Comments on: Interbike ‘07: A 650B Opinion

By: Guitar Ted

Guitar Ted — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:23:27 +0000

Anonymous: Gotta love it when you “anonymous” people go to such lengths to hide your tracks.

Anyway, I think I do.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:03:05 +0000

frankly, I think you have no idea what you are talking about here Guitar Ted!

By: Wombat

Wombat — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 02:38:09 +0000

Ted,
I just happened to come across this site today while researching just what a “29er” is. Back in the day when I was mountain biking, there was no such thing (no suspension or disc brakes, either!). I was at REI shopping for tires for my homebuilt recumbent, and got into a discussion with an employee about tire/rim sizes, and he brought up the new 29ers. I know why the older rims were usually given a nominal measurement that included the tire diameter, but it seems strange that a recently developed tire would use that sort of sizing. Most likely it was used as a sales tool to make it sound as big as possible for the “bigger is always better” crowd. I mean, it could have just been called a “700c-xx (width in mm.)” or something like that since that’s what is apparently is. Personally, I like 25.5″ rims, since that’s the scale length of most of my guitars
Barry

By: Guitar Ted

Guitar Ted — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:16:31 +0000

Wombat: Let’s take a look back in history. In the days of the penny farthing bicycle, you determined your “gear inch” by how far you traveled with one revolution of that giant front wheel. This was intimately tied to diameter of the rim and tread obviously. (pneumatic tires were yet to be invented in those early days.) So, if you had a 100″ of travel with one revolution of the wheel, that’s how big your wheel was in circumference.

Jumping ahead a bit, when geared “safety bikes” appeared, the practice of describing wheel size still included the rim and tire combination. Instead of having to use circumference as a measurement to describe travel gained with one revolution of the wheel, you had to use diameter. (The gearing of the bike coming in to play here, where as before it was direct drive) So, no matter what the diameter/circumference of the rim was, the determining factor to get the “gain” figure was the wheels overall diameter, which by necessity included the tire.

This practice persisted even after the introduction of deraillures on bicycles, even though “gain ratios” became less important, and even forgotten by the general public.

This is why we have several different 26 inch standards to this day, 650B being one of them, which used to be called 26 1 3/8ths, by the way. (that was with the road/touring tires for that rim diameter.)

Obviously, ISO Bead Diameter markings are less confusing and more accurately describe which tires go with which rims. Tradition is strong though, and it’s yet to be seen if ISO measurements will ever be adopted by the general public entirely.

By: Wombat

Wombat — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 20:51:35 +0000

It would be so much easier to make comparisons and judgements if all these tire/wheel sizes were to use a common measurement system. For example, “29 inch” sounds so huge, but if the rim is actually the same dia. as a 700c, than it’s a bit smaller than the old 27 inch rims that so many lower-end roadbikes used to use. A “26 inch” ATB rim is actually 559mm which is 22 Inches, while a 650 rim is 25.5 inches. One “26 inch” rim is 3.5 inches smaller than another “26 inch” rim. “20 inch” rims can be either 406 or 441mm. Why can’t they all just use the actual diameter of the rim across the bead area, in millimeters, as a standard measurement? Why didn’t all these tire makers ask me before labelling their tires? LOL!

By: moondoggy

moondoggy — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:24:31 +0000

Yeah, although they make alot of sense as a replacement for 26 inch wheels, I suspect many of the invested 26′er manufacturers may be dragging their feet on this one. Too much money to be made from the status quo. 29 inch wheels provided a dramatic visual contrast and riding experience over 26 inch wheels. While the 650s are an incremental (although substantial) improvement over 26 inch wheels, their marketing hook may not be substantail enough. I guess we’ll see.

If I couldn’t fit on a 29′er, it would be a no-brainer for me- 650B’s.

By: Guitar Ted

Guitar Ted — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:35:40 +0000

moondoggy: I like your take. I’m coming to believe the exact same thing myself. If 650B is to become anything more than a niche of a niche, than it will have to become the replacement for 26″ers.

By: moondoggy

moondoggy — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:26:03 +0000

650B wheels IMO make a lot of sense- as a replacement for 26 inch wheels. They are a compromise on the benefits of 29 inch wheels, a compromise that doesn’t make sense for those who’ve found 29 inch nirvana (including me). It seems to be a step backwards from 29er’s but a great step forward for those who can’t fit a 29 inch bike well. Bring ‘em on. The Rawlands are sweet looking bikes.

By: Cloxxki

Cloxxki — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:35:33 +0000

Hey Fisty,
I happen to have the record for naming most 29″ disadvantages. The way I weigh (dis)advantages though, specifically for XC riding, larger just works out best taking all into account. It’s ancient science, all the horse and carriages had huge wheels.

By: fisty

fisty — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:10:49 +0000

Cloxxki appears very biased towards 29ers and understandably so. Anything smaller would be like riding a child’s bike to most of us. He has done much to help many of us understand what to expect and what not to expect from the 29er experience. His posts, in large part, got me to the 29er world and my experience there only lends him gratitude. The 29er does have disadvantages over its 26 inch sibling but Cloxxki might never never feel those disadvantages in his own experience since a 26″ is way to small for him to ride efficiently. Just MHO.