"In a few days the mountain bike world will be introduced to a new wheel size that cuts the difference between the standard 26" wheels and the new trend of 29" wheels. The 650B wheel will take center stage at Interbike in Las Vegas on several new mountain bikes, including the Carver Killer B. Before most of the world even hears about the new wheelsize, Bikeman has already built and tested a set."

https://www.bikeman.com/content/view/1349/33/

Don't knock it if you ain't tried it...

and what a goofy trend it is.

i give it 5 years to not fully catch on, despite industry's best efforts at 'reinenventing the wheel' to drum up consumer dollars for yet another type of bike among the fully diversified, 6 bikes in the garage bike crowd.

What's the advantage of yet another size of wheel? I mean, to the consumer, not to the marketer. I still don't understand "29-inch" wheels, which are by no stretch of the imagination that big. Weren't 26-inch wheels good enough?

It takes a ton of money, marketing, and power to redefine a standard that the public isnt demanding.

What are they going to call it? The 27'er?

After all, we can't get all metric, French and roadie when labeling an "MTB" size.

I used to think this as well but then I rode a 29er and found that there was quite a difference in feel (smoother ride) as well as speed. Gary fisher claims a 2-3% advantage over 26 inch wheels (all other things being equal). THis does not sound like much but consider yourself and a buddy rolling along at top speed and every 100 feet that sucker is another 3 feet out in front. Then, the difference is apparent.

I do not own a 29 and certainly would not buy a silly 650b equipped ride. But I just completed a mountain ride with a buddy over the lunch hour. I was on my cyclocross bike (700c) and he was on his mtb (26 inch). There was not question that mine was gaining on his when all other things were equal.

Ha, Yeah, I agree, but some have that clout.....ask Shimano ! Ask them about STI shifting on mountain bikes. What a load of crap! Not one sound minded mountain biker wanted those things.

Or....should I even mention 10 speed shifting on road bikes? Also a load of crap, imo.

it's going to be called a



27.5

ricdiculous

We don't need MORE wheel sizes - we need FEWER!!!

Settle on two - 559 and 622 (or why not just one - either 559 or a new, intermediate size). That's all we need for standard bikes. Let the other wheel sizes be used exclusively for recumbents, kids' bikes, special-purpose bikes.

Bees.

Yawn.
SPAL

Er 2 to 3% what? Rolling resistance? You can't really use that number and turn it into a distance gained analogy. Ignoring the tire, tube, aerodynamics I don't see how one differing wheel sizes is going to make ANY difference in speed.

26" and 29" comfort more has to do with the tire you're running and pressure, than the diameter of the wheel itself.

Again, invalid analogy. We literally already have 50 billion wheel sizes out there, why add one more that doesn't do anything?

Rolling resistance has nothing to do with it. The idea is simply that a tire with a larger outside diameter will roll over obstacles, within reason, with less difficulty than a smaller diameter tire. And in most cases this is true. If you're not an off road rider, you wouldn't understand. 29ers have disadvantages, too, such as weight and wheel strength (all other things being equal). Gary Fisher may have said the thing about a 2-3% advantage, but he's also said, "every bike is a compromise." Personally, I think a 2-3% performance advantage would be very difficult, if not impossible, to establish as fact. And I also think it's going to be very cumbersome for mfr's, retailers, and consumers to have another tire size (650B) added to the mountain bike market. Seems silly to me, all things considered. But I have ridden enough singletrack on a 29er to know that there are some very definite advantages with the bigger wheels. If you haven't ridden a 29er off road, maybe you should refrain from commenting-

You might want to take a yardstick into a bike shop that sells 29ers sometime.

Not bashing on your defense of the 29ers but...what ever happened to the wheelie and the bunny hop...

isn't that an easy way to roll over obstacles also?

I didn't really intend for my post to be a "defense of the 29er." I was just correcting "operator's" false assumptions about them.

29ers aren't best for everything, for sure. Wheelie's and bunny hops? They're alive and well. And I'd rather do them on a mountain bike with 26" wheels.

