[Closed] Toe curling 650b marketing guff.

With Orange I don't think it's the swap to 650b that bothers people, it's the decision not to support existing customers. Annoying enough for your brand new frame to be "obsolete" the day after, for resale value etc, but doubly if you can't get parts for it. There's going to be a lot of this going around though- "My frame broke" "Here, have a replacement that none of your parts fit"

You could probably say that since Orange build in house it'd be easier for them to whip up parts than most of their competition but I don't think it's really fair to criticise them for that personally.

Bored by the whole debate.
I'm a luddite who doesn't think there's anything wrong with 26.

How many of you thought 'these wheels really are too small for my style of riding' before the bike companies thrust the 'must have' 29 on us? Now it's the must-have '27.5'.

It's all bollux - does it REALLY make THAT much difference?

Look in a STW mag from 2/3 years ago...there's a Giant ad saying 29 is the nuts...look in the latest issues...there's a Giant ad saying 27.5/650B is the nuts...to me (and a lot of others) it's a load of marketing spin and shite! I work in advertising and I know with some nice pics and clever copy you can sell pretty much anything!

That's my meaningful/less contribution - depending on what size wheels you have of course 😉

For me it's pretty simple; my bikes with their 26" wheels have been great and I've loved them since I owned them ( a good few years). Since the dawn of 29" and 650b my 26" bikes are still great and I still love them. I'm happy with that so I'm just going to continue riding my great bikes that I love and watch the industry scrabble around in a panic trying to develop more ways to convince us all that 'whatever inch' wheels are the future.

Worth commenting that we've hard a lot about speed, rolling etc.

We've heard a lot less about strength and stiffness/compliance

The mavic research was that a 29" wheel built with the same materials as a 26", was 10% heavier and 39% less stiff - one can only imagine that strength is affected in the same way (?)

so how much more prone to breakage/taco'ing are 650's? if they're selling them as the 'enduro' answer, its got to play a part - personally I don't want my wheels to fold in half very easily.

Could you please post the strava times then we can get a better idea of the difference.
Thanks.

I dunno how to do that as i'm not a stava"ite" nor have i ever used it but do a search for mark wilcox, i'm sure you'll find the strava uploads.

He's totally disregarded the 650b/29'r debate before but he was the first to admit the larger wheel size does make a helluva difference on the trails....i dunno if he quite as far as stating [i]"the trails come alive under the larger wheel size" [/i] 😀

He's currently in Utah, Moab riding the slickrock and the new Captain Ahab trails with his 650b HDR with another customer on his XTR blinged Ibis HD160 ......I'm in the shop working on a glorious sunny Galloway day whilst attempting to resuscitate a near death 12yr old rockhopper hardrock that should really be put down but i'm gonna do my best and try and rescue it from the scrapheap, it's someones pride and joy despite having 26" wheels 😉

The mavic research was that a 29" wheel built with the same materials as a 26", was 10% heavier and 39% less stiff - one can only imagine that strength is affected in the same way (?)

Depends on the method of failure.

Faituge, maybe, it's flexing more, but how often do rims (not spoke holes) fatigue, i've never seen one?

Being able to bend often helps things avoid breaking. Imagine landing a drop to flat, on a bike with a completely rigid wheel/tyre the deceleration is over a very short time period, giving very high peak forces. Add a big squashy wheel and tyre and the peak forces are much lower. A bit like rigid Vs suspension forks, I've cracked/bent far more rigid forks (2) than I have suspension (0) depite spending far more time on suspension forks.

It's all bollux - does it REALLY make THAT much difference?

Look in a STW mag from 2/3 years ago...there's a Giant ad saying 29 is the nuts...look in the latest issues...there's a Giant ad saying 27.5/650B is the nuts...to me (and a lot of others) it's a load of marketing spin and shite! I work in advertising and I know with some nice pics and clever copy you can sell pretty much anything!

