What is RSS?
Get our articles in your inbox:
650b is coming
August 27th, 2007 by Brad QuartuccioNow that 29″ wheels are completely accepted into mountain bike design and culture, with 26″ wheels holding their own, clearly the time is right for a new, even better, wheel size. 27.5 inches! No, I’m not kidding.
Might as well get ready for the talk of 650b. It’s already begun… Rivendell has been pushing for these in-between wheels as a touring and general riding solution for us all, and Kirk Pacenti of BikeLugs.com introduced a 650b mountain bike and has managed to get tires in production. The parts are all there, what about the hype?
The 650b standard is an old Euro thing that is pretty much right in-between 26″ and 700c/29″sizes. Touring folks like them as they allow an outside tire diameter close to 700c yet with much more volume. Mountain bike proponents point to them as a solution to many of the geometry challenges 29″ wheels present, both in terms of riders less than about 6′ tall and those designing suspension systems. Market forces will sort out if these things are “needed” or not, but I speculate the talk will intensify before it dies down. Between the touring folks and the not-quite 29er folks, there might be yet another size with a fighting chance.
Read all about it in greater detail here, here and even here.
Good article and good links. Thanks for the leg work, fellas.
Forget about it!
Fine for shuttle bunnies, but for those of us who like to climb, these are no help.
29 completely accepted. Give me a break. It’s called a fad. Or is it a marketing fad!
And 650 doesn’t help short people who already struggle with even 26. And tall people (I’m one) can “live” with all the faults of 26!
I realize that 29ers (and 69s) have advantages, but who needs another size and particularly one that doesn’t work for a lot of people. I just got back from a group ride at Lake Tahoe and three of the eight were on small or extra small frames. I doubt market forces will leave these people behind.
I think either end of this argument is correct. If you are a rider that notices small differences, than get a custom builder to build you something while throwing out any industry standard (or limitations.) If you are someone that likes to have things standard, & easy to get than I would say that a 26″ is for you. I personally tell a difference between 26″ and 29″ I like the benefits of rolling over things with ease & a wider tire contact point. Then there are some folks that say they feel like clown wheels. Now do they feel like clown wheels because they have been riding 26″ wheels for 8 years, and have the personality of change is bad?
One fact I use to sell 29″ bikes to folks over 5′9 is this…
Childrens bike start at 12″ & go up to 24″ why shouldn’t adult bikes? If you are between said 4 inches you fit this wheel size. No it doesn’t make industry standards which bike companies and distributors need at this time but maybe having the right wheel & frame size would make you that much better of a rider.
Just some thoughts.
Arleigh, you hit the nail on the head regarding different tires sizes for different sizes of riders. Tall riders have “lived with the faults” (quoting Fred) with 26″ because there was no choice. But with the introduction of 29ers, tall people have discovered something they like better. Part of the discovery is the rolling performance benefits, but part of it relates to “bike fit” Tall riders finally felt they were sitting “in the bike” instead of being “on top” of a bike.
Fad or not. 29ers work fantastic for many riders. That has been proven.
650b is offering another fitting option. Just as with 29ers, riders won’t know they like it better than what they have until they try it. In a time, where bike enthusiasts more than ever are smart enough to know a custom fit makes a huge difference, introducing a third tire size makes a lot of sense.
I am really surprised that consumers are complaining why we need it. I would’ve thought that it would mainly be the tire and wheel makers who would be sighing “here we go again”.
How does the bike fit better with a 29er? Is my high school geometry failing me? No doubt the rolling resistance is less and the tire patch longer (not sure about wider). Hard to deternine the climbing trade-off between lower rolling reistance and higher momentum and mass, but maybe someone’s done it.
I would think the tire manufacturers would like it. More products to sell. Certainly a head ache for small shops and distributors when a customer comes in and asks for something they don’t have.
It would be interesting to revisit this topic in a few years and see what the market and marketeers end up with.
>
I mean it fits certain people better (not all).
One example is for taller people, bigger tires means more stability when railing around corners. It is the opposite feeling you might have when you are trying to rail around a corner on a folding bike with 16″ wheels vs using a road bike with 700c wheels.
Also it may fit certain terrain or rider styles better. For the most part, you’d think that 29ers would not climb as well as 26ers, but in some unique cases they seem to climb way better.
>
Partially true. What I meant was I think tire manufacturers would find it easier to create, market and sell more 26″ tires than to push a whole new size concept. It means dividing up marketing and manufacturing resources. And riskier for sure.
Though Gary Fisher and other early makers of 29ers were pretty valiant in pushing the new tire size, it was really the customers that evangelized this movement from niche to mainstream. If customers make enough noise, that’s when the manufacturers will move its butt.
I just hear a rumor that Haro will have two 650B wheeled “Werx Xeon” all mountain” rigs at the Outdoor Dirt Demo.
Ineresting read!
http://bikebizbabe.blogspot.com/2007/09/650b-experiment.html
In a relationship there is a code, one that nurtures and submits, and one that takes the lead and is the protective role.. But is it wrong that I think a woman cannot protect, lead, and be assertive like a man would? Or is it like that?