You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
There's yet another 29er v 26er thread that's descended in to an argument going on elsewhere at the moment.
From my own limited experience, I reckon bigger is better for wheels, [i]for the type of riding I do[/i].
29" is a realistic maximum, taking in to account fork travel, handlebar height, wheelbase, toe overlap and so on. It's also widely available, so that's what I ride.
If other people are doing the sort of riding where they feel that smaller is better, why are they so attached to 26" ?
Wouldn't 24" be even betterer ?
Wouldn't a sort of 20" BMX/Moulton/MTB be best of all ?
What's so special about 26" wheels that makes them better than any other size ?
26" = mountain bike, anything else is different, and so cannot be called a mountain bike.
Cannondale used to do a really cool bike (Beast of the East) with 26 up front and 24 on the back. I would love one of those. Best of both worlds surely.
It has to be good.
Small is beautiful.
Cannondale made something with a 24" back, 26" front.
Really (and I know this might be an unpopular view) 26" is a happy medium for the kind of riding most people do. Small enough to be reasonably manouverable, large enough to roll over most stuff reasonably well.
Plenty of 24" about in dirt jumping/skate park mtbs
MidlandTrailquestsGraham - MemberWhat's so special about 26" wheels that makes them better than any other size ?
why are they so attached to 26" ?
Choice of components, tyres, ease of finding replacement tubes etc.??
It's what came on people's bikes? The fact that many don't really care and are happy enough on the size of wheels they've got??.......
Perhaps people don't really care either way?!
I don't intend to change my bike(s) for the forseeable future. I have invested quite a lot of money in them and can't justify replacing them just because a bigger wheel might be better. Even if it is better, I still can't really justify it. Much the same way that I couldn't justify getting an XTR rear mech for my Inbred, when an SLX one will do.
An estate car would better suit my needs that a small hatchback, but guess what....?! I haven't rushed out to swap for one of those either. Because I can't really afford/justify it.
When the time comes to change bikes I will probably try all sorts of bikes; wheel size won't really be a deciding factor, it will be the bike as a whole. Might end up with a 26" bike, might end up with a 29" bike, might end up with a 650b bike.
Don't really care, so long as it's the best bike for me, for the sort of riding I do.....
The only people that seem to bleat on about it is,
- people who ride 29" bikes and can't possibly fathom why everyone else hasn't made the swap
- people who can't see what the point is and think that 29" wheels are a marketing fad.
I have to say that I do err slightly on the side of thinking that it's just another thing to try & get people to buy into. Kit is so good now (on the whole) that people are happy with their lot, sales of mountain bikes have been falling and then hey presto - a 'newer, faster, better' is pushed hard to get people to adopt it. But hey, I am very cynical.
Poor Troll, 0.5/10.
shortcut - Member
Cannondale used to do a really cool bike (Beast of the East) with 26 up front and 24 on the back. I would love one of those. Best of both worlds surely.It has to be good.
Small is beautiful.
I think the first Big Hits were 24" rear too
Oh, yeah, I hadn't thought of trials and stunt riding.
If we just stick to conventional MTB riding though, however that might be defined. Let's say bikes that get ridden a reasonable distance at a reasonable speed, whether that's from top to bottom of a DH course, or many miles of remote XC.
It looks like the only choices are 29" or 26". Why not 24" ?
It's not just the limited choice I find odd, but the way some people are so fanatically defensive of their 26" wheels.
If 3" bigger is such a hindrance to the way they ride, wouldn't 2" smaller be an advantage ?
Perhaps people don't really care either way?!
If that was the case, there wouldn't be so many 26 v 29 threads.
Lower BB on 24" hindering general riding perhaps?
Lower BB on 24" hindering general riding perhaps?
Only if your framebuilder misread the diagram 😉
BB height is independent of wheel size.
24" wheels on the front probably don't roll well enough over techinical terrain, hence why some bikes had them on the back only. That means dealing with two different sized tyres and tubes though, and people just went for 26" bikes, so manufacturers stopped making bits for them.
I have three 26" bikes, none of which came as complete bikes. They all have origins in previous 26" bikes, usually I upgrade frames with existing wheels & forks, or vice versa.
