So, 26", 27.5" and 29".

[coomber]

Re:

That's not really true though is it. 650b + (27.5 +) is designed to fit in existing 29er frames.

every bike manufacturer in the world makes 650b bikes. Why is this now dead?

As much as the "fat" versions might take off, cant ever see them being mainstream in terms of sales v normal versions. Same as 29er fat versions didnt either.

Fat 26" would have been fun unless you were unlucky to ise those nikeon (?) 3" tyres at the start of the noughties.. awful and weighed ten tonnes

 

[mattr]

Re: Re:

I don't think a moderately inept pedaller would be able to maintain 29mph on the flat for very long at all, even on a road bike in any gear, let alone an mtb. I've never done a TT!!!

i said a moderately inept pedaler could maintain 100rpm, not 29mph. To do both would need a bit of grunt.
Never done a TT?

40km TT, 1 hour 10 minutes, average heart rate 167. Sprint finish resulted in a max heart rate of 177.

And that was WITH pulling on the pedals!!11!!!

Depends how steep the hill is as to whether an aero tuck will get you more speed than pedaling.

Not really, can't remember the exact angle/speed that gravity/drag trumps "sensible" power outputs for adding speed, but it's not that steep, or particularly fast.

Yes 40:11 is a big gear for MTBing but not for riding on the road, we used to have a 44:11 when we had less gear in total. My point was that with all those extra gears this new XT 33 gears groupset doesn't give us the same higher gears that the old 24 and 27 geared groupsets did. With 29" wheels the 40 ring up front is roughly the equivalent of a 44 on 26, so if you have 29" wheels then you do get the higher gears. 650b is only about 3 to 4% bigger in circumference than 26 though so on those wheels you don't.

Except the last 30 years of MTB development has been a slow steady move away from Road gears, which you really really don't need, unless you want a road bike.

 

[legrandefromage]

Did someone say off-road road bike?

This was fast, very fast. Ok, I was fast, very fast at the time.

 

[singletrackmac]

Re: Re:

That's not really true though is it. 650b + (27.5 +) is designed to fit in existing 29er frames.

No, a 650b+ (27.5"+) is not designed to fit in an existing 29er frame. It is a whole new standard. There are very few if any non+ 29ers that would be able to fit a 3" wide tire. Most probably would have a hard time fitting a 2.5" wide tire. And the non+ 29er forks would not be able to fit a 3" wide tire either. The diameter of the 650B+ might fit, but it's the width of the + size that prevents it from working in existing 29er frames and forks.

every bike manufacturer in the world makes 650b bikes. Why is this now dead?

As much as the "fat" versions might take off, cant ever see them being mainstream in terms of sales v normal versions. Same as 29er fat versions didnt either.

Fat 26" would have been fun unless you were unlucky to ise those nikeon (?) 3" tyres at the start of the noughties.. awful and weighed ten tonnes

I was really just joking when I said 27.5" is dead and more trying to point out how ridiculous marketing has gotten. First they tell us that 650b is the perfect wheel size for mtb and call it 27.5" to mislead people into believing its right in the middle and is 1.5" larger than a 26" and 1.5" smaller than a 29er. They said that the 27.5" is the ideal wheel diameter and is the best of both worlds.

Now they have discovered a 3rd new world and are pushing the 27.5"+ as the next best thing which is a ridiculous name since it is not 27.5" in diameter, but much closure to 29". So if 27.5" is really the ideal wheel diameter as they have been shoving down our throat the last few years and the + size tire is the next best thing like they are now telling us, then a 26+ would be the best of all three worlds, being about or just over 27.5" in diameter with all the benefits if the + size tire, while 27.5" is now just the best of two of three worlds.

But really it's all just marketing shenanigans to get us to buy new bikes which, I guess, in the end is the purpose of marketing.

----------------------------------------
Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

1988 Bridgestone MB1 / 1989 Rockhopper Comp /
1991 Trek 970 Singletrack / 1993 Brave Titanium Racer / Proflex 555 /
Proflex 856 / 1999 Trek 6000 / 2004 Gary Fisher Cake

 

[coomber]

Fair enough.

I believe that some manufacturers are doing + sizes to be interchangeable between 29 and 650b plus. I.e. not all are using the boost sizes? For example, I'm looking at the Pinncale Ramin (Evans Cycles in the UK own branded in house stuff) which for 2016 will be fully rigid 29er or 650b + - interchangeable.

It all goes down to what sales I guess, but you can only buy what is available. Can't see these + sizes becoming mainstream at all, so whilst interesting, is a tangent that doesnt really bother me like the introduction of other wheel sizes over the years.

 

[singletrackmac]

I have been actually thinking about something similar, but instead just getting hardtail fat bike that can fit 5" wide 26" tires. That way I can run 3.8" to 5" wide 26", 27.5+, 29er and 29er+. This would require 3 different wheel sets however, but would be very future proof and would be ahead of the boost and larger size axles that are sure to come since it would run a 190mm rear axle. No issues with wheel stiffness there.

----------------------------------------
Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

1988 Bridgestone MB1 / 1989 Rockhopper Comp /
1991 Trek 970 Singletrack / 1993 Brave Titanium Racer / Proflex 555 /
Proflex 856 / 1999 Trek 6000 / 2004 Gary Fisher Cake

 

[coomber]

I imagine for boost sizes manufacturers like hope, easton etc will produce adaptors, so whilst a new standard you could use your old kit a bit. I see Specialized doesnt have any (or might only have one) bike in their 2016 lineup with boost standards whilst they wait to see if it will catch on.

 

[coomber]

I have been actually thinking about something similar, but instead just getting hardtail fat bike that can fit 5" wide 26" tires.

Do 5" wide 26" tyres exist? What's the "average" for a "normal" fatbike?

 

[singletrackmac]

Funny you should say that about specialized waiting on the boost standard. They did the same thing with 27.5". They like to wait things out.

There are quite a few 5ish" fat bike tires out there. Off the top of my head I know Surly makes the Big Fat Larry, Bud, Knard, Lou in 4.8" which depending on what rim you use can be right about 5" wide. For example if you run the Clown Shoe 100mm rim that would probably make those tires about 5" wide. I know Vee Rubber also makes a few 5ish" tires also and I am sure their are other manufactures that do as well.

I think most fat bikes run about 4" wide tires, but for a clyde like me, 6'4 240lb, I would go as big as possible.

 

[JamesM]

Re: Re:

Never done a TT?

40km TT, 1 hour 10 minutes, average heart rate 167. Sprint finish resulted in a max heart rate of 177.

That wasn't actually a TT it was the bike section of an olympic tri. I was comparing heart rates between cycling and running at the time and quoting Garmin data. "TT" has two letters so was easier to type than "bike section of olympic tri" which has 23 and 4 spaces :mrgreen: .

Depends how steep the hill is as to whether an aero tuck will get you more speed than pedaling.

Not really, can't remember the exact angle/speed that gravity/drag trumps "sensible" power outputs for adding speed, but it's not that steep, or particularly fast.

How about short bursts of mega power in order to get the highest max speed on your bike computer. Most hills in the uk arent that high so are either long but not steep or steep but not long. An aero tuck alone therefore won't do it, you need a big gear and the ability to hit 160+ rpm for a short time