26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[john]

I'm wondering about the difference in tire sizes for loaded touring.

Wouldn't a 26" wheel work better for loaded touring, regardless of the frame size?

Why therefore doesn't Rivendell offer 26" wheels in their larger touring-capable frames, like the Atlantis and Hunq?

What am I missing here?

[Deacon Patrick]

A wheel is a wheel is a wheel. There are different characteristics to different sizes, but no "ideal". As near as I can tell looking at Grant's offerings, he sizes the wheel to the frame which is presumably sized to the rider. That makes far more sense to me than does 26" for all MTBs or other arbitrary sizing. All other factors being equal (tire , rim, etc.) a larger wheel will have more inertia starting out, making it harder to get going, and more inertia once rolling, helping it hold momentum longer. How big a difference is there? Likely not a huge amount, and I'd bet not enough to warrant a smaller wheel for a bigger rider or vice versa. But what do I know? I'm big, dumb, and slow, happily riding a 700c Quickbeam and 29er Hunqapillar. Grin.

With abandon,

Patrick

[Tim Gavin]

Some folks believe that 26" wheels are best for touring because of their widespread availability.  I.e., if you're touring in Borneo you'll still find tires, tubes, and wheels.

Other than parts availability, I don't believe that one wheel size has an inherent advantage over the others.

Rivendell/Grant believes in sizing the wheel diameter to correlate to the frame size.  Some of their bikes have 26" wheels for the small frames, 650b wheels in the middle sizes, and 700c for the large sizes.

Grant designs the frames to have roughly the same tire clearance for each wheel size, so each size rides similarly to the others.

I applaud this approach, because a bike with smaller-diameter wheels fits better for shorter people.  I cringe when I build up 47 and 49 cm road frames with 700c wheels at the shop where I work.  Those short folks could have a better-fitting, better-handling bike if they used smaller hoops.

Tim

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ron Mc]

I'm thinking if your legs are short, a 26" is fine.  But if you're 6'3" and all limbs like me, it has to be 700c.  If nothing else, just to have acceptable pedal clearance. 

[Neil]

What about relative wheel strength? 26" is smaller, shorter spokes, stronger wheel...? In theory, but I bet the real-world difference is small, all things being equal.

[Deacon Patrick]

It's like we attend the same meetings and drink the same kool-aid-laced #coffeeoutside. Grin.

With abandon,

Patrick

[Steven Sweedler]

I am 6'2", touring on a Thorn with 26" wheels and am very comfortable if the frame is well designed it will work regardless of wheel size  Also much easier to pack if you fly with your bike It was Grant who convinced me years ago on 26" wheels but on larger frames he didn't like the extra long head tube Steve

Catalina, Az

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Ron Mc <bulld...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm thinking if your legs are short, a 26" is fine.  But if you're 6'3" and all limbs like me, it has to be 700c.  If nothing else, just to have acceptable pedal clearance. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Steven Sweedler
Plymouth, New Hampshiret

[masmojo]

As a former XO-1 owner I can tell you the smaller wheels accelerate faster and are probably a little easier on a slow grinding climb while loaded, but in the other end of the spectrum the larger wheels seem to maintain momentum better. I might go 26" if traveling to somewhere outof tge way, but otherwise I would choose a wheel size proportional to you height.
I rode 26" almost exclusively for 25 years, but I am loving 650B now & that is one thing I look for, but it might not make sense touring China or South America.

[Patrick Moore]

Road wheels must be 26". Off road wheels must be 700C. Amen.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, and letters that get interviews.

By-the-hour resume and LinkedIn coaching.

Other professional writing services.

http://www.resumespecialties.com/

www.linkedin.com/in/patrickmooreresumespec/

Patrick Moore

Alburquerque, Nouvelle Mexique,  Vereinigte Staaten

****************************************************************************************

The point which is the pivot of the norm is the motionless center of a circumference on which all conditions, distinctions, and individualities revolve. Chuang Tzu

Stat crux dum volvitur orbis. (The cross stands motionless while the world revolves.) Carthusian motto

It is we who change; He remains the same. Eckhart

Kinei hos eromenon. (It moves [all things] as the beloved.) Aristotle

[Bill Lindsay]

Rivendell, more than any other bicycle source in the world, believes that wheel diameter should go along with frame size.  There is no other bicycle manufacturer on earth that practices that theory more than Rivendell.  

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with 26" wheels for a really tall rider.  Many will tell you "they work fine for me".  A pure strength argument doesn't cut it, though.  24" wheels would be even stronger.  20" wheels stronger still.  16" wheels indestructable.  There are other trade offs, so it's just a matter of where you want to be.  If you ride a big frame and want a 26" wheelsize, then go buy that thing and enjoy it.  It just won't be a Rivendell.  No problem.  

