[Closed] 650b - WTF?

Getting us to spend money innit?
The bike industry has been telling us what we "need" for a long time now....

Yes it does but then do we need all those different bikes?
650 b makes a nice touring ride.

Wheel size doesn't really relate to your height, they just don't look as weird if it's on a large frame size. What 29er did you try? The manufacturer nominal sizing might not relate to what you're used to on a 26" but I'd be surprised if you're not a short-arse (which it doesn't sound like as you ride a medium 26") that you'd have any trouble finding a 29er that fitted.

650b isn't such a bad idea really, the problem is 29 got more widely adopted before. The key thing with 650b is it's easier to package the rear wheel into current 26" designs and still gives some of the benefits of a bigger wheel. If it had been adopted first I reckon 26" would disappear completely in a couple of years and then 29ers could just be niche. As it stands I can see 26 and 29 remaining mainstream for years with 650b niche, which is pointless (having 3 wheel sizes), especially given the 26"/650b overlap.

What does 650 'b' stand for is it metric, imperial? Rumour is Trek are maybe going to make a political gesture to stick it back to Specialised for their more 'successful' marketing of 29ers that seem to have gone down better in the States than they have here.

FuzzyWuzzy - Member
Wheel size doesn't really relate to your height, they just don't look as weird if it's on a large frame size. What 29er did you try?

I'm weird, I have 31" inside leg but have a short top bit so my legs dictate medium but the rest of me says small. I rode a medium Covert all last year, this year I switched to a small. The bike I was going to blag for this weekend just gone, was a 29er bandit, everyone round here is going on about what a cool ride it is, yet for me the stand over height was total ball contact, not even a centimetre clearance as was the case with the Covert medium, and it made my Small Covert look like a kids toy by comparison so they now tell me there is no small frame in a 29 Bandit (I haven't looked tbh).

Any someone I spoke to this morning on the blower, was kicking off about 650b's, which I'd never heard of, so hence this thread.

[img] http://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/users/2/photos/33276/s780_lars_double.jp g" target="_blank">http://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/users/2/photos/33276/s780_lars_double.jp g"/> ?1335075747[/img]

Found this picture on the sea otter thread of a 650b bike (the black KHS)which doesn't look that much different compared to that Double.

So what conceivable argument is there in favour of another wheel size?

What does 650 'b' stand for is it metric, imperial?

650b
700c
650a

all just French metric sizes..

(Finally got to sit on one the other day, I can ride a medium normally this was way too big and there is no small frame so that specific 29er's [s]are [/s]is out for me)

FTFY.

There are 'advantages' to all 3, you can decide if you think they're worthwhile. I reckon all 3 are likely to be here to stay.

I don't understand this - 650mm = 25.59". That makes it smaller than 26", doesn't it?

650mm = 25.59

+ a 2"[ish] tyre = ??

@derek - when you say it was too big though was that just because of the standover or was the reach a problem to? Personally I think standover height is irrelvant, how many people actually need to stand straddling the bike?

@derek - when you say it was too big though was that just because of the standover or was the reach a problem to? Personally I think standover height is irrelvant, how many people actually need to stand straddling the bike?

The reach, the height off the ground, i just felt well weird and not in the sort of way you would want to, we have lots of granny climbs round here and if the rear wheel slips going uphill.....

So whereas I agree that stand over isn't everything, just occasionally you do need to. I like with the reverb now to push the button and have both feet touch the ground, no way that would happen with that 29er medium, it's a big boys bike, in fact, reckon it's a Giants bike in a large or XL.

trail bikes wtf; xc bikes and downhill bikes cover everything that could be needed who needs a new niche in the middle.

The key thing with 650b is it's easier to package the rear wheel into current 26" designs and still gives some of the benefits of a bigger wheel.

Rumour is Trek are maybe going to make a political gesture

Trek Sixhundredandfiftibniner?

