Forum menu
19mm
That much - ho hum, cynicism it is then 🙂
course the next big thing will be road bikes with 26" wheels 52mm tyres... allegedly
the Open and Cannondale bikes using this need some more running mates … lots to like with the extra volume without extra diameter, in my opinion … no risk whatsoever of 700c being abandoned because of this … choice is good … it's only the killing off of perfectly usable wheel options that's bad … well that's my take anyway
TBH, I think these actually might be a decent way way of running a couple of bikes for a whole bunch of riding senarios
road (with discs) normal set of (road) wheels skinny tyres for fast hurty roadie ride
set of these 650 rims and road-ish tryes for exploring the lanes
MTB bike 650 rims
extra set of more gravelly tyres for stuff that's not full MTB but a bit more than the road frame can handle
though without the revolting skin wall obviously
[quote=STATO ]You can do it with rim brakes, longer reach calipers exist which can convert some bike (obv depends how long reach you have already).
Longer reach calipers have a whole 8mm more reach.
Here is someones conversion of a Surly Pacer, from 2009! god damn these NEW fangled wheel sizes.
[url= http://www.bikeman.com/bikeman-blogs/650blog/1897-surly-pacer-650b ]LINK[/url]
aracer - Member
STATO » You can do it with rim brakes, longer reach calipers exist which can convert some bike (obv depends how long reach you have already).Longer reach calipers have a whole 8mm more reach.
That's 'long' reach, I said long[u]er[/u] 😉
[url= http://store.velo-orange.com/index.php/components/brakes/calipers/tektro-r559-extra-long-reach-brakes.html ]LINK[/url]
Apologies if I've missed the answer to this question. I like the look of the frame in the original OP.
What is it?
I've been wanting a new frame for the commuter, something with decent tyre clearance and road disc compatible. I was looking at a Genesis equilibrium disc framset, but I'd be open to suggestions.
(Sorry for the slight hi-jack)
Apologies if I've missed the answer to this question. I like the look of the frame in the original OP.
What is it?
The tyres are being released and the American hand made bike show, so that's a custom steel frame, a soulcraft. Expensive!
Stato, thanks.
🙂
[i]Solo - Member
original OP.[/i]
😳
Well a 700c cyclocross tyre just won't fit in my 26" mtb frame (its a bit old school clearance-wise). Yet there is not so much choice in skinnier 26" tyres these days. One of these johnnies might help me covert it into a gravelly/cx type of machine.
It's another option. Can't see 700x road wheels going away (frames post for future reference)
TBH, I think these actually might be a decent way way of running a couple of bikes for a whole bunch of riding senariosroad (with discs) normal set of (road) wheels skinny tyres for fast hurty roadie ride
set of these 650 rims and road-ish tryes for exploring the lanes
MTB bike 650 rims
extra set of more gravelly tyres for stuff that's not full MTB but a bit more than the road frame can handle
though without the revolting skin wall obviously
I Can't really see how this beats what's currently available in the form of a pretty standard 622mm rimed CX/Gravel type bike. I can fit a 622x40ish tyre for general on/offroad bimbling and/or touring, or a 622x32-35 for more aggressive CX offroad use or a 622x25-28 slick for "Fast" Road use. If I really want to I supose I could also fit a 650b (584) or ever a 26" (559) rim and the widest clearing tyre for each size but honestly, why bother?...
What exactly are they selling that benefits me as a consumer, over what I can already buy today???
TBH having spent a few months enjoying riding a CX/Gravel type bike, I've been idly mulling the concept of a "Monstercross" bike over; more like a drop barred (or flared drops) 29er really, something with 622 x 50mm (2") or bigger tyres, that just appeals far more as a middle point between a "Gravel" bike and an MTB; with larger volume, bigger, better rolling tyres (including the option of some chunky slicks) and all the parts are already widely available...
That would make a better "All Rounder" than a "Road plus" bike IMO... I'm Assuming that's what they're pitching for...
Line up the Kittens, it's going to be a bloodbath!
meh, i'll wait for the boost version
wonder how many things you could fill in those blanks with. It's annoying.Northwind - Member
...if it takes off- lots of companies that never used to consider selling a frame with _________..... will suddenly tell you __________ is really important.
If we have to have three different wheel sizes, how about using them properly?
Small bikes get 26 inch wheels.
Medium get 650 and large sizes gets 700/29.
With tubing, cranks and geometry designed to suit, obviously.
Small frames that take 26/650 and large ones that take 650/29.
Joined up thinking.
Never going to happen, too much time and effort, the only ones to benefit would be the customer.
Much easier ways to part ex golfers from their money - just pile new standard upon standard, niche upon niche until you alienate everyone and the big bubble bursts.
I'm banking on the fact that there's only a finite number of rich, consumerist, bike curious idiots out there.
Some we'll lose through boredom.
Many will jump ship for the next big thing.
Some will go back to whatever it is they did before.
Most of them will get fed up with being taken for a ride eventually.