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 10:46:53 AM UTC-8, john wrote:

[Michael Hechmer]

We run 26" wheels on our touring tandem.  We are a tall ( 6'1" & 5'9") and heavy (360 lbs) team.  Add in a heavy steel frame at 40+ lbs, front and real panniers, water, etc and our touring weight runs around 430lbs, and day rides a bit over 400 lbs.  Yet we have been riding the same 26", 36 spoke wheels ( instead of the traditional 48 spoke 700C) for 5 years without any problems.  I believe / suspect that the shorter spoke lengths make for a stronger wheel.  We use a V shaped (DaVinci) rim and 38mm (Marathon Racer) tires, which do a good job of protecting the wheels.  So yes, I would say, from my experience, 26" is an excellent choice for a fully loaded touring bike.  Ours is a travel tandem, and as has been noted, the 26" wheels pack more conveniently.  The only downside I have found is the length of the head tube, which puts even a large front bag out of reach of a decaleur.  We use a small Acorn bag.  Not as convenient, but no decaleur required.

All that said, if I were starting from scratch, I would choose 650B wheels & canti brakes for a touring bike.  I have that combination on both a Saluki and a Trek 620 conversion.  The wheel size, frame geometry, and tire selection hit a real sweet spot.

What I find more puzzling in recent RBW designs is the preference for double TTs in designs of 64cm & below.  It definitely looks like a solution in search of a problem.  I wouldn't hesitate to head out for self supported touring on a single tube, 64cm Atlantis.

Michael

in Westford Vt, where three days of constant sub zero temperatures ended in freezing rain.  UGH.

[Garth]

  Theories abound, everyone has them and yet no one knows the Truth.  There is a reason why theories are called theories !  No man knows or can know the Absolute , Truth . 

Just ride what you Love , with Love.  Pay no mind,  funny how everything turns out just perfect in spite of all the theories and thought put together.

[Steve Palincsar]

On 02/16/2016 02:02 PM, Ron Mc wrote:

I'm thinking if your legs are short, a 26" is fine.  But if you're 6'3" and all limbs like me, it has to be 700c.  If nothing else, just to have acceptable pedal clearance. 

Looks like plenty of pedal clearance here...

[john]

Several (more like 20) years ago, I rode a 55 or 56 cm (can't remember exactly) Bridgestone X0-3, which I loved, although it was a bit small for me (I'm almost 6 feet tall).

It had 26" wheels, mustache bars, slicks (26x1.75) and knobbier (up to 1.95s). What a fun bike! I toured with it and it handled weight very nicely. I rode off road a lot, on road, commuted....I didn't know any better and just rode it for all my purposes - unlike today where I "know more" and have to have a specific tool for each task - and don't have as much fun. 

A little later on, I rode a Surly Big Dummy as my primary commuter. It also had 26" wheels, and was the large sized frame (the largest they made). it rode great, too. Of course it carried loads really well. It was never gonna be fast - especially since I was pedaling! But I liked the bike - road well for its intended purpose. And it was not a small frame.

Now I ride a 60cm 2009 Cantilevered Sam Hillborne with 700c wheels (of course), and it also rides really nicely.

I just mention this because the reason I brought up the discussion is that I'm just genuinely curious. I know some other companies out there make 26" wheeled touring bikes in large frames, and wondered what the general feeling among the Rivendell group was concerning the "ideal" wheel size for a given purpose (in this case, loaded touring).

[Patrick Moore]

Now now -- though I believe a little well considered spitefulness is sometimes a work of mercy.

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:59 PM, sameness <same...@gmail.com> wrote:

So what size wheels are on your Magna?

Jeff Hagedorn
Los Angeles, CA USA

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 1:53:05 PM UTC-8, Garth wrote:

  Theories abound, everyone has them and yet no one knows the Truth.  There is a reason why theories are called theories !  No man knows or can know the Absolute , Truth . 

Just ride what you Love , with Love.  Pay no mind,  funny how everything turns out just perfect in spite of all the theories and thought put together.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Steve D.]

When I first built my '03 Atlantis (51 cm), a friend gave me an earful of criticism for have 26" wheels--"Your bike will be too slow. "You should've gotten 700cc wheels." Ugghhhhh. Really, I've been riding/commuting on this bike, off and on, for 13 years. It's the most comfortable bike I've ever had, 26" wheels and all. I'm 5'9" tall with a long torso, short legs. The combination of wheel and frame size on my Atlantis suit me perfectly. I think the conventional wisdom on issues of wheel size being more or less efficient should be taken with a grain of salt. I've seen people on 20" wheel folding bike blow right past me. Yeah, I'm not the fastest rider, but not the slowest either.

I remember sometime ago somewhere that Grant had wrote something about the aesthetics of wheel/frame size. The gist was that 700cc wheels on smallish frames made the bike look funky; 26" wheels where better proportioned to smaller frame sizes, which, aesthetically, is a good call on his part. Grant's philosophy behind bike design and riding is what brought me to choosing a Riv over everyone else.

Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway), I agree with Deacon and others, it's just a wheel, there is no ideal; it's all about compromise, and I think what it comes down to is comfort and aesthetics.

[iamkeith]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned "stability."  I don't have enough experience to really know if it's true but, along with the worldwide availability, I always thought that was one of the main arguments for 26" wheels.  Basically, the idea that the lower gyroscopic  center of gravity of the wheels made the bike more stable and less prone to being blown or tipped over - which I assume is more important the bigger the load you're carrying. 