Not too keen on the 29" wheels, isn't the 650b the equivalent of about 27.5", that sounds about right to me!

derekrides - Member

Could someone explain to me why we need this wheel size, just after the big push to get us all to consider 29ers (Finally got to sit on one the other day, I can ride a medium normally this was way too big and there is no small frame so 29er's are out for me) am `i now going to be urged by all that a 650b is the future for Mountain Bikes?

The joke is on you. Or rather by you I mean, people who got sucked in by 29er hype. It's just marketing. When did you ever ride a bike and think "I wish it had bigger wheels to roll over stuff"

Yet another clever way to extract money from fools.

I, for one, welcome our new large wheel overlords.

Whats the problem? You don't HAVE to buy every bike that comes out. Do you buy every new shock, stem length, bar width, tyre tread, brake design etc as they come out?

When buying a new bike it gives more options. Try both, see which you prefer, put your money down?

When did you ever ride a bike and think "I wish it had bigger wheels to roll over stuff"

But thinking "I wish it had 150mm travel at both ends, an extra 5lbs of weight and huge tyres to roll over stuff", that's the sort of logic that justifies £3k bikes right? Those fools on their £150 Inbred 29ers!

muddyfunster - Member
The joke is on you. Or rather by you I mean, people who got sucked in by 29er hype. It's just marketing. When did you ever ride a bike and think "I wish it had bigger wheels to roll over stuff"

Yet another clever way to extract money from fools.

Well yes and no, I guess I am a bit of a victim for new kit, especially if I can see the advantage, and tbh I tended to agree with your view on the whole 29er thing and now I finally got to sit nearly astride one, I didn't need to ride it to realise it would be hopeless, so at least i hadn't bought it off the web to find out, that might have made me a fool.

Now had I been a lanky great bloke and they always complain about bikes not really fitting them well, which must be true if they fit me, then it must be good for them so there is some logic there, but where do you ever see it written? [b]"29er - bikes for big blokes"[/b].

So what's going to be the slogan for 27 1/2" inchers? [b]"Bikes for not big yet not small blokes"?[/b]

And 26ers? Will they become Dwarf fodder?

Buying a bike and realising you made a mistake, is that a 29er thing though? I bought a Mojo and found it rubbish, then bought a second hand Scandal 29er and it's been fantastic. Which one was foolish?

650B has been around for years. In the early days of mtb's the only fat tyres around were the 26" ones used on cruisers and the like so this became the 'standard' size by default. Over the years I've seen articles/interviews with bike engineers & designers who have stated a preference for 650B but the industry was never prepared to make the change.

Whilst in the States last year I tried to demo a 650B test bike but the shop had it booked out solidly for 8/9 weeks. Talking to the owner, he said there had been a rumour (more like conspiracy theory) floating round the bike industry out there that 29ers were dreamt up to get the mtbing world to take notice of a different wheel size. Once it got a foothold in the market and the great 26/29 debates started it left the door wide open for the 650B to come in as the prferred option, being able to combine the perceived benefits of both other sizes into one.....

I don't do conspiracies but the logic of the 650B wheel has some merit, IMHO of course.

Whilst in the States last year I tried to demo a 650B test bike but the shop had it booked out solidly for 8/9 weeks. Talking to the owner, he said there had been a rumour (more like conspiracy theory) floating round the bike industry out there that 29ers were dreamt up to get the mtbing world to take notice of a different wheel size. Once it got a foothold in the market and the great 26/29 debates started it left the door wide open for the 650B to come in as the prferred option, being able to combine the perceived benefits of both other sizes into one.....

I love this. And am now taking it to be fact. I love the fact you just stated.

[img] [/img]

Ah, so the master plan is fast forward five years and there will be no 29ers, no 26ers and 27.5ers will be standard for the ever diminishing mountain bike market. That makes more sense, would that it be the case.

in ten years time wheel size will be irrelevant, we'll all be hovering 6 inches above the trail....

