650b vs 700c

[dstein]

650b tires seemed to gain in popularity because you could fit wider tires than 700c (with 700c being traditionally narrow in size both in the tire clearance of frames made and the tires availabile), but now that wider tires have gained in popularity in all sizes, including 700c, what are the drawbacks to going 700c instead of 650b if you can easily and readily get wide 42mm or larger tires on a lot of the new fangled gravel and allroad bikes? Is there a tradeoff for making a 700c frame around large tires?  Or has frame building come around enough to compensate for any trade offs?

I say this because I've tried a few 650 bikes but constantly find myself gravitating towards 700c with wide tires. I understand from some of Grant's writing that for smaller riders like myself 650b is a better design choice and that's why there are several sizes within a model depending on the size, so maybe it comes down to trade offs with geometry and rider height? Even then, as a small 5'7" rider I still find I prefer wide 700c tires over 650b. Or is it really just a matter of personal preference at this point?

Was just skimming Jan's 'How Wide is Too Wide' article in the recent BQ which got me thinking as they tested multiple widths and diameters, but didn't really say how the wider tires on different diamaters came into play (unless I missed it).

[adam leibow]

i have two 700c bikes by the same maker (Black Mountain Cycles) and the road version has 25c tires, and the cross has 45c. when I stand the bikes up next to each other, the cross bike (with 45c) is significantly taller than the road bike - the handlebars and saddle sit quite a few cm higher. I'm not sure exactly what this means, but my guess is that sitting taller takes up more wind-space and is less aerodynamic. I'd also guess it also affects handling and center of gravity. The EOD (effective outer diameter) of the wheels is different due to tire size, and some people like to account for this by reducing the rim size to 650b. I think 650bX42c has roughly the same EOD as 700x23c, so if you don't want to increase your EOD and potentially throw off handling a bit, switching to 650b will let you increase tire size with minimal adverse effect on handling / geo. 

[Patrick Moore]

Jan claims that there is a sort of handling sweet spot with the diameter of 650B X 42s, so that if you go to rims of different diameters, to preserve this sweet spot, you need to increase or decrease the size of the tire. It's in BQ somewhere, and while I forget the details, it has to do with circumferential weight as well as trail.

Jan may be right; but I am not convinced yet.

My experience is not nearly as broad a Jan's, but such as it is, I find excellent handling with all sorts of different diameters, widths, and weights. Here it is for what it has of worth for your question about 650B wheels.

My best handling bikes have very light 559 wheels and handled wonderfully with 22 mm tires and do just as well with 29 mm ones. I've not had a 700C bike that handles as well*. The Ram and the Sam didn't handle as well, even with very nice tires (P Roubaix and Green whatchamacallems -- Jack Browns).

The Matthews has 700C X 51s and handles better than the Fargo with 700C X 65s. (But the Fargo had more or less mtb geometry, the Matthews more or less road geometry.)

I've not tried 650B in any width, so perhaps that's what I'm missing, but I don't think so, given others' reports.

Largely, I think it comes down to:

Frame design: a frame designed for light 559 wheels can handle as well as anything else, AFAIK. (Will this hold true for 406 bsd wheels? I dunno, but I expect not; I think Jan is right about an ideal wheel size for handling; just that it's a range and not an exact diameter.)

Taste. (* "Well" here is always in the context of taste, of course.)

Add to this: a larger wheel that is light will handle differently from one that is heavy; 29" wheels with sub 450 gram rims and 360 gram tires and no tubes may well gain back much of the nimbleness they lost (and couldn't retrieve by frame/fork design) from heavier 584 wheels -- right? At any rate, said wheels transformed the Fargo when swapped in for 800 gram rims and 800 gram tires and 250 gram tubes.

That said, if my goal with an off road bike was nimbleness above all, I would not choose 700C wheels, light thought they be, since IME, light 559 mtb wheels are more nimble yet. It's just that the difference diminishes with the light 700C wheels.

--
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.

--

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 the contours of 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

[Patrick Moore]

I just now wrote: "The Matthews has 700C X 51s and handles better than the Fargo with 700C X 65s. (But the Fargo had more or less mtb geometry, the Matthews more or less road geometry.)"

But I meant to say: "The Matthews with 700C X 51s handles better than the Fargo with the same wheels and tires thanks to geometry better serving my handling preferences. The Fargo had more or less mountain bike geometry, the Matthews more or less road geometry."