That's my meaningful/less contribution

Well at least the last bit's potentialy correct. I've ridden 29ers almost exclusively the last 3 years, they're different/better in pretty much every way, I'd proffer that an incremental size inbetween would be just that, an incremental improvement on 26".

I reckon 650b will be like the Whyte 46 was to 150mm bikes. A crutch that encourages people to have a go with the safety net of not being too different (the 4" setting). Give it a couple of years and the resitance to change will errode and everyone wil be back on big wheels. Appart from short arses.

What you lot really need (not me I'm like velvet covered-svelte) is a biking girdle.

Whoever makes one of those will clean up. Imagine the trail centres and bridleways suddenly full of buff-looking middle-aged men. No longer will walkers think 'here comes another tubby clown-biked warrior'

For what is worth...
I just moved from 2012 5 spot (26) to a Burner(27.5).
Sadly the move did not transformed me into a god - although I can relax knowing that I wont have to worry about fork availability in 15 years time... The bike is lovely but I never found my last bike wanting.
I imagine for 90% of people on this forum its all bollocks.
To the 10% I salute you and cannot wait to hear how the additional footprint and roll ability has transformed your life.
🙂

[url=[url= http://s22.postimg.org/3sozeuzzl/IMG00371_20130901_1326.jp g" target="_blank">http://s22.postimg.org/3sozeuzzl/IMG00371_20130901_1326.jp g"/> [/img][/url] [url= http://postimage.org/index.php?lang=french ]herbergeur d image[/url]]null

26 inches and proud of it.

26 inches and proud of it.

[img] https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQXrUIj_MCL-l9sOYOWT9F9v2PbKMwFrNJyXqSXS3BNaL6r1OPQbw [/img]

Give it a couple of years and the resitance to change will errode and everyone wil be back on big wheels. Appart from short arses.

and what is the average replacement timeframe? I suspect a lot more than 2 years! I know my current bike is 3.5years old and no plans to change, the one before was 3 when replaced, damaged and redundancy payout, but the one before was 10.

http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bikemag.com%2Fgear%2Fexclusive-26-inch650b-death-match%25E2%2580%25A6with-puppets%2F&ei=8gJpUquDAuGb0QX34YCoDw&usg=AFQjCNGnNa_AGP4FvupXgs0irFzv1b9TpA&bvm=bv.55123115,d.d2k

although I can relax knowing that I wont have to worry about fork availability in 15 years time...

I wouldn't be so sure. They'll probably have decided 27.5 is rubbish by then and only 28.175 is the only way.

Look in a STW mag from 2/3 years ago...there's a Giant ad saying 29 is the nuts...look in the latest issues...there's a Giant ad saying 27.5/650B is the nuts

That video made it really clear (if it wasn't before), with that comment from the bloke you'd really like to slap "29 wasn't right for some markets" that when Giant say something is the best, what they actually mean is the best for their balance sheet. To be fair to Giant, they're far from alone in that with this whole 27[s].5[/s] debacle, just that they're so much more brazen and unapologetic about it.

Strangely though, I reckon there's a really good chance I will get a 650b wheel - just not on a bike (when I next buy an "ultimate bike I'll never need to replace" it will almost certainly be a 29er, given I am interested in going as fast as possible).

so how much more prone to breakage/taco'ing are 650's? if they're selling them as the 'enduro' answer, its got to play a part - personally I don't want my wheels to fold in half very easily.

Bear in mind that whilst the marketing machine is in full swing, the women's enduro WC was won [s]by a member of my club[/s] on a 29er, so it seems even significantly bigger wheels are strong enough.

Being able to bend often helps things avoid breaking. Imagine landing a drop to flat, on a bike with a completely rigid wheel/tyre the deceleration is over a very short time period, giving very high peak forces. Add a big squashy wheel and tyre and the peak forces are much lower. A bit like rigid Vs suspension forks, I've cracked/bent far more rigid forks (2) than I have suspension (0) depite spending far more time on suspension forks.