Why was there not the same outrage when people suggested a 50mm, 55mm, 60mm, 65mm, 70mm, 75mm, 80mm, 85mm, 90mm, 95mm, 100mm, 105mm, 110mm, 115mm, 120mm stems?

Some people over think things, choice is good, finding something you like is even better. If you're happy with 26" wheels then good for you, if you like 29" wheel then that's cool too, you never know 650B might be good too.

The only reason to be afraid is that one day you'll stand next to someone one a 29er and say you prefer your 26" wheels as they make the bike more manoeuvrable and chuckable, then he/she will make you look a bit silly on some singletrack and/or jumps.

thisisnotaspoon

Why was there not the same outrage when peole suggested a 50mm, 55mm, 60mm, 65mm, 70mm, 75mm, 80mm, 85mm, 90mm, 95mm, 100mm, 105mm, 110mm, 115mm, 120mm stems?

Are stems not, a bit, like, just a bit.....more interchangeable? Than say .....a wheelset that necessitates an entirely new frame, and forks, and tyres, and geometry.

I mean, I can change my stem without changing my entire bike....and yet when I try to change to 29er wheels I find that it is not quite so easy.

thisisnotaspoon
The only reason to be afraid is that one day you'll stand next to someone one a 29er and say you prefer your 26" wheels as they make the bike more manoeuvrable and chuckable, then he/she will [s]make you look a bit silly on some singletrack and/or jumps[/s] bore you to tears talking about how it rolls over obstacles better and is so good for climbing closely followed by the revelation that they don't really "get mountainbiking" and they just wanted something that was good for getting them to work and they thought that mountainbikes looked tough and cool but it's great because they can put some 700c road tyres on it and then it's really great on the road but yet despite this they still harbour the opinion that 26" wheels are inferior and just not right for tall people and 650b is just a cynical marketing ploy unlike 29ers which really are the future and a genuine inovative improvement and well worth shelling out 2k for a new bike on instead of upgrading the 26" bike they had because it was totally redundant with it's small wheels..

I love this. And am now taking it to be fact. I love the fact you just stated.

It must be fact - a muurken said so. 😉

id be well happy for 650b to replace all 26ers and 29ers,
too many standards is a pita

kimbers - Member

id be well happy for 650b to replace all 26ers and 29ers,
too many standards is a [s]pita[/s] another way for bike manufactures to justify ass raping us with massive costs

has anyone ever actually had someone come upto them on a 29er and "bore you to tears"? Or has this mythical boring 29er riding mountainbiker been made up?

There must be 10x more "I don't like a choice of wheel sizes" threads than threads started about the apparent benefits of 29ers?

For the record the bandit sizing is odd, you go up one to normal, I bought a large even though I ride mediums

thisisnotaspoon - Member

has anyone ever actually had someone come upto them on a 29er and "bore you to tears"? Or has this mythical boring 29er riding mountainbiker been made up?

I have. Do I win a prize? He'd worked out how far he'd go for each turn of the crank relative to the wheel size of each bike too. He used it mainly for going to work as the bigger tyres meant he could ride up and down kerbs more easily than on a hybrid.

too many standards is another way for bike manufactures to justify ass raping us with massive costs

You're not paranoid, they really are after you!

If you don't want one then what's the issue? No ones forcing you to buy a new bike.

No ones forcing you to buy a new bike

No one's going out of their way to standardize production and distribution to drive down costs either are they?

"Could someone explain to me why we need this wheel size"

Because some suckers will buy it. It's called marketing.

I find most people who own 29ers are too busy riding to bother boring people

has anyone ever actually had someone come upto them on a 29er and "bore you to tears"? Or has this mythical boring 29er riding mountainbiker been made up?

Aren't 29er riders like Apple Mac owners - they feel the need to convert everyone else?

Aren't 29er riders like Apple Mac owners - they feel the need to convert everyone else?

29er riders are Jehovah Witnesses?

