[Closed] 650b no difference???

If you remove tyres size completely from the equation .

26" = 559mm = 22"
27.5 = 584mm = 22.9"
29er = 622mm = 24.5

So for arguments sake add a 2" tyre

26 "
26.9"
28.5"
So who knew adding .9 of an inch to your 26 inch wheel would be such a revelation.

27.5" wheels do not exist, not outside the minds of the gullible.

What does exist is the 27" wheel.

Complete nonsense Chipster.

And those pictures with the following argument have some rather serious flaws.

If you want to make a convincing point it's always handy to list what the serious flaws in the argument are.

How, adding a bigger wheel makes it roll over certain obstacles slightly better.
But then limits scope for geometry changes and suspension travel.

Then factor in strength and weight.
Basically if you believe the push for change was fueled by anything other than profit then you must be mental.

@theocb bet you have 27" wheels dont you.

Basically if you believe the push for change was fueled by anything other than profit then you must be mental.

If you believe that the 26" wheel is the ideal size for all MTBs and didn't just come about because of tyre availability during the genesis of the breed then you're equally mental.

Will noone think of the kittens?

[img] [/img]

650b no real difference shocker!

OP, you do realise that the mountain bike industry has just instructed mbr and wmb to despatch their black ops hit men to silence you?

That's the thing you see, the industry pushes, the 'media' are in their pockets and have to follow (have you ever wondered how much of mbr and wmb income is from advertising?)

That is all you really need to know.

@fallsoffalot. My wheels on my so called '26er' measure 27inches (well a little more.) What was your point?

More guff Chip.

So who knew adding .9 of an inch to your 26 inch wheel would be such a revelation.

You know that half a degree on your seat or headtube can make a significant difference
25mm on your bar width
25mm on your stem
layback or inline seatpost
short or long chainstays (differing by an inch.)
120mm fork or a 145 fork
23 inch top tube or 24 toptube
5mm on your crank length

But no we can't use a 23inch rim instead of a 22 inch rim. Ridiculous idea!
Bikes are set up with all sorts of combinations of the above geo figures there isn't a one size fits all.
Marketeers always BS about the significance of minor changes, they have done since day one but that doesn't mean minor changes are insignificant.

I'm looking at getting a new hard tail.

Being 6'4", frame size is of more importance to me than wheel size.

I like the fact that top tubes and wheelbases come out significantly longer on 650b than 26" frames, so should fit me better.I'd like a 25" top tube and a 20.5" seat tube, more 650b frames conform to these dimensions than 26" frames.

I don't really want a 29er, although I'm sure others will tell me It would be better for me.

Also, If 29ers are so much more suitable for tall people, why do so many 29ers I've liked the look of have 19" seat tubes. 450mm seat post anyone?

26" = 559mm = 22"
27.5 = 584mm = 22.9"
29er = 622mm = 24.5

Rounding fail!

559mm = 22" (22.008)
584mm = 23" (22.992)
622mm = 24.5" (24.488)

I was rounding to one decimal place. 😀 😀 😀

Do I think this years bikes are better than the equivalent bikes of 5 years ago were.
Yes, but I put this down mainly to better components , materials and ultimately suspension, both better forks and rear suspension design.

Do I think this years bikes are better than they would be if they stuck with the 26 ".
No

Do I think if that was the case people would still be singing the praises of there new bikes saying how fantastic they were and how their strava times were greatly improved.
Yes

Chiefgrooveguru, you sir are indeed correct my rounding off skills are very much lacking .

😀

rOcKeTdOg - Member

An accountant to count their money?

Is ti really though? I still reckon it's not far off a zero sum game, they'll have sold extra bikes and parts in the last year or so but that'll mostly be to people who were thinking of changing bikes anyway- maybe they've bought earlier but probably not more. It's not like, say,a fatbike where it becomes your N+1, it's a direct replacement. I can't imagine many people said "Oh well I wasn't going to buy any more bikes but now the tyres are fractionally bigger, I'm going to break the piggybank..."

So then, add in all the cost of redesign, new tooling, replacing inventory... And the losses in being stuck with old stock, and also the reduction of available money in the market (because the price of your old 26er dropped, so when you sell it you've got less to spend)

And then, add in every possible purchaser who's been confused and put off by all the different sorts of bikes and tyres, and everyone who's delayed a purchase til they find out what's going on, or because of the increased cost of change (I'd have bought a new bike this year, instead I refurbed an old one). Or everyone who bought their entry level bike a year ago and is now being told it's obsolete.

Some companies will be happy- Schwalbe frinstace got on the gravy train fast and they've been able to sell their average tyres at a non-average rate. But this is cannibalistic industry stuff. And in the meantime, the huge majority of "new" products are "ever so slightly bigger old products" so that's a couple of years R&D budget away from hoverbikes

chiefgrooveguru

If you believe that the 26" wheel is the ideal size for all MTBs and didn't just come about because of tyre availability during the genesis of the breed then you're equally mental.

