I can’t believe I ever doubted that the manufacturers had our best interests at heart.

Turns out that the new wheel size isn’t just a cynical, nasty, manipulative, dirty, kick in the face for their installed customer base.
Giant, for one, are just worried that we’re having to suffer with too light, too efficient, too stiff 26 inch bikes.
They fear we can’t handle their snappy acceleration and have sacrificed all to provide us with a bigger wheelsize that solves all these problems.

They have kindly written this explanatory note for their website:
Linky.

I’m writing this post in order to assuage my guilt and to help others who may be under the misapprehantion that the major players behind 650b are a bunch of money-grabbing, illigitimate, rapacious shysters with the ethics of a heroin addicted weasel and the bare faced cheek of a Zimbabwean cabinet minister.

Please accept my most sincere apologies.

It does read somewhat ‘we took a 26″ wheel with a 1.9″ tyre, and a 650b with a 2.4″tyre, and the contact patch/angle of attack was X% greater’

As expected, the 26-inch-wheel bike is somewhat lighter than the 27.5, and substantially lighter than the 29 (up to two pounds of overall bike weight savings from 29 to 27.5).

so its heavier than the bike it replaced –

A larger contact patch results in better traction, which leads to improved acceleration, deceleration and cornering

Wow its likes drag and inertia do not affect it

Cant be arsed with the rest

haters gonna hate..

Quite good that. Makes sense, especially the contact patch benefit.

Junkyard – lazarus

so its heavier than the bike it replaced –

Don’t worry young Junky.
There will be plenty of expensive aftermarket parts available to bring the weight back down again.

See, they do care.

Who cares, I’m sticking with 26″, and not once will I ever be out riding and think, ‘this would be so much more fun with bigger wheels..’

gavstorie – Member

haters gonna hate..

Look, I’ve already apologised once for my irrational hatred of being stitched up like a kipper.
I don’t think you’re taking my change of heart seriously, tbh.

When money’s involved, especially profit growth, you just can’t trust anyone’s motivations.
This is why capitalism must be destroyed!
http://thevenusproject.com
And then we can all ride around on 36ers happily ever after

buzz-lightyear – Member

Quite good that. Makes sense, especially the contact patch benefit.

I agree entirely.

At last, justice for the countless thousands who marched on our capital demanding larger contact patches for their bicycles.
Their voices have been heard and their efforts vindicated.
We shall never forget them.

Company named Giant opt for smaller wheels.

What tyres for climbing beanstalks?

I am not a hater as such it is just a solution to a problem that does not really exist. Its done to make money and “force” us all to upgrade our obsolete bikes.
I dont doubt a 29 er is sufficiently different to serve a purpose and adds something to the market. this just replaces for no real actual benefit …unless you want more drag and a heavier bike whilst getting an awesome angle of attack for bumps [ which are all square edged]
I would like to see it fall flat on its arse and teach “them” a lesson but I suspect enough will buy into it for it make money

Makes sense, especially the contact patch benefit.

Is my sarcasm detector broken as it reads like you mean that

They claim it has greater contact , drag, is heavier , inertia, yet it also accelerates faster – we should all get fat bike tyres then as their contact area and weight is even bigger

Eh, they seem to be measuring contact patch by length rather than area there… All other things being equal surely they’ll create a longer but narrower patch? (since it’s basically about spreading pressure and tyre deformation)

you mean they are massaging the figures…they would not do that would they

I quite like the 650b tyre size.. If I had to choose a single thing about it that stands out.. it would be traction.. On loose, wet or mucky ground.. There is definitely an improvement in traction over my old 26’r

It does have it’s downside’s.. manoeuvrability is slightly worse.. but that is only a marginal thing..

Do I think it is worth upgrading to if you have a bike that you are happy with…? probably not..

If I was going to buy a new bike.. would I be looking at buying a 26’r…? Definitely not

is life to short to get your ass in a twist because of progress? Absolutely not..

live and let live

Who cares, I’m sticking with 26″, and not once will I ever be out riding and think, ‘this would be so much more fun with bigger wheels..’