[The lighter wheels and tires did greatly improve the feel and nimblenss of the Fargo compared to the earlier wheelset that was 2lb 4 oz or so heavier per wheel.]

[Bill Lindsay]

If you find that you prefer the handling of 700xWide wheels, then by all means ride them.  As you said, there are many tire choices.  Preference and interpretation of handling play a huge role.  The ways in which a smaller diameter wheel is objectively and measurably superior are as follows:

For a given rim extrusion, the smaller you make the rim, the lighter and stronger it is.  700c, being the biggest common diameter, is the weakest and heaviest of all choices for a particular extrusion.  If you never have wheel strength issues and are not a weight weenie, then wheel weight and wheel strength don't matter.  If you take lighter and stronger to their logical conclusion and run a bike with 12" wheels, you'll end up with a weird handling bike.  Shorter cranks are lighter and stronger, too, but people don't choose 140mm crank arms just because they are lighter and stronger.  Still the fact remains, smaller is bothlighter and stronger.  

For a given width tire with the same casing and tread, the smaller diameter is lighter.  

For a given second moment of inertia, you can run a wider tire on the smaller diameter rim.  A wider tire is safer, faster, stronger and more comfortable.  If you already like wide tires on the biggest diameter wheels, and don't care about second moment of inertia, then it doesn't matter.  

If you are a 'not tall' rider and insist on 700xWide  wheels, it's challenging to design a frame without TCO (toe clip overlap).  If you never ride slow and never turn sharply, TCO is not a big deal.  If you run flat bars, TCO is easy to avoid by designing the frame with a long front center.  Some riders absolutely refuse to tolerate TCO.  Others don't care at all.   

 

[dougP]

I seem to recall an article on bike design by either Grant or Jan where the starting point is wheel size, with everything developing from there.  Now I'm guessing from here, but there is probably considerable size overlap that can be handled by a couple of sizes.  For instance, 26" works well for sub 50 cm frames but could get a bit wonky on 65 cm frame.  Likewise, I've seen some 700c wheeled small wheeled bikes that had really radical head tube angles to deal with TCO.  650B probably works in a lot of common mid sizes without weird compromises.  Of course, lots will depend on the tires as well. 

I have a 58 cm Atlantis with 700 x 40 tires.  I've also ridden a 56 cm with 26" x 2.1" tires that felt right at home.  A 61 cm with 45mm tires felt way up the air. My PBH puts me in the overlap range for the 56 & 58 frames.  But if you've found success with 700 there's no compelling reason to switch.  OTH, curiousity is an itch that begs to be scratched. 

dougP

On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 10:20:15 AM UTC-8, dstein wrote:

[Steve Palincsar]

On 12/09/2016 06:04 PM, dougP wrote:

I seem to recall an article on bike design by either Grant or Jan where the starting point is wheel size, with everything developing from there.  Now I'm guessing from here, but there is probably considerable size overlap that can be handled by a couple of sizes.  For instance, 26" works well for sub 50 cm frames but could get a bit wonky on 65 cm frame. 

"Wonky" how?  Angular momentum (or whatever it is) of any given wheel size remains the same no matter the size of the frame around it.   You can get some weird handling compromises by trying to stuff too large a wheel into too small a space on a very small frame, but once you're past that, what issues might arise in scaling up... and up?

And if it's gross disparity between frame size and wheel size you want, you will be hard pressed to find worse than on one of these:



and once you factor in the issues that are inherent in a 17" wheel, there's really nothing very "wonky" about a Moulton.

Likewise, I've seen some 700c wheeled small wheeled bikes that had really radical head tube angles to deal with TCO.  650B probably works in a lot of common mid sizes without weird compromises.  Of course, lots will depend on the tires as well. 

No question, with really small frames you reach a point where you must go to a smaller wheel or make weird compromises.  What I fail to see is something comparable on the other end - other than aesthetics, of course.

