[Closed] I was wrong about 650b.......here's why.

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).

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 [b]Giant[/b] 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.

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

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:

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

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!

[url= http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/29er-vs-650b-vs-26-%96-crude-analysis-701063.html ]Sauce.[/url]

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.

[i]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.[/i]

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"

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"?

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.

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

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 😉

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.

vaguelyrelated: I met a geezer on a brand new bronson (carbon I assume) in the US a week or 2 ago. Asked him if he liked it - "Yeah, heavy but so stable and dependable"
Was it a 650b ? - "no idea, what's that ?"

I'm trying to keep an open mind on 650b/27/27.5; really I am. I don't mind manufacturers trying to make money; that's their job. They come out with new products and try to convince us that they are better than the old ones. We decide whether the improvement is really big enough to be worth the cost. Twas ever thus. I'm not even resistant to changing wheel size. I have a 26" full suss and a 29er hardtail. Both work, both are fun and the difference is just big enough to be useful.

But 650b still bugs me. For a start it seems to be based on a false premise. Looking at that guff from Giant you'd be forgiven for thinking that 26" and 29" represent the smallest and largest diameters that can possibly be imagined and that the difference between them is vast. Of course, in reality, they are just two arbitrary diameters. If you started with 24" and 29" you could use exactly the same arguments to show that 26" was the optimum. The question should be "is there a big enough difference between 26 and 29 to justify a third option in the middle?". Having ridden both for a few months I'd say that the answer to that one is "definitely not". In fact I'd argue that a 10% change in diameter is about the smallest change you can make that actually makes a useful difference. Anything less is just change for the sake of change.

The only way that 650b makes sense to me is if it kills off 26 and 29. Then we go back to all mountain bikes having the same sized wheels. OK it is a slightly different size to the one we grew up with, but I think that would be a price worth paying. However, I can't see that happening. Companies like Niner (and maybe big boys like Specialized) won't give up on the 29er. Instead it looks as though we could end up with the worst possible outcome, with 650b and 29er both surviving and 26" dying out. That would leave us with two wheel sizes that are just big enough that you need different forks etc, but where the difference isn't big enough to be useful. If we are going to have two wheel sizes then 26 and 29 is a much better proposition than 650b and 29.

Why are loads of people riding high volume big boots on their 26ers?

I struggle with long sentences^^ *edit* oh ha ha ha mods

But having read the Giant article, out of all the various attributes compared, 26" wins 5 of them, 650B / 27.5" wins none and 29" wins two. So it looks to me that the way forwards is 26".
Guess what size im riding (and sticking with). 😉

I was in the super market the other day and those cynical bastards were forcing a "family sized" packet of biscuits on me.

Just imagine the contact patch on that, won't somebody please think of the children!

^^^^ Wot roverpig said.

As a recent buyer of a Giant Trance X 29er and loving it after an Alpine holiday I am slightly mystified why imho they're taking a backward step with the 650Bs.
Perhaps they are trying to create a market gap between them and Specialized.

[i]The only way that 650b makes sense to me is if it kills off 26 and 29. Then we go back to all mountain bikes having the same sized wheels. OK it is a slightly different size to the one we grew up with, but I think that would be a price worth paying. [/i]

Eh? What about 24"?

15mm axles is the industry's biggest recent fashion/marketing/patent crime IMO

The wheel size bullshit would definitely cause me to postpone an order for a new bike (if I was thinking of buying just now)

Then we go back to all mountain bikes having the same sized wheels.

Aren't Giant trying to justify 650b because they can't get their Maestro to work well with 29 (needs noodly long chainstays) but they don't want to lose out in the big-wheels-good market and the potential sale of new bikes. Deeply cynical.

Contact patch smatch , I will stick with my 26inch trek remedy and run tubeless for 2yrs thus gaining a wider but shorter contact area job done .makes me roll quiker down hill , no punctures , improves grip .im a happy bunny.

I was dead set on a 650b for my new bike until I tried my mates whyte 629 and read this article: http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/gear/article/trail-tech-cutting-through-the-275-wheel-size-hype-38058/

Basically the term '650b' is used rather than 27.5 because '650b' is not 27.5. its more like 27.2.

"For reference, there’s a 25mm difference in bead seat diameter between 26in and 650b, but there’s a 38mm difference between 650b and a 700c (29in) wheel."

So I have a 26" Heckler, if I wanted a new bike that would help me keep up with my mates on a 29er I would need to buy a 29er. The 650b would be marginally different to the 26er. So I opted for a t-129 works 29er which has a lot of riding similarities to a 26er but gets you that extra roll-ability.

In summary I think 650b probably does offer marginal benefits over a 26er, but the choice is still between the smaller wheel category (650b & 26er) for greater agility or a larger wheel category (29er) for greater speed.

I think Specialized see it from this point of view and will only go 650b if they are loosing a lot of market share to the hype.

So all giants info from OP tells me that by having a large volume 2.4 RQ running lower pressure tubeless on my 26er - I benefit in all cases!

Awesome!

[b][u]jameso:[/b][/u] Why? We can chose suspension from zero to 200-odd mm, a choice in wheels is good too. Optimisation. A lot of different things done on MTBs now. 3 wheels may be more than we need or the industry can cope with but 2 is good. 2 rim sizes, plenty of tyre sizes ideally.

I agree. Two options for wheel size (26 and 29) seems about right to me. My 26" full suss and 29er HT are just different enough to make sense. There is nothing that I can ride on one that I can't ride on the other, but they have a different feel. Basically, they both hand out the same number of grins, but they hand them out in different places. The only way a 650b would make sense, to me, is if I wanted to get rid of them both and replace them with one bike. I don't, I prefer having two options, but at least that would make some sort of sense. Having 26, 650b and 29 doesn't make sense and if we are going to cut down from 3 to two, it makes sense to drop the middle one. To use your suspension travel analogy: we have 140mm and 150mm forks. This is like being told that we should buy 145mm forks and that we'll need a new frame and new wheels as well.

@crashtestmonkey: I have no idea what Giant are playing at. I have a 26" Trance and I've had a ride on the 29er version. Both are great bikes. Both do the same job, but in a slightly different way. Different people may prefer one to the other. Dropping the 26" version in favour of a 650b version just seems daft to me.

crashtestmonkey - Member

Aren't Giant trying to justify 650b because they can't get their Maestro to work well with 29

Though their 29ers have been superbly received. The whole 650b promotion's bringing out some really weird things. Like, as you say Giant suddenly slagging off their succesful existing models. That £4000 Anthem X 29er we sold you? It's rubbish. Santa Cruz are doing the same- that Tallboy Carbon you spent a fortune on? Why did you do that, it's a bag of arse.

Santa Cruz also with the frankly magnificent "You can't tell any difference, therefore you should totally spend a fortune on it"

it makes sense to drop the middle one