That's my only "objection" to different wheel sizes - that changing most likely means a new frame, forks and wheels. Like that Santa Cruz Bronson - a longer, lower Nomad, in effect, just the sort of thing I'd like for my next bike - but while the frame is just about within reach financially if I scrimp and save for a bit, the new forks & wheels it would require put it out of reach for me. If I thought 27.5" was a massive leap forward for 6" bikes, I'd probably go for it regardless, but I know it's just a small change, and doesn't justify that extra cost for me right now. I don't think I'd go 29" for a longer travel bike, based on the ones I've tried, although that new Specialized Enduro might change my mind if I have an unexpected lottery win.
If I was buying my Soul from scratch, I;d probably be on a Solaris, but I had 26" wheels and forks to fit to it, so decision was made. And I love the bike, no regrets.
To answer the original question - 26" wheels are what I started with, because that's all there was, and they're what I'm stuck/content with. Don't really get the defensive mentality about wheel size, tbh - I guess it stems form peopel having put hard earned cash into a bike, and not wanting to believe they're bought the "wrong" thing.. Call it insecurity.
I had an old big hit with a 24" rear wheel, and it was great fun - cornered well, really easy to pop the front wheel up, felt easier to move around than other 8" bikes of the time. It really got hung up in rock gardens though...
Most of these things have been tried. 24" rear wheels have been used but never gained popularity. Tyre availability, no need for the strength, poor rolling over the rough, that much manouverabilty not needed etc, not sure the exact reason but they never took off (rolling disadvantages would be my guess). Good point above about mixed wheel sizes.
26, 27.5 and 29 have been tried and liked by many so it seems that 'general conclusion' is that 26" is as small as you'd want to go.
All these sizes were tried in the early days, 26" was the most readily available and got the wheels rolling, but other sizes were recognised to have positive attributes even back then (apologies if that's egg-sucking history lesson #1!)
Niche-prize for the first person to build a 47.5er with a 24" rear wheel and 650b front wheel...
You've actually given me a great idea, thanks. Going to try switching to a 24" wheel on the rear of my Nomad. I'm using it mostly on uplifts now and I was looking for a way of lowering to bottom bracket and slackening the head angle. Should be an interesting experiment if nothing else 🙂
Well over a decade ago 24" wheels were being discussed in the US as the next big thing for DH... The people trying to introduce this standard did use the wheels with massively high-profile tyres though. This meant that the effectice complete wheel size was equal to a 26" anyway.
I have a rigid SS 29'er and think it is great for what I use it for - local, fairly flat XC and tow-paths. However, I don't intend to go for a different wheel standard for my next 'big' bike. I will stick with 26" wheels as I don't think I will gain anything from changing it. As the cliché goes - If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
No need for massive profile tyres when you've got 200mm+ of suspension. Much better to control via suspension than tyre profile. And larger wheels roll over things better so better suited to downhilling if you can get the suspension travel you need. Its a balance.
No-one is saying 26" is broke and needs fixing, its just that other wheel sizes may bring overall benefits. There is no reason for 26" wheels other than that was what was available at the time the first MTB bikes were invented. When you apply physics/engineering to it, the answer that comes up is something other than 26" for the optimal sulution. As with any engineering problem, there is never one solution to rule them all - everything is a compromise and the skill is in making the best compromise.
The biggest argument for 26 inches is that it's already got the best market share, the best choice in frames, wheels, forks and tyres, and the best parts availability. Even if 650B or 29 was universally better- and neither are- that'd still be a big thing to fight against. So a vote for 26 inch isn't a vote for smaller wheels, it's a vote for "What I already have works brilliantly so why would I spend thousands of pounds to change it for something that's at best slightly better".
I had an old big hit with a 24" rear wheel, and it was great fun - cornered well, really easy to pop the front wheel up, felt easier to move around than other 8" bikes of the time. It really got hung up in rock gardens though...
The other good point about the old Big Hit - you'd invariably get given free 24" DH tyres by previous owners of said model. 🙂
20" could have become the default wheel size for MTBs at one point. There were some builders in the US around the same time as the Klunker guys who were building off-road 20" bikes. And Sheldon used to take his Raleigh Twenty off road in the 70s. I imagine MTB would have a got a lot more trialsy if this had caught on.