I believe that 26 is the ideal size for the job it does, because it already existed. 27.5 does the same job- even if it does it slightly better, which I can't say I've noticed but perhaps it does, there's absolutely no chance that it does it better enough to justify the cost of change for most people.

Oh it's 1 second faster over 3 minutes in the hands of a world champion? Better spend £2500 to replace your bike. Now that's mental.

I went out on my new 29er HT yesterday, didn't really notice any difference in the wheels even after I had a go on my mates 26 full suss so he could try a 29er. It was the position that made more difference than anything else.

That's not actually true though, is it? Every 29er I have tried has felt different to a 26" for all the well know reasons. I went from a 26" 5 to a 29" 5 and all the differences are there, clear as day.

Who actually cares with all the 650b guff anyway. If you're happy with your bike keep it and replace the parts that wear out. If you want a new one, have a look what's available and buy one.

I bet quite a few people who dropped 5 grand last year or the year before bought a new one this year because of the change.

No one wants to spend 5 grand on a new bike only to be laughed at by their mates for being under equipped.

I believe that 26 is the ideal size for the job it does, because it already existed.

Yes but that argument works for the horse vs car too!

To people who buy complete new bikes rather than the forumites who chop and change secondhand frames there is no obvious downside to slightly bigger wheels and they believe in the upsides. I don't see any successful industry basing it's practices around what keeps the secondhand market happiest as they don't (directly) create you income!

I ride with a lot of different people and a lot of bikes have been bought in the last year. No-one I know has replaced a nice new-ish 26" bike with a directly comparable 27.5" bike - people have gone burlier, slacker, lighter, longer travel, better suspension, etc but no-one has been foolish enough to replace one bike with an functionally similar slightly larger wheeled one. I'd say more 26 & 29" bikes have been bought than 27.5"s amongst this group.

However these are all riders, not car park posers (though I doubt how many of them actually exist!)

chiefgrooveguru - Member

Yes but that argument works for the horse vs car too!

Yes, because the performance difference between 650b and 26 is the same as the difference between horse and car. It's more like the difference between a car, and another very slightly different car.

If you believe that the 26" wheel is the ideal size for all MTBs and didn't just come about because of tyre availability during the genesis of the breed then you're equally mental.

Strawman.

Everyone excepts that originally mountain bike wheelsize was chosen for convince rather than some kind of fake science reason.

No one claims it was chosen because it was "proven to be the best", because any such claim would be nonsense.

The reason people complain about the shift away from 26 is that it inconveniences them, without sizeable benefit.

The convenience of not having two almost identical wheelsizes would be lovely to go back to. Even if all new bikes from now on were 650b, the inconvenience of two almost identical wheelsizes will be with us for a long long time. Sticking with 26and29, two quite different sizes, would have been more convenient for most riders, while still offering lots of real choice to bike designers, builders and riders. Convenience and interoperability is more useful to more people than fake science claims that a whole new wheel size is “ideal”, whatever that means.

As for tooling costs… how many brands will be paying Giant for their retooling? Which big brand has pushed 650b hard?

I hope you all realise what you're doing...

[img] [/img]

I don't like cats much. Though I'm now dead keen to catch one and chuck it in the bath

Our cat used to get in the bath with you when it was a kitten. Would site calmly on your chest purring.

If you look at those crazy catz in the seventies riding there clunkers and compare them to the modern bikes now and how they are used.
They are worlds apart and wheelsize played no part in it .

They went smaller to 26" because of availability at the time so I am told, but would have gone that way anyway I reckon for strength.

The biggest evolutionary factor has been suspension.
To have a truly awesomez all mountain bike worthy of the name you would need intelligent suspension.
That knew when you were going uphill, downhill or flat out.
When you where taking multiple fast small hits, big hits on loose or firm ground and everything in between and reacted accordingly.

You could pull on your tightest Lycra and ride your same woodland loop you did last Sunday carefully avoiding any parts of the trail that are even vaguely interesting throu fear of scuppering your chances of shaving a one hundredth of a second off your fasted strava time. Or pull on your fullfacer and raid your sisters wardrobe for her tightest jeans in order to smash your local trail centres black run like the mountain biking god you know you are.

What I am trying to say is adding an extra inch to everyone's wheel wether they like it or not will make no difference in the grand scheme of mtb evolution.

What will is the constant evolution of better suspension.

[img] [/img]

2 things:
1. If the industry had faith that the new size was really superior to what we've happily been riding for 30 years, they'd have introduced it as an option (as they did with full suss and disc brakes) rather than making it effectively compulsory by announcing they were no longer supporting 26...

2. If their profits have been suffering in recent years it's because the US, UK and Europe consumers are seriously skint - standards of living are falling, incomes are falling in real terms. Cycling is a leisure pursuit and if Tesco and Morrison are seeing falling profits, it's because people's finances are too tight to afford the basics. Forcing a new wheel size isn't going to drive consumers who're this limited in disposable income into buying a new bike... if it wants to maintain profits, the industry needs to go back to the basics of successful business - meeting customers' needs

This entire wheel size thing has been entirely worthwhile for that last gif of the cat and the bath.

