I see a few kenda tires that are 650/27, perhaps these are they? Otherwise, i see 700 and 26 on giant's online store.

Kwick Tendril

Kaliente

I have a kenda kwik with giant branding silkscreened onto it, which is why i suspected they may be kendas. They may in fact be another brand.

- Andy

Thanks LesterofPuppets! That actually makes sense...

29" is still the standard for cross-country mountain bikes and will remain such. 27.5 is definitely coming into XC, but it seems likely to be most popular in the trail/all-mountain segments. Probably enduro, as well.

No one should worry about 26" tires going away. In mountain bikes, it is still the preferred size for downhill riding, outside mountain bikes it remains an extremely widespread and popular size.

That article does indeed refer specifically and exclusively to mountain bikes. Use of the terms "26 inch," 27.5 inch" and "29 inch" is reserved specifically for mountain bike tires, particularly in the cases of the latter two where the same bead set diameter is used for road tires as well.

27.5 is appropriate for small riders. I'm 5'7" and ride a 29er. I have to do a dismount to get my foot down and stop safely. It may not be possible for riders smaller than me to do that plus you run into front wheel overlap issues.

For such people a frame that comes between the 29er and traditional 26" side is appropriate.

Especially if you are making the bike for small women. A 700C (29er) is a 622mm rim, a 650B is a 584mm rim and a 26" wheel is a 559mm rim. If you are worried about fit, why not stick with the smaller wheel?

This can be a problem for longer-travel bikes built for any wheel diameter, when you have the saddle set for near full leg extension.

I have at it set at normal leg extension. With a 17" frame and wide tires, it takes getting used to. I could lower the saddle so I could stand tippy-toed...

I have 26" and 700C bikes of many different flavors. I've ridden folding bikes with 20" wheels as well. I have never been able put my foot on the ground from the saddle nor would I want to. If the bike is set up with the proper leg extension at the bottom of the pedal stroke, you should have to get off the saddle to put your foot on the ground. Otherwise you aren't getting full leg extension and wasting a lot of power. I've also found that my knees hurt when the saddle is too low...even by as much as 1/2".

Remembered seeing this awhile back during another discussion:


Again,makes me wonder why a new size is necessary when 26" is readily available.

How do you make a performance road bike for smaller riders <5'2" with 700c wheels?
the industry is focused on wheel size for specific application, rather than wheel size for correct fit.

see Emma Pooley riding her Cervélo P3 with 650C wheels to victory in the 2010 World TT Championships

Oh, yeah, small wheels are fairly common in TTs and Tris, have been for years. But not road races, except in junior ranks, AFAIK.

Well, to be fair every tire name in either inches or metric has been larger than the bead diameter. 26" is way less than 26" bead diameter, 27" were not 27, 700 aren't 700mm, 29er is the exact same as seven hundred therefore nowhere near 29", etc... The problem is that from the start they listed it as the generic representation of total diameter, tire included. However since there are now a huge number of tire width choices, which change overall diameter it makes basically no sense.


Unlikely.

But only because specialized is at the back of the pack in regards to innovation these days.

[MENTION=359043]AlTheKiller[/MENTION] all that is true, but why give a number to a tire that is large than another tire when it is smaller than that other tire? That's what annoys me, not the mere inaccuracy.

I worry about the availability of good light knobbies. DH tires get up to almost 2 lbs apiece

27.5s are also smaller in bead diameter than 590 and 597 26"

I reckon 684 is actually a better size for adult mtbs. You kinda want the biggest size possible without toe overlap on MTBs, as larger tires roll better over uneven surfaces. With the the HTAs slacker than they were in the 90s and still pretty long TTs one can easily build frames to fit 5'2" and up with 584 wheels fitted with 2.3" rubber. MTBs with 622 wheels sometimes a little awkward for 5'6" and under.

Another problem with 29ers for small XC riders is that the top of the head tube gets so darn high, especially if running 120mm travel. This adds up to super high bars for XC and you'll get killed in races with long flat stretches.

It's not. 622-32 and 630-28 tires are about 27" outer diameter, 584-55 tires are about 27.5". The same is true of 26" and 29er, and also of the French A-B-C system where originally all the various wheels with their matching tires were supposed to be 650mm or 700mm. Naming tire sizes by outer diameter is a perfectly valid approach when trying to explain how big something is, especially when marketing to a customer who doesn't care very hard.

[MENTION=339610]Darth Lefty[/MENTION], well, hmm. I didn't know. A fair point!

Target has taken up calling their non-MTB 700c bikes 28" nowadays even though most of them have 35mm-ish tires which are typically just a hair over 27"

Europeans have been calling that size 28" for a long time, though I don't exactly know why.

Yeah, I've had many Continental and Vittoria tires with 28" listed on the sidewall, even though they were all 23mm, so not really that close to 28"

I think the whole 700c thing was confusing people at Target. You buy bikes by wheel size in inches there, go a size up as your kid grows. 12, 16, 18, 20, 24, 26... 700c? what the hell is that???

I do remember when they had 700c spoke cards in Target bikes' front wheels a couple of years back.

I just wish they would call them what they measure:559, 584, 622, 630 etc.