Learnt to ride mtb on a 20" wheeled Ainimal. Graduated to a 29er and now on a 26". they are all bikes, all had different characteristics.
The small wheels coped well in most instances but did get stuck in some of the rooty ruts, and it was pretty heavy. Not noticed a huge difference between my previous rigid 29er and my new 26" - except the smoother front suspension.
Personally, I think it is more likely that people notice changes in geometry going between wheel sizes more than the wheels themselves.
On-One are doing a 24in bike.
On-One are doing a 24in bike.
Please let it be fully rigid...
I love the Retrovelo Otto but the price isn't working for me at the moment - an On-One could be just the ticket!
Please let it be fully rigid...
I assure you of that.
On-One are doing a 24in bike.
I always wanted a Gimp, never did get round to owning one 🙁
The biggest argument for 26 inches is that it's already got the best market share, the best choice in frames, wheels, forks and tyres, and the best parts availability. Even if 650B or 29 was universally better- and neither are- that'd still be a big thing to fight against. So a vote for 26 inch isn't a vote for smaller wheels, it's a vote for "What I already have works brilliantly so why would I spend thousands of pounds to change it for something that's at best slightly better".
This. Much clearer than I said it!
For a long time my only bike was a 24" darkangel, and it went everywhere, mostly dirt jumping but I did do DH on it including a week in the alps which was fine as it has 4" travel forks (ha!) and it wasn't thaaaaat bad! I couldn't get down the ten percenter on the pleney without blowing my feet off and the same happened on supermorzine on the chute after the road. the braking bumps were savage... That's where I found its limitations
I eventually went back to 26" as I do more XC now and I've found rolling through the rough stuff is better but whips and tables don't come so easy. If I was solely doing bmx tracks and dirt jumping then I'd consider 24" but they don't carry speed well enough once it gets rough.
Please let it be fully rigid...
I assure you of that.
A tentative 'woohoo' from me! Now I'm hoping for its focus to be xc rather than jumps or trials. Less chance, perhaps, but fingers crossed!
Is the On-One 24" the Geoff Apps design?
So let me see if I have this right. 29er/700c for roadies that got lost and wandered onto the dirt and anything smaller for people with actual bike handling skill. Decreasing size denoting more skill, 26" mtb, 24" jump/street bike and culminating in 20 inch BMX wheels.
On-One are doing a 24in bike.
A Niche Too Far.
Surly, among others, make their touring frames in 700cc (29'er) for big people and 26" for small people because frames at either end of sizing can have there geometry compromised to fit a popular/fashionable wheel size.
If 29'er are soooo good why has it taken about 30 years to realise when every nationality has been riding Cyclocross all this time and longer?
24 are for increased strength or very small people.
Could 29'er just be a sales gimmick for MTB's that are now being out sold by road bikes?
greenman - MemberIf 29'er are soooo good why has it taken about 30 years to realise when every nationality has been riding Cyclocross all this time and longer?
Hah. Well, all the other things that make CX bikes rubbish could mask the biggest imaginable performance advantage from the wheels.
(disclaimer- I like cyclocross bikes, but I wouldn't if they weren't rubbish)
In a rad to the power of sick midlife crisis moment a few years back I bought a 24" bike
Have you tried riding one up a hill? It's absolutely nackering!!!! It didn't last long 😳
rigid, 20" hard as ****
[img] 
[/img]
Is the On-One 24" the Geoff Apps design?
That would be ace.
rigid, 20" hard as ****
And totally fantastic. What is it?
cannondale hooligan
If that was the case, there wouldn't be so many 26 v 29 threads.
What, like this one? Started by a 29er convert attempting to foist his opinion on the rest? 😉
I am amused by how many 29er/singlespeed/fatbike riders harp on about how amazeballs their steed is and how stupid they are for not having abandones their old bikes for one. Mostly I'm too busy riding my bikes to listen. 🙂
If other people are doing the sort of riding where they feel that smaller is better, why are they so attached to 26" ?
I'm so attatched to 26 for the sort of riding I do because after buying 29ers and 26ers I've come to the conclusion that the majority of each of my rides benefits from the acceleration of the 26 inch wheeled bikes throughout many sections of the rides I do. Long slow drags of climbs to rougher steep climbs and everything else inbetween just doesn't work as well for me having to accelerate the 29 inch wheel (both light set-ups with flows,pro2's and tubelessed non-tubeless tyres and a few other wheel types I've had on other bikes over the past 5 years) but none of them enhance the MAJORITY of the rides enough for me to stick with 29.
