27.5/Dirt a bit biased? - Chat Forum

Re: 27.5/Dirt a bit biased?

cfinnimore — Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:24:22 +0000

Terribly 2012 this. Inverse argument.

Re: 27.5/Dirt a bit biased?

spchantler — Sat, 15 Feb 2014 21:58:55 +0000

supply and demand innit, same reason you struggle to get decent acid these days, whose gonna make it when all the kool kids are chomping that mcat stuff... o sorry wrong decade 8)

Re: 27.5/Dirt a bit biased?

chipsngravy — Sat, 15 Feb 2014 21:04:15 +0000

It makes sense. 27.5 is a good wheel size for the type of riding Dirt promotes.

Re: 27.5/Dirt a bit biased?

molgrips — Sat, 15 Feb 2014 20:59:34 +0000

Here you go, a 1961 British mountain bike, when fitted with Avon cyclo-cross tyres:

Wow, that's almost EXCATLY the same as a modern 650b MTB. Oh wait, I meant exactly not the same :)

It makes no difference that that size has been popular in the past on different bikes. Point is, it's 'new' for MTBs because for years 26 was the standard.

However the marketing is bollocks, of course it is - it's marketing. That's not even a debate :)

The choice could be a good thing but I'm quite concerned that 26 support is going to dwindle. I have four 26er bikes that used to be high end, there's no way I am going to replace them all. I don't want to replace any of them.

That's what I mean by forced onto the market.

Who really needs a 26er instead of 650b? The short, I suppose.

Re: 27.5/Dirt a bit biased?

Northwind — Sat, 15 Feb 2014 20:03:45 +0000

For everyone but racers, the question isn't "is 650b better"- it might be, it might not, but it's certainly not a big enough difference to justify replacing a quality 26 inch bike.

And there are other disadvantages for the consumer, companies have thrown effort into 650b that could have gone on improving other products- for example tyre companies have had to redesign and re-release their whole range just to stand still, the number of decent new designs in the last year or so are tiny. And despite that there's still less choice for 650b than there is for 26- there's just 1 halfdecent hard-use mud tyre, for instance, and even that's come after a winter of people making do with stuff you'd never choose if you had the choice of 26.

Shops have been stuck with artificially obsolete stock and the need to buy in new stock that is basically identical in order to sell it for the same amount.

molgrips - Member

Wait, what? Are 29ers no good now then? What was MBR's original position?

Nah, for ages they said they were rubbish. Then something happened to make them change their minds. Jury's out on whether they just discovered they were wrong, or, it may have coincided with Specialized going all 29er ;)

Re: 27.5/Dirt a bit biased?

RustySpanner — Sat, 15 Feb 2014 19:49:01 +0000

Very possibly.
I'm getting my b's and c's mixed up.

And I thought that 27inch wheels in the uk were a very different diameter to 650b?
I certainly have no recollection of 650b being the default UK size for British adult bikes - thought it was 27?

Re: 27.5/Dirt a bit biased?

ratherbeintobago — Sat, 15 Feb 2014 19:47:02 +0000

And I don't remember seeing many 650b road bikes in the 70's, unless as an alternative to 27inch bikes for shorter riders.

Isn't that 650C?

Re: 27.5/Dirt a bit biased?

RustySpanner — Sat, 15 Feb 2014 19:45:47 +0000

I don't agree.

We have had the choice of buying a well specced 26 inch bike removed.
The manufacturers have replaced the vast majority with 650b bikes.

That's what I mean by forced onto the market.

Manufacturers didn't suddenly withdraw all road bikes when MTB's hit the market.

And I don't remember seeing many 650b road bikes in the 70's, unless as an alternative to 27inch bikes for shorter riders.

Re: 27.5/Dirt a bit biased?

CountZero — Sat, 15 Feb 2014 19:34:21 +0000

You don't think 650b has beed forced onto the market?
I don't believe you.

I really don't give a shit whether you do or not. Mountain biking has been 'forced onto the market' right from the beginning, around 1982, and it's arguable that pretty much every single development has been 'forced onto the market', if you look back at magazine articles from the 1980's.
Speaking from the point of view of someone who was doing exactly what Mildred describes, only it was my first grown-up bike, (I was eleven...), and then getting my first mountain bike in 1988, a red and white Stumpjumper, I think I can honestly say I've seen every new development touted as the next greatest thing, so all this bleating about the re-introduction of a wheel size that was almost universal for adult bikes forty years ago is just a load of bollocks.
Change happens, journo's write hyperbole about it, get over it.

Re: 27.5/Dirt a bit biased?

mildred — Sat, 15 Feb 2014 18:58:29 +0000

What I find funny about all this '27.5 is betterer than 26' guff is that there aren't that many truly bad bikes out there in either. My 1st MTB was my dad's old tourer with 27x1 3/8th" cross tyres, a quill stem from my Raleigh burner and some cow-horn handlebars. To finish it off I took off the mudguards and rack & got a right belting off my dad..!

I had loads of fun on it - it was a wheely monster and skidded ace.

It didn't matter what size the wheels were - I used what it had fitted and still had a laugh. This is what a lot of people have forgotten - it's about having fun. There aren't many on here who will benefit from a seconds advantage over 1-3 minutes. Hell, if I lost half a stone I'd smash all over any wheel size advantage, but to what ends? I'm still having fun so it really doesn't matter.

I propose that given the bike industry is so fickle, my 36" waist is far better than my old 34" waist, which pissed all over my previous 32"..! Clearly the 36" version is rounder and more shock absorbing, and if I pull a funny move in the mirror without clothes on, I certainly look more teardrop shaped for aerodynamics (only if you blur your eyes and squint a bit).

So here it is 36" waists are 116% better than a 650b wheelset. If you wanna kick the arse of Gwin,
Atherton et al... Eat more pie and chips!