Wheel Wars Part II: The Industry Veterans

That's a really odd, somewhat ambiguous statement? Why are the wheels too big?

2 reasons.

1.I feel less stable on 29er wheels on skinnies and prefer being closer to the ground on tech terrain.

2. you've seen me. YOu know how big I am. 29er wheels are known for being a more flexxy. I'd be fine on a 29er XC bike, but that's about it.

Another reason reason I think the 27.5 spec might be a big deal in these parts is the cost of living around here. Less and less people will maintain a quiver of bikes. a 6" 650b will be well suited to a lot of people.

i ride a 26 and a 29 and i do like the idea of 650b… however, if the rim diameter is only 25mm wider, the radius is only 12.5mm more… 1.2cms!!! all this debate over 1.2cms!… tall/high volume tires can probably cover 1/2 of that so now we are talking about 6mm… with all the variables and elements in mtn biking - terrain, traction conditions, rider skill, suspension settings, geometry, etc. - I would think 6mm is irrelevant…

and i certainly sympathize with manufacturers - new products cost money to develop and sales volumes on 650B will likely just canilbalize 26" sales… but if a manufacturer doesn't develop a 650B product, they stand to lose sales… but save on the R[HTML_REMOVED]D costs… its a cost/benefit decision for them…

BTW - i think 650B rims are 584mm… not 590mm

650b is actually 584mm.

right you are. i was looking at 650a. comprehensive chart attack:

635 mm 28 x 1 1/2, 700 B
630 mm 27 x anything
622 mm 700 C, 28 x (two fractions), 29 inch, 28 x 1 1/2 F.13 Canada
599 mm 26 x 1.25, x 1.375
597 mm 26 x 1 1/4, 26 x 1 3/8 (S-6)
590 mm 26 x 1 3/8 (E.A.3), 650 A
587 mm 700 D
584 mm 650B, 26 x 1 1/2
571 mm 26 x 1, 26 x 1 3/4, 650 C
559 mm 26 x 1.00- x 2.125
547 mm 24 x 1 1/4, 24 x 1 3/8 (S-5)
540 mm 24 x 1 1/8, 24 x 1 3/8 (E.5), 600 A
520 mm 24 x 1, 24 x 1 1/8
507 mm 24 x 1.5- x 2.125
490 mm 550 A
457 mm 22 x 1.75; x 2.125
451 mm 20 x 1 1/8; x 1 1/4; x 1 3/8
440 mm 500 A
419 mm 20 x 1 3/4
406 mm 20 x 1.5- x 2.125
390 mm 450 A
369 mm 17 x 1 1/4
355 mm 18 x 1.5- x 2.125
349 mm 16 x 1 3/8
340 mm 400 A
337 mm 16 x 1 3/8
317 mm 16 x 1 3/4
305 mm 16 x 1.75- x 2.125
203 mm 12 1/2 X anything.
152 mm 10 x 2
137 mm 8 x 1 1/4

so 650b is not exactly 27.5" then, more like 27?
i have just as much fun on my new 26" bike as my 29er.
for xc bikes, wheel size should be proportional to rider size, within reason.
for bikes with more travel, 26" works great, 27.5 probably will too, and 29 might one day with the right suspension design.

right you are. i was looking at 650a. comprehensive chart attack:

Calling 650B 27.5" kind of irks me, but it's a complaint that stems from 29ers being named so. First we must establish 26" as an arbitrary precedent, at least to naming hook bead rims – and more specifically, the 559mm bead seat – on an "inch" standard, even if the outer diameter isn't actually 26 inches.

The 622mm bead seat (same as 700c road bikes) gains popularity in fat tire land, at 63mm or 2.5" larger, and yet they are arbitrarily named 29" even though the tires are generally not available in as high volume as 26" tires. I came to terms with the fact that the industry wouldn't name something 28.5" at that point in time.

So now another old standard comes up, and at 584mm, 650B almost exactly an inch larger than 26" – yet we're being pushed to call it 27.5". This is not only incorrect based on numbers, but gives the impression that 650B is exactly half way between 26" and 29", which isn't the case.

At the end of this rant, I've got to say I've got no complaints about the new standard being introduced, but I don't like the way the industry latches on to nomenclature strictly for marketing purposes.

yawwwwwn, tech nerds!

All I care about is ride quality, as long as the bike fits and rides how I want it to. I don't give a crap what standard is being used for tire and rim size (or bb for that matter) as long as parts are available. Lots of parts with a choice. Initially I think the biggest gripe with 29 was the lack of decent tires and forks. If I go to a shop today, with a torn up 650B tire, do the local shops have a replacement let alone a choice of replacements like we have with 26 or 29 tires?

All I care about is ride quality, as long as the bike fits and rides how I want it to. I don't give a crap what standard is being used for tire and rim size (or bb for that matter) as long as parts are available. Lots of parts with a choice. Initially I think the biggest gripe with 29 was the lack of decent tires and forks. If I go to a shop today, with a torn up 650B tire, do the local shops have a replacement let alone a choice of replacements like we have with 26 or 29 tires?

Reason and logic have no place in the religious debate of wheel sizes! Begone heathen!

In Mountainflyer magazine, Mike McCalla (US racer) tested two Scott HT bikes (26 and 29) with powermeter across a variety of terrain. He did multiple laps over several days, and averaged the results. The 29er bike was deliberately
made about 2 lbs heavier.
The time and power expenditure was virtually identical on ALL terrains. For all the angle and tire grip theories there simply is no difference in ride results. This is easily explained by a blogger who did the geometry calculations on the two wheelsizes. The 3 inch difference in diameter simply does not translate into anything that can be detected by a human being. Of course, the amount of wheel you see in front of you may cause a mental difference, and that's what it is: All in your head!
Strange thing though: The McCalla study CANNOT be found on the web, nowhere, nada! Mountainflyer magazine has articles on their website, but not that one!! Can you spell m-a-r-k-t-e-t-i-n-g??
I scanned the article and posted on NSRIDE.com, Forum,Other News.
650b - go for it if it feels right- but with the same bike geometry, you will not ride faster, better, stronger!!
(Personally I ride both 29er and 26ers. Bike type matters,
not wheel size!)

I'm putting my money on 650b winning, followed by 29" with 26" kicked to the curb on XC/race bikes..
I suspect we may see entire product lineups without a single 26" option in the not too distant future.

I'm putting my money on 650b winning, followed by 29" with 26" kicked to the curb on XC/race bikes..
I suspect we may see entire product lineups without a single 26" option in the not too distant future.

might be inclined to agree. too many iterations / sku's for a relatively small market. something has to give. oh crystal ball…

you know, there are still a lot of people out there that like their 26" wheeled bikes.

i ride a 26 and a 29 and i do like the idea of 650b… however, if the rim diameter is only 25mm wider, the radius is only 12.5mm more… 1.2cms!!! all this debate over 1.2cms!… tall/high volume tires can probably cover 1/2 of that so now we are talking about 6mm… with all the variables and elements in mtn biking - terrain, traction conditions, rider skill, suspension settings, geometry, etc. - I would think 6mm is irrelevant…

Even with smaller tires, you can still feel a different gyroscopic effect on a 650 compared to a 26. And to compare apples to apples, if you want the same tire feel, you're going to choose a large volume or a small volume tire on both wheel sizes, so that point is essentially moot.

I remember when this new fangled sport of MTB'n was startin' out, Cannondale had this bike many thought was the cat's ass. Sporting a 26" on the front and a 24" on the back it rolled over the gnarly stuff while allowing good torque when pedalled. Now I see this same idea workin' real well with a 29" up front to roll off the big heinies and a wee 26" out back so we can keep our suspension plush without to much wigglin' of the frame tubes.
That's how I see it. Yup.