I do love the feel of the 29inch wheel when up to speed as far as stability goes. It's definately better for me than 26. Problems in 'switchbacks' has never and will never be a problem with a 29 inch wheel so no problems with 26 or 29 there.. but when I mention 'majority' I look at the big picture of the reality of each of my rides and it turns out that its such a small percentage of the ride where I would want/need/benefit from the 29inch wheel as I can continue to accelerate the 26 and keep it spinning up far easier than the 29 on most climbs. Any extra footprint of a 29er tyre for climbing is neither here nor there as I've always been happy with my ability to find traction where most others bail out. So that leaves the small portion of my rides being the downhills. I'd rather a bigger wheel for most downhill stuff but when the descents last 15-20 mins over a 4 hour ride, a bigger wheel is something I won't be fitting for all I'll be needing it for.
That Cannondale is lovely. And in the spirit of balance here's a FS 20"
[img] 
[/img]
I cut my MTB teeth on this. It was fun (if a little heavy). Nichetastic - come on how many other Alfine hubbed 20" FS bikes can you name 😉 . Sadly it's days are over, as it was stolen. I suspect it might turn up again one day, as they only sell about 10-20 per year!
fourbanger - Member
...Decreasing size denoting more skill, 26" mtb, 24" jump/street bike and culminating in 20 inch BMX wheels.
So riders of 20" offroad are riding gods then?
[url= http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4100/4734692941_5d839e3077_z.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4152/4998258436_51e1be4a75_z.jp g" target="_blank">
There were 20" wheel mtbs produced a few years back.
[img] 
[/img]
You knows it!
What, like this one? Started by a 29er convert attempting to foist his opinion on the rest?
I thought I made it clear at the start that a 29er suits [b]my[/b] type of riding.
I'm all for different people doing different things, but as [b]I'm[/b] not in to DH and I keep hearing from people who are that 26" is better than 29" because it's smaller, I can't help wondering why 24" wouldn't be even betterer.
martinxyz, good explanation of why you're attached to 26ers, except that you only compare it with 29ers and make no mention of 24ers, which is kind of my point. Why do most riders completely overlook them as an option ?
Those 20" mountain bikes are exactly what I had in mind. I've never seen one before.
Why did they never catch on ?
Moultons were banned from road racing because they are too good.
Are there any trails where a 20er is definitely an advantage ?
martinxyz, good explanation of why you're attached to 26ers, except that you only compare it with 29ers and make no mention of 24ers, which is kind of my point. Why do most riders completely overlook them as an option ?
How much of an option are they?
How many shops stock/sell 24" wheel mountain bikes? I just did a quick search and could only find kids bikes.
I can't think of one bike shop I have been in that sells mountain bikes with a 24" wheel.
It's like asking 'why do people overlook cars with ****el rotary engines?'.......
Or 'why do people overlook 3-slot toasters?'
[url= http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/New-Stealth-Bomber-eBike-Electric-Mountain-Bike-MTB-Cycle-XC-MX-Downhill-FS-/221165947146?_trksid=p2047675.m2109&_trkparms=aid%3D555001%26algo%3DPW.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D14839%26meid%3D6719621628679002323%26pid%3D100010%26prg%3D1013%26rk%3D1%26sd%3D321096738191%26 ]THIS[/url] came to my atttention when I was looking at the link on the Banshee frames thread earlier. Proper niche-breaker, that one.
What Northwind said.
I'm all for different people doing different things, but as I'm not in to DH and I keep hearing from people who are that 26" is better than 29" because it's smaller, I can't help wondering why 24" wouldn't be even betterer.
The argument works just the same the other way. If 29 is better than 26, then why not 32? The reasons you have in the OP are nothing that couldn't be overcome if there was a great advantage to even bigger wheels.
oneyard'er
29" is a realistic maximum, taking in to account fork travel, handlebar height, wheelbase, toe overlap and so on.
Followed by
If 29 is better than 26, then why not 32?
http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/forum-etiquette-people-who-obviously-havent-read-the-question
How much of an option are they?...
