Forum menu
My only worry with that is that it'll impact in the lbs, as shifting less bikes maybe the last straw for a few, again leading to a homogenised mega companies/distributors who'll have even more power to tell what you want..
Well as it stands I'm more likely to buy a 29er over a 27.650B or whatever it is. That said I'm more likely to buy a 26er over a 29er and even then it'll be second hand....
Why are you all in here moaning... And not out riding?
Heh.
Like when the pointless 15mm axle standard was foisted on riders to suit the needs of the industry.
That was more to do with solving the wheel-falls-out-when-you-pull-the-front-brake problem, wasn't it?
Why are you all in here moaning... And not out riding?
Working and broken arm.
Not surpising I'm grumpy really.
That was more to do with solving the wheel-falls-out-when-you-pull-the-front-brake problem, wasn't it?
Pointless vs. 20mm axles I should have said.
That was more to do with solving the wheel-falls-out-when-you-pull-the-front-brake problem, wasn't it?
...but there was already a 20mm maxle on rockshok forks, even the reba came with it 2 or three years.
iirc the absolute best anyone has managed is a handful of grams weight savings over the whole system (lowers/axle/hub) between 20mm and 15mm maxles. And now the new pike is 3mm beefier and 10mm longer than the old one and only comes in 15mm axle. 😕
Broken my collarbone last Friday.
Already feel like a heroin addict who's missed a hit.
Ah, got you.
One that rather vexed me recently was Mavic wheels - I'm reasonably au fait with the idea that you have a shell with bearings in in it, and either slot in a through axle or stepped adaptors to take a normal QR, but these needed different special adaptors which slotted inside the axle instead.
Seemed deliberately perverse for Mavic to make two completely different kinds of through-axle-to-normal converters.
How long until Specialized capitulate as well do we reckon then? They're probably in crisis talks now.
Broken my collarbone last Friday.
Heal up quick mate, it's frustrating when we're in the middle of the best spell of weather I can rememberm for years.
I like the idea of 650B but wish the rims were 4mm wider in diameter!
http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/tires/587.html
If anyone wants to see the stupidity of the bike industry over the years, check the list of ETRTO's in this link 😀
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_5775
Maybe 650A will be next for a comeback?
julianwilson - Member...but there was already a 20mm maxle on rockshok forks, even the reba came with it 2 or three years.
Aye. And 15mm's not up to the job for bigger forks anyway, even Fox admit that and use 20mm for 36s and 40s. And most hubs ended up being big enough to take a 20mm axle and using stepdowns, so there's no weight saving there either (usually the 15mm version is heavier too)
Most of the time, QR15 was heavier than maxle lite- I remember a brilliant MBR test when they actually included photos showing the 20mm maxle was lighter, but captioned it "lightweight QR15".
Even in reasonably common (i.e. still used) sizes:
There are two sizes of 16" - almost 2" different in size.
18" is only 6mm bigger than the larger 16"
17" is larger than 18"
There are two sizes of 20" - again almost 2" different in size.
Two sizes of 24" - yup, about 2" different.
28" is the same as 29", and both are smaller than 27"
I've posted on here before about a 'conspiracy theory' put to me in a bike shop I visited when in the States a couple of years ago. The shortened version is that 650b is where he industry wanted to be but it knew folk wouldn't be swayed with a small change hence the 29er was born simply to get a different wheel size accepted.
I honestly don't think there's any great Machiavellian plot here.
It's all a plot to bring back penny farthings, I tell you.
Yup, fatter tyre on a 26" = thinner tyre on a 27.5".I'd love to do a blind test - somehow get a bunch of riders to ride 26" and 27.5" bikes without knowing the wheel size, and see if they can tell the difference.
From On one's site:
Thanks to Cambrian Tyres for supplying the HUGE 2.4in Continental Mountain King tyres measure up at a whopping 28.1in diameter, so whilst a lot of people are going on about "27.5in" actually being smaller than "27.5in", we do wonder what wimpy sized tyres they're measuring to get that result.
bencooper - Member
It's all a plot to bring back penny farthings, I tell you.
