Cotic Rocket update from Cy

I’m not sure why bigger wheels are such a terrible thing in terms of making frames obsolete when the ubiquity of large diameter dropper posts and tapered forks have done the same for bikes with sub 30.9 seatposts or 1 1/8″ head tubes? I bet in five years’ time it’ll be a lot easier to buy decent 26″ rims and tyres than decent 1 1/8″ forks!

Speeder – Member

The clue is on the user name.

Well done – have a biscuit.

Have you ever stopped to consider that one reason 27.5 has proved popular is that it isn’t closer to the 29 size? Maybe it is actually the (usually mythical marketing) sweet spot?

There is no such thing as 27.5 😉 , but I take your point and can’t disagree. It may well indeed be the sweet spot, and I’m thankful that it is so close to 26 as I’m very aware that my next bike will be a 650B simply because that’s all there will be.
I KEEP googling that bloody Yeti SB6C. It’s calling my name….

My brother in law has recently rediscovered bikes and can be excruciating to talk to about the subject. In his eyes, everything is judged on cash value and as such all conversations resolve back to what it cost. It’s like a hideous parody of loadsamoney.
Where this becomes relevant is that while he would love my bikes or the time to ride them his opinions are steered by a serial bike swapper who seems to be dropping 5k plus on carbon wonder bikes. That’s pretty much concentrating his attention on bleeding edge, and must be pretty much the marketing person’s wet dream… He’s not alone, and as there’s always going to be considerations of ‘shiny’ and bling in a market essentially selling big kids toys, it’s not an invalid point of view, his priorities and mine are just different.
I’m not particularly wedded to 26, except that I have some nice kit I really like riding. I’ve looked at 650’s and fully expect that’s what I’ll be buying when I finally kill my ‘old’ alu fs, but I’m expecting my steel Soul and X to last a bit longer barring crash damage. It’s not that I couldn’t afford to go out and splurge, I just don’t need or want to.
I’ll join in feeling bad for Cy that the ‘made in england’ thing has not worked out and that he’s essentially tossed a couple of years of sales of Rockets over it, I’m just not sure the wheel size question really enters other than possibly as snide cheap shots over last years’ “26 ain’t dead” slogan, and mine ain’t for a bit yet.

it was the biggest con trick in MTB history and most people have fallen for it.

I’m not sure I buy this. Maybe I’m being naive but are there really loads of people who went “crap, my 26″ is now utterly obsolete, I’d better bin it and go and buy a 650b to transform my riding”?
Or did the serial bike swappers and people replacing their bikes after years walk into the shops and come out with a 650b where a couple of years ago they’d have come out with a 26″? If so, how are they being conned?

I’m not that bothered about wheel size, but if I’d bought my bike this year instead of last year I would very likely be on 650b rather than 26″ just because that’s what’s in the shops. And it would ride fine no doubt. I wouldn’t feel like the industry had got one over on me somehow.

There is no such thing as a “sweet spot” that’s just marketing BS. Even if there were it would be different for different parts of the trail.

The fact is that all three of the currently fashionable sized wheels are perfectly viable options for a mountain bike. None of them are inherently better or worse than either of the others. Yes, they each have certain advantages and disadvantages on specific bits of trail, but overall they work and once you factor in differences in geometry and suspension travel even the inherent differences get lost.

The problem isn’t with any particular size of wheel, it is with the refusal to stick with any “standard” (whether that be wheels, forks, bottom brackets, seatposts or whatever) for more than five minutes. Manufacturers clearly don’t want us to incrementally upgrade our bikes, they want us to dump them and buy a whole new bike (preferably every year or two).

Getting back on topic; I’m surprised that Cotic didn’t stick with the 26″ Rocket. They have a design that works and I would have thought they would get enough interest from the die hard 26″ fans to make it viable. Who knows, by the time they get the 650B version ready there might be a swing back towards 26″ anyway. However, it’s not my house that’s riding on getting this call right, so I’ll just wish Cy all the best.