I have a 58 cm Atlantis with 700 x 40 tires.  I've also ridden a 56 cm with 26" x 2.1" tires that felt right at home.  A 61 cm with 45mm tires felt way up the air. My PBH puts me in the overlap range for the 56 & 58 frames.  But if you've found success with 700 there's no compelling reason to switch.  OTH, curiousity is an itch that begs to be scratched. 

dougP

On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 10:20:15 AM UTC-8, dstein wrote:

650b tires seemed to gain in popularity because you could fit wider tires than 700c (with 700c being traditionally narrow in size both in the tire clearance of frames made and the tires availabile), but now that wider tires have gained in popularity in all sizes, including 700c, what are the drawbacks to going 700c instead of 650b if you can easily and readily get wide 42mm or larger tires on a lot of the new fangled gravel and allroad bikes? Is there a tradeoff for making a 700c frame around large tires?  Or has frame building come around enough to compensate for any trade offs?

What's really of interest about the whole 700C/650B/559 "Enduro Allroad" thing is that the whole idea is about retaining a constant something -- coefficient of angular momentum or some such physical property.  700C in the "sweet spot" of 23-32mm has about the same something as 650B in the 38-42mm range.  Theory would say that to retain the same something in a 559 26" wheel you need to go wider still -- and, I believe, in large part to test that very theory, Jan & crew came up with the prototype that turned into the Rat Trap Pass.  Having that something stay about the same provides for handling that fels about the same.   So, the tradeoff for going really wide in the 700C wheel size is handling that is less nimble and more "ponderous" than either the narrower 700C or the smaller+wider sizes.

[Patrick Moore]

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Steve Palincsar <pali...@his.com> wrote:

[...]

And if it's gross disparity between frame size and wheel size you want, you will be hard pressed to find worse than on one of these:



and once you factor in the issues that are inherent in a 17" wheel, there's really nothing very "wonky" about a Moulton.

Can a Bike Friday or a Moulton handle like a good 700C road bike? That is, can you so adjust frame design that you compensate for the vastly different behavior of wheels with such a huge size difference? I know you can for the ~ 2 1/2" difference between 622 and 559; what about the 8 1/2" difference between 700C and "twenty inch"?

What's really of interest about the whole 700C/650B/559 "Enduro Allroad" thing is that the whole idea is about retaining a constant something -- coefficient of angular momentum or some such physical property.  700C in the "sweet spot" of 23-32mm has about the same something as 650B in the 38-42mm range.  Theory would say that to retain the same something in a 559 26" wheel you need to go wider still -- and, I believe, in large part to test that very theory, Jan & crew came up with the prototype that turned into the Rat Trap Pass.  Having that something stay about the same provides for handling that fels about the same.   So, the tradeoff for going really wide in the 700C wheel size is handling that is less nimble and more "ponderous" than either the narrower 700C or the smaller+wider sizes.

It's this very "something" that I question. I don't doubt that for Jan's preferences, this something is real and very definite. But for others' preferences? Does the "something" transcend handling tastes?

I have to assume that, with huge differences (622 versus 406 or smaller?), yes, there are outliers -- 17" wheels, 48" wheels -- that just can't handle as well as more "normal" wheels. But does the range of perfection hover around 584 bsd? I am not convinced but I am willing to be convinced with arguments.

That said, once again, the droning refrain: the absolutely best handling bikes I've ever ridden are my 559- wheeled custom Rivendell roads. So a 1 inch difference isn't outside of the sweet spot, per my experience. 

[Steve Palincsar]

On 12/09/2016 06:46 PM, Patrick Moore wrote:

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Steve Palincsar <pali...@his.com> wrote:

[...]

And if it's gross disparity between frame size and wheel size you want, you will be hard pressed to find worse than on one of these:



and once you factor in the issues that are inherent in a 17" wheel, there's really nothing very "wonky" about a Moulton.

Can a Bike Friday or a Moulton handle like a good 700C road bike?

No.  "Zippy small-wheeler handling" and there's nothing you can do about it with frame design.   Moultons handle well, in my experience, anyway, but not like a 700C/650B.

That is, can you so adjust frame design that you compensate for the vastly different behavior of wheels with such a huge size difference? I know you can for the ~ 2 1/2" difference between 622 and 559; what about the 8 1/2" difference between 700C and "twenty inch"?

I have no personal experience with either 16" wheeled Moultons (the F frames) or the 20 inch models, but since I've never seen any discussion of differences in handling between the various wheel sizes in the 14 years I've been on the Moulton mailing list, I have to believe there are no such differences.

