WTB Pushes “B+” Wheel Size With New Tire/Rim- by Guitar Ted
While wandering around at Interbike’s Outdoor Demo at Bootleg Canyon a few years ago, I was tapped on the shoulder by a man by the name of Bob Poor. Many of you readers may not recognize that name, but you should if you are fans of twenty nine inch sized wheels. Why? Because Bob was instrumental in the push for “The Tire” back in the 90’s, which turned out to be the first large volume off-road specific tire that sparked the 29″er revolution. That tire is the Nanoraptor. Mr. Poor also was one of the first to hit the internet with a site whose sole focus was on 29″ers. To say he had a big influence on the early development and popularity of 29″ers is not a stretch at all. And here he was, speaking in excited but low tones about a new idea he was getting behind that he had dubbed “B+”. I was promised a few e-mailed specifics but was asked to stay quiet for the time being.
Time went by and all was quiet on the “B+” front, but Grannygear and I had occasionally theorized about such a wheel and what it might do and how it would fit into the current status of off road bicycling. Then early this year things began to percolate again concerning B+. Obviously, our report from Sea Otter, (seen here), showed that the concept had been realized in the form of a show bike by Rocky Mountain dubbed the Sherpa. Bob resurfaced again and e-mailed me some more about the concept.
Essentially, the thinking is that while 29+ is a great idea, it is somewhat limited to those of larger stature and with the means to buy a completely new bike. How could one enjoy some, (most?), of the benefits of 29+ wheel but not have to “buy in to” another platform? Couldn’t a wheel be produced that might fit into many current 29″ers and still give you a “fatter tired” experience? WTB’s Mark Slate, at the behest of Mr. Poor, looked into these questions and found out that it could be done.
Mr. Slate, whose side project, OS Bikes which has as its only model, the Blackbuck, took one of his hard tail bike’s measurements and contrasted that with a B+ sized WTB Trailblazer spec and found it might work out. Indeed, as you see here, it does. The key is using a 584ISO rim diameter, (otherwise known as 650B), and mating that with a voluminous tire. In this case, the 2.8″ wide WTB Trailblazer. The combination measures out to just shy of 29″ in diameter, moving the widest part of the tire’s casing back just far enough to allow for it to spin freely in the Blackbuck’s stays.
Admittedly, the concept of a B+ wheel size won’t fit all 29″ers, and certainly, there would be custom builders taking advantage of the wheel and making “progress” by adapting designs specifically for these wheels and tires, but to know that this may actually work in many current 29″ers propels the idea forward with manufacturers, since the possibilities for selling more units is already out there. WTB is also moving forward with plans to make an “i45” rim like the one shown on the Sherpa show bike. It looks as though we’re actually going to be seeing this happening.
We’re excited about this development since it would be immediately accessible to many with the bikes out there that would fit the new B+ tires. Plus, the ideas that might be spawned from this idea are tantalizing to think of. Stay tuned as we suspect there is a lot more going on here than what meets the eye……
A WTB I45 in 29 would be perfect!
I am thinking this would be perfect for my karate monkey. I would love a fat bike, but I love my marriage a lot more, but a new wheelset could be just the ticket
Hey GT,
This offers great promise with big tire performance retrofits! Any chance you know of any actual measurements of a 280 B+ on a 40mm or so rim? Think it may retro fit on my Tall Boy Carbon?
This is similar to old school cyclist’s that wanted larger volume tires for their 28/900cc road bikes used to use the 650b also. Thanks
@Carl: It has been published that this fits like a 29 X 2.3″ trail tire, if that is any help.
Hmmm- 29+/B+… Might make for fun times…
I was super pumped when Mark Slate sent me that photo. I currently run Racing Ralph 2.25s on my Blackbuck and always wished I had room for a larger volume tire. This should do the trick.
Do I get the concept down:
If a Knard or other wise “oversize” 29’r tire won’t fit.
You down size the rim, to “up” size the rubber. Should fit???
Otherwise, is it not just a good way to re-use 26″ frames?
@Yogi: Well, most of it. 😉
The idea of fatter, 29+-like rubber on a typical 29″er is what this is about.
The 26″er frames out now “might” take a 650B 2.3″er, but not this concept of a B+. That will be way too big for any 26″er frame. (Save maybe a Surly 1X1, which swallows an amazingly big tire.)
This is really intriguing… Loving the idea of the volume but I’d want to try it to see if it lowered the BB too much (slightly smaller radius plus more tire compression; no point in running that big tire at 90 psi); and whether the ‘pogo factor’ of a big, undamped tire on the back was too much.