Or recumbent penny farthings? 😉
This is great timing,I need a new set of wheels so I hope the 26" clearance sales start soon 😀
29er size is essentially close to 700c which cyclo cross bikes use, so 29ers really have more pedigree than any other wheel size as people were off roading on 700c long before the guys in CA started taking their klunkers into the mountains. I think we'll end up with 2 sizes and see no problem with that. The sport is fragmented enough now to support it.
Close? It's exactly the same 😉
Basically what they've done is take Cyclocross bikes, put on decent brakes and flat bars, and rebrand it as the next big thing.
A recumbent penny farthing would be ace...
Thanks to Cambrian Tyres for supplying the HUGE 2.4in Continental Mountain King tyres measure up at a whopping 28.1in diameter, so whilst a lot of people are going on about "27.5in" actually being smaller than "27.5in", we do wonder what wimpy sized tyres they're measuring to get that result.
With skinny tyres 26 is 26", 650b is 27", 29 is 28.5". With big tyres 26 is 27", 650b is 28", 29 is 29.5".
Nice marketing spin from On-One...
I think what's upsetting people (and certainly upsetting me) isn't the introduction of a new wheelsize (which may or may not be better), it's the message coming out that the existing installed base of 26ers will no longer be supported - capitalism works by companies meeting people's needs, not manipulating us into buying new stuff we don't want.
I think the industry has mis-judged this one quite spectacularly:
a) I've seen all the new innovations since mid-nineties (full suss, riser bars, disc brakes etc etc) and by and large there's been a clear benefit and so we've accepted it happily. 650B just comes across as meaningless in terms of a technological advance - it's marginal and also it's not new, it's an ancient wheelsize.
b) we're all feeling a bit skint right now. By threatening to drop support for the installed base we're basically being blackmailed into buying complete new bikes, which we neither want nor have the spare cash for... (most previous innovations we've been able to upgrade to bit by bit which makes it more affordable, and feel more like a personal choice).
c) In nearly 20 years of mountain biking I've not seen such resistance to a new innovation - maybe social media has supported this but it does seem to me that a lot of us are genuinely resistant in way we've not been in the past.
As I don't like dishonesty and bullying, I hope 650B fails, which it can do if we simply refuse to buy it.
Is it just me, or is the 'we will not support 26" wheels' thing an invention of the forums/internetz/folk who aren't directly involved and they have just assumed that this is what will happen? Then because they have put their point across with such vitriol and conviction others have followed suit?
I know new bikes coming out are all 27.5/650b/29/idontreallygivea****whatsize and obviously they will be catered for, but have the aftermarket wheel guys said they will stop making 26" stuff? If not, what's the problem?
Dear 26" hand-wringers - buy my Rebas while you can still get them 😉
mattjg, tyre clearance on that fork is ok, i bet you will get a 650b wheel in there with a 2" tyre on. 😉
I don't have a suitabe frame - already tried a 650b in my Blur Classic, not even close to fitting.
Recumbent penny farthing fat bikes are where it's really at, mark my words.
Fat bikes are over.
Spesh, Trek and co are making them now, so they're too mainstream for the nichecore.
See also;
Monstercross - Remember that niche?
'Gravel' bikes - The latest uber-niche from the US (Think CX with added marketing). They'll be the next one.
I just don't get why people get so het up about something they don't have to buy if they don't want to.
It's like having a rather large number of topics complaining that Sainsburys are going introduce an alternative to their fancy ready meal range that comes in slightly different packaging.
Until (if they ever do) tyre and rim manufactures stop making 26" rims & tyres what's the issue? You don't have to go and buy a bike with wheels that aren't 26", just like you don't have to buy a different line of ready meals.
Have people really got so little going on in their lives that this is of major concern?
If you're so desperate to keep your 26" dream alive, buy all the tyres you could need for the foreseeable future and a few spare rims. That way you'll be fine, but then again you could moan about being 'forced' by the bike industry to stockpile items that might become obsolete just because the marketing men say so.
I also imagine that you're all riding round on bikes from 1995 with rigid steel forks, rim breaks and awesome new indexed shimano drive trains, speaking only to your contacts via land lines and sending hand written letters to those whom it may concern.
