basscyclist thread picture thread

[fokof]

I guess I don't understand the fad for using 700C tires, calling them "29er",

I guess they called them 29er because of the Non-metric of the US ?

The right nomenclature would be 620 in fact , but that 700 name is over a century old

I get the "roll over" ability of the bigger wheels but these heavier wheels feels like boat anchor to me compared to 26.
Since they disappeared a long time ago , I had to custom order a frame to still run a 26er with recent geo.
It's starting to be difficult to get good stuff though

BTW : 650 is a lot closer to 26 than to 700 , not in Between at all




And also , please start calling them "Bass monitors" instead of "Bass amps"

 

[Wasnex]

instead of the perfectly functional 26" nominal tires that've been standard on mountain bikes for so long.

26" is no longer the standard for MTB. A lot of companies don't even sell 26" builds anymore. If you a find a new 26" build, it might be considered a youth bike. Some companies put 27.5" on smaller frames and 29" on bigger frames. Some companies offer mullet bikes with 27.5 on the back and 29 on the front.

ETRTO sizing sort of unifies the various tire stands. AFAIK 700C, 28", and 29" tires are all 622 rim diameter.

I don't think I have ever seen 700C related to mountain bikes. I usually see it used for road or gravel bikes. Here in the US, 700C and 28" tires are typically designed for a narrower rims than 29" MTB tires.

My TourEasy runs a 700C rear. The size I chose is 700 X 35c. ETRTO size is 37-622. It's also labeled 28 x 1.4. It's not labeled 29"

The tires I put on my 2014 Trek 29'er are 29 x 2.4. ETRTO is 61-622

 

[turf3]

IF it's got a 622 mm bead seat, it's a 700C. Rim width is something else. You can call it any number of other names.

It's all well and good to say "nowadays everyone runs the ISO622 rim for mountain bikes" but valid reasons seem few and far between.

I can buy at least 55 mm wide ISO622 road or cross tires from Rene Herse.

But ISO622 rims are a problem for shorter riders, even on road bikes without the need to enable suspension travel. Lots of people (well, OK, not LOTS, but quite a few) have gone to the smaller diameter 650B size for road bikes, just so they can get a reasonable geometry.

My point again is that there appears to be no reason other than faddishness to replace the perfectly functional "26 inch" mountain bike wheel size with the ISO622 (whether you call it 700C, 28", 29", or Jimmy) , other than faddishness and the need to make people feel their existing bike is out of date and they need to rush out and buy another one.

 

[FunkHead]

From Cyclepedal.com: Just some commonly accepted info>​

​

26 Vs 27.5 – A Comparison Table​

	26	27.5
Top Speed	High	Higher
Maneuverability	Better	Good
Suspension requirement	High	Lower
Acceleration rate	Faster	Fast
Traction	Good	Better

Attack Angle

Rolling resistance, also known as rolling friction refers to the resistance to movement against which the wheel moves. It is caused by friction between it and the surface it is moving on.


The size of your bike's tire determines the amount of rolling resistance you get as you are riding along trails. With a larger wheel base, you can overcome larger obstacles than with smaller tires.


The science behind rolling resistance and obstacles in tires is called attack angle. This is the angle formed between the tire and the obstacle. The larger the angle, the harder it is for the wheel to roll over the obstacle. When a small angle is formed, the tire easily rolls over.


If you are riding a 26 inch bike and come across a thick root on the ground, the root meets the tire at a higher point and at a larger angle than it would if you were riding using a slightly larger 27.5 inch wheeled bike. The result is more force reverberated back against the wheel which makes it harder to control the wheel, reduces stability and forward momentum.


When you are riding at high speed, the difference in tire size, albeit small makes a significant difference.


The smaller the tire, the more force reverberated back against it when you encounter an obstacle. If you are riding on a trail with many obstacles, the 27.5 inch wheel is a better choice.

 

[Wasnex]

I guess they called them 29er because of the Non-metric of the US ?

The right nomenclature would be 620 in fact , but that 700 name is over a century old

I get the "roll over" ability of the bigger wheels but these heavier wheels feels like boat anchor to me compared to 26.
Since they disappeared a long time ago , I had to custom order a frame to still run a 26er with recent geo.
It's starting to be difficult to get good stuff though

BTW : 650 is a lot closer to 26 than to 700 , not in Between at all




And also , please start calling them "Bass monitors" instead of "Bass amps"

I love how light my 26er MTB feels. IMHO my 29ers are better in many ways, but not all. The 29ers rail better on corners and have way more traction in all situations. They also smooth out bumps and carry speed way better. These are important characteristics for trail riding that generally favor 29ers.

