, like the 26er it can still get hung up on roots and rocks, I dont find it as easy to lift over obstacles but I think some of that is the length and me still adjusting to the size of the bike. Overall I wouldnt say there is a huge difference in the wheel sizes and if I had a Blur LT in 26 flavour over the Bronson as I originally intended to buy I am not sure I would be upset.

Buying stuff is harder now - you have to hunt for the fork for the right wheel size or the right rim or tyre or whatever. Its a pain!

BloggingFit

paul.skibum wrote:

I dont find it as easy to lift over obstacles but I think some of that is the length and me still adjusting to the size of the bike.

I would agree with you there.

Angus Young

supersonic wrote:

What is your opinion on 650b, Angus?

Truthfully, I don't really have an opinion one way or the other - all the 27.5s I've ridden have been better than all the 26ers I've ridden but that doesn't mean much as all the 27.5s were better bikes, so I doubt it was the wheels I was feeling. If I were pressed to make an observation then I'd say they were faster, but again, that's probably more to do with the bikes than the wheels. So, on a personal level, I have no idea if 650b is better or not. (On a side note, with the exception of the Cannondale Scalpel Carbon 2 I haven't liked any of the 29ers I've ridden, so I'm not sure what that says.) As a general observation, from all the reviews I read, sentiment seems to be generally (if not wildly) positive towards 650b with very little negative comment. So, are all the reviewers on the take? If you believe that then you have to believe it's a big conspiracy. Were you taking kickbacks when you wrote for the rags?

Or perhaps conspiracy 2: The "It's all just a marketing scam." theory... For that to work you have to believe that the marketing men thought they could persuade tens of thousands of riders who had absolutely no intention of buying a new bike to stump up for a new ride. Because they would have to believe that would happen to justify all the changeover would involve behind the scenes. So, is something other than the normal buying/upgrading cycle going on in the market? I have no idea, but I doubt it. I doubt anyone is shifting their buying pattern, they'll just go 650b when they time naturally comes. So where's the gain for the manufacturers? And as far as I've noticed, few of them are majoring on wheel sizes in their advertising other than to note that they're now riding on 650b. If this really was their big USP it would be front and centre of all their advertising.

As for 26ers, it's difficult to make a case for the 26 inch wheel given that it's a purely arbitrary size choice (note, this is not the same as saying there's anything wrong with it). Maybe they just got lucky and picked the best size wheel for mountain biking purely by chance? So then it comes down to nothing more than, 26 is best, everything else is evil because I've a ton of legacy spares in my shed.

And yes, we are genetically programmed not to like change. Change equals threat.

rockmonkeysc

BloggingFit wrote:

Owned 26" and 27.5" back to back with the same bike model and would say geometry change was more noticeable between the two bikes but at no point can I say I specifically could feel that the wheels were any bigger.

If I were to compare the two bikes I would say the 27.5" bike rides quicker up, down and through terrain. The best description to give is that it wants to just go. One of the guys I ride with has my old bike so I get a good view of the differences but we notice that when freewheeling mine is way quicker and I have to be on the brakes when following him and he struggles to keep up on smooth open downhills despite being out geared.

Are you and your friend similar weight? Greater momentum will account for faster rolling on smooth ground. Faster rolling tyres and different pressures will also have an effect. On smooth ground wheel size can't make it roll faster.
Geometry is probably the most significant difference between the two bikes.

declan1

Angus, I think you took my posts the wrong way. I didn't mean I would consider a 650b bike because they are 'better', I meant that I would consider one if the whole bike as a package was better. My dad's Anthem is a fine example as I don't notice the bigger wheels but the whole bike feels very nice.

paul.skibum

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Are you and your friend similar weight? Greater momentum will account for faster rolling on smooth ground. Faster rolling tyres and different pressures will also have an effect. On smooth ground wheel size can't make it roll faster.
Geometry is probably the most significant difference between the two bikes.

There is a tendency for larger wheels to carry momentum better than smaller - 29ers are all about breaking rolling resistance initially and then conserving rolling speed better. I would definitely say my Bronson rolls better than my hardtail despite the wider tyres and my first outing on it my mate commented on how I was faster up a road climb to a trail on the new ride.

Angus Young

declan1 wrote:

Angus, I think you took my posts the wrong way. I didn't mean I would consider a 650b bike because they are 'better', I meant that I would consider one if the whole bike as a package was better. My dad's Anthem is a fine example as I don't notice the bigger wheels but the whole bike feels very nice.

I think you've taken my post the wrong way (probably my fault for not explaining myself). I'm saying just that - few are interrupting their normal buying pattern because 650b is 'better'. People will buy when they were going to by anyway and buying decisions will be based on things like geometry and build specs rather than wheels. It seems the only consideration people are giving to wheels size is in regard to future proofing. So where's the gain from this evil marketing concoction? They're only selling the same bikes they would have anyway, they just had to go to a lot more trouble to sell them.

declan1

Angus Young wrote:

declan1 wrote:

Angus, I think you took my posts the wrong way. I didn't mean I would consider a 650b bike because they are 'better', I meant that I would consider one if the whole bike as a package was better. My dad's Anthem is a fine example as I don't notice the bigger wheels but the whole bike feels very nice.

I think you've taken my post the wrong way (probably my fault for not explaining myself). I'm saying just that - few are interrupting their normal buying pattern because 650b is 'better'. People will buy when they were going to by anyway and buying decisions will be based on things like geometry and build specs rather than wheels. It seems the only consideration people are giving to wheels size is in regard to future proofing. So where's the gain from this evil marketing concoction? They're only selling the same bikes they would have anyway, they just had to go to a lot more trouble to sell them.

