Someone stated earlier in this thread that 650B's had the same overall diameter as a narrower 700c. If so, then how does running 650B help with toe overlap or overall frame size???

I thought the biggest thing was excessive toe overlap? Even at that, every bike I own including my Surly CC (54cm frame) with the exception of my one MTB and a Raleigh Sports has some toe overlap. Minor toe overlap has never bothered me and I am mostly unaware of it while riding. It is simply the consequence of sporty (as opposed to relaxed) frames with 700C wheels in bike at or under 56CM C/T or C/C (approx) and top tubes around 22cm plus or minus. I believe toe overlap to be NORMAL on such frames and essentially unavoidable, especially if you have big feet! When clipped in I automatically tip my toes down a little when starting out or maneuvering at very low speed.

Where'd the OP go? Did they get their question answered?

I see the idea behind the 650b, but not the why. Why didn't tire manufacturers make a nice supple 700c tire in a larger size for those middle sized and larger bikes. Why didn't Renee Herse make Jan Heine bike in 700c instead of 650b it would not have been that much weight that he would give up.
The argument for 29rs come to mind, the larger diameter tire would roll over small bumps easier, but you give up spin up speed.
I think that a bike built with a 45mm 700c wheel and tire in mind that would support fenders and a good rack/lighting system could have been built instead of the 650b x 42.


Were the tire manufacturers not making a large size 700c because track and road racers were using skinny tires and the only larger plush size tires were found on smaller wheeled Mom & Pop grocery getters.

This thing is a thing of beauty, making it in 700c would have only taken a few extra mm of fork and maybe chainstay.
https://janheine.files.wordpress.com...pg?w=640&h=400


Here is another Herse of Jan Heine and it looks like 700c
https://janheine.files.wordpress.com...se_outback.jpg

They are both 650B. He wanted them built for 650B.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the essence of your question seems to be "since bigger wheels are better, why would anyone want smaller ones?" This question comes up a lot in the folding bikes forum.

The answer is simply that bigger wheels are not better. There is such a thing as too small, when it comes to bicycle wheels, but too small is much smaller than 26". When you design a bike around 16" wheels, the difference between high trail and low trail, and the tolerances around head angle and offset and things like that, become very small; so it is difficult to design a bike with 16" wheels that handles really well. In my opinion the late Alex Moulton, in designing the classic F-frame bikes of the early 60's, didn't get it quite right (but I'm not pretending I could do better). When you move up to 20" all these problems go away, and it is very easy to make a bike with 20" wheels that handles just fine. Over the last six or eight years I've ridden well over 10,000 miles on folding bikes with 20" wheels and have absolutely no complaint. For riding on paths and roads, whether dirt, gravel, cobblestone, asphalt, whatever, 20" wheels have no disadvantage over larger ones. For real off-roading, larger wheels are admittedly better, but now we're getting into mountain bike territory.

So, returning to the question, why 650b? I think the people reject much smaller wheels because they look funny. We expect bikes to have a certain look, which involves certain proportions between frame and wheel size. People who love beautiful bicycles l seem pretty attached to that aesthetic; the photo of Jan Heine's chrome bike exemplifies this pretty well. We expect our bikes to look something like that. This is an aesthetic choice.

Now, I think a good question is: why 650b rather than 650a? 650a is a common size that has never gone out of fashion; I would have chosen that. I think Heine chose 650b because he is fascinated with French bicycles. An anglophile would have gone with 650a.

More recently, Heine has started to think even fatter tires would be nice, and has started to advocate for 26" rims with 56 mm tires; this gives the same overall diameter as a 650x42b or 700x23c wheel, but handles gravel a bit better.

But, you may argue, the industry is moving toward bigger wheels (29er) and disk brakes; doesn't that mean they're better? Of course it does! If all the old bikes get recycled and everyone buys new ones, that's much better. Better for the industry. For the rider, not so much.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=511454YAB means yes.
OK.. back on track.
You cannot ride 650b wheels without fenders, a front rack with a leather bag, and a long sleeved blue shirt.
Just forgetaboutit

I forgot... you need one of those generator front hubs too.....

Metal fenders and a waxed cotton bag with leather trim. Please!

Well, the overall diameter is slightly smaller, so it helps with that a bit. A lot of people with 650b also have low trail bikes. That typically adds 10-15mm to the gap between toe and tire.

Bike Friday? I've found the same, with the exception that wheel flop is a real issue when you're stopped on your bike and trying to use your phone or read a map.

I think the Grant Peterson had something to do with that.

Try to keep up with that gang. I think it's the long sleeved blue shirt.

I understand some of the recent resurgence of the 650b and why Jan and Grant are interested in it. I was wondering if anyone knows the history of the choice 50, 60 or so years ago.

There were some articles in the paper edition of BQ about the history of tire sizes. 650B became the Frnch standard size for everyday bicycles, and 650A the BRitish standard for everyday Bikes. The two sizes have only a 6mm difference in diameter. Both sizes seemed to fit bicycles the average citizen would ride. Remember, people were a little shorter eighty or ninety years ago.