What does 650 'b' stand for is it metric, imperial?

650b, 700c etc are all old french metric tyre size designations. The "650" denotes approximate outside diameter of an inflated tyre, the b or c refers to width. Originally the French system had tyre widths from a through to e with a being the narrowest. The astute among you have already realised that modern "650b" tyres are neither 650mm in OD, nor use tyres which are narrower than a standard "700c" road tyre at ~23mm. So "650b" is not really 650b, in much the same way "700c" is not 700c as per the original French system.

As the ETRTO began to standardise tyre sizes, and manufacturers wanted to stock less variants of rims, tyres and spokes (you think having three standards will be bad - go back 60-70 years and there were many many more) we were left with a few commonly used sizes for adult bikes.

559mm (bead seat diameter - the radius of where the bead of the tyre fits under the rim hook) which we know better as 26"
The "650's" hung on a little, 650c (571mm bsd) for pursuit front wheels, small road bikes and some tri bikes, 650b (584mm) until recent times on French touring bikes and now on "mtb 650b".
622mm is current road/hybrid/touring/29er standard.

Most everything else, including the venerable 27x1 1/4" is basically on the way out if not already dead.

Much more on sheldonbrown.com

In light of the fact that they're not THAT much bigger than a 26'er with a big tyre on, if you could get some fairly low profile tyres would a set of 650b wheels fit in a normal 26'er frame?

And if they do, what's the point because obviously they'd have the same diameter (including tyre) that you'd have with a 26 inch wheel running a larger tyre.

I've answered my own question there......

Aren't 29er riders like Apple Mac owners

I'd post a quick witter rreply but my PC crashed so now it's 8 minutes late

In light of the fact that they're not THAT much bigger than a 26'er with a big tyre on, if you could get some fairly low profile tyres would a set of 650b wheels fit in a normal 26'er frame?

And if they do, what's the point because obviously they'd have the same diameter (including tyre) that you'd have with a 26 inch wheel running a larger tyre.

You could, in the same way as road bike wheels fit in MTB frames to make nice commuter bikes (IME). Guess the advantage would be you could run narrow tyres without making the wheels smaller if that was necessary as most bike tyres are vaguely circular in cross section?

Do people still argue over this shit.

Ride what ever wheel size you want.

No one else cares.

650b, 700c etc are all old french metric tyre size designations. The "650" denotes approximate outside diameter of an inflated tyre, the b or c refers to width. Originally the French system had tyre widths from a through to e with a being the narrowest. The astute among you have already realised that modern "650b" tyres are neither 650mm in OD, nor use tyres which are narrower than a standard "700c" road tyre at ~23mm. So "650b" is not really 650b, in much the same way "700c" is not 700c as per the original French system.

As the ETRTO began to standardise tyre sizes, and manufacturers wanted to stock less variants of rims, tyres and spokes (you think having three standards will be bad - go back 60-70 years and there were many many more) we were left with a few commonly used sizes for adult bikes.

559mm (bead seat diameter - the radius of where the bead of the tyre fits under the rim hook) which we know better as 26"
The "650's" hung on a little, 650c (571mm bsd) for pursuit front wheels, small road bikes and some tri bikes, 650b (584mm) until recent times on French touring bikes and now on "mtb 650b".
622mm is current road/hybrid/touring/29er standard.

Most everything else, including the venerable 27x1 1/4" is basically on the way out if not already dead.

Much more on sheldonbrown.com

You must be a blast at parties..

combine the perceived benefits of both other sizes into one

There is some marketing BS spoken about 650B, and this ^ is it. It doesn't have all the benefits of both, it's just a half-way compromise (not aimed at whoever I took the quote from, just a comment I've read many times about 650B)

650B x 3" tyres, Fat-lite TM.. is what I want out of all this.