[dougP]

My wife has a 47 cm Atlantis with 26" wheels, shod with 1.5" tires.  I have a 58 cm Atlantis with 700c wheels.  She has been known to leave me behind if she feels like it.  Any claimed performance differences based on wheel size are lost on me. 

dougP

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 10:46:53 AM UTC-8, john wrote:

[Hugh Smitham]

It's my perception that the 26" wheel is easier to get rolling and keep rolling than 650b & 700c wheels. For me at least my Atlantis seems to climb better than those other sizes and I have all three sizes. I've seen old MTB & Touring large frames with 26" and the riders didn't seem to mind. I'll grant that the larger wheel size looks proportionally better on a large frame. And I hear a lot of comments on off road riding that the 29er size rolls over obstructions better than the 26" but I have no practical experience with that size off road. My 26" wheels have always been fine off road. On availability I've been told the 26" wheel size is ubiquitous overseas, so if you're a world traveler then it would seem prudent to use a 26" wheel. 

We're witnessing a boom in adventure bikes in the 29er and 27.5 category. Those sizes seem risky overseas for the availability issue I mentioned above. Beyond, availability and aesthetic what makes those sizes better than 26"? It's not chubbier tires because the smaller wheel size can accommodate more rubber with correct frame clearance design, example fat tire bikes & the Rawland Ravn and I get the proportion deal but it all seems like a component manufacturers push. I'm sure there's a Jan Heine article out there on why 650b is the favored randonneur wheel size but I bet a 26" would work fine for those events. Anyway, very good question John. It seems the question has been answered regarding why Riv doesn't have 26" in the larger sized frames. 

Tail Winds,

~Hugh    

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 10:46:53 AM UTC-8, john wrote:

[Steven Sweedler]

Do any listmembers have a large Riv All Rounder w/26" wheels. I recall that the first AR's in all sizes were 26" wheeled. Can anyone verify. My own AR is from 2000, a 64 cm and is 700 c.  Steve

Apache Junction, Az.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

[iamkeith]

I have a large (60cm) with 26" wheels. 1999 model year.  Others are much more knowledgeable about changes and history, but my understanding is that 2000 is when they switched to 700c for the larger models, so that would jive.

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 2:53:08 PM UTC-7, Steven Sweedler wrote:

Do any listmembers have a large Riv All Rounder w/26" wheels. I recall that the first AR's in all sizes were 26" wheeled. Can anyone verify. My own AR is from 2000, a 64 cm and is 700 c.  Steve

Apache Junction, Az.

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016, Hugh Smitham <hughs...@gmail.com> wrote:

It's my perception that the 26" wheel is easier to get rolling and keep rolling than 650b & 700c wheels. For me at least my Atlantis seems to climb better than those other sizes and I have all three sizes. I've seen old MTB & Touring large frames with 26" and the riders didn't seem to mind. I'll grant that the larger wheel size looks proportionally better on a large frame. And I hear a lot of comments on off road riding that the 29er size rolls over obstructions better than the 26" but I have no practical experience with that size off road. My 26" wheels have always been fine off road. On availability I've been told the 26" wheel size is ubiquitous overseas, so if you're a world traveler then it would seem prudent to use a 26" wheel. 

We're witnessing a boom in adventure bikes in the 29er and 27.5 category. Those sizes seem risky overseas for the availability issue I mentioned above. Beyond, availability and aesthetic what makes those sizes better than 26"? It's not chubbier tires because the smaller wheel size can accommodate more rubber with correct frame clearance design, example fat tire bikes & the Rawland Ravn and I get the proportion deal but it all seems like a component manufacturers push. I'm sure there's a Jan Heine article out there on why 650b is the favored randonneur wheel size but I bet a 26" would work fine for those events. Anyway, very good question John. It seems the question has been answered regarding why Riv doesn't have 26" in the larger sized frames. 

Tail Winds,

~Hugh    

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 10:46:53 AM UTC-8, john wrote:

I'm wondering about the difference in tire sizes for loaded touring.

Wouldn't a 26" wheel work better for loaded touring, regardless of the frame size?

Why therefore doesn't Rivendell offer 26" wheels in their larger touring-capable frames, like the Atlantis and Hunq?

What am I missing here?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Tim Gavin]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Steven Sweedler <swee...@gmail.com> wrote:

Do any listmembers have a large Riv All Rounder w/26" wheels. I recall that the first AR's in all sizes were 26" wheeled. Can anyone verify. My own AR is from 2000, a 64 cm and is 700 c.  Steve

Apache Junction, Az.

No, but I have an XL '88 Schwinn Project KOM-10 (rigid MTB), built up as an all-rounder/tourer.

The 26" wheels seem a bit dwarfed by the huge frame (22" seat tube, 24" top tube), but they're nimble and easy to accelerate.  

This bike isn't as fast as my 650b or 700c bikes, but it may be its weight holding it back, not necessarily the wheel size.  But it's a blast to ride on just about any road surface, and it's a lot of fun to bunny hop curbs and stuff while commuting.