What's really of interest about the whole 700C/650B/559 "Enduro Allroad" thing is that the whole idea is about retaining a constant something -- coefficient of angular momentum or some such physical property.  700C in the "sweet spot" of 23-32mm has about the same something as 650B in the 38-42mm range.  Theory would say that to retain the same something in a 559 26" wheel you need to go wider still -- and, I believe, in large part to test that very theory, Jan & crew came up with the prototype that turned into the Rat Trap Pass.  Having that something stay about the same provides for handling that fels about the same.   So, the tradeoff for going really wide in the 700C wheel size is handling that is less nimble and more "ponderous" than either the narrower 700C or the smaller+wider sizes.

It's this very "something" that I question. I don't doubt that for Jan's preferences, this something is real and very definite. But for others' preferences? Does the "something" transcend handling tastes?

"Preferences" mean you like or dislike X.  It doesn't mean there aren't characteristics of X that are different from not-X.  

I have to assume that, with huge differences (622 versus 406 or smaller?), yes, there are outliers -- 17" wheels, 48" wheels -- that just can't handle as well as more "normal" wheels. But does the range of perfection hover around 584 bsd? I am not convinced but I am willing to be convinced with arguments.

The basic notion is that the "range of perfection" as you call it ranges from narrow 700C to mid-width slightly smaller diameter 650B to wider still and even smaller diameter 559 -- that these combinations basically "handle the same" while wider at the big end and narrower at the small end deviate from the "range of perfection," either in the direction of ponderousness at the big end or small-wheeler zippiness at the small end.  That's not to say you won't find people who really like the way either the wide-and-big-diameter, or the zippy-small-wheelers handle.  I've tried both those outliers and find I didn't like the wide/big all that much, but continue to enjoy the zippy small wheeler AM Moulton.

That said, once again, the droning refrain: the absolutely best handling bikes I've ever ridden are my 559- wheeled custom Rivendell roads. So a 1 inch difference isn't outside of the sweet spot, per my experience.

You like small/narrow, and I'll bet you like zippy too.   And there's nothing wrong with that.  That's preference.

[Philip Kim]

Jan says 559x55 or 584x42 or 622x32 are his preferred optimal combinations

[Ron Mc]

logically, a taller person on a larger frame could find the same sweet spot on 700c

[Matt B.]

Some folks say 700x45c tires roll over roots or rocks or frost heaves slightly better than 650b with similar width tire. I kind of agree with this based on my own experience/perceptions. The difference in radius is less than 2cm though, you'd find much more contrast with a 26" or 20" tire as pointed out above. I don't see how there could be a single "sweet spot" for wheel size irrespective of a host of other variables, but also IMHO toe-overlap and stand-over height are often blown way out of proportion w.r.t. importance.

[Steve Palincsar]

On 12/10/2016 07:05 AM, Matt B. wrote:
> Some folks say 700x45c tires roll over roots or rocks or frost heaves
> slightly better than 650b with similar width tire. I kind of agree
> with this based on my own experience/perceptions. The difference in
> radius is less than 2cm though, you'd find much more contrast with a
> 26" or 20" tire as pointed out above. I don't see how there could be a
> single "sweet spot" for wheel size irrespective of a host of other
> variables, but also IMHO toe-overlap and stand-over height are often
> blown way out of proportion w.r.t. importance.
>

The "sweet spot" notion has nothing to do with rolling over rocks and roots.

[Steve Palincsar]

On 12/10/2016 06:58 AM, Ron Mc wrote:
> logically, a taller person on a larger frame could find the same sweet
> spot on 700c

Sure, by using an appropriate width 700C. Height of rider & size of
frame have nothing to do with this concept, it's all about the size &
width of the wheel/tire combination.

[Matt B.]

On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 9:01:32 AM UTC-5, Steve Palincsar wrote:

The "sweet spot" notion has nothing to do with rolling over rocks and roots.

I never said it did?

[Matt B.]

On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 9:02:36 AM UTC-5, Steve Palincsar wrote:

Sure, by using an appropriate width 700C.   Height of rider & size of
frame have nothing to do with this concept, it's all about the size &
width of the wheel/tire combination.

That's why the concept is so weak.  Especially when looking at difference between 584 and 622, is down to preference as far as I can tell.  BQ has great articles, but- all due respect to the editors and writers- some of it is plain pseudo science.