🙂
What exactly are they selling that benefits me as a consumer, over what I can already buy today???
More comfort than 700x28 for same size
Same comfort as 700x42 for less weight
Same size means keeping the same geometry without giving toe-overlap and not heading down long and relaxed tourer geo. As someone said above this is especially important for smaller ridiers.
Less weight is pretty obvious.
Essentially its the same reasons 27.5+ is being pushed over 29+ (now we have realised they don't fit most 29er frames and released boost hubs to make space).
Don't worry someone, somewhere is getting ready to push 26+ into the market place.
road plus, is that the actual name or is that just what bike rumour are dubbing it?
Who wants/needs 40+ [i]road[/i] tyres?
I can see the optional wheel size thing for smaller people and I guess cx/gravel/gnarmac*
but road bikes, on 47mm tyres?
Is this not people going for a chunky tyre look rather than a valid use/function?
If your bike/body is being hammered so much by your chosen [i]roads[/i] would you not be better off ditching the [i]road[/i] bike and getting something a bit more robust.
*considering what I've ridden** comfortably on 700x32 I'm struggling a little to see the need tbh
**Yes I know [i]"X is good enough for me so it's good enough for everyone"[/i] is a crap argument and I normally wouldn't use it, but in this case....
Small bikes get 26 inch wheels.
Medium get 650 and large sizes gets 700/29.
With tubing, cranks and geometry designed to suit, obviously.
Small frames that take 26/650 and large ones that take 650/29.
Joined up thinking.Never going to happen, too much time and effort, the only ones to benefit would be the customer.
I don't think even the customer would potentially benefit from this. The 'time and effort' equal costs which would be passed on to the customer.
[quote=breatheeasy ]Small bikes get 26 inch wheels.
Medium get 650 and large sizes gets 700/29.
With tubing, cranks and geometry designed to suit, obviously.
Small frames that take 26/650 and large ones that take 650/29.
Joined up thinking.As someone who is generally at the lower end of medium, I'd say this is a shite idea. There are lots of times where a 700/29 wheel is the right size, regardless of rider height.
I don't think even the customer would potentially benefit from this.
You're a medium, aren't you?
🙂
The 'time and effort' equal costs which would be passed on to the customer.
Rather than the costs of constantly pushing pointless toss onto an an over saturated, over complex marketplace?
There are lots of times where a 700/29 wheel is the right size, regardless of rider height.
Why?
The ability to have all that extra volume without the extra diameter is why this tyre size is good
I though the one thing that was really good over rough surfaces was more diameter. Ever used a skated board on a public road?
More comfort than 700x28 for same size
Same comfort as 700x42 for less weight
Same point here. The same size tyre on a smaller rim is not the same comfort. Other wise we'd all have BMX wheels wouldn't we
If your bike/body is being hammered so much by your chosen roads would you not be better off ditching the road bike and getting something a bit more robust.
It'll have to be more of gravel type bike anyway, no way are you getting those width tyres on a race bike with it's typical clearances.
Why are we just re-inventing bikes from the 1920's (which were designed for crappy roads post WW1)? Why don't we force councils to actually fix their roads and not leave them as a potholed, gravel mess. Then use mtbs for proper offroad.
[img] 
[/img]
Who cares, it's for roadies.
The bike manufacturers innovation departments are thinking "MTBers were daft enough to switch to a wheel that is marginally 10% bigger for the [i]huge[/i] benefits, maybe the roadies are as daft. Let's see if they swallow it..."
Rusty Spanner - Member
Why?There are lots of times where a 700/29 wheel is the right size, regardless of rider height.
Why are larger diameter wheels sometimes better than smaller? Sorry, but I'm really not prepared to go over ground that has been so comprehensively covered before. If you've go to 2016 and not accepted this, nothing I can write is going to make any difference.
Why are larger diameter wheels sometimes better than smaller?
Not what you said, which was 'regardless of rider height'.
I've test ridden a lot of bikes recently.
I'm about five five and ride a 50cm horizontal frame.
Only one 700c bike I've ridden was free of overlap with 35's and guards, the Spa Tourer.
For people shorter than me, top tube length can often be too long with 700c wheels as well.
Of course bigger wheels roll better over rough ground.
But I'd argue that a correct fit is often more beneficial.
Of course, the averagely sized and above can have a bigger volume tyre in the the same frame.
And wasn't it yourself who argued for the benefit of 650+ over 29+ for shorter riders?
I'd have happily stuck with 26 and 29 in various widths, would cover most bases.
But as we've had 650b forced upon us, it would be interesting to see it used for the benefit of the consumer rather than the manufacturer.
Gotcha.
I get that teeny folk are going to struggle on bigger wheels. Often, it's a challenge to get them packaged into a decent frame without making other compromises (e.g. standover height, toe overlap, luggage carrying). However, I don't think we can then extrapolate that to say that all riders of a certain height should have a restricted choice of wheel sizes. There's a lovely Ti 29+ often posted on here that looks, to me, to be too big for the owner but they love it. Similarly, there's lots of tall riders perfectly happy with their choice of 26" wheels. Yeah, I understand they might have to go up to 650B in the future but that's still not mandating 29" wheels in larger sized frames.