559mm (bead seat diameter - the radius of where the bead of the tyre fits under the rim hook) which we know better as 26"
The "650's" hung on a little, 650c (571mm bsd) for pursuit front wheels, small road bikes and some tri bikes, 650b (584mm) until recent times on French touring bikes and now on "mtb 650b".
622mm is current road/hybrid/touring/29er standard.

So a 650b wheel is only 25mm bigger in diameter than a 26" wheel? Is this really correct??
I do not believe that anyone could tell the difference when riding them if it is that small.

He is, although he tends to drink more than he talks, and throws crazy shapes on the dance floor

You could argue that MTBs would be the same as they were 20 years ago without companies 'dreaming up new ways to part fools from their money'.
You'd be naive to think companies don't have an eye on the bottom line but innovation goes hand in hand with the ability to make money from it.

So as above, why not just take what works for you when you need something new and ignore what doesn't?

According to the Sea Otter reviews, the riders couldn't tell the difference between 26 inch bikes and 650B when riding.

So a 650b wheel is only 25mm bigger in diameter than a 26" wheel? Is this really correct??
I do not believe that anyone could tell the difference when riding them if it is that small.

Yes - this is true.

You must be a blast at parties..

I consciously have to try to avoid talking about tyre sizes in such settings - unless of course the party is with fellow bike geeks.

People on here seem to be so anti marketing that you'd think they were talking about oppressive government regimes. Of course marketing departments are going to push the next big thing to you, that’s their job. They wouldn’t be good marketing departments if they didn’t try and sell the products. Why people get all bothered about this and state that every new “standard” is some sort of marketing conspiracy is beyond me. Make an informed decision about whether the new product/standard/whatever would be of benefit to you or not. If it is then buy it, if it isn’t then don’t, simple. Very rarely do you see a new product that is actually a bunch of crap and a step backwards, because behind the marketing hype, the products are usually driven by engineers and product managers who are continually innovating and developing to actually improve on the technology. New products are not driven by the marketing departments, the marketing departments are just there to help sell the products once they have been realised.
Take the new bar/stem standard from Easton. So many people were up in arms over this despite the claims of increase strength and stiffness and reduced weight. If you don’t think you’ll benefit from that, then don’t buy the product! If everyone else thinks the same, then the product will die off along with Girvin flex stems, brake boosters and toe clips. Being anti-new-standard is not a reason not to buy, embrace or consider a new product development. The industry needs things like the development of wheels sizes in order for bike technology to progress, otherwise we would still be riding those 50lb cruisers down fire roads.

New products are not driven by the marketing departments, the marketing departments are just there to help sell the products once they have been realised.

Ringo - Member

For the record the bandit sizing is odd, you go up one to normal, I bought a large even though I ride mediums

[img] [/img]

😯

According to the Sea Otter reviews, the riders couldn't tell the difference between 26 inch bikes and 650B when riding.

Phew! That saves me the trouble of "upgrading" from 26" to 650b.

Subject closed.

I have all 3 wheel sizes. I can easily tell the 29 from the 26, but the 650b feels like either, if you see what I mean. I prefer the ride and added confidence of larger wheels, so 29er is my favourite. I have a 26" titanium Ala Carte baht I wasn't using much as I preferred my 29er, so I fitted 650b wheels to it and now I imagine I will use my Ala Carte more than I used to. The issue currently is tyres, although this is looking like it won't be such an issue in 2013.

GB

Progression is good. We need it otherwise, we'd still be riding Penny Farthings.

Rear mechs, front mechs, rapid fire shifters, tubeless, Front suspension, rear suspension, dropper posts, summer vs winter tyres, pro-pedal, hydraulic brakes...

All the above and many more came about because companies and individuals tried to push for innovation and to introduce something that would improve our riding experience.

Consumer opinion/reviews and personal experience will help us decide between good and bad products, but to say that this isn't needed before even trying it is shortsighted.

At the end of the day you can choose to buy or not.

🙄

Progression is good. We need it otherwise, we'd still be riding Penny Farthings.