I'll give you an example: say you're riding along a trail, and you come to a big rock garden, and at the end of the rock garden there's a log across the trail. I'd much rather have 29" wheels to ride through the rock garden, and I'd rather have the nimbleness of a 26" wheeled bike to ride over the log. Again, it's give and take, compromise, etc. Neither one is best for everything, but there are definite differences, and therefore advantages, to each one. So choice is good. But getting back to the OP, in the case of the 650B, (27.5er), too much choice is getting to the point of being silly, I think-

cost to upgrade to a 29er: lots
cost to keep bike thats a 26: zero.

thats all i need to know. Ill leave 27.5 to...crazy people...

duude! you totally need, like, at least 5 bikes now! a 26" "standard", a 27.5, and a 29er. don't forget your 69er. and definetly a "big hit" bike with 10 inches of travel in the front, please.


Get with the program!

(69er's are actually pretty dang sweet on the trails.)

Actually, I talked to a custom frame builder a few months ago... he's gone to 650b on all his frames. (He specializes in touring and randonneuring bikes)

Better ride, and fewer issues with toe overlap, among other things.

Oh... and it's not a 'new' standard... it's a very old standard that just hasn't seen a lot of use here in the US.

[QUOTE=bmclaughlin807;5359442]Actually, I talked to a custom frame builder a few months ago... he's gone to 650b on all his frames. (He specializes in touring and randonneuring bikes)

Better ride, and fewer issues with toe overlap, among other things.


And if he'd gone to 559, there would be even less risk of toe overlap, and you'd find both wheels and tyres almost everywhere in a pinch, plus new wheels and wheel parts would be easier and cheaper to find, and at the same time allowing much wider tyres and slightly less wind resistance, all other things being equal.

I really can't see why anyone would use anything else for a touring/rando bike.

I've always thought it was funny that manufacturers would offer the same frame in perhaps seven sizes ranging from 44 cm to 60 cm -- a range of over 35% -- that all use the same size wheels. To accomodate the different frame sizes with the same wheel size, the frame geometry has to change from smallest to biggest. Yet how is it the same frame if the geometry is not the same?

What's clear to me is that the size of the wheel is not terribly important, but what is important is the size of the wheel relative to the frame. Rather than a new "standard," I would be much more impressed with a manufacturer who matched wheel size to frame size, with the same wheel and tire in a range of sizes.

the difference between a 559 and a 584 (650b) is 2.5cm rim diameter-

why push 650b except to sell more nuanced bikes**********

I know why grant petersen and the francophile randonneur groupies wanted to reintroduce 650b to the bike world (the "lookamebike" syndrome) but why push it on the masses as a new mountain bike wheel?

26" and 700c provides plenty of options. why mass market manufacturers don't design smaller road bikes to the 559 (like Surly's Long Haul Trucker) is beyond me.

Regardless, I suspect 650b, like biopace cranks, will never really catch on. maybe I'll be proven wrong, but there's bound to be industry, retail, and consumer resistance to the idea. maybe dumbfounded disbelief.

"just ride it" yep, that's how you sell bikes. and keeping 700c road tires slightly underinflated to give a bike a more plush ride is another tactic...

559 to 584. it's a rim diameter difference of just two and a half centimeters, people.

Interestingly enough, a few years ago there was (and are) a lot MORE 590 bikes and rims on the market- the 590 is Japan's most popular wheel size. When grant petersen- who I rightfully vilify for his impetus in pushing 584 back into the american market- did some 'market research' amongst the luggophiles, he found more interest in the old french standard 584 than the largely produced 590, probably because of the cachet of 'french heritage'.

so, 584 began picking up momentum, and now its getting foisted onto the masses. blech.

I'm bored. I need new stuff.

The reintroduction of 584 started because there were still some quality rims and tires made and, as it turns out, old long-reach brakes can be used with them to get fatter tires on used road bikes with poor 622 clearance. This all makes sense. What I don't get is the reasoning behind using them on new bikes.

welcome back to 1946! I'm going to hold on to that old set of Mallaird Helicomatic Hubs. I'm betting in 5 years Grant Petersen will find a old shipping container full of them and they will be the greatest hubs ever made.... again