That is a very good point, except it doesn't really work that way for wheels. Given that the failure mode for wheels under high load is mainly tacoing (which is the wheel equivalent of a beam buckling), then more flexible is definitely weaker, as it takes less load to take the wheel to the point at which it will collapse.

thisisnotaspoon,

I've ridden 29ers almost exclusively the last 3 years, they're different/better in pretty much every way

I'm thinking that you should have added "for me and the type of riding I do" to that statement because it's a gross generalisation and obviously not everyone's experience.

You've really popped your old fella in a hornets nest there.

I ain't no hater. Especially of chubbers who are bigger than me.

😀

Don't be a player hater bro.

and what is the average replacement timeframe? I suspect a lot more than 2 years! I know my current bike is 3.5years old and no plans to change, the one before was 3 when replaced, damaged and redundancy payout, but the one before was 10.

Whether it's 3 years or 10 years when you replace it, I reckon the common oppinion by then will be 29" is better for nigh on all riding that involves actualy riding somewhere(i.e. not DJ, trials, or hucking). Just as it is now that 5" is about right for an all round bike.

FWIW I probably buy a new (to me at least, they're mostly cheep or s/h) bike or frame every year, but I have 3-4 bikes at any one time so on average probably keep each for 3-4 years. I don't think of the current 26" bikes will be replaced like for like when they break.

That is a very good point, except it doesn't really work that way for wheels. Given that the failure mode for wheels under high load is mainly tacoing (which is the wheel equivalent of a beam buckling), then more flexible is definitely weaker, as it takes less load to take the wheel to the point at which it will collapse.

Maybe, but I'd counter that argument by saying that stiffness is lower, but the radius is greater and I'd hypothesise that the maxiumum deflection is greater both in terms of angle relative to the straight wheel as the bending is over a longer beam, and in displacemnt (longer beam through the same angle). So I think that it would take a greater force to reach the elastic limit of the wheel, even though it's less stif to start with.

I'm thinking that you should have added "for me and the type of riding I do" to that statement because it's a gross generalisation and obviously not everyone's experience.

Given that the failure mode for wheels under high load is mainly tacoing

Player? You're being played mate.

Hey check yourself bra.

Ill accept that i/we'll all be riding 650B eventually (we wont have a choice), I don't like and will never own a 29er. The position that 29 is better all round for everyone and that we'll fall into line is simply wrong. Won't happen.

We already have 150mm rears so why not more on the front.

Have you not read the thing from that company? 🙂

See you in Taichung?

^ Yeah, need more of it tho. Will do.

[img] [/img]
And for this reason I am ooot.

I just don't care. My rubbish out of date 26 inch wheeled bike feels great to me. Why is everybody getting so hung up on wheel size? If it feels good, just ride it with a big smile on your face.

I've ridden 29ers almost exclusively the last 3 years, they're different/better in pretty much every way, I'd proffer that an incremental size inbetween would be just that, an incremental improvement on 26".

Yep agreed. 99% people who say 29'ers are crap have either ridden a crap one, rode a good one for ten minutes or they're just squids.

jameso - Member

We already have 150mm rears so why not more on the front.

The thing I particularily like about the 150mm rear standard is that a lot of hubs end up basically spacing the flanges in anyway, taking away any of the benefits and just making a functionally identical but heavier hub that required a wider (therefore often flexier) and heavier frame, and often also wider cranks. Thus rendering the whole thing a gigantic bag of shit.

I've ridden 29ers almost exclusively the last 3 years, they're different/better in pretty much every way, I'd proffer that an incremental size inbetween would be just that, an incremental improvement on 26".
Yep agreed. 99% people who say 29'ers are crap have either ridden a crap one, rode a good one for ten minutes or they're just squids.

Didn't you hear? The industry thinks 29'ers are crap as well 😉

Glad I didn't drop three grand on a Giant 29er, as I was considering a few months ago. Credibility -> blown.