Good point, if the bikes aren't being made, no one's going to buy them. If no one's buying them, the manufacturers aren't going to make them.
If, as so many 26er riders think, 29ers are just a gimmick to sell more bikes, then aren't the manufacturers missing a trick here by not pushing 24ers as the next big thing ?
I used to use 24" wheels on a DJ bike for quite some time, they were great for that particular application, the bike was more flickable and easier to chuck about I got my X-ups nicely clicked (Bar spins and all the clever stuff was always beyond me though). The bike was great fun to ride on a fair few "Normal" trails too although it did beat you up after a while...
But TBH, ultimately 26" wheels made more sense as I moved back towards a more all round HT riding and needed a jump bike less and less.
I've just built myself up a cheap Jump bike up again, using 26" wheels (cos I had some spare) but I'd not discount the idea of fitting 24" to it later on...
TBH Wheel sizes only really a dividing [I]issue[/I] for the hard of thinking, for the rest of the planet it's a mildly interesting topic of discussion...
29" is a realistic maximum, taking in to account fork travel, handlebar height, wheelbase, toe overlap and so on.Followed by
If 29 is better than 26, then why not 32?
> http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/forum-etiquette-people-who-obviously-havent-read-the-question
br />
I like the way you missed out this bit, where I already dealt with your (spurious) initial premise:
'The reasons you have in the OP are nothing that couldn't be overcome if there was a great advantage to even bigger wheels.'
You've decided 29" is a realistic maximum to support your argument/opinion - that doesn't mean it is.
If, as so many 26er riders think, 29ers are just a gimmick to sell more bikes, then aren't the manufacturers missing a trick here by not pushing 24ers as the next big thing ?
Do they think it's JUST (as in the sole reason) a gimmick to sell more bikes??
The way I see it; for some 29er bikes make sense. They work.
Until recently though, 26er bikes were selling OK, so there was no point in pushing something 'new'. People were happy with buying the 'standard'. Easier to churn out the same old stuff if people are lapping it up...why spend thousands on R&D, marketing etc. on the 'new' thing, when the 'old' thing is selling well enough??
Then sales start to drop off. People for whatever reason aren't buying as many 'standard' bikes anymore.
So, the 29er takes up the slack.....it's been sat on the side lines for a while. Time to polish it up, start heralding it as the 'new bestest thing' and market the nuts off it. People start looking at the little wheel bikes sat in the garage & those that are curious enough/can afford it/want the latest thing etc. go and buy new bikes.
Might be garbage, but that's the way it seems to me...
Is the On-One 24" the Geoff Apps design?
no.
I looked long and hard at the highpath/cleland thing and aside from BB height (which is quite a big "aside" I'll grant you) the geometry actually isn't that odd, and the position comes about from the bar/stem position rather than anything odd about the frame. Top tube lengths are contemporary.
The only Real reason for the bike industry settling on the 29er wheel size for MTBs rather than 32" or 31.657" is that it uses a pretty well supported extant rim size (622mm) as used on Road/Touring/Hybrid/CX bikes already. if anything it's a harmonization of standards.
So it wasn't a massive leap to get rim and tyre manufacturers looking at wider knobbly tyres for a wheel size they were already familiar with and tooled up for, the 29er isn't so much a technological leap as an exercise in logic and experimentation I'm sure Eureka moment as a bit like:
[I]"Hey we've got these slightly bigger diameter rims that we already use all over the place with skinnier tyres and everything we know about the physics of bicycles tells us larger wheels roll better, why not try the idea out with a chunkier tyre on am MTB?" [/I]
And hey presto it worked!
I don't think the 29er [I]"conspiracies"[/I] really started until the likes of Specialized cottoned on. Once those Evil corporations get hold of a good idea the buggers only go and try selling it to consumers like some sort of product or something! Disgusting!
24" wheels have their established MTB Niches anyway on DJ and Street bikes because there are benefits for those applications, and of course there's Cruiser-BMXes...
Just because MBR haven't gotten all frothy about something doesn't mean that somene somewhere isn't trying it out already.
650b is the devils work though!
I thought I made it clear at the start that a 29er suits my type of riding.