Rear mechs, front mechs, rapid fire shifters, tubeless, Front suspension, rear suspension, dropper posts, summer vs winter tyres, pro-pedal, hydraulic brakes...

All the above and many more came about because companies and individuals tried to push for innovation and to introduce something that would improve our riding experience.

Consumer opinion/reviews and personal experience will help us decide between good and bad products, but to say that this isn't needed before even trying it is shortsighted.

At the end of the day you can choose to buy or not.

What he said.

The problem is not that bike companies are coming up with new improved products no one is complaining about that.

Every one loves that shimano shifters seem to get better every year. Ie smoother dual action etc etc

The problem is that new standards often make previous components obsolete.

About 10 years ago maybe more (BMX had already moved to large BB) it became clear that alot of the standards inherited from road bikes were not going to be strong and light enough for MTBs.

What should of happened is the top companies should of got together and said right we are going to increase the diameter of everything by 25mm (or what ever).

IE Bars/BB/HeadTube/Axles etc etc

This would have made all frame/components immediately obsolete but we would now would not be constantly upgrading to the latest "Standard".

The problem is there is no "STANDARD" now. My mate wants to buy a new bike. Should I tell him to get a tapered head tube ? If Easton are realising a new bar width why not just make all new bike with 1.5*1.5 non-tapered headtubes and 35mm bars ?

I get the feeling the bike companies already know what the correct standards are to achieve the best strength/weight ratio for the average rider.

They should just go straight to these and be done with it.

I imagine there are 2 reasons not to.
1. To keep riders constantly upgrading
2. To keep companies with no R&D departments guessing. Once the standard is finalised the pile em high sell em cheap companies generally have the advantage.

I do understand there will be some standard outside of norm ie 20mm axles for downhill bikes.

But the problem is the standards on an "average" Bike seem to keep changing atm.

The mountain bike I ride now is hugely better than the one I rode 25 years ago and my ageing bones are grateful for that. I don't however enjoy riding any more or less than when I began.

I don't have a problem with the changes if previous parts are still available for a reasonable time so that I'm not forced to change and get rid of parts that still work. In the past I've always waited a long time to "upgrade" but I think in all cases I've found the improvements to be just that. As for the whole wheel size thing I'd quite like my next rigid bike to be a 29 as I can see that's where bigger wheels would make the most difference.

But a new standard doesn't change anything on your current bike? Just buy bits that fit and there's no problem. Just because Giant have made a 1.25 headtube doesn't make your 1.125 redundant does it? If you want a 29er/650b buy one, if not don't. You don't buy a Ford Focus and moan that the doors from your Anglia 105e don't fit do you? Although the engine form the focus will fit in the anglia with a T9 gearbox as ford have used the same backplate on their engines since the 50's, but then you'd moan that it's not compatible with your VW golf I suppose!

They've made it so you really should buy it, after all you wont even need new wheels so it must be good!
http://www.pinkbike.com/news/Turbospoke-Signs-Eric-Lawrenuk-for-2012.html

Well thanks folk for enlightening me, I heard another school of thought that would 'position' 26" in downhill, 650b for Enduro Cross and all mountain and 29er would be race /XC..

Which ever way it goes it seems it's coming our way as the next big push wether we want it, wether bike dealers want it or not.

But a new standard doesn't change anything on your current bike? Just buy bits that fit and there's no problem. Just because Giant have made a 1.25 headtube doesn't make your 1.125 redundant does it? If you want a 29er/650b buy one, if not don't. You don't buy a Ford Focus and moan that the doors from your Anglia 105e don't fit do you? Although the engine form the focus will fit in the anglia with a T9 gearbox as ford have used the same backplate on their engines since the 50's, but then you'd moan that it's not compatible with your VW golf I suppose!

Im sure there are some people who do complain about car parts not being interchangeable but this is nt a car forum.

No one is complaining about new improved parts. Its just the way they have gone about it.