This.

gavstorie – Member

I quite like the 650b tyre size.. If I had to choose a single thing about it that stands out.. it would be traction.. On loose, wet or mucky ground.. There is definitely an improvement in traction over my old 26’r

I take it you’re comparing exactly the same model of bike, same tyre design etc, just with differently sized wheels?

is life to short to get your ass in a twist because of progress? Absolutely not..

How, in the name of Jesus H Corbett can this be classed as progress?

live and let live

Except that for Giant’s 26 and 29 inch wheeled bikes, it’s;
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK2hKzZss5Y[/video]

All design choice is compromise, but they are saying 650b is a better compromise that 26″ and 29″. It remains to be seen if real-world experience supports the “theory” because I’ve ridden bikes of all three wheels sizes, and whilst they feel different, they all feel good.

I really don’t think makers will stop supplying bits for 26″ wheeled bikes any time soon. I’m not worrying about mine.

Very first point fails for me

Compare the weights of identically equipped bikes with different wheel sizes and you’ll see substantial weight differences.

So are they identical or different…. Umnnngh!!!

I really don’t think makers will stop supplying bits for 26″ wheeled bikes any time soon. I’m not worrying about mine.

Me neither. Not really. 🙂

It’s the bare faced cynicism and greed I have issues with.
Along with the utter contempt shown to the customer.

There’s just not enough difference over 26 to justify the change.

Their voices have been heard and their efforts vindicated.
We shall never forget them.

😆

I demand that you contribute to every wheel related debate from now on!

Im pretty sure there was a similar uproar when the first full suspension bikes hit the market….

Why do we need them… our rigids/hard tails are perfect for what we do.. This is just a way to get people to spend more money..

Blah blah blah..

Buy a 650b.. don’t buy a 650b.. who really cares..

Get on your bike and pedal… That’s what it’s all about..

The industry didn’t threatened to stop making hardtails, did it?

Get on your bike and pedal… That’s what it’s all about…

So it’s not all about money then?

Thank God for that, I was worried for a while there…

…just 😆 now really…ninja edit

S’what we do best, innit? 😀

The larger the wheel, the more difficult it is to optimize geometry, especially on smaller frames. As the frame size decreases, headtube heights become higher (in relation to saddle height). On 26 or 27.5-inch frames, it’s less of a problem, but geometry limitations can affect smaller 29-inch-wheel frames.

That’s from the site, and it’s something I’ve been mulling over for some time. I very nearly sprang for a 29er recently but being a tragically stunted dwarf at 5′ 8″ I realised that there’s little room to spare for the frame geometry magic that defines so many great bikes. Remember how important mud clearance once was for example? 😐

So 650b makes sense for ‘smaller’ riders as it allows breathing space for that crucial frame tuning. But then…what’s the point? Why dilute the obvious benefits of 26 and 29 for something that blurs both in a compromise format?

Anyway, interesting to see a major bike manufacturer quietly undermining the 29er craze in preparation for a possible consumer backlash…probably.

tragically stunted dwarf at 5′ 8″

25.1″ is the future…your time will come

Maybe I was an early convert, I have always had 2.4″ tyres on my 26″ rims.

suppose it helps all the bikes with lots of links that cant fit a fat tyre but my famous single pivot handles them fine.

Something i’ve posted on here a little while ago:

To clarify, there’s less than a 2% improvement in all cases when going from 26er to 29er… A Formula 1 team would pay millions for a 2% improvement, so it seems like a bargain! I don’t think i can afford not to buy a 650b to be honest! I could knock 7 or even 8 seconds off my commute!

Sauce.

I was at glentress a couple of weeks a go and I was really impressed with how they have adjusted their trails to force riders into bigger wheels, simply by adding rocks and steps on the climbs.

On the climb to the freeride area I was amazed at how many retro bikers there where stood like lemmings trying to figure out how to ride over them. It was only when I rode straight over them on my 29er they realised it was all about the angle of attack.