I'm all for different people doing different things, but as I'm not in to DH and I keep hearing from people who are that 26" is better than 29" because it's smaller, I can't help wondering why 24" wouldn't be even betterer.
I think that's just being obtuse. Know one is saying the smaller the wheel the better, they are saying of 26 and 29 they prefer the smaller. I know that you said you though we couldn't go larger than 29 but that's not true we could build 30 inch bikes perhaps 31 or 32. Its just diminishing returns. Presumably the same is true in the other direction
Perhaps what's amazing is that the debate has honed in such a small range of sizes, a roughly 10% difference
I've only ridden one 29 er the rest of my life has been on 26 inch wheels. From All I've read my conclusion is that mainly we are splitting hairs. We know roughly what size the wheels should be. The rest is fine tuning for personal preference
I use a 24" rigid jump bike as a as winter bike. Just adjusted the gearing so that I can get it uphill. Just walk the dog with it but good fun coming down.Really good off little lips etc but rubbish brakes mean that you are often in a panic.
P'ah 20" wheels You guys are so out of touch.
[img] 
[/img]
(From retrobike thread here [url= http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=249130 ]DMR Display[/url])
A Geoff Apps designed Cleland Dingbat circa 1987.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38236150@N06/3515560485/in/photostream/
Originally intended for competing in Trials events but the Dingbat also made a reasonable off-road tourer when fitted with wide range gears.
Not a true 24" wheeled bike but the very fat rear tyre and the slim front one have outside diameters of about 24".
Whilst I love the innovative nature of the "LoopWheel" concept I do have concerns regarding the lateral and rotational rigidity of the wheels. Especially the rear wheel where the "LoopWheels" do not appear to form a rotationally rigid structure between the hub and the rim. There are also issues relating to braking as the rim would move relative to the frame/forks, making rim brakes problematic. Whilst disk or hub brakes would cause the leaf-springs to flex so that the rims to rotate relative to the hubs. The fact that the suspension is not constrained to a particular suspension travel direction is interesting and should provide good shock absolution for a wide variety of different impact angles.
Not a bike for riding up and down hills and hard braking I suspect?
you say that 29 inch is the maximum and optimal wheel size because of fork/bar height etc, but have you tried 30 inch 31.5?
nah you're just talking bobbins
and as fabien barel has stated 29ers are slower than 26ers
There's a great argument in "The Hub" cycling magazine about the merits of smaller wheels.
Only in this case it's about whether 28" wheels are as good as 30" wheels, and it's 1899. 🙂
There's some great stuff in that Cleland Cycles photostream - makes you wonder where the sport would have gone if not for the Klunker influence winning out.
Also shows some of the pitfalls of being an early adopter.
[img] 
[/img]
Mr Agreeable - MemberThere's some great stuff in that Cleland Cycles photostream - makes you wonder where the sport would have gone if not for the Klunker influence winning out.
Also shows some of the pitfalls of being an early adopter.
In British school/Cleland circles the wheel-size debate was effectively over by 1990. We had 650b x 54mm wide bikes from 1979. 700c x 47mm bikes from 1981 and 24" wheeled Dingbats from 1987. There was even a prototype known as the Rat with a 26" front wheel and a 20" rear. We also tried Alex Moulton's 1988' 20" full suspension ATB model and developed front suspension for 650b. We knew that the effectiveness of a wheel size is totally dependent on the terrain being ridden. That on smooth hard terrain all wheel sizes worked fine but smaller wheel bikes were more maneuverable. Also that thin tyre clad large wheels cut efficiently through mud and snow and that fat large low pressure tyres worked best on soft soils, sand and also rocky terrain. The big no-no was small wheels on soft terrain because the rolling resistance was horrendous and left a rut deep enough for BT to lay their phone cables.
The Cleland Dingbat demonstrates a high degree of understanding, with its thin front tyre for slicing through the mud to find grip and its fatBike style very wide/low pressure rear tyre to gain maximum traction.
In Cleland, Highpath and English Cycles circles it was the 650b size that predominated for general purpose use. But this was because at 54mm wide it offered better flotation effect than the larger 700c x 47 tyres. Geoff Apps says that he really wanted tyres at least 700c x 2.5" wide. This is the size his modern Cleland TT uses, a size that was completely unavailable of back then.