There is a noticeable difference between 26" bikes and 29ers. I just don't think 650b is significant enough to make you reconsider when buying a bike.

Angus Young

declan1 wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

declan1 wrote:

Angus, I think you took my posts the wrong way. I didn't mean I would consider a 650b bike because they are 'better', I meant that I would consider one if the whole bike as a package was better. My dad's Anthem is a fine example as I don't notice the bigger wheels but the whole bike feels very nice.

I think you've taken my post the wrong way (probably my fault for not explaining myself). I'm saying just that - few are interrupting their normal buying pattern because 650b is 'better'. People will buy when they were going to by anyway and buying decisions will be based on things like geometry and build specs rather than wheels. It seems the only consideration people are giving to wheels size is in regard to future proofing. So where's the gain from this evil marketing concoction? They're only selling the same bikes they would have anyway, they just had to go to a lot more trouble to sell them.

There is a noticeable difference between 26" bikes and 29ers. I just don't think 650b is significant enough to make you reconsider when buying a bike.

Exactly.

supersonic

For that to work you have to believe that the marketing men thought they could persuade tens of thousands of riders who had absolutely no intention of buying a new bike to stump up for a new ride.

I actually do think some companies did think this. Then others followed. There are a lot of riders who must have the 'latest and greatest', and I'm in no doubt they jumped ship when 29ers arrived. Those on a lesser budget see a slice of what now is considered better and also bought into it. Fair play if they tested them and thought they were better. But look at how Specialized and Giant pushed them. And now? They are going 650b. Specialized seem to cater for all three wheel sizes (at some levels), Giant, well we have this:

http://www.giant-bicycles.com/globalsta ... technology

So did they make a mistake with 29ers? If so, how? If 26 was an arbitrary picked size years ago, then surely 29ers were researched and tested in this more modern age...

rockmonkeysc

Giant say one of the benefits of 650b is a larger tyre contact patch. Do they understand physics?

declan1

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Giant say one of the benefits of 650b is a larger tyre contact patch. Do they understand physics?

What's physics got to do with that?

supersonic

Because the physics are relevant ie for a similar tyre construction, rider weight, rim width, the contact patch area is equal for a given pressure. What changes are the length and width of it.

Giant's description is vague - they mean the length of the patch and they should state this more clearly. But does the length and and narrower width mean it is better? Not according to Flo:

http://flocycling.blogspot.co.uk/2011/1 ... er-is.html

rockmonkeysc

If tyre pressures are the same then the contact area is the same no matter what the diameter of the tyre. The contact patch will be longer but narrower with a bigger wheel. This is assuming the bike is the same weight and tyres are the same.
Have a read of Newtons Third Law of motion.
Another clue is in the name of the unit of pressure most people use, pounds per square inch.

Angus Young

RockmonkeySC wrote:

If tyre pressures are the same then the contact area is the same no matter what the diameter of the tyre. The contact patch will be longer but narrower with a bigger wheel. This is assuming the bike is the same weight and tyres are the same.
Have a read of Newtons Third Law of motion.

I'm sorry, am I missing something here, but what has Newton's Third Law got to do with contact patches?

And why will the contact patch be narrower? Won't it be the same in the middle and only narrower were it begins to outreach the smaller tyre?

7448stewart

amazing! im happy with mine

Angus Young

7448stewart wrote:

amazing! im happy with mine

Your what?

rockmonkeysc

Angus Young wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

If tyre pressures are the same then the contact area is the same no matter what the diameter of the tyre. The contact patch will be longer but narrower with a bigger wheel. This is assuming the bike is the same weight and tyres are the same.
Have a read of Newtons Third Law of motion.

I'm sorry, am I missing something here, but what has Newton's Third Law got to do with contact patches?

And why will the contact patch be narrower? Won't it be the same in the middle and only narrower were it begins to outreach the smaller tyre?

Every action has an equal reaction.
If your tyre is at 10psi and you put 10lb pressure through it there will be a contact area of one square inch no matter what diameter the wheel is. The shape may change but the area wont.
It's basic physics.

Clank

Angus Young wrote:

And why will the contact patch be narrower? Won't it be the same in the middle and only narrower were it begins to outreach the smaller tyre?

<cough clough>
http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/bicycle-tires-puncturing-the-myths-29245/

Actual testing, by an actual test house, who have no particular wheel-sized axe to grind.

Now, some of their findings are actually counter to some of the theory that has been published (including academically). But hell, you can't beat experiential learning!

kajjal

Clank wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

And why will the contact patch be narrower? Won't it be the same in the middle and only narrower were it begins to outreach the smaller tyre?

<cough clough>
http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/bicycle-tires-puncturing-the-myths-29245/

Actual testing, by an actual test house, who have no particular wheel-sized axe to grind.

Now, some of their findings are actually counter to some of the theory that has been published (including academically). But hell, you can't beat experiential learning!

Don't come on here with your facts backed up by research

Angus Young

Clank wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

And why will the contact patch be narrower? Won't it be the same in the middle and only narrower were it begins to outreach the smaller tyre?

<cough clough>
http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/bicycle-tires-puncturing-the-myths-29245/

Actual testing, by an actual test house, who have no particular wheel-sized axe to grind.

Now, some of their findings are actually counter to some of the theory that has been published (including academically). But hell, you can't beat experiential learning!

No "cough, cough", required. Genuinely wondering as it seems counter intuitive.

The research does, though, say that larger wheels roll faster which is counter to Rockmonkey's original point that they don't.

Angus Young

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Every action has an equal reaction.

Mmm... not sure that one covers contact patch sizes.

Thewaylander

Just a quick one,

Isn’t the pressure in the tire the pressure of air against the inner surface area of the tire not the tire area to the ground?