There was a couple of trail builders at the top and as I complimented them about the well maintained trails they showed me the 650b specific dirt they have imported for the upcoming enduro. It was so soft to touch, smelt funny though but anything with a small comtact area just can’t bite into it.

The downhill sections from spooky woods haven’t been modified yet so unfortunately I had to walk down most of it in case my wheels left the ground and exploded, or it got too steep and techy for a 29er’er

I was in the super market the other day and those cynical bastards were forcing a “family sized” packet of biscuits on me.
Owning at least 3 Crass albums I told the Man where to stick it and bought the small pack.
Ps they were a LOT lighter as well.

Tony Ellsworth must have written that for Giant.

Given the choice, having read and digested that, I’d be tempted to go for the 26er!

See I’d been refusing to believe that 27.2 was between 26 and 29. However now I’ve seen pictures, I suppose I have to.

Lateral (side-to-side) frame stiffness can be affected by wheel size. To accommodate larger wheels, frame dimensions must be elongated. Therefore, a size medium 29-inch wheel frame has more lateral flex (bottom bracket and headtube) than a size medium 27.5 or 26-inch wheel frameset. Additional flex compromises handling under heavy pedaling or sharp cornering.

True, but that also means that us more ‘manly’ built chaps are already suffering vs the short arses – and that Hora is right, we should ride frames too small for us!

I was chatting to the owner of a local LBS last week about 29er’s (he had a Genesis in) and one comment he made was that with pretty much any 29er you’ve just got to accept that you’ll have to really buy a decent set of after-market wheels – as this is a real compromise area on new/complete bikes.

If 26″ is better than 650B, then surely we should be pushing for 24″ wheels – or even 20″?

but they are saying 650b is a better compromise that 26″ and 29″

no they are saying it is a compromise between a 29 er and a 26 er I suspect this meands rolls over things a bit better than a 26 er and is not quite like turning a barn gate like a 29 er

TBH the 650 b is the compromise between light and agile and rides like a barn gate. That is it is neither one thing or th eother jack of all trades master of none

Im pretty sure there was a similar uproar when the first full suspension bikes hit the market….

Why do we need them… our rigids/hard tails are perfect for what we do.. This is just a way to get people to spend more money.

nah you are making that up I am sure [nealry]everyone could see that suspension is better than no suspension and appreciated it [ weightissues aside]
However they did not stop making rigid when they started making suspension like they have with this

If 26″ is better than 650B, then surely we should be pushing for 24″ wheels – or even 20″?

or 31 er wheels or 26 ers or penny farthings

I think we can all see [ except perhaps you] it is a balance between light and agile and wont go over rocks and large so rolls easily and still actually capable of turning and being vaugely nimble on the larger wheeled variety
The answer would appear to be 26 er and 29 er so i still fail to see what problem a 650 b solves tbh. Worst of both rather than th ebest

The larger the diameter of a wheel, the greater the contact patch of the tire.

Wrong, or at least oversimplified for the benefit of marketing spin.

As you can see, a 27.5-inch wheel has a similar contact patch to the 29.

Sure it has, if you balance the tyre pressures they can even be the same. Since that’s what really affects contact patch area. Wheel diameter just affects the shape of it. P=F/A. You want more contact patch? Use wider rims and tyres of any diameter to put more area on the ground at a useable pressure.

Showing contact patch length like that rather than actual footprint area suggests there’s a lot of spin in that article.

epicyclo – Member

If 26″ is better than 650B, then surely we should be pushing for 24″ wheels – or even 20″?

Nah… Nobody’s actually saying 26 inch is teh bestest, unlike 650b or 29er. What they’re saying is, 650b isn’t very different from 26 so why change. Same argument for the status quo applies to every other wheel size change, you need a big difference to justify a big change.

Seen the size of the average 650b logo? They barely fit on the tyres. The change in logo size is proportionally far bigger than the change in wheel size 😉 So from that you can conclude that the change in marketing bullshit is far bigger than the change in ride.

I think we can all see [ except perhaps you]…

Ouch! That’s cold 😉