I dunno if the new eaton bar standard is going to take over but if it does.

Why did they bother going to 31.6mm why did nt they sit down and say right straight to 35mm.

It seems some standards are just put there create a longer upgrade path.

I do understand that something are based on other.

Ie I dont think it has been coincide that 29er didnt become popular until
1. disc brake were standard
2. Some tubeless standards were starting to appear

This has allowed that rim weight could be kept to a minimum which is even more important on a 29er !

What should of happened is the top companies should of got together and said right we are going to increase the diameter of everything by 25mm (or what ever).

No chance...

The issue here is that whatever seems like a good design now can always be improved with hindsight. Or, it's far easier to criticise a design than to innovate in the first place. Incremental improvement means moving standards, so be it imo.

I heard another school of thought that would 'position' 26" in downhill, 650b for Enduro Cross and all mountain and 29er would be race /XC..

There seems to be some logic there, at least I see a link between travel and wheel size. No suspension at all? 29" works really well. 8" of travel? Well then who gives one about roll-over, you need manouverability and strength.. Maybe. In between, 650B may work well. If so, it'll replace 26" on most 'trail' bikes one day.. *

*speculation rather than opinion

Why did they bother going to 31.6mm why did nt they sit down and say right straight to 35mm.

Companies need a roadmap. Of course they sat down and think can we sell 35mm, nope the market probably isn't ready, let's sell 31.5. We'll make some cash, create demand, test our product and ensure we have a roadmap for future growth.

It is about making money in the end. But you can't do that unless people buy, and are satisfied with the product. The latter proves that what is created is a step forward.

It's no big conspiracy, it's basic business. Again you don't have to buy.

scu98rkr - Member

I dunno if the new eaton bar standard is going to take over but if it does.

Why did they bother going to 31.6mm why did nt they sit down and say right straight to 35mm.

To be fair, they created the 35mm bar for a specific reason - to make an 800mm DH bar. They're not trying to flog shorter bars in 35mm.

scu98rkr - Member

The problem is not that bike companies are coming up with new improved products no one is complaining about that.

Every one loves that shimano shifters seem to get better every year. Ie smoother dual action etc etc

The problem is that new standards often make previous components obsolete.

About 10 years ago maybe more (BMX had already moved to large BB) it became clear that alot of the standards inherited from road bikes were not going to be strong and light enough for MTBs.

What should of happened is the top companies should of got together and said right we are going to increase the diameter of everything by 25mm (or what ever).

IE Bars/BB/HeadTube/Axles etc etc

This would have made all frame/components immediately obsolete but we would now would not be constantly upgrading to the latest "Standard".

The problem is there is no "STANDARD" now. My mate wants to buy a new bike. Should I tell him to get a tapered head tube ? If Easton are realising a new bar width why not just make all new bike with 1.5*1.5 non-tapered headtubes and 35mm bars ?

I get the feeling the bike companies already know what the correct standards are to achieve the best strength/weight ratio for the average rider.

They should just go straight to these and be done with it.

I imagine there are 2 reasons not to.
1. To keep riders constantly upgrading
2. To keep companies with no R&D departments guessing. Once the standard is finalised the pile em high sell em cheap companies generally have the advantage.

That's all one big, daft whinge. New standards come in, but old ones are still around - there's no hassle getting 25.4mm stuff if you need it, or sqaure taper BBs, or whatever. But new innovations make things lighter and stronger - and nobody forces you into them.

Nobody was using 800mm wide bars ten years ago - so nobody saw the need for a 35mm clamp. We didn't have 150mm DH hubs, so we didnt have 83mm BBs. There wre no carbon frames, so nobody needed pressfit BBs. Things change.

come on giant give us a 650b anthem x, ill be first in the que...really want the 29er but just dont like the looks compared to 26, the 650b will no doubt look and ride brilliantly

Evil marketeers made me think that the 29er hype made sense 4 years ago. I bought a cheap 29er (slotted inbred) to try it out. Shortly after my lovely Litespeed 26" frame was sold and it's been 29er all the way since. I am not particularly tall or oddly shaped.
Sometimes someone tries to convince you a thing is better because it actually is.