[Tim]

If, like me (a very simple minded fellow who has been a "serious" cyclist for a far shorter time than Steve, Bill and Patrick, to name just a few), found your head spinning with the dizzying array of sizes like, 559, 584, 622, 700c, and 650b, here is a link:

http://sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html

Specifically Patrick's first post threw me a little. Of course all the sizes are probably second nature to many of you but in spite of my book-learnin' I remain fairly obtuse.

Oh, and to remain OT, I rode an old (late 80s or early 90s) 26" Specialized Rockhopper (maybe Stumpjumper?) and I was able to navigate single track better than on my 700c Hunq (with albeit very little time on the Hunq). And I now have a custom 650bx42 MAP rando bike, again with not enough miles and the jury still out. I love the ride and handling of my 700x38 Homer (ridden at PBP 2015).

Great thread.

Tim "small brain diameter" Kirch

[Kieran J]

I tend to agree. My own experiences comparing 700c to 650b run completely counter to the BQ gospel. No bashing Jan et al - but pseudo-science is a good word.

KJ

[Garth]

  B  I   NGO    
  B  I   NGO   
  B   I  NGO

and BINGO was his name Oh ! 


A "preference" is a but a a preference by any name a preference prefers.

On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 9:41:37 AM UTC-5, Matt B. wrote:

[David Stein]

I feel like a lot of Jan's writing and purpose (and I could be totally wrong here) is to disprove myths and encourage people to go wide for comfort and enjoyment, from the lens of a cyclotourist who spends several hundred km in a saddle pedaling. A lot of the testing and writing have helped push the bike industry there, and he's careful to point out the flaws in his testing as well. 

My question mostly stems from reading BQ though. Their roots are in the 650b world because as I initially pointed out, there wasn't really any options for 700c frames and wide tires, plus the whole french rando tradition thing. But more and more bikes they test come in a wide variety of tire sized, with a few now being 700c (that aren't just 29er mtn bikes which serve very different purposes). 

I get the obvious differences between a 700x42 and a 650x42. And at the end of the day either will do great on the types of rides I do (30-50 mile rides with about 30% being trails and fire roads). What got me thinking more about this was being in Rivendell and riding their Rosco Road which had 700x38 tires (I think) and can fit up to 700x50 (II think), and I liked it a lot more over my 650bx42 bike (though there are a lot of frame differences too to account for).

--
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/RXnEDQlZ0X4/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Dave Johnston]

It is just a matter of preference, I for instance do not like the more responsive handling of 26" wheels with road tires (<38mm) on bikes I've tried (X0-3, Atlantis, MB-3). The larger the wheel the more gyroscopic stability will be imparted to the steering. Some may like this and some may not. I like it up to the 700x35 and 650bx42mm that I have tried.

-Dave

On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 1:20:15 PM UTC-5, dstein wrote:

[Patrick Moore]

(This is not a disagreement.) FWIW, Grant did a wonderful job of perfecting the handling of my 2 later customs so that they are most stable than the XO-1 was, but, conversely, so that they are in no way at all sluggish to turn in -- I'd say they turn in "as fast" but more predictably; if that is not a contradiction in terms. I did find the handling of the Ram a wee bit sedate for my tastes, so I guess that my tastes must run toward quicker handling. But still, the difference between the '92 XO-1 and the '95 custom that improved on it but followed its pattern more closely than the later ones, and these later ones, is remarkable. Thanks, Grant!

I was surprised to get back on to a light 26er after having ridden 29ers for a number of years. Yes, a big difference, and both good: the Fargo was not exactly sluggish, nor the 26er flighty.

How does the handling of the Ram compare to that of the Roadeo or the Legolas?

[Steve Palincsar]

Sorry, but I disagree.   A "preference" is whether you like this something or that something.  Whether you like black tea or green tea, dark roast or medium roast coffee.  That there is a difference between those choices is indisputable, and whether it's quantified or not can't be described as "pseudo science."  There's nothing pseudo about it.

The "concept" is that there's a basic similarity in the handling/steering/response/feel/whatever you want to call it between narrower 700C and wider 650B and way wider 559 that is different in feel from either wider/way wider 700C or narrow/narrower 559.  Having experienced 700C in all widths from 23 up to 42 and 650B in 38 and 42mm, I have to agree: the wide 700C feels different than the 650B & the narrower 700C widths.

As it happens, I prefer the feeling of the narrower 700C/wider 650B to that of the wide 700C.  I also happen enjoy the feeling of 1 1/4" wide 17", but that is so very, very different it's like the occasional taste of pistachio ice cream rather than regular old vanilla & chocolate. 