That was a beautiful eagle. Shame on you...

I still think that the consumer is 80% to blame and the industry/manufacturers are the 20% and are mostly only following demand. I really think that if someone stuck with 26 only, or only 26&29 then lots of consumers would steer towards those other companies who had the new size in their range.

It may be bollocks and fear mongering, but I think that we, the consumers, are more guilty of creating the hype etc than the actual manufacturers.

For me, I've bought two new (to me) bikes this past year and was more than happy to buy 26". I'd much rather have a great deal on a Blur than spend lots more on a Solo.

[img] [/img]

How are you OP. Did you make it through the night without a knock at the door from the bike industry polizei? No crosshairs trained on you as we speak I hope. Or maybe you have entered the 'speaking the truth about new wheel size witness protection programme'?

Bike industry needed quick fix as their prices rocketed so much after 2008 that it probably put entrants off of buying in. So they decide that they need to go after the people who are already priced in, love their cycling and want to be able to carry on. Cue in a concerted campaign via the magazines of 26icide. Threaten to pull advertising revenue if they are not 'on message'. Magazine editors and publishing companies being in the pocket of the industry comply fully.

I am expecting industry agents going through every dentists and doctors waiting room looking for old copies of mbr and excising all pictures and references to 26 inch wheels with a razor blade. The past never happened. It was wrong. People did not used to have fun riding 26.

Bike industry needed quick fix as their prices rocketed so much after 2008 that it probably put entrants off of buying in. So they decide that they need to go after the people who are already priced in, love their cycling and want to be able to carry on. Cue in a concerted campaign via the magazines of 26icide. Threaten to pull advertising revenue if they are not 'on message'. Magazine editors and publishing companies being in the pocket of the industry comply fully.

I sort of feel the same about suspension (importance is over-emphasised, lack of choice of rigid bikes etc) but hey, no bother. I know there's no chance of a 'concerted industry effort' in this area.. more that my personal tastes in that area don't align with the mass market.
What drives all this is a some kind of product-consumer feedback loop in a fast moving fashion industry. Roughly predictable, but interestingly one brand who could be said to be more 'concerted' in many ways than most was the one who may have got the wheel size thing most wrong commercially, or may have done the most right by many 'pro 650 industry' critics - Spesh, who held out on a 26+29 range longer than most. But demand, market share needs etc says they had to move to 650 - so who really is driving this?

But demand, market share needs etc says they had to move to 650 - so who really is driving this?

Market share is irrelevant unless compared to recent year on year sales growth of similar bikes.
Do we have that data yet?

Economic sense insists that there is a tipping point, beyond which it makes no sense to keep holding out.

Obviously this has a greater impact on the smaller manufacturers in terms of cost.
Another benefit for the big boys.

johnhe - Member

It may be bollocks and fear mongering, but I think that we, the consumers, are more guilty of creating the hype etc than the actual manufacturers.

That's definitely true. Santa Cruz are hilariously honest about this, they started the shift to 650b because of customer pressure they were getting, from riders who'd never ridden a 650b bike. Really says it all.

The only solution is to get in the time machine and shoot Kirk Pacenti.

Not demand or market share in this case though.

I think it'll be interesting to see what demand there is from mainstream MTB to go back to 26" after a few years on 650B. Wisdom of hindsight etc.

I think it'll be interesting to see what demand there is from mainstream MTB to go back to 26" after a few years on 650B. Wisdom of hindsight etc.

None I reckon. No ones going to start buying 26" stuff again after spending their greens making the move to 650b.

Right, that's it. Time to wheel out the big guns.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Rusty Spanner - Member

Not demand or market share in this case though.
In terms of new bikes, choice has been effectively removed.

The demand for 26" in the US os gone - liek the Yeti example - they didn't have a 27.5 AM bike, were going torun the SB66 for another year, but only has 12 orders for them from bike shops in the US. Brands have been forced to go with the demand, probably more so in the US where new bikes cost less and people spend more on them.

You can certainly argue whether it was demand or marketing that initiated the move to 650b, you can't deny that demand is a big factor in the speed of change.

this thread ends here, or i kill this kitten:

[img] https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSOyqV3lCsi93Ah3wv0XVsuaA9LMIjKwHEoICOQfBU2H_oxGQal [/img]

No further posts for 30 mins.....

Tell me that the kitten has been let go??

I'm only reading this thread for the kittens.

Phew, thread's died.

[img] [/img]

Was up at Gisburn today and helped a chap who had flatted. He was on a 650b something or other that he'd replaced his 26" Orange 5 with. I asked if he noticed the difference in wheel size and he said 'a bit, but not enough to worry about'.

It was busy and from the bikes I noticed there was probably more 26" then anything else but also lots of 29". For the first time though I saw quite a few 650b bikes and most of the new looking bikes were that size.

Not that any of that matters. To be honest I'm enjoying my 29er more all the time as I get used to it and wouldn't go back to 26" so can't imagine I'll bother with 650b. I'll be trying a few though.

In an ideal world wheel size would be proportional to frame size.

Just like kids bikes.