 

[Wasnex]

From Cyclepedal.com: Just some commonly accepted info>​

​

26 Vs 27.5 – A Comparison Table​

	26	27.5
Top Speed	High	Higher
Maneuverability	Better	Good
Suspension requirement	High	Lower
Acceleration rate	Faster	Fast
Traction	Good	Better

Attack Angle

Rolling resistance, also known as rolling friction refers to the resistance to movement against which the wheel moves. It is caused by friction between it and the surface it is moving on.


The size of your bike's tire determines the amount of rolling resistance you get as you are riding along trails. With a larger wheel base, you can overcome larger obstacles than with smaller tires.


The science behind rolling resistance and obstacles in tires is called attack angle. This is the angle formed between the tire and the obstacle. The larger the angle, the harder it is for the wheel to roll over the obstacle. When a small angle is formed, the tire easily rolls over.


If you are riding a 26 inch bike and come across a thick root on the ground, the root meets the tire at a higher point and at a larger angle than it would if you were riding using a slightly larger 27.5 inch wheeled bike. The result is more force reverberated back against the wheel which makes it harder to control the wheel, reduces stability and forward momentum.


When you are riding at high speed, the difference in tire size, albeit small makes a significant difference.


The smaller the tire, the more force reverberated back against it when you encounter an obstacle. If you are riding on a trail with many obstacles, the 27.5 inch wheel is a better choice.

Which is best can depend upon your riding style and the type of riding you do.

 

[fokof]

A photo of 26 / 650 / 700 rims
650 is almost the same as 26 ,


I have both sizes on 2 different bikes and I switch wheels from one bike to the other from time to time and I can't tell the difference.
I can compare with the exact same platform.
I can tell the difference from different tires though.

If you try 26 and 650 on two different bikes , the geometry of the different platform will affect the feeling a lot more than the wheel size.

Since it's almost the same size , it's easy to switch wheels if you have the same Grouppo on both bikes

 

[Wasnex]

If I understand correctly, the larger number in most of the bicycle tire standards refers to the nominal outer diameter of the tire. In contrast, the larger number with the ETRTO standard refers to the inner diameter of the tire in mm.

The result: Tires with outer diameter 700 (mm), 28", and 29" all of have 622mm inner diameter. Regarding the "c" in 700c: FYI A, B, C, and D were width designators in the (old) French standard.

Ref: Tire Sizing Systems

Here's another potential point of confusion. My Tour Easy has a 20" front tire. However, 20" tires come in two rim sizes, which require different forks so the brakes calipers are in the right location.. My bike has the 406mm inner diameter tire which I believe is more common for bicycles. Some Tour Easys used the 451mm inner diameter tire, which AFAIK is most common on wheel chair tires and certain types of racing bikes. Many Tour Easys uses 451 tires. I believe the main reason is because they are narrow so they have less drag.

 

[fokof]

Yeah I know about all this , but thanx

My point is that people say that 650 ( 27.5 for some )is a middle point between 26 and 700 ( 29 for some ) and it is not

They made 650 ( 27.5 ) after 700 ( 29 )as another standard so people "have to " buy other stuff.

700 ( 29 ) and 26 would have been OK , they didn't have to do 650 ( 27.5 )

 

[fokof]

 

[Sertsa]

My Kona Honzo alongside the Cuyahoga Valley National Park Towpath.

 

[Wasnex]

A photo of 26 / 650 / 700 rims
650 is almost the same as 26 ,


I have both sizes on 2 difference bikes and I switch wheels from one bike to the other from time to time and I can't tell the difference.
I can compare with the exact same platform.
I can tell the difference from different tires though.

If you try 26 and 650 on two different bikes , the geometry of the different platform will affect the feeling a lot more than the wheel size.

Since it's almost the same size , it's easy to switch wheels if you have the same Grouppo on both bikes



View attachment 7192185

You may like this article:

AASQ #106: How do wheel size and tire width relate to MTB tire cornering grip?

WTB. Maxxis, Schwalbe, Continental, Michelin and Vittoria discuss how wheel size and tire width affect the cornering grip of MTB tires!

bikerumor.com

 

[Wasnex]

Yeah I know about all this , but thanx

My point is that people say that 650 ( 27.5 for some )is a middle point between 26 and 700 ( 29 for some ) and it is not

They made 650 ( 27.5 ) after 700 ( 29 )as another standard so people "have to " buy other stuff.