Thanks.

[MENTION=190941]jimmuller[/MENTION] - that was a good question regarding toe overlap & overall wheel size. I know, for example, Surly did their Straggler in 650b for up to size 52, then larger got 700c. I'm no frame builder and don't know too much about geometry but figured there was a reason.

I first learned about 650b on this forum & Jan Heine articles and understood that it was a former French standard. I guess everything that was old is new again.

From a marketing standpoint there are only so many ways to go and it appears that things get reinvented and or "improved" upon.

I like my 650b X 42 Compass extra light tires. They look chubby but are comfy and roll for days.

By the way....Good Morning everyone.

Another interesting thing about the 650B revival is that it didn't happen because the big manufacturers dreamed it up, but individuals in France, like la Confrerie des 650B , and small businesses like Rivendell encouraged it. It was bottom up rather than top down.

A lot of good points here, but I do want to provide a different perspective on point #5 regarding 650b conversions. I know there are a lot of variables involved, but I've never been able to fit 650bx38mm tires into any frames I had that were maxed out at 700x25mm. My rough rule of thumb is that I'll fit no more than about 8mm wider rubber going from 700c to 650b. rando_couche's "built for 700x25c" might be less restrictive than what I'm talking about, which is the absolute widest tire that will fit w/o rubbing. If 30mm rubs, 25mm gives you 2.5mm max clearance at the tight spot. That's about as tight as I'll go.

I've tried conversions on maybe 10-12 700c frames. The ones tight with 700x25mm fit 650bx32mm with about the same clearance, and wouldn't fit 650bx38mm. Tight at 700x30mm would clear 650bx38mm about the same, wouldn't fit 650bx42mm. I just did a 650b conversion on a Mercian Vincitore fixed road frame. 700x35mm was tight at the chainstays, 650bx42mm is about the same. I couldn't go any wider. So 7-8mm wider is the best I've managed with 650b conversions.

YMMV...

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1542/...594e1604_c.jpg

One of my favorite bikes to ride is my 1993 bridgestone XO-2. It has road geometry and 26 inch wheels. I use 26 x 1.5 paselas. The bike has a very solid ride over all types of surfaces and in all kinds of weather conditions. Plus the wheels are pretty light.

You're asking some historical questions that, I suppose, have answers, though I'm not sure who's qualified to answer.

I'll skip over that and instead mention that Jan has concluded from his testing that there are optimum gyroscopic stability ranges for bicycle wheels, resulting in optimum tire widths for different sized wheels. Basically a 700x30mm wheel/tire combo has about the same optimum gyroscopic stability as a 650bx38mm wheel/tire. Said differently, tire widths wider than 30mm handle nicer on 650b wheels than on 700c wheels. And once you get past 650bx42mm or so, 26" wheels are better. So I suspect he'd say that if you wanted to ride 38-42mm tires, they'd handle best on 650b wheels, which is why the French used them on their rando bikes.

Now there's optimum, and there's the real world, and even Jan specs/sells 700x35, 700x38 and 650bx48 tires. But he is favoring 26" wheels for the Enduro Allroad bikes.

I don't know how 29ers fit this gyroscopic stability scheme, since those tires go pretty darn wide. But Jan's talking about non-suspended bikes ridden on asphalt and gravel roads/trails, not suspended bikes on ATB trails.

Pacenti had a sale on their SL23 rims that lasted close to a year, they were going for $40 each.

The 650b thing is almost entirely vanity.

First if we call wheels sizes by what they are, instead of sticking with French naming conventions like 650b and 700c (the entire point of which is meaningless today as different tires in a given size do distinctly produce different circumference rolling wheels, which defeats the ENTIRE purpose of that naming convention) if we actually talk about wheel sizes in the following intelligent manner, ISO:

559 - 26" Mountain bike standard
584 - pretentious Randonneur/tandem/touring size (650b)
622 - road race standard (700c)
630 - slightly larger than 622, marginally rolls smoother & marginally spins "faster" (think larger flywheel) on flat ground

something interesting happens. What happens is that certain wheel sizes STOP having romantic projections of being Euro, and just become a given size. Think about it like this. If you have a bunch of metric sockets its absurd to think about the 10mm socket as being Pro's Pro and Euro, while the 12mm is just a workhorse socket you really don't want to use. You use the damn socket that is appropriate for the bolt. In cycling a bunch on buffoons who rely largely on pretense and sophistry who worship at the alter of French constructeur bikes believe there is something magical about a given wheel size. Taken to the nth degree becoming the actual Emperor's clothes (when he's naked) this narrative is best portrayed by Jan Heine talking about how a given wheel (bike) "planes" which is just complete and utter nonsense.