Now where the pseudo science?

[Patrick Moore]

Quoth Steve: "Now where the pseudo science?"

"Pseudo science" is too strong a term, but one cannot deny that Jan has stated his wheel diameter/tire width preferences as more than -- just that, his preference. I think it is this disconnect between the quality of the assertion and the evidence given that troubles Matt.

Now, not having ridden 650B X 42s myself (unless R S Watson's Kogswell was 650B?), I can't say whether this sweet spot exists in re or only in mente. But such experience as I do have leads me to think that preferring a 584 52 to a 622 42 or a 559 42 is largely a matter of taste and not of absolute performance.

IOW, Steve, you're missing the point. 

--
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.

[Steve Palincsar]

Yes, this is definitely the "preference" part.  That there is a difference in the steering as you increase the width while leaving the rim diameter constant, that's not preference.  *IF* your preference is for the feel of the 23/25/28/32 mm 700C but you want to get the suspension/flotation advantage of wider rubber at lower pressure, you can get there by reducing the rim diameter. 

Where the "design choice" aspect comes in primarily relates to a matter of geometry, wheel + tire size, and space available given the frame size.  There's only so small you can go and still have a space big enough to safely stuff in the wheel while still retaining "normal" geometry, although you can cheat a bit by slackening head angles to make a bigger hole into which you can put a wheel on a frame that would otherwise be too small for it.  Cheating that way results in "weird" handling and is a poor design choice. 

As far as I can tell, it doesn't work that way on the other end: you can scale a frame up into the 3-standard deviations larger than "normal" zone without being compelled in any way to increase the wheel+tire diameter.  The only consequence for making the frame that large is aesthetic: that it looks like "wow that's a really huge frame with tiny wheels".  (To which, really tall people could reply "Get over it, shorty," or "If you think that looks weird, go look at a Moulton sometime.") 

[Jim M.]

On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 12:47:45 PM UTC-8, Steve Palincsar wrote:

really tall people could reply "Get over it, shorty," 

36er looks normal on Shaq:

 

[Bill Lindsay]

Dstein revealed that this thread was started because he liked the Rosco Road so much more than his 650b bike.

No fair! The Rosco Road is a magic bike transcending wheel diameter.

[David Stein]

haha, it is a nice bike ;). If someone would buy my quickbeam (silver 54cm, on another thread) i'll happily add it to my collection. I think it was a combo of that and some of the BQ articles I was reading the other day.

On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Bill Lindsay <tape...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dstein revealed that this thread was started because he liked the Rosco Road so much more than his 650b bike.

No fair!  The Rosco Road is a magic bike transcending wheel diameter.

[Grant @ Rivendell]

There is a lot going on with tire sizes, but it's so much, and is such a combination of obvious simplicity and actual and made up complication and opionion, that the only way to talk about it, the only way I could, would -- well, it requires being able to type three overlapping words at a time, or say the same out loud. If you do one word at a time (like this), it takes you down an off-course tributary, and then it's hard to get back on course, and it all sounds insane. It's not just tire sizes and volume and weight, suppleness, diameter. It goes to the frame and standover, and doesn't even stop there. It really is a three-dimensional issue that doesn't play well in 2D language, unless you're really good at it, but so far nobody is. It's not complicated in practical use and riding...it's gets that way and weird only when trying to explain it. There's no magic to anything. I have nothing figured out or under wraps, but I also don't question or wonder about anything having to do with this. It's not a topic to avoid or to harp on, and there's no answer-answere. Successful bikes can have all kinds of wheel sizes. The line graph has no bumps or potholes, and for every benefit in one way there's a corresponding and proportional drawback in another. They're all so subtle that they go unnoticed while you're just having a good time on the bike. You can make a case for a monster 700C wheel on a short-wheelbase frame being master of both singletrack hairpins and bumps, but to do that requires ignoring everything except those two things, and inflating in your head the theoretical plusses to the point where they seem to be real. I have nothing figured out, but I know what I like and what works for most..until the overthinking gremlins come. This is a general blahb...not a response to any particular comment, just my visceral response to a topic I used to feel differently about, but not that much.

[dougP]

"They're all so subtle that they go unnoticed while you're just having a good time on the bike."

This sounds right to me. 

dougP