700 ( 29 ) and 26 would have been OK , they didn't have to do 650 ( 27.5 )

AFAIK there is no danger that 27.5" will take over as the dominant MTB wheel size. However, I do know that some companies use different size rims for different size frames. Sizing the wheels to the rider and frame seems perfectly logical to me. It also seems reasonable that some people would prefer different size wheels for purely subjective reasons. IMHO, options are good and people are free to buy whatever they want.

My personal feeling in regards to MTBs is 29" is superior overall to 26", but 29" is not objectively better in every way. If I could only keep one MTB, it would be the Revel Rail 29. Since I am not limited in this way, I keep my Trek 26er because I prefer it in some ways. I also prefer my Trek 29er for different reasons.

I haven't ridden a 27.5". I wouldn't mind trying one, but I am not interested enough to buy one.

 

[Wasnex]

650 is a lot closer to 26 than to 700 , not in Between at all

This was rattling around in my brain and the following is what popped out .

Depends on if you are looking at the inner or outer diameter of the tire:

Inner Diameter (common MTB tires)
Inches to ISO
26 = 559
27.5 = 584
29 = 622

Here's the mean of 559 and 622:

(559 + 622)/2 = 590.5.

584 is 13 units closer to 559 than 622, but only 6.5 units off the mean. AFAIK, that's only about a 10.3% error.

My point is that people say that 650 ( 27.5 for some )is a middle point between 26 and 700 ( 29 for some ) and it is not

If you look at the outer diameter, 27.5 is literally the mean or average of 26 and 29: (26 + 29)/2 = 27.5

This is drawn to the best of my ability using the grid on MS Paint. The vertical lines represent the other diameter of tires. The lines are 26 units, 27.5 units, and 29 units long. The horizontal lines were simply placed on top. This is to show that 27.5 is midway between 26 and 29.

I think the outer diameter is probably what matters most in this context .

 

[fokof]

Check the photo I posted ( Answer #2747 ) , of 3 rims I have : 26 , 650 and 700
You can clearly see that 650 is closer to 26 than to 700

Not in between like Marketing departement would want us to believe
( And noted in the funny video too )

 

[Wasnex]

Check the photo I posted ( Answer #2747 ) , of 3 rims I have : 26 , 650 and 700
You can clearly see that 650 is closer to 26 than to 700

Not in between like Marketing departement would want us to believe
( And noted in the funny video too )

I think the outer diameter is more important. Do you think the inner diameter is more important?

 

[turf3]

If you're trying to buy tires that fit your rims, inner (bead) diameter is most important because too small or too large doesn't work.

If you're designing a frame to fit certain wheel sizes and achieve a desired geometry, outer diameter is most important; then the tire width you plan on will drive what bead size you specify for the rims. Of course for bikes with rim brakes (for us retro-grouches) the location of brake bosses or reach of brake arms depend on a constant rim size.

I still stand by my contention that for a mountain bike where you need lots of clearance for suspension (if used) and large diameter tires, the smaller rim size ISO559) makes more sense for people of average and smaller stature. Again I point to the world of road cycling, where "650B" size (584 bead size) has a growing number of adherents because of this design flexibility (can use larger tires and still make reasonable geometry choices), and where the Terry women's bikes of the 1980s used "24 inch" front wheels in order to get reasonable steering geometry for people of small stature without making them stretch WAAAYY out to reach the bars (women generally have shorter arms for their height than men).

 

[Wasnex]

I still stand by my contention that for a mountain bike where you need lots of clearance for suspension (if used) and large diameter tires, the smaller rim size ISO559) makes more sense for people of average and smaller stature.

I am slightly above average height for a US male (5'9"). I don't feel there is any problem building a 29er frame for my height. I do appreciate the lighter weight/mass of my 26. But for someone of my size, IME 29ers are objectively better trail bikes in most ways.

Choice of wheel size is a fairly personal and somewhat subjective decision. If you think nothing is better than ISO559, that is your right, but the market has been favoring ISO 622 (29") for quite awhile.

 

[Wasnex]

@turf3
Notice the wheel sizes (kids bike):

Ref: Reaper

Not certain but it may be possible to swap out wheel size on the frame.

 

[Mustang Surly]

Slick Rock, Moab Utah-1990s: