are these online anywhere?

On the planet I live on, based on actual riding rather than reading articles, there's no way a wider, softer tire is as fast or sporty to ride as a 700c road tire. I don't care what "they" say. Look, I'm no speedster, but I like to ride as fast as I can within my limitations, I like fast acceleration, and I like speedy, agile handling around sharp bends and descents. I also like to feel the road surface. For me, that's what riding a road bike is all about. But if ever 700c is abandoned in favour of 650B, I'm Ok. My sport touring frame can easily handle them. I would only need to swap the brakes for longer reach ones. But I have no desire to do that whatsoever at present. I love today's superb road clinchers. They are almost like tubulars but without the hassles.

I think that contrary to what you read about on the internet, for most French people, 650B evokes thoughts of old farmers riding out to herd the sheep or goats on old 650B clunkers rather than cyclotouriste constructeur bikes. I think the latter is much more an American-based idealized stereotype about French cycling.

By the way, contrary to popular misconception, a 650B based frame is no more suitable for a short person than a 700c based one is. A 650B wheel with a typically wider 650B tire on it is roughly the same dimension as a 700c wheel and tire. We're not talking 650c here.

Hey, if you like riding rather than reading, why not outfit the same bike with narrow tires, check your time and feel, switch to wider tires and do the same, and let us know the comparison.

Oh, and let us know how a 650B-wheeled bike feels, too, if you have a chance to ride one rather than just to speculate.

Neal

The 650 sizes were originally made for wider tires than 700c. Each size was as it was so that, with different width tires, all the wheels would basically be the same height. Now, you can get fairly wide tires for 700C, but this makes the wheel quite tall which will very likely cause some toe-clip overlap, among other things. With a 650B wheel, you can have a nice, wide tire while still retaining plenty of clearance for your feet. Yes, 26" tires would do this as well, but on anything but small frames they look out of proportion. If you like narrow, hard tires then obviously 650B tires would be pointless for you. That wasn't their original purpose anyway. Personally, I find 700C tires below 32mm to be harsh and rough. In fact, often times I'm frustrated that my Univega doesn't have room for anything larger than 32mm (with fenders). The roads around here suck, and as a result, riding with rock hard 23mm tires sucks.

So, how much difference in the brake shoe alignment for 650 vs 700?

It should just be half of the difference between the diameters of the two sizes. I think it's 19 or 20mm, but I could be wrong.

Yeah, I've gravitated to wider tires over the years, usually a 25 in the front and a 28 in the back, which always baffles the bike store when I buy them. Just built a set of wheels with a 28 and a 32, the 32 is a pretty beefy tire!

23 is too small for my tastes!

650B = 584mm diameter wheel
700 = 622mm diameter wheel

Brake shoes need to reach another 19mm (38/2), so that's why if you have brakes now with, say, fairly common 40-45mm reach, the Dia Compe/Weinmann 610/750 models will give you plenty of max reach (61mm or 75mm), as will several others currently available.

Neal

are the vintagebikequartlerly tire test articles online anywhere?

Not that I know of. You can buy Bicycle Quarterly back issues online. The initial tire test was in issue 5.1.

While the difference was negligible, in that test the 700 x 35mm Panasela Pasela was slightly faster than the 700 x 21mm Clement Criterium, and the 650B x 37mm Mitsuboshi Trimline--which is no longer made--was the same as the 35mm Pasela.

Neal

several Japanese framebuilders still make 650b bikes. randonneurs and such.

I've been riding a 650B Bleriot for the past year and it has become my favorite ride. I really enjoy going on rambling rides where I'll explore new roads, trails, alley's, etc. The Bleriot is perfect for this style of riding. We have several gravel rail/trails in the area and the fat cushy tires are ideal for that type of road. I've also ridden over single track but the bottom bracket is pretty low so you can't get too crazy. I do get crazy looks from the mt. bikers though when they see me coming down the trail on my full fendered steed! Also, I'm not a racer, but when I'm on the busy bike trails in town I'm usually doing the passing. I like to push it and I don't find the cushy 36mm tires to hinder me at all and although they do take a little while to get used to they really a versatile tire. Example: The other day I was riding through a residential neighborhood and came upon a road that was getting new gravel poured on the streets for the chip/seal pavement . If I was on a skinny tired road bike I would have been pissed and down a u-turn but on the Bleriot I said YES and went blasting through the middle of the mess. I don't know if 650B will stick around but I'm sold and am stocking up on tires and currently working on putting together another 650B conversion bike.

"Fast or sporty" are pretty subjective measurements. What is "fast" and "sporty" ? Are we talking speed in a sprint, or speed over miles? Are we talking about "sporty" in terms of handling? Frame geometry makes more difference there than tires. And is that a desirable characteristic for the kind of riding? In a sprint or a race, definitely. How about on a weekend ride? Commuting?