I'm eyeing up those 35mm bars too as it happens 🙂

For balance, I still like a square taper BB.

Companies need a roadmap. Of course they sat down and think can we sell 35mm, nope the market probably isn't ready, let's sell 31.5. We'll make some cash, create demand, test our product and ensure we have a roadmap for future growth.

Yeah and thats what people are complaining about. Im not saying that it was going to ever happen.

If others cant understand the frustration with constant changing for the sake of profit then erm ok.

scu98rkr - If others cant understand the frustration with constant changing for the sake of profit then erm ok.

Surely the companies only make plenty more profit if the new product is better than the old one?

"The public want what the public get..." You can all probably hum the rest of the tune... some may even know all the words.

650b.... bring it on!!! So long as I dont start reading the What Mountain Bike brigade telling me that the 650b is the only bike to have, as they have and are relentlessly and boringly doing with the 29.

I love bikes, I love riding. I do not like brown-nosing WMB (MBR not so bad, but getting there) journo's telling me what bike I must have to love my riding experience more. I've stopped buying those mags because of their approach.

I certainly dont sense any elitism within the offroad biking ranks concerning 26/29.... Only the ocassional defensiveness of people who either can or cannot afford to change to whatever camp they wanna join. But then we all have ego's, pride and varying degrees of expendable income.

As for the earlier bit of marketing departments exist to take whatever products are made/designed/innovated.... HA! Please refer to my first sentence.

Oh, and while Im here.... "should of"?????????!!!!!! FFS! I only hope the poster is a youngling. Please... if you are unable to speak the English language correctly, install a grammar checker into your browser. And for pity's sake, it's "HAVE".... "should have", although "should", like "ought" are very negative words and can be replaced with "could" - for example.

Peace love and joy everyone 😀

It is about making money in the end. But you can't do that unless people buy, and are satisfied with the product. The latter proves that what is created is a step forward.

@scu98rkr : I get your frustration. But those companies have to make money, to stay in business. To pay their employees etc.

If you think a few new wheel standards is too much, look at the rapid change in technology. Do you think that iPhones, STW, nice shiny pics of bikes downloaded at reasonable speeds would be possible if all organisations just decided to remain static?

Change is inevitable, embrace it or get left behind 😀

solman - Member
It is about making money in the end. But you can't do that unless people buy, and are satisfied with the product.

solman - MemberChange is inevitable, embrace it or get left behind

Change is only inevitable if it brings with it some advantage, and nobody has yet made a single point about what 'advantage' wheels of that particular size have over the encumbants..

So unless someone does, the only change will be to the specific detail of stock unsold in bike retailers in the future and from what I hear they already have sufficient to severely impact on their margins already.

constant changing for the sake of profit

It'd be more profitable to keep selling the same stuff, do no R+D and not pay for new tooling... but I suspect your company wouldn't last that long in most areas of the market (there are exceptions who have great products in the first place that need little evolution, but they're rare)
Evolution and survival of the fittest is a good thing, it keeps good companies at the top, weeds out the marketeer-led BS and gives us the OPTION to buy better stuff if it actually suits our needs well. Good companies grow / go mainstream, leaves open some areas for faster-moving / niche brands, it's all healthy stuff.

Tinfoil hats off, bike lids on.. ride bikes, wear them out and decide if you want what's on offer when you buy new stuff.. simple ) Wheels / bars / numbers of gears etc. Same old story. You have the option to ignore marketing and go looking for what you want, when you want it.

Maybe the friendly UCI will get a grip at some point and dictate some rules, wheel size, maybe a minimum weight for XC, that would be interesting!

Mountain bikers have never had it so good. Pay your money and make your choice. Its fab having so many options to choose from.