Toys, toys, toys… 🙂
29+ please
I think this idea has real benefit. Especially for those of us who are “stature challenged” and would struggle to get decent geometry on a 29 plus.
Any idea if B+ will fit in an Extracycle Freeradical? I converted a Raleigh XXIX last year & running 700 x 35’s makes for a pretty rough ride.
Sorry for the super random question…
@Josh: Hey- no problem. I have an Xtracycle as well. I’m certain a B+ wheel won’t work in there. Sorry!
I can’t wait for these to come to market. It’s such a smart idea. I already measured my bike and it will fit with the tightest location at about 4 mm clearance at the seat stays. This is based on the prelim width dimension of 68 mm I saw.
Looking at the change in wheel radius of 19mm and the increase in tire height of ~ 11mm ( 68-57 mm) the BB will drop roughly about 8 mm. Prob. not an issue for most 29ers.
Truth be known I bugged Mark about a 3″ 700c tire over 10 years ago and the way I understood it then there were not machines capable of making them. It was before 650b and Fat Bikes were on the industry radar. But as we know that is no longer the case and both trends are producing now at a rapid pace and a combination of the two was fate.
For where and how I ride I don’t really have need for a Fat Bike, but when I had my first sighting of 29+ in a magazine my first thought was “that’ll work” but my second thought was, crap, I need to put together another bike and quite frankly I have enough already. In fact I was so committed to not buying one I never have ridden one because I knew if I did I would probably end up with one.
Since I saw you that initial time I never let up on the B+ idea but lacked the wherewithal to produce them myself although I made a couple of stabs at it. I kept at Mark long enough so that I think he made them just to shut me up about it 🙂 When WTB decided to do them earlier this year Mark asked me not to blab and I was surprised when the RM showed up at Sea Otter as I didn’t expect to see them shown until Eurobike.
I am pretty happy that it is finally coming together because I want to ride them and have been waiting longer than anyone for that to happen! Latest word is August delivery.
Thanks for the kudos and telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth once again.
The french wheel size naming convention consists of a number representing the nominal diameter of the wheel and a letter representing the nominal tire size for that diameter. 650B is, in fact, a french naming convention for a 650mm wheel that uses a “B” sized tire with a height around 33mm. Sheldon Brown, as usual, has a thoughtful explanation of this. http://sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html
Before you dislocate a shoulder patting yourselves on the back for such clever and original thinking, just understand that you’ve rediscovered something so pervasive in bicycle design that it was built into the naming conventions before many of us were born.
The whole reason 650B survived long enough for Pacenti to “invent” it for MTB was that touring and rando riders where using it to build bikes similar to modern road bikes but with tires around 40mm wide. Of course, 650B was probably not the best choice given the existence of 559 and 622 standards already, but Pacenti didn’t push it for the good of the industry.
If any of this were thought through properly the MTB industry would likely not have the bastard combination of size standards or the naming convention disasters that continue to worsen. Instead, we’d have a series of tire size standards and a series of rim standards whose steps would coincide and would allow us to build frames with flexibility we could all assume and take advantage of. Just like the french decades ago.
Having a 650B wheelset with a larger tire that could plug into a 29er bike would be great but it will be flawed in execution because the 650B rim is a greater step down in diameter than the tire can step up without interfering with many frames’ stays. Instead what we will get is a tire too large or a diameter too small. All that because 650B is not what we needed, it’s what we got. 650A would have been a better choice truly half way between 26 and 29 rather than the lie we have now.
Nevertheless, I could see a conversion using a B+ rear and a 29+ front for times when you want big tires and slacker angles. Such a setup would leave the BB height largely unchanged. Wonder how many years before someone invents that?
@Craigsj: I know that Mr, Poor knows all about what you are pointing out, so thanks, but it isn’t the point here, (as far as the naming thing goes- which Sheldon also says has nothing to do with reality, if you read the article carefully.)
As for the 584ISO rims being “a greater step down in diameter than the tire can step up without interfering with many frames’ stays”, that was addressed as well. True- it won’t fit many 29″ers. It will fit many others. That is not being hidden here. We already know it will fit an OS Bikes Blackbuck, which if you are familiar with that bike, isn’t a frame with exceptionally large clearances. So, that bodes well for “many 29″ers out there”. Again- no one is stating it will fit ALL 29″ers. 😉
Wheel size experiments, as you indicate at the end of your comment, will happen. I think that’s a given.