Tim

[Hugh Smitham]

Doesn't look proportionally odd to me. Looks right to me. So you're 650b & 700c are faster because you've clocked yourself in the same segment with all three bikes? And what width tires are you running in the 650b & 700c bikes? If weight is the limiting factor then what is the proportion difference in speed and if all three bikes were loaded similarly which would function better? I suspect your Schwinn KOM-10 would shine unless there's something wonky about the geometry like short chainstays. But looking at it I don't think. That bike looks awesome.

Speaking of geometry, since Grant and company are revising the Atlantis (longer chainstays) how is that going to make it a better bike? I've also heard others mention that they've had the front end lift up on them as they were climbing. That seems like a poorly distributed load situation to me with too much weight in the rear. I've never experienced this on either my Hilsen or my Atlantis? What gives here? Seems to me that longer chain stays will make it a bit more stable and possibly a slightly poorer climber. I've also heard from folks that the Atlantis is dead unloaded?  Again not my experience, unloaded the Atlantis feels downright lively.

 

~Hugh

“Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep moving.” ― Albert Einstein

http://velocipeedemusings.com/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/cerNIKH36P0/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

[Norman Bone]

I have a 59 AR with 26" wheels. match built in '99.

-Norm in PDX

Rivendell All Rounder

				Rivendell All Rounder
				View on www.flickr.com	Preview by Yahoo

---

From: Steven Sweedler <swee...@gmail.com>
To: "rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com" <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[Hugh Smitham]

Yeah Norm we know you have this beauty!! Thanks for rubbing it in dude :)

~Hugh

“Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep moving.” ― Albert Einstein

http://velocipeedemusings.com/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/cerNIKH36P0/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

[Norman Bone]

Thanks Hugh!

It looks like 59 was a large as you could go with 26. Catalog says 61, 63 and 65 went to 700c

Riv Cat05 all-rounder

				Riv Cat05 all-rounder

View on www.flickr.com	Preview by Yahoo

---

From: Hugh Smitham <hughs...@gmail.com>
To: RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 3:30 PM

[Bill Lindsay]

Hugh asked:

"Speaking of geometry, since Grant and company are revising the Atlantis (longer chainstays) how is that going to make it a better bike? "

It won't make it a better bike unless you decide you like it better.  It will make it a different bike.  I trust both old and new Atlantii will be excellent, but different.  

"I've also heard others mention that they've had the front end lift up on them as they were climbing. That seems like a poorly distributed load situation to me with too much weight in the rear. I've never experienced this on either my Hilsen or my Atlantis? What gives here? "

On a really steep hill with an upright cockpit your whole body is poorly distributed with too much weight on the rear.  There's a ~20% section on one approach up the hill to my house, and it's hard keeping the front end down on an upright bike.  No matter what your position, there is a hill steep enough that will cause the front end to lift.  One solution is don't ride up >20% grades.  Another is bend down.  Another is put more weight in front.   There are other solutions.  Maybe longer stays will be one.

"Seems to me that longer chain stays will make it a bit more stable and possibly a slightly poorer climber."

That's a reasonable guess.  When you ride one for yourself, you'll be able to judge for yourself.  For sure big-footed people who like big rear panniers will love the extra heel clearance.  My guess is that it won't be a poorer climber, but it's just a guess.  My Joe Appaloosa will be here in just a couple weeks!  I'll let you know what I think.  

"I've also heard from folks that the Atlantis is dead unloaded?  Again not my experience, unloaded the Atlantis feels downright lively."

Not my experience either.  My 58cm 700c Atlantis doesn't feel dead to me, but dead is in the eye of the beholder. 

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA

[Hugh Smitham]

Thanks Norm. That's a good read. As others have stated from the get go Grant has matched wheel size with frame size. So he could have gone with 26" straight across the board but went with aesthetics. That's not to say the larger wheeled versions are any less capable.

~Hugh

“Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep moving.” ― Albert Einstein

http://velocipeedemusings.com/

[Hugh Smitham]

 at 3:55 PM, Bill Lindsay <tape...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hugh asked:

"Speaking of geometry, since Grant and company are revising the Atlantis (longer chainstays) how is that going to make it a better bike? "

It won't make it a better bike unless you decide you like it better.  It will make it a different bike.  I trust both old and new Atlantii will be excellent, but different.  

So often when a designer or manufacturer updates a given design it's lauded as "better" or at the least regarded that way by adherents. But I agree not necessarily better just different.  

"I've also heard others mention that they've had the front end lift up on them as they were climbing. That seems like a poorly distributed load situation to me with too much weight in the rear. I've never experienced this on either my Hilsen or my Atlantis? What gives here? "

On a really steep hill with an upright cockpit your whole body is poorly distributed with too much weight on the rear.  There's a ~20% section on one approach up the hill to my house, and it's hard keeping the front end down on an upright bike.  No matter what your position, there is a hill steep enough that will cause the front end to lift.  One solution is don't ride up >20% grades.  Another is bend down.  Another is put more weight in front.   There are other solutions.  Maybe longer stays will be one.