The problem isn’t with any particular size of wheel, it is with the refusal to stick with any “standard”

My brother in law has recently rediscovered bikes and can be excruciating to talk to about the subject

recently had a conversation with a mate returning to the fold. What became apparent is the laughable idea of the “standard”;

wheel size; 26, 650b, 29
steerer; straight, tapered, 1.5″, 44mm
axles; 9mm, 12mm, 15mm, 20mm, 135, 142
BB’s; BSA, BB30, PF30
gears; 1x or 2x, 9,10,11 (and explain why the more expensive bike has fewer gears)
disc; 6 bolt, centrelock.

I’m not the target consumer but it puts me off buying something new, do you want to spend thousands on what ends up being the Betamax standard?

Back to the original point, give up trying to make them in the UK, it was a nice idea but not critical to the image or success of the bike.

and you forgot 10mm rear wheels, and 28.6/31.8 / 35mm handlebars, 30mm seat tubes & who know show many BCDs on chainrings.

I’m not sure why bigger wheels are such a terrible thing in terms of making frames obsolete when the ubiquity of large diameter dropper posts and tapered forks have done the same for bikes with sub 30.9 seatposts or 1 1/8″ head tubes? I bet in five years’ time it’ll be a lot easier to buy decent 26″ rims and tyres than decent 1 1/8″ forks!

Exactly right and exactly what most people seem to ignore. It happens and has happened year on year from the very start.

For most people a new bike is a special purchase, not just a tool that gets replaced when it’s broken. People have different reasons and rational for what they buy whether it’s value (Canyon, YT, On-One etc), perceived prestige (Santa Cruz, Yeti etc), comfort of the established (Specialized, Trek, Giant etc) or made in blah (Orange, potential Cotic, US built GT/Trek/Cannodale etc) + many other reasons.

We all like to think the new bike is a step forward from what it replaced so something needs to be different be it new axle size, bolt through, wheels, geometry, weight………. As long as they can say it’s X times stiffer, lighter, faster, smoother, snappier….. people will buy them. 650b is this years reason to buy a new bike, just as something else will be next year. The market demands change and perceived improvements so that’s what we get. It has always been so.

I don’t know who instigated it or why anyone perpetuated it but it was the biggest con trick in MTB history and most people have fallen for it. OK it’s mostly benign in that it’s a just a bike with bigger wheels but it’s allowed the industry to sell a load of completes at vastly inflated prices where I’d imagine thy wouldn’t normally have done so. All in the name of fashion and progress.

😆 I do love the idea that ‘the industry’ gets together and plots these ‘con tricks’…

Imo the manufacturers are like sheep themselves and it only takes a ‘critical mass’ of manufacturers to go with a new standard before the rest follow…the real surprise of 650b was the speed of change.

I’m not sure why bigger wheels are such a terrible thing in terms of making frames obsolete when the ubiquity of large diameter dropper posts and tapered forks have done the same for bikes with sub 30.9 seatposts or 1 1/8″ head tubes? I bet in five years’ time it’ll be a lot easier to buy decent 26″ rims and tyres than decent 1 1/8″ forks!

Well dropper posts are an option, no-one has stopped making standard posts because of dropper posts. As for taper steerers – if it wasn’t for the 27.5 bullshit I expect these would be receiving a lot of criticism for the same reason. Can anyone actually tell the difference between a straight and a tapered steerer ffs?

Tapered steerers have been about for years and hardly anyone batted an eye lid.

Tapered steerers have been about for years and hardly anyone batted an eye lid.

shame they didn’t make a standard where you could easily swap out the steerer.

I KEEP googling that bloody Yeti SB6C. It’s calling my name….

Well I know the geometry is bang on because it’s near identical to my Spitfire (within a few mm and fraction of a degree).