29's not going away for as long as Niner can make a profit, & if Niner is the only choice I'll live with that, 29 suits me.

Horses for courses of course.

Thanks for posting Cyclenaut, I was wondering what that whole "650b for longer travel, 26 for shorter" comment was all about in the video. Not sure I agree even after your clarification, but thanks for making the point clear (and a general thanks for being more measured rather than bubbling over with a single over simplified marketing line like some others). You're basically saying that the kind of riding people tend/want to do on longer travel bikes suits 650b more than 26, yes?

You're basically saying that the kind of riding people tend/want to do on longer travel bikes suits 650b more than 26, yes?

Obiously not everyone at trek got that memo. From their Session page:

The original 26" mountain bike wheel size is now the smallest of three available diameters. It’s the most flickable, most playful wheel size.

The MTB standard for versatility, light weight, and maneuverability.

While I don't agree, it's completely logical for them to say/suggest/think that people who want longer travel aren't the same people who want "versatility, light weight, and maneuverability".

Glad I didn't drop three grand on a Giant 29er, as I was considering a few months ago. Credibility -> blown.

Im pretty sure the frames will still be available for a few years yet, even if they stop making complete bikes. After all, they need to keep some warranty replacements etc surely?

I rekon for 2015 alloy 29ers will get the chop, and then 2016 the carbon ones will go (complete bikes). And they will be re-introduced again with all new 29er framesets in 2017. If you look on mtbr there is still a massive appetite for 29ers in the USA.

andypaul99 - Member

Im pretty sure the frames will still be available for a few years yet, even if they stop making complete bikes. After all, they need to keep some warranty replacements etc surely?

I think it's more that they're marketing the 650bs essentially by saying "Our 29ers that we told you were great last year actually suck balls"

That amuses me tbh but it's not like you could ever trust marketing anyway so I don't see that it makes an awful lot of difference.

[i][b]"Hey, we have another option, for when you want slightly bigger wheels, but don't want a 29er"
[/b][/i]
I don't think anyone would complain if that was the angle/message.

Im pretty sure the frames will still be available for a few years yet, even if they stop making complete bikes. After all, they need to keep some warranty replacements etc surely?

Not necessarily, they can offer an alternative or partial refund instead, from Giant's point of view it's probably cheaper to deal with a warranty with a new frame from normal stock than have to specially stock deleted product.

Yeah I agree 29ers are here to stay. Leastways, mine are!

Matt, your not making any sense - he's saying they are more likely to offer you a 650B as a replacement for a broken 9er, not that 9ers will be around for long into the future

it's completely logical for them to say/suggest/think that people who want longer travel aren't the same people who want "versatility, light weight, and maneuverability".

If the session isn't a long travel bike, I don't know what is.

I worry that sane people who don't care are under-represented on these threads.

I have a 26er and a 29er and am not especially RaD. I prefer the 29er for everything, but I'm not sure the wheel size is the main reason. When I next need to buy a bike I'll buy what they're selling.

😉

I laugh at all the people who care if it's faster or not. I'm sorry Giant, I couldn't give a **** if it's faster on lap times in your laboratory. I want FUN. I don't race, I'm in this for a laugh; I want a smile on my face. **** absolute speed.

I'll bet the overwhelming majority of mtbers don't race. I'm willing to bet most just want a fun bike. A good friend of mine taught me to evaluate every purchase along the lines of "will this make things more fun for me?"

It's a good rule of thumb. **** 650b, **** Giant, and **** all the other bike industry arseholes.

Seems to me that a lot of the people who sneeringly referred to long travel FSers as "skill compensators" are now riding 29ers, mainly because they make it easier.

Wow, there wasn't a single functional human being in that video, I thought I worked in a cynical, jaded sector but those folks looked seconds from shrugging off their skins and revealing the lizard beneath.

I love specialized and their sitting on the fence and seeing what happens with 650b stance. Where in reality they forgot to order their 650b wheels.
I also love how upset people get about wheel size.