Personally, "on the planet I live on" I find that on softer tires I actually ride faster over distance because I fatigue less. All that vibrating, jittering and slamming over bumps is not good for you, it's not good for your wheels, and it doesn't improve your time. Sure, on smooth roads in a short distance a thin rock hard tire will be faster. But you'll get tired faster and on long distances you'll blame your saddle for your sore rear. I like to push my bike hard, too, it's fun. But I can cover more ground faster on a soft tire than a hard one any day. I tire more slowly and I keep the pace up for longer.

I don't have any 650B bikes yet, but I will! I ride as fat a tire on my bikes as I can get/afford. 650B is the next step.

Karl

Yeah, might give it a try myself. With some of those hammered fenders...

I think that this viewpoint is totally defensible. The real question, noting that that karmat doesn't yet have a 650B, then is whether this need is adequately served by 26" wheels or to be truly realized needs a 650B manifestation. Me, I dunno. Aesthetically, the 650B road bikes look better to me - I'm continually figuring out how I'm finally going to do a 650B build - but I wonder if the 650B really is a substantially better solution than 26" wheels.

in the dirt.

https://forums.mtbr.com/forumdisplay.php?f=135

https://650b.com/

Companies often enter into agreements to sell a product at a Mutually Agreed Price(MAP) in order to not compete with other stores, especially over the internet. It's why you don't see Treks being pimped by some internet seller for 50% of what the list price is. Apple computers sell for the same price everywhere. When a company like QBP starts selling items below the MAP, they get their license pulled.

I believe Universal Cycles is also no longer selling the Bleriot.

after what I grew up on, it's interesting to see that 25/28MM tires are considered 'beefy.'

As a bike commuter, I've found over the years that comfort trumps speed over the long haul. That is, after several weeks of commuting on a Felt F-70 (which is impossible any way for hauling anything short of using a back pack...), the hard ride was more tiring. Currently I commute on a 700CM wheeled Jamis w/28's (conti Gators) but even they (at 90-100PSI0 can be jarring over a varied road surface.

650B were common Cyclo-Tourist wheels in Europe, used for day tours, working bikes, commuters. Tires of that size at 40-50PSI roll very fast and gobble up road noise. When you get to my age, absorbing road noise is a very ATTRACTIVE proposition.

I like biking because I can get out and expand my horizons (outside the cager box). I think bikers should be open to new things (although 650B is WAY older than both 700C and 27" wheels)

here is a good link:
650B wheeled bicycles info

check out the pics... I think the converted crit bikes look pretty damn cool
(they convert well because they have 700 wheels with tight brake clearances... making the brake mod easier)

Great info, thanks!

26s are too small to convert most bikes that came with 27s or 700s. Many brakes are at their limit converting even to 650B from 700. Most can't even handle that. Aesthetics of 26s are poor IMHO as well, but of course that's a subjective argument.

The other problem with 26s is that outer wheel diameter is directly related to the ease with which you can maintain speed. The fewer rotations of the wheel, the lower the rolling resistance. Aero drag is going to be nearly equivalent. There's lots of information out there about wheel diameter and speed (here for example: https://www.precisiontandems.com/artbillwheelsize.htm). Back to the point, though, 26s end up with a lower effective wheel diameter than 700s. 650B maintains that diameter while giving you a softer ride. And fits a lot more bikes.

Cheers,
Karl

I understand the point of 650B wheels when doing a conversion or building a smaller frame. But for average to larger frames that are built for wider 700 tire sizes, like cyclocross or touring bikes, is there any advantage to 650 wheels? At the wider sizes on 700 rims, you'd have more rotating mass, the wheels would be less responsive, but you'd also roll over road imperfections that much easier with albeit marginally more tire in contact with the road. Sounds like a tradeoff, depending on your riding style, but other than personal consideration, is there any advantage to going with a 650 setup on a frame that can already take wider 700 tires? Is the ability to run wider, lower pressure tires the only advantage of 650 wheels?

I've found that Bicycle Quarterly article before somehow, and I'm going to keep looking.

Here's a summary from Velochimp

Also, a more current test of wide high-performance clinchers is posted on their site as a pdf. Scroll down to "Bicycle and Equipment Tests"

I'm just going to keep going here. Check this Analytical Cycling site out, it could get addictive!

I don't think there's much advantage at all to convert to 650B in those cases where you can already fit wide 700c tires. If anything, you have far more choice in wide 700c tires than in 650B.

Neal

I think that is the most concise explanation of why 650B and not 26" I've seen. I set up a 26" MTB for commuting/utility some years back, with the idea being getting a cushier ride. But even with fairly narrow, road oriented tires, I just felt it was too slow, and I'm not a speed demon or anything. So it seems that 650B's utility is in conversions of existing 700c/27" which can't fit wider tires, or perhaps even if you could, you don't want to raise the standover height. But for going out and buying a new dedicated bike, sized to fit and all, is there any benefit to buying a dedicated 650B rather than a 700c designed to fit wider tires (and fit the owner as well).

That all being said, I like the looks of 650B on smaller to mid-sized bikes, likewise a subjective issue.