However tonight I will be out in the woods for 4+ hours on a 26″ steel hardtail with open bath forks with 32mm stanchions, 1 1/8″ steerer, and a 27.2mm seatpost – not so coincidentally made by Cotic. It does have a dropper post, tubeless tyres, wide rims and a 1×10 drivetrain with clutch mech and narrow-wide ring though… And we’ll have a lot of fun!

I don’t know who instigated it

Where did 650B/27.5 originate anyway?

The French. Touring bike wheels. If the Americans had better availability they may have gone with it in the 70s instead of the 26″ kids’ bike wheels, they certainly knew about 650B then and recognised some benefits in it. As well as knowing that 26″ made stronger wheels when almost nothing they were using was up to the job.

What’s next will be ‘The First MTB-Specific, Developed For MTB Wheel Size’. 600C x 40mm wide rims. 2.4-2.8″ tyres. I’m only half-joking. It’ll be great for those that think 29+ is just too big but like the float of bigger tyres and like the option to use a 2.4″ that ends up smaller than current 29ers, and think that 650B+ is too wide or not so realistic for sussers. And its only 16mm bigger than 650B so there’s not much loss of chuckability, the same difference between 26 and 650. It’ll make a nice strong wheel with the new F+R axle width standards that need those wider forks (that bit I’m not speculating on, it’s here).

In the meantime Rockets will be out there and they’ll be brilliant.
(that bit will really happen) : )

..and Nuke, pretty much spot on. Maybe not sheep, too many keen riders involved for that imo but there’s a ‘don’t get left out’ feeling driving things after the 29er process.

Well I know the geometry is bang on because it’s near identical to my Spitfire

Sort of looks a little bit like it with a 160mm fork.

deluded – Member

Hmmmm – I don’t agree with the notion that grasping bike companies are hawking kit that doesn’t confer any real world benefits to the sport/pastime

The question isn’t so much whether there’s no real world benefits- it’s whether they justify the change. In this case, it’s a small change that requires replacing everything- and I don’t just mean buying a new bike, I mean every LBS in the world having to do something about their 26 inch stock, early obsolescence of designs and machining, lost opportunities- every bit of tyre “development” for most companies in 2013 and 2014 being “Let’s make it slightly bigger but otherwise the same”

chiefgrooveguru – Member

Have you ever stopped to consider that one reason 27.5 has proved popular is that it isn’t closer to the 29 size?

That’s the exact reason- it satisfies the magpie’s desire for change as stimulated by 29 inch wheels, while delivering a change so small that it’s not scary (because you’ll barely notice it) But that’s not a good thing other than for salesmen.

chestrockwell – Member

Tapered steerers have been about for years and hardly anyone batted an eye lid.

Matter of degrees really, in lots of ways. Frinstance I think either the Pike or the Fox 34 are the first massmarket forks ever made with no straight steerer version? And that’s a change that’s taken about a decade to come about so there’s been a pretty relaxed handover. And the negative impact on the industry are smaller since the redesign to accomodate it is smaller. Also it was compatible with 1.5 tubes. And even if you decide you MUST have a tapered steerer and so you change your frame, you can still use your old wheels.

So yeah it’s largely the same thing, but the impact is different, in the same way as 50 wheel size threads are more annoying than 10 wheel size threads…

Sort of looks a little bit like it with a 160mm fork

Spitfire (160 27.5 slack) vs SB6C (both medium)
HA 65.7 vs 65.5
Reach 427 vs 427
Stack 590 vs 599
BB height 342 vs 345
Chainstay 441 vs 442

Fairly similar where it counts!

As everybody is getting their knickers in a twist about wheel sizes (for about the 1,000,000th time…) IF your 26″ wheeled bike snapped or was stolen or whatever. What would you go and buy?

I must have been loking in the worng place. Where did you get those number from?
The Banshee site has different numbers (e.g 66deg HA at Low) the numbers put the SB6C as longer (WB & TT), steeper STA.
It does look like a riot though. I very nearly bought one but my LBS couldn’t get hold of one and never bothered to tell me. Small wonder they folded.