Keep an open mind ...you never know ..you might even enjoy riding something else .....
It's like having a rather large number of topics complaining that Sainsburys are going introduce an alternative to their fancy ready meal range that comes in slightly different packaging.
More like if they changed their ready meals so you needed a new, very slightly larger microwave in order to cook them.
I am now resigned to the fact that that's what we are going to be riding in a couple of years.
only if you buy a new bike with these particular wheels
if you're happy with the bike you've got and you can still get spares for it, what's the problem?
In a couple of years, all the folk who bought 650b will be reading reviews about the revitalised 26" being fun, whippy etc etc and I'll have a big grin on my face when it does.
At 5'8", I neither want or need 650b or 29.
At 5'8", I neither want or need 650b or 29.
Funny, at 5'8" I love my 29er HTs and if I buy a FS trail bike, it'll be a 650b.
We're all different 'spose.
What's height got to do with it? At 5'8" you wouldn't want a road bike with smaller wheels would you?
So is Niño Schurter:
[url= http://www.bikemag.com/gear/scott-sports-bets-big-on-bigger-wheel-sizes/ ]Third paragraph down.[/url]
I think Scott were the first big bike company to say they were dropping 26" for most bikes.
Love how that piece has renamed their DH bike the "Rambler". Do Troy Lee make red socks?
Buried in that Trek press release is the statement that 29ers "are the gold standard for stable, confident riding".
I know we've done 26" vs 29ers to death and they aren't really saying anything new, but I thought this pretty much hit the nail on the head. A 29er does (in my experience) feel more stable and inspires a bit more confidence and a 26" wheel is more playful. However and this is the key, the difference between 26" and 29ers is still pretty subtle. I've been riding a 26" bike and a 29er back to back for a few months now and still can't decide which wheel size I prefer. The last thing I need is a third option in the middle?
If we had gone from 26" to 650b and everybody had agreed that the slight increase in wheel diameter made for a better bike then I can see the logic in testing something even bigger (e.g. 29ers). But this 26" then 29er then something in the middle doesn't make much sense to me.
If we had gone from 26" to 650b and everybody had agreed that the slight increase in wheel diameter made for a better bike...
Better at what? It's engineering - all you can do is change the balance of compromises.
OK, fair point. There is no better when it comes to bikes. But if a large majority of riders had moved from 26" to 650b because they thought the compromises worked better for them then I can see why you might want to try something even bigger. But instead we have 26" and 29ers with a fairly even split of riders preferring each. That suggests to me that both have their advantages. What it doesn't suggest is that the market needs a third option in the middle.
I have followed this thread with interest over the last couple of days. I have bikes with 26 & 29 inch wheels. I enjoy both. To me the move to 650b/27.5 is less a case of the bike companies thinking it is outright better from performance point of view as an acceptance that people will no longer accept a single wheel size as standard unless they can convince them otherwise. 29ers are very entrenched in the States hence the hedging of bets by Giant. 26 inch wheels are not likely to have resurgence there in the near future. They have been slower to take hold in Europe, so that's why they think there is a window of opportunity to try and steer back to a single wheel size sufficiently to not take a huge hit in sales in either market. I thought it was telling that Giant spoke about feedback before deciding to drop 29ers.
Yes, what this says to me is that manufacturers (at least the larger ones) would very much like a single wheel size. Presumably because it is more efficient for them (stock control etc). They know they can't force the market to accept just 26" or just 29ers, but are hoping that they might be able to get us all to accept something in the middle.
They may well be going 650b on the bikes in the link, but thankfully I don't see any evidence yet that the Session is going to be 650b
Has the 2014 session been released/previewed yet, would be surprised if there wasn't a 650 option for it
Is there any proper downhill 650b rubber yet? Schwalbe have been doing protos and Vee Rubber make some but it's only now that a choice of decent hard use trailbike tyres are available never mind dualplies
(obviously Trek can do Bonty ones, but if they're as good as the 26 inch bonty ones they might as well not bother 😉 )