Well on a >20% hill any bike's front end is going to want to rise up. On my road bike that would most certainly be true and I'd be out of the saddle partly due to gearing and to shift my weight to the front end to keep it down. With a loaded tour bike I suspect most would be walking and having longer chain stays on a >20% hill I suppose would help but most likely in a negligible way. I think in most practical applications I don't see many benefits other than your heel strike point below. 

"Seems to me that longer chain stays will make it a bit more stable and possibly a slightly poorer climber."

That's a reasonable guess.  When you ride one for yourself, you'll be able to judge for yourself.  For sure big-footed people who like big rear panniers will love the extra heel clearance.  My guess is that it won't be a poorer climber, but it's just a guess.  My Joe Appaloosa will be here in just a couple weeks!  I'll let you know what I think.  

No plans to ride an Appaloosa anytime soon. I did ride a Proto-Appaloosa last time I was at Riv Hq and I was underwhelmed. Just curious how others will characterize the new changes?  I'll be interested in your ride notes. Which of course will be subjective but none the less interesting.

"I've also heard from folks that the Atlantis is dead unloaded?  Again not my experience, unloaded the Atlantis feels downright lively."

Not my experience either.  My 58cm 700c Atlantis doesn't feel dead to me, but dead is in the eye of the beholder. 

Yup.

 

~Hugh

“Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep moving.” ― Albert Einstein

http://velocipeedemusings.com/ 

[Patrick Moore]

There is a pronounced opposite effect: smaller wheels are lighter and "shorter" so their gyroscopic effect is less, and bikes shod with them are more agile, or nervous if you prefer, though the overall handling of a smaller-wheeled bike, at least those designed by Grant, can handle impeccably. I've owned 3 26" wheel Riv customs + a roaded '92 XO-2.

As to the weight being lower (I don't know what "lower gyroscopic center of gravity" means) that may indeed make them more stable under loads, as long as the load is lower -- I've not particularly noticed that myself, but we do tend to hang panniers as low as possible. It makes sense. I'd like to try a 35 lb load on the rear of my Dahon 20 incher.

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:33 AM, iamkeith <keith...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned "stability."  I don't have enough experience to really know if it's true but, along with the worldwide availability, I always thought that was one of the main arguments for 26" wheels.  Basically, the idea that the lower gyroscopic  center of gravity of the wheels made the bike more stable and less prone to being blown or tipped over - which I assume is more important the bigger the load you're carrying. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Patrick Moore]

I know that "twenty niner" wheels -- with 65 mm tire mine have measured almost 30", and the 51 mm tires on the wheels now measure 28.8" -- seem to float through sand and smooth out small, high frequency bumps better than tires 2" smaller, this for the same width.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Patrick Moore]

After bike fit and rider setup, tire quality is going to determine speed. Put a pair of 26" Compass ELs on a bike and it will roll fast. The claimed-32 mm Elk Pass is noticeably faster (and lighter too!) than the already fast Michelin Pro Race 4 at 22 mm.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[dougP]

There you have it from someone with all 3 sizes.  Come to think of it, didn't BQ do a test a while back with 3 frames, one for each wheel size, that were otherwise identical?  IIRC, it was testing handling, and the conclusion was that the smaller wheels with chubbier tires could handle similarly to larger wheels with skinnier tires.  It boiled down to wheel & tire combinations with similar moments of inertia. 

dougP

[iamkeith]

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 4:49:17 PM UTC-7, Norman Bone wrote:

Thanks Hugh!

It looks like 59 was a large as you could go with 26. Catalog says 61, 63 and 65 went to 700c

I'm guessing that this particular catalog excerpt was from later in the period of model availability, and reflected a change that occurred at some point.   As noted, mine is 60cm and has 26" wheels.   And I know of at least one larger than mine (assuming 61cm, picture attached below) that also has 26" wheels.   Prior to 1999, it may be that this size still fell below the "cutoff" between 26 and 700c, or it may just be the case that nothing larger was ever ordered/built.    

I still kind of think that, at first,  they were ALL  26" though.   Remember that the original reason for using 26" tires was that there were no 700c tires that had enough volume. (Or at least very few.)  At some point, that obviously changed.

If I'm correct, it looks like the change might have actually happened mid 1999, comparing with Norman's info,  and corresponded to a change in builders  (Joe Starck, earlier in the year, used 26", and Match, later in the year, used 700c?)  Or who knows... maybe there was an option to choose for a short period during the overlap.

[john]

@Keith, Norm and Tim: Those are hot bikes! Exactly what I'm thinking! Great Rough Stuff, Go-Anywhere  All-Rounders!

[Hugh Smitham]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Patrick Moore <bert...@gmail.com> wrote:

After bike fit and rider setup, tire quality is going to determine speed. Put a pair of 26" Compass ELs on a bike and it will roll fast. The claimed-32 mm Elk Pass is noticeably faster (and lighter too!) than the already fast Michelin Pro Race 4 at 22 mm.