There is no arbitrarily magical wheel size for tandems/touring/randonneuring. Someone that proportionally fits a 49cm bike and someone who proportionately fits a 63cm bike can both find bikes in those sizes, stock by countless nameplates. However, how bikes in those sizes actually ride, if the frame builder were to build different frames (for a given bicycle size), for different wheel sizes will be…(wait for it) COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from one another.

Which is something any intelligent person realizes. Jan is trying to sell his cult a mythology that often requires a suspension of rational thought. There is nothing magical about the 584 wheel size. Its all about proportionality.

Believe it or not a 630/622 wheel size ends up being "smaller" on large frames (68cm/27" touring sizes) than even 584 wheels would be on a smaller touring bike. There isn't an appropriate and available larger wheel size to even approximate how a 622 or 630 wheel behaves on a smaller bike for larger bikes. Its all about proportionality. How is the wheel size proportional to the frame size and the size of the cyclist.

How a given wheel size fits one cyclist on a given bicycle frame size has NOTHING to do with how another size bicycle will ride and perform wit that same wheel. The more movement in bicycle size one makes towards very small bicycles and very large bicycles, the more absurd any comparison becomes, to the point they almost become nonsensical.

Many cyclists, media members, and cult personalities in the cycling community have trouble separating rational thought from the romantic projections they wish to make and the emotionally loaded connotations they attempt to paint their narrative with. They would have you believe that everything that was old is better, and what once was and lost is always superior to what is and available.

The reality is that different wheel sizes behave differently for different sized people, and different sized bikes.

This is true in both the mountain and road bike world. The false narrative that everybody is best served on 584mm wheels (650b) for mountain bikes has more to do with distributors, shops, and manufacturers NOT wanting to deal with multiple wheel sizes. Just as they want everyone riding 175mm cranks, they pretty much want everyone on the same size wheels. A Mini Cooper car and a Dodge Viper do not share the same rim sizes. A Smart car does not use the same size rim as Jeep Wrangler with big off road tires.

A woman riding a 15" mountain bike frame on 29" wheels will not experience the same geometry, rolling characteristics, and performance as a 6'6" man riding on a 23" 29er. Same size wheels, but different sized people and frames. The small woman's bike will have goofy geometry issues trying to accommodate that large a wheel. The big man bike has no issues whatsoever. Build similar frames on a tiny little 559 (26" wheels) and how they each perform, and behave under each respective cyclists bike is glaringly different.

Only fools, and Jan Heine, try to make sweeping general statements about wheel sizes. Anyone intelligent realizes that wheel size and performance, bike handling, and "planing" are a function of proportionality.

For road bikes I prefer to keep almost every bike we own on 630 wheels. They roll marginally better over road irregularities, and theoretically spin fast easier do to the larger flywheel effect. They also should marginally be slightly more difficult to spin up. You can find wide tires in 27"/630, even in bombproof belted touring tires out to 630-32 sizes. How wide do you need?

Look for Panaracer, Schwalbe and occasionally you can even find stockists with Continentals. I much prefer Panaracer Tourguard to my Schwalbe Marathon Plus. I'm not a fan of super light weight tires like the Panaracer Paselas, but lots of people, even on use them in 630/27" for tandems, touring, and on brevets. There is no sacred cow at 584mm.

^ Wow, all of that text with no mention of the superiority of Cannondales or attacks on Grant Petersen. Impressive!

I suspect the market niche that liked the ride this approximate size -- diameter and width -- shrank and is rebounding. I think that of the cycling-enthusiast type that is likely to like this size most is older and seasoned riders, i.e. over about 45 or 50 years old. Thanks to Heine and a few other merchants with good products and good marketing, they could have encouraged or found lightweight rims and tires in either size. It's pretty immaterial whether they should have chosen one over the other. They made a decision, and this is a reasonable result, even though it may have been influenced by a French fetish.

Ah, the magic of the "ignore" button. Did he happen to mention anything about the missing box?

I think that's better than an English fetish, no? Too boring...

:D

When I was learning bike wrenching, 650B was by far the rarest of the five 26" rim sizes. It's not much of a stretch to say the rarity of it (in the US at least) did give it a certain cache of hipness. I rather vividly recall back in the early 90s that there was a handful of SF Bay Area hipsters ooing and awwing over old Singers and Herses and their many quirks. It wasn't that big of a cult, but it wasn't just Grant Petersen either. Anyhow, I don't think it's unreasonable to say perceived coolness played a part.

That said I think there definitely was a need for a road rim standard around that size, especially for smaller road frame sizes, which frankly used to look silly with 700c wheels. What surprises me is that it wasn't ISO 590 AKA the 3 speed size that filled this need. I guess it was too boring? It is bizarre that 650B is now more common than 26 x 1 3/8 (650A), which was for a long time the most popular 26" road tire size. IIRC something like 99% of the 26" sizes that I had to deal with at my LBS in the 80s were either that or the ISO 559 mountain bike size.

I don't think that's in the current troll lexicon.

Hey, where is the box jackazz?

Buried under a mountain of ire.