Oh, and while Im here…. “should of”?????????!!!!!! FFS! I only hope the poster is a youngling. Please… if you are unable to speak the English language correctly, install a grammar checker into your browser. And for pity’s sake, it’s “HAVE”…. “should have”, although “should”, like “ought” are very negative words and can be replaced with “could” – for example.

+1

Seriously, who cares about wheel sizes – just ride your bike! But when someone mangles our language like this…

Metasequoia – Member
Maybe the friendly UCI will get a grip at some point and dictate some rules, wheel size, maybe a minimum weight for XC, that would be interesting!

We used to have this, wheels had to be 26″ for racing but the UCI dropped that, a few years ago thus making 29er’s a option for racing and then obviously the 650B (and any other size you want).

Along the lines of 650B not being massively different to 26″, there was a lot of fuss made a month or so ago about “650B winning a world cup” (seemingly Nino Schuter had nothing to do with this!?!?!), when I think I am right in saying that the tubular wheels they were running before the switch to “bigger wheels” were 650C. 650c are a bit smaller than 650B but only by 13mm and bigger than “26” rims. And Thomas Frischknecht definitely won the world marathon championships on 650c wheels in 2005. The was little in the way of fuss about that!

Saying that I not actually adverse to the idea of 650B and have a feeling that I might actually quite like a mid point between big and small wheels…although there is also a part of me that wishes 26″ did stay the dictated size for MTB’s.

Although choice is good and as said above, you don’t have to run out and buy the latest thing, it does make buying an xc bike just that little bit more of a headache. Although should qualify that with, I am the sort of person that panics when trying to buy a chocolate bar when there’s too much choice!

@scu98rkr : I get your frustration. But those companies have to make money, to stay in business. To pay their employees etc.

And I understand where you are coming from as well. But the way some are replying to the posts suggests they dont.

I think the bike industry could still make plenty of money if it could settle on some standards maybe have jumped some of the standards in between. I think the main reason they dont do this is they are scared the chinese will just copying them.

If you think a few new wheel standards is too much, look at the rapid change in technology. Do you think that iPhones, STW, nice shiny pics of bikes downloaded at reasonable speeds would be possible if all organisations just decided to remain static?

Your missing my point here. The most successful IT products of the last 30 years have been the standardised one ie

The IBM PC most hardware was compatible and changeable and they opened up software development to 3rd parties. Didnt make IBM much money though, but made microsoft alot !

This would be the equivalent of a MTB where all components were interchangeable with the industry standard. The equilvalent of a MTB with 35mm bars, 20mm hubs, 650b wheels with tubs, that funny post mount disc brake etc would be an Amiga/Atari.

Closed standards like Amiga, Atari, Acorn etc etc all died off. Apple almost died off (another closed standard) but some how scraped through and has now established itself selling premium products only which means I’d never buy one as too expensive.

Other closed standards like Amiga, Atari, Acorn etc etc all died off. Apple almost died off (another closed standard) but some how scraped through and has now established itself selling premium products only which means I’d never buy one as too expensive.

You can still go into halfords and buya BSO with threaded square taper BB, 25.4 bars, 26.8 seatpost, QR wheels etc, cost about the same as a cheep PC too. And using th ePC analogy, do you lament the demise of 5.25 or 3.5″ floppy disks? The Bike/PC is still basicly the same as it always was, but the bits in a new one wont fit in an old one, the standards have changed!

Closed standards like Amiga, Atari, Acorn etc etc all died off.

MSX also died off, which was kind of a standardised architecture.
Sega, Nintendo, Sony, etc. all lasted and they were very closed indeed. Not just closed, but closed with exclusive deals.

Maybe the friendly UCI will get a grip at some point and dictate some rules

I’d prefer it if UCI actually removed some rules. All it needs is one to distinguish upright bike from recumbent bike, and one specifying minimum standard for structural soundness. Then leave it up to the manufacturers and teams to innovate.

The IBM PC most hardware was compatible and changeable and they opened up software development to 3rd parties. Didnt make IBM much money though, but made microsoft alot !

Not really when you consider:

Processor evolution, from single core to dual to multicore, motherboard architecture change, the introduction of USB vs Firewire, vs Thunderbolt, or the different memory types (e.g. DDR2 vs DDR3).

I could go on.. but the under the hood the PC has seen a lot of change in the last 10 years.

This has very similar to this forum, frustrated and delighted many users (including myself).

All of the above are competing standards, but aim to do something better.

I don’t think we’ve seen vast changes in MTB (EDIT) in comparison. True the wheel change is pretty fundamental, but then like Freeride, Trail, XC, Downhill bikes it adds to the choice.

I think choice is good (provided it serves to improve our riding experience).

I’m now actually seriously considering putting a 650B wheel on the front of my 456SS.
It would slacken it just a touch more and not raise the BB up as much as if I put 2 on.
Visually you probably wont notice the difference in size so it won’t be as offensive as a 96er.
It would have all the advantages of a 650B bike and 96er without any of the negatives of a 29er! 😆