 

I totally agree tire selection has a lot to do with perceived speed & comfort if not downright actual increased performance per bike and rider. However, assuming the bike shod with Michelin Pro Race 4 @ 22mm are shod on a 700c bike versus a bike with the Compass ELk 26x1.25  I'll  remain a skeptic that the 26er will be faster. A bike designed with that tire in mind (Michelin Pro Race 4) is lighter and consequently faster.  As Doug mentioned, perhaps Jan did a test on this very thing, if so I'd be curious to read it. 

[Hugh Smitham]

All these bikes look great to me! Thanks for posting! 

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 6:43:26 PM UTC-8, iamkeith wrote:

[Patrick Moore]

It's the same bike, a 1999 Rivendell road custom, formerly with 650C wheels and Pro 4s, now with 559 wheels and Elk Passes. The gear is now a tiny bit higher (76" versus 75", since the wheel is 1/4" bigger with the Elk Passes) but I seem to be able to push it more easily -- cadence versus effort versus conditions. The Elk Passes I've owned weigh between 172 and 178 grams; the Pro Race 4 was about 200 grams.

That said: why would a 700C bike fitted with 700C Pro Race 4s be faster or lighter than a bike built for 26" wheels? 

Note that a faster bike may or may not be lighter than a slower bike.

Do you mean that smaller wheels have pari passu greater rolling resistance? That may be so, but the difference IME (which is considerable) is hard to feel, and I certainly feel that the 26" Elk Pass tires roll better than any 700C tire I've used (well, the 50 mm Furious Fred certainly rolls well, but it has knoblets to slow it down on pavement).

As for weight, ceteris paribus, a smaller wheel will have lighter rims, tires, and tubes -- this by mere fact of size; but the change brought further weight reduction, in that the 650C ME14As weighed ~430 grams while the 559 M14As (no eyelets) weight 370 grams. And as before, the EPs are lighter than the PR4s. (The gofast weighs ~17.5 lb with cage and pedals but no seat bag.)

Finally, I don't recall, despite subscribing to BQ for the last 10 years, that Jan tested the relative speeds of wheels of different diameters. He made judgements about handling and wheel diameter and tire width. Did I miss something?

[Norman Bone]

That's the earliest catalog I have. Does anyone have some scans of catalogs or frame brochures earlier than #5 (1999)? I think Keith is right.

-Norm

---

From: iamkeith <keith...@gmail.com>

To: RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com>

Cc: bone...@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 6:43 PM

Subject: Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

[Hugh Smitham]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Patrick Moore <bert...@gmail.com> wrote:

It's the same bike, a 1999 Rivendell road custom, formerly with 650C wheels and Pro 4s, now with 559 wheels and Elk Passes. The gear is now a tiny bit higher (76" versus 75", since the wheel is 1/4" bigger with the Elk Passes) but I seem to be able to push it more easily -- cadence versus effort versus conditions. The Elk Passes I've owned weigh between 172 and 178 grams; the Pro Race 4 was about 200 grams.

That said: why would a 700C bike fitted with 700C Pro Race 4s be faster or lighter than a bike built for 26" wheels? 

Lots of variables here, rider conditioning, course conditions and bike build characteristics. Did you measure your yourself on the same segment with the exact same conditions to arrive at your conclusion? I recently rode my Trek 660 with someone riding my Atlantis and though that person is in decent shape I can assure you the Trek 660 shod with Conti Grand Prix 700x28mm was faster. This wasn't a controlled experiment so pretty meaningless.

Note that a faster bike may or may not be lighter than a slower bike.

Right, sure the engine may be finely tuned. 

Do you mean that smaller wheels have pari passu greater rolling resistance?

Nope that's not what I'm saying and I have no data to confirm deny that.

 

That may be so, but the difference IME (which is considerable) is hard to feel, and I certainly feel that the 26" Elk Pass tires roll better than any 700C tire I've used (well, the 50 mm Furious Fred certainly rolls well, but it has knoblets to slow it down on pavement).

I've found when riding alongside folks with relatively similar conditioning on 700c bikes and me on my 26er I have the advantage on climbs and am at a disadvantage on descents. The 700's can keep the momentum up. Again maybe if I had the wheels and tires you're rolling those disadvantages would disappear?

 

As for weight, ceteris paribus, a smaller wheel will have lighter rims, tires, and tubes -- this by mere fact of size; but the change brought further weight reduction, in that the 650C ME14As weighed ~430 grams while the 559 M14As (no eyelets) weight 370 grams. And as before, the EPs are lighter than the PR4s. (The gofast weighs ~17.5 lb with cage and pedals but no seat bag.)

 

Those are light wheels and tires.  And you've made a great point for 26ers. Would you use them for mixed terrain and loaded touring? 

Finally, I don't recall, despite subscribing to BQ for the last 10 years, that Jan tested the relative speeds of wheels of different diameters. He made judgements about handling and wheel diameter and tire width. Did I miss something?

 However, assuming the bike shod with Michelin Pro Race 4 @ 22mm are shod on a 700c bike versus a bike with the Compass ELk 26x1.25  I'll  remain a skeptic that the 26er will be faster. A bike designed with that tire in mind

Less of a skeptic. 

(Michelin Pro Race 4) is lighter and consequently faster.  As Doug mentioned, perhaps Jan did a test on this very thing, if so I'd be curious to read it. 