IF your 26″ wheeled bike snapped or was stolen or whatever. What would you go and buy?

another 26″ soul

I must have been loking in the worng place. Where did you get those number from?
The Banshee site has different numbers (e.g 66deg HA at Low) the numbers put the SB6C as longer (WB & TT), steeper STA.

The Banshee numbers are for 545mm A-C but a 160mm 27.5 Pike is 552mm, hence the slightly slacker angles. Actually, thinking about it further, that will take a bit off the reach and add a bit to the stack, and the Yeti’s wheelbase is showing as a bit longer so there must be a slightly larger difference between equal size frames – but you can always go up a size for more wheelbase and reach. They’re close enough that how you choose to run your front and rear sag will make more difference in how they feel geometrically.

IF your 26″ wheeled bike snapped or was stolen or whatever. What would you go and buy?

another 26″ soul

Snap! errm… I mean ditto!

(although I may be tempted by a Solaris, plus a 26″ something else to make use of all the wheels and spare forks that I have in the store room)

coogan – Member

IF your 26″ wheeled bike snapped or was stolen or whatever. What would you go and buy?

Every time I snap mine, I get new bits for free 😆

IF your 26″ wheeled bike snapped or was stolen or whatever. What would you go and buy?

2 different scenarios and illustrates the point. If my “bike” snapped (ie. the frame) its got nice expensive forks, wheels etc so I’d buy another 26″-compatible frame. If I lost the whole bike to theft I wouldnt buy 26″ as the industry is moving away from it and there will be less options for replacement forks/rims/tyres in the future. Whether I prefer 26 or 27.5 is irrelevant, it’s clear 26 isnt going to be supported.

I was waiting for the new 26″ rockets, hoping the new ones will be available in matte green …and was ready to order and pay it ..not only to think about it
but for several reasons I´m definitely not interested in the 27.5 version…
following the logic of cy´s statement and all the posts here
the question for me is now…how long will it be possible to buy a 26″ soul and when will there be a 27.5″ Bfe…?

I’d buy a 29er Rocket.
Might even be able to afford it properly by the time it’s ready.

I would definitely get a Cotic fatbike *hinthint*

If it snapped I’d be looking for a replacement under warranty. If it got nicked then things would be a bit more tricky. Funnily enough I’d go for a 26″ Rocket if one existed. Since it doesn’t I’d probably take a good look at the “nu-skool” 29ers (might do that anyway). If they didn’t work out I might just go for the 26″ Transition Suppressor. Pretty sure that I wouldn’t go for a 650B. Not that I think there is anything wrong with the size. I’m sure it will be just fine, it just takes time to really dial in the geometry. The “nu-skool” 29ers are kind of a case in point and it’s was only last year that companies were sticking different dropouts in their 26″ frame and calling them 650B. The ones we have now are really just first generation and will look a bit dated in a few years. I’d also like to wait and see whether there is any resurgence in 26″ in a few years time. Not saying it will happen, but I’m not arrogant enough to pretend that I know the future.

Pretty sure that I wouldn’t go for a 650B. Not that I think there is anything wrong with the size. I’m sure it will be just fine, it just takes time to really dial in the geometry.

There’s no magic in geometry. But when 29ers appeared the majority of the mountain bike industry had never tried to work with different wheel sizes – it therefore took time to work through the geometric possibilities, particularly as a bigger wheel is hard to package in medium and smaller frame sizes. To relate it to my day job designing loudspeakers, if you know how to design for 10″ and 15″ drivers, you’d have to be pretty clueless not to be able to design for 12″ drivers.

I’d also like to wait and see whether there is any resurgence in 26″ in a few years time. Not saying it will happen, but I’m not arrogant enough to pretend that I know the future.

had to smile reading that with the massive Audi banner ad at the top of the page featuring a picture of a vinyl record.