Summary: choice is good!
FWIW, this RoadPlus thing is of very passing interest to me. I've run the Amazon with CX tyres up to 35mm regularly and I know it could handle wider. The BB height might start to be an issue I guess, at which point a 650 wheel [i]might[/i] be a solution. I'm not exactly excited about it though 😕
However, I don't think we can then extrapolate that to say that all riders of a certain height should have a restricted choice of wheel sizes.
Well, at the moment, riders are already restricted to a choice of one wheelsize for the vast majority of road bikes.
🙂
Offer frames that can take two wheelsizes - 26/650 for the smaller sizes, 650/700c for the larger.
Everyone gets the option of a bigger tyre at the same overall diameter.
Look at manufacturers websites - they all bang on about the amount of research they've done to create the 'ultimate ride experience' or some such bollocks.
Maybe so, but for which size?
Are forks, tubing diameter, crank length, headtube size, fork offset etc optimised for each size?
Not often.
And is the bike fit and function compromised by the need to fit 700c wheels where they often shouldn't be?
[quote=dragon] Then use mtbs for proper offroad.
Or CX bikes if you're so inclined - no particular need for this new size for that for most average size people.
Kind of surprised I'm the first to post a pic of a selection of widely differing bikes, all suitable for gravel roads and a bit rougher - I don't think any of them were 650B, though some 26" wide slicks, some CX tyres, some 700c touring tyres, even one set of narrow road tyres:
[img] 
[/img]
Well I'll counter that with a pic of a bunch of people at a road/gravel/offorad meet where most of the bikes [b]are[/b] 650Bx$BIGSIZE
[img] 
?w=676[/img]
just for contrast like 😉
It's not a new thing at all, the french were at it from the 20s-70s, went a bit quiet for a while after that but was still around, the Americans have been picking it back up again over the last decade or so for gravel riding well before 'gravel riding' was the new media darling, and the Japanese aren't immune to a bit of 650B road/notroad bike building either.
As with a lot of these 'next big things' they aren't that new, and by the time it ends up with the big players getting involved it's already been bubbling around in the background for a decade or so.
MTBs are awesome at MTBing, CX bikes are awesome at CX racing, road racing bikes are awesome at road racing, for 'just riding' over a proper mix of all terrain there a million variations in between which blur those lines.
I think these would render a Diverge the perfect bicycle. I intend to build some for mine.
I was amused in the comments by someone describing Jan Heine's bikes as French re-enactments !
Despite all those French/Japanese weirdos I think we can safely say that the Americans have invented something completely new here. After all, no one has put the words Road and Plus together like that before. It reminds me of that time they invented biking on mountains.
😆
[quote=Rusty Spanner ]Are forks, tubing diameter, crank length, headtube size, fork offset etc optimised for each size?
Not often.
And is the bike fit and function compromised by the need to fit 700c wheels where they often shouldn't be?
We know that crank size has a very restricted choice. Headtube size sometimes varies with frame size. Fork offset would probably be a function of wheel size? I'm guessing that making frames with specifically drawn tubes for each size might get very expensive, though I guess it has to be done to some extent to get the butting right. Easier to do in Carbon. How much modelling of each goes on and how much is just extrapolated from a "medium" fit, I don't know but I'm guessing costs would only go one way if all components became more size specific.
I reckon that for 99% of bikes sold it's all moot anyway. There's a tiny percentage of riders for whom such specific manufacturing would be noticeable.
I'd put £5 on it being Brant that invented road +.
Should we be expecting a new sign up with the username "Roadplus Rider" from the bloke who invented it?
I reckon that for 99% of bikes sold it's all moot anyway. There's a tiny percentage of riders for whom such specific manufacturing would be noticeable.
Big tyres on road bikes are the next big thing, whether we like it or not.
I do, fwiw.
My new road bike will have 26 inch wheels so I can run bigger tyres without overlap.
There's a big shift away from 'racers' to practical bikes too, which means mudguards, further eating away at clearance.
That means that pretty much everyone under, say five foot six will be on a frame which is compromised in it's ability to effectively handle the overall wheel diameter with bigger volume tyres.
But as I've said, it won't happen.
All the designers I've ever heard or read discuss proportional sizing say the core business lies in the middle ground.
As to cost.
With frames, I know Surly, Thorn and Spa for example practice proportional sizing with respect to tubing and in some cases fork as well as frame geometry.
Their frames don't seem to be anymore expensive than less thoughtfully designed competitors.
Why are larger diameter wheels sometimes better than smaller? Sorry, but I'm really not prepared to go over ground that has been so comprehensively covered before. If you've go to 2016 and not accepted this, nothing I can write is going to make any difference
Your right I hear Isla bikes have decided that they will only make bikes with 700c rims for kids of all ages. Who cares about fit when you can have better rolling