~Hugh

“Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep moving.” ― Albert Einstein

http://velocipeedemusings.com/

 

--

[Patrick Moore]

I don't know whether a 700C bike as such -- as such is faster or slower than a 26" wheeled bike. If it is faster, I can't imagine any reason except that bigger wheels somehow roll more easily than smaller ones. (I do think I notice more drag on my 406 mm Kojaks than on my 559 or 622 Kojaks.)

I do know -- you feel it very distinctly riding fixed -- that heavy 700c wheels seem to maintain speed better than light 559 or 571 wheels, given more or less similar tires, but that hasn't made mine any faster for me overall. I've had my road bike setup more or less engraved in stone for the last 20 years, so there is little variable in setup. At any rate, I've ridden many 700C road bikes and 4 very nice 559/571 road bikes, and I've always been fastest on the 26ers, on road.

I might well find an Atlantis slower on road, being that it is rather stoutly built compared to a nice, light 700C road frame. OTOH, with Elk Passes on the Atlantis and Pro Race 4s on the gofast -- I dunno!

As for coasting downhill: I recall riding with erstwhile Boblist and Rivlist member Gary "9,000 miles; it was a bad year" Blakely up and down Tramway, he on a very nice Trek sport tourer, me on my half stepped '95 custom commuter. He was faster uphill (he waited for me; oh, and I geared waaaay down to 60") but I was faster downhill -- funny, I had to keep braking for politeness sake. Of course, I was about 30 lb heavier than he -- he was small, and probably less than 150, I at about 170; bikes about the same. 32 mm 559 folding, non Tourguard Paselas, so not hugely swift tires.

As you say, there are many variables, but from my experience -- which, again, while hardly definitive is considerable, I would very emphatically say that I have no evidence at all after decades of riding that 700c is inherently faster than smaller wheels because of momentum, tire drag, spoke churn, frontal aerodynamics, weight, or any other reason.

I do ride my Elk Pass-shod tires with said wheels on light dirt and gravel; fun! Even the gofast works, now that I swapped the Keos for even lighter SPD clones. (Tho' I am hoarding my old Dura Ace SPD road pedals, because they will probably go on to the gofast simply because they are nice). 

Note that the Sun M14A was designed as a mountain bike tire back in the early '90s, and I used them for years off road with Farmer Johns and such. I also commuted across town on them, on some rough pavement, sometime with heavy rear loads, while shod with 200 gram 559 22 mm Specialized Turbos. The rims are bombproof. 

I did break a couple of rear nipples under rear loads of 30 lb or more while using the Turbos, but that was because the wheels were built with Revolution spokes and aluminum nipples. I switched to 14-15 and brass and no more problems. But then I found the Kojak and after that the Elk Pass.

And I would very definitely use 26" for dirt and touring; I use it on dirt (Race Lite) tho' I've not done any touring. I think -- no touring experience, but extrapolating from such load handling experience as I have with them -- that 26" would be a better size for touring, especially with a tire like the Rat Trap Pass. 

In fact, had I not invested in a Matthews replacement of the Fargo, with the custom wheels and parts, I'd probably be buying a Raven or something roady to accept a Rat Trap Pass tire, or perhaps a 559X2.5" Furious Fred.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[iamkeith]

So, what I really want to know, Hugh, is why you'd sell your 26 Atlantis.

--------------------

I might as well post this, too.  I showed a different picture in the Rat Trap Pass discussion a while back, but this is my 59 with those new tires, just before it started snowing last fall.  I've been absolutely giddy with anticipation, waiting for the opportunity to get back on it this coming summer.

[iamkeith]

Sorry... that is my 60, not 59.

[Hugh Smitham]

Funny you should ask. All day I've been asking myself that very thing. I may hold onto it. 

[Patrick Moore]

I'd almost trade you for my green 2003 Curt built custom! Man, I sometimes wonder if a Rat Trap Pass bike wouldn't be better than even a road-29er. Anyway, let us know how you like those tires.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[olof...@gmail.com]

I took a look in my Riv catalogues (I´m happy to have all). The Riv All-Rounder is built with 559 in all sizes, made up to 62 cm (this was the time before custom sizes) in catalogue 3, summer 1997. In catalogue 4, a year later this had changed, bigger than 59 cm were now built with 622 cm. The Atlantis appeared as „our new one“ in catalogue 6, summer 2000 built aroun 559 in sizes 51-53-56 and around 622 in sizes 58-61-64.

 

So that was the start.

 

Cheers

 

Olof Stroh

Uppsala Sweden

 

From: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com [mailto:rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 4:54 AM
To: iamkeith; RBW Owners Bunch
Subject: Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

 

 

That's the earliest catalog I have. Does anyone have some scans of catalogs or frame brochures earlier than #5 (1999)? I think Keith is right.

 

-Norm

 

---

From: iamkeith <keith...@gmail.com>
To: RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: bone...@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: [RBW] 26" vs. 700c for touring/load hauling

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 4:49:17 PM UTC-7, Norman Bone wrote:

Thanks Hugh!