I bought my first new bike in about 5 years a few weeks ago and didn’t even think abut what size of wheels it had. It was a good price and had a good spec and it rode well when I took it for a spin around the forest. It was only after a few days I thought, huh, this thing has 650B wheels.

As for getting geometry sorted some companies, like Norco, (who pretty much missed the initial 29er thing) went straight to 650B and have got things pretty much dialed in now. I’m not sure I’d fancy an Enduro 650B or a Stumpy 650B this year, but the companies who made the decision more recently that last year shouldn’t have any issues.

One of the funny things that happened as 29ers were coming in was lots of designers became obsessed with “making them handle as fast as 26in bikes”, right at the same point lots of 26in riders were going “woah! These bikes handle too fast”.

Was quite funny for me as I got the inbred 29er to market, did the Scandal 29, then went riding with Oxley and Benji and then did the On One Summer Season.

Quite polar.

Right now I see 650b hardtails closer to 29er geometry than the other way. Except for Whyte ones which look to have cool numbers.

What do you think of the Stanton Switchback Brant?
Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems to be inline with your thoughts on HT geo?

Northwind – Member

The question isn’t so much whether there’s no real world benefits- it’s whether they justify the change.

I wasn’t talking exclusively about wheel sizes. As with all things that evolve, bike tech does so incrementally over time as well – hydraulic brakes, SPD’s, tubeless rims, wheel sizes, bolt-thru forks, clutch mechs, dropper posts, wider bars, the use of carbon, drive chains – narrow wide rings etc., etc. All these things conglomerate (sorry, couldn’t think of another word) to make the bikes more ‘enjoyable’. I know that’s a subjective word – but you know what a mean, pushing boundaries back and all that. Don’t view them in isolation. Would anyone argue they’re not good to have around, how the industry including LBS’s have not grown and prospered from them? My LBS’s are in quite good shape at the moment so I’m not overly concerned about them having to shift stock and re-orientate – that’s the very nature of their business and the supply chain.

My answer to your question therefore is yes – they are worth it.

BTW – I have two bikes, both 26” and old. My favourite being a steel HT with a 27.2 seat post that’s oxidised to the frame and now immovable! I am however saving up for a 27.5 HT build (I have the frame a Stanton Switchback) that will have updated parts.

deluded – Member

I wasn’t talking exclusively about wheel sizes. As with all things that evolve, bike tech does so incrementally over time as well

Except that this is exactly the opposite, an abrupt change over an artificially short timescale.

I don’t agree it was abrupt.

over an artificially short timescale.

What does this mean (not being rude, genuinely interested)?

I don’t see how you can think it was anything but abrupt tbh, the abandonment of 26 inch happened in only a little over a year, and 650b bikes had almost totally taken over even before there was a proper range of tyres for them.

@cy – respect for trying to get a UK built Rocket out the door, I hope something comes of your project.

As for wheel sizes and commercial reality (not aimed at Cy) – I’d maybe buy a 650b Rocket, but a 26″, no way.

Deluded member

I think the word you were looking for was “accumulated” 🙂

I agree, they are perhaps a bit more obvious than Dave Brailsford’s “marginal gains” but they all add up. Some things like tapered steerers are hard to quantify but others, like wide bars are less so.

Take a typical (probably no such thing but I hope you know what I mean) bike from ten years ago and compare it to the equivalent today and you’ll really see the difference. But apply each change one at a time, like those word games where you have to change one word to another a letter at a time, and you wouldn’t really notice a huge difference in each stage.

You can divide the changes that have taken place in to hard and soft.

Hard changes affect the frame basically: Wheel size; tapered steerers; geometry; Bottom Bracket design. You can’t apply them to existing frames – you have to get a new one.

Soft changes are add-ons: short stems; wide bars; riser bars; tubeless; 1x drivetrains. You can swap these around on an existing frame.

We had 29’rs before 27.5! It seemed clear to me that wheel sizes were in play for change a lot longer than just over a year. And again, I wasn’t just referring to wheel sizes.