 

It looks like 59 was a large as you could go with 26. Catalog says 61, 63 and 65 went to 700c

 

 

I'm guessing that this particular catalog excerpt was from later in the period of model availability, and reflected a change that occurred at some point.   As noted, mine is 60cm and has 26" wheels.   And I know of at least one larger than mine (assuming 61cm, picture attached below) that also has 26" wheels.   Prior to 1999, it may be that this size still fell below the "cutoff" between 26 and 700c, or it may just be the case that nothing larger was ever ordered/built.    

 

I still kind of think that, at first,  they were ALL  26" though.   Remember that the original reason for using 26" tires was that there were no 700c tires that had enough volume. (Or at least very few.)  At some point, that obviously changed.

 

If I'm correct, it looks like the change might have actually happened mid 1999, comparing with Norman's info,  and corresponded to a change in builders  (Joe Starck, earlier in the year, used 26", and Match, later in the year, used 700c?)  Or who knows... maybe there was an option to choose for a short period during the overlap.

 

 

[Tim Gavin]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Hugh Smitham <hughs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Doesn't look proportionally odd to me. Looks right to me. So you're 650b & 700c are faster because you've clocked yourself in the same segment with all three bikes? And what width tires are you running in the 650b & 700c bikes? If weight is the limiting factor then what is the proportion difference in speed and if all three bikes were loaded similarly which would function better? I suspect your Schwinn KOM-10 would shine unless there's something wonky about the geometry like short chainstays. But looking at it I don't think. That bike looks awesome.

My KOM is an awesome bike, thank you!  Especially since I got it for $75!  I probably have $750 more invested in it since then...

I'm not scrupulous about timing myself on segments, but my Schwinn KOM averages a minute or two longer for my 9 mile commute than my other bikes.

However, I can tell by feel and context that the other bikes are faster.  I do a regular gravel ride during the non-snow months, and I've ridden each bike numerous times, at approximately the same effort.  

The KOM requires more effort to climb the same hills and puts me at the back of the pack, the Riv puts me around the middle, and on the Foundry I accelerate away from everyone.

Each bike is built as a "country" bike, with fenders, dynamo lights, and bags.  Of course, not everything is equal.

Schwinn KOM-10: ~36 lb, 26 x 55-60 tires (Schwalbe Super Moto front / ITS DJ MK2 rear)

Riv Road Standard: ~32 lb, 650 x 38 tires (Panaracer Pari-Moto)

Foundry Auger: ~24 lb, 700 x 38 tires (Bontrager CX0)

My KOM might gain a bit on the other two if I were to fit Rat Trap Pass tires, but I still believe it wouldn't roll as fast as the Riv on Pari-Motos (those tires roll great), let alone my plastic bike.  

I just put Liteskin Thunder Burt tires on my KOM, and I'll report on those once I've put some miles on them.

It has 17" chainstays, about the same as a 26" wheeled Atlantis.  The handling is a bit wonky because I've put a very short stem on it to fit drops with the long top tube, and the front end is consequently a little light.  Therefore, this bike doesn't like singletrack (the front end washes out), but does just fine on paths, trails, and roads.

My KOM makes a great gravel, touring, and commuting bike.  It would be the bike I use for a long, fully loaded tour in some boondocks location.  It is not my favorite bike for road riding or group rides, but it can do them.

Tim

[true]

I love to read discussions like this and learn from the variety of feedback.

 

After having and trying bikes with 26" ,650b and  700c wheels

my take it is not so much about the wheel size as like others have pointed out but the quality of the tires.

 

That said, I also think it is even more about the 'engine'.

 

These days with my 'engine' getting up there in age

and at the speeds I ride I can't tell a huge amount of difference

on ride times whether I am riding my 26", 650b or 700c bikes in my mostly urban area rides.

 

Riding  high quality and wide enough tires 39 to 60m wide on all of them has really added to my enjoyment in riding any of my bikes

due to the comfort of the wider tires and I don't get as 'beat up' from riding rough roads allowing me to ride longer.

 

For my self contained loaded heavy (60 to 70 lbs of gear) bike tours I rode 700c wheel bikes but that was in the US.

If I get to do further touring I would not hesitate to ride 26" wheels and would probably prefer it

if riding in countries were 26" replacements were what was available.

 

Another essential aspect I have not seen mentioned (pardon if I may have missed it)

over any of the wheel sizes you chose is to select a wheel that is very well built, especially if carrying a load.

Subpar built wheels are going to go out of true with a load. That has been my experience.

If you are going to tour I would never scrimp on the quality of the wheel set whatever size is chosen.

 

Paul in Dallas

 

 

 

 

[dougP]

"I may hold onto it."

A thought I strongly encourage.  Consider the number of people who've posted "...I wish I'd never sold my Atlantis."

dougP

[Bill Lindsay]

Agreeing with dougP, and just for the fun of it, wording it another way:

In your life, how many people have you heard say "I regret selling bike X" ?  I bet it's a lot

In your life, how many people have you heard say "I regret holding on to bike X" ?  I bet it's not many

Apply that to your life however you see fit

Bill holding-on Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA