Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Maaaaan
Joined
·
4,259 Posts
I don't want a 650b. There aren't enough tire choices and I don't think the diameter difference is enough to make a real change.
I remember when Mountain Bike Action had to show a large tire on a 650b rim against a smallish 2.1 or 1.95 tire on the 26" rim to make a noticeable difference.
Had both rims been fitted with the same size and type of tire, you wouldn't hardly have been able to notice any size difference.
That lack of significant difference in size, is why some 26" frames and forks can be used with 650b wheels.

Eric.
 

·
Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
Joined
·
10,938 Posts
Yeah.... it was just so hard to compare the difference of a 26" diameter tire (which is they needed to use the 2.1 width for, because that's the proper diameter of an inflated mtb tire in that exact width, which the 26" standard is based around) with a 650B in a mtb width to notice the diameter difference. There was no "faking" by MBA to show it. A Neo-Moto 2.3 is actually 27.6" diameter, larger than the commonly quoted 27.5 size they give for it. A Quasi-Moto 2.0 is 27.5 (it uses the same casing as the Neo-Moto, just reduced tread blocks). Obviously you've never actually ridden one at all or you'd never have made such a glaringly stupid statement about how much of a difference they make or the size differences. A Kenda Nevegal in 26 x 2.35 is a good INCH smaller in diameter. To get the same diameter of a 650B x 2.3, you need to go to a full 2.6" width tire in 26", something else the San Andreas doesn't have clearance for btw. With the greater diameter of the 650B format comes the lower tire pressure capability as well that 29ers enjoy. Most people running NeoMoto 2.3s do so around 25psi. Its not be accident that many major bike brands are embracing the size... I guess MC simply plans to remain a minor bike brand.

As to the "aren't enough tire choices"...

Pacenti Cycle Design


Neo-Moto 2.3"
Neo-Moto 2.1"
Quasi- Moto 2.0"
Pari-Moto 38


Kenda

Nevegal 2.35"
Nevegal 2.1"


IRD (Interloc Racing Design)

Fire XC Pro 2.1"


Panaracer

Col de Vie 38
Fatty Rumpkin 40
Nifty Swifty 32


Schwalbe

Racing Ralph 2.25"
Marathon Slick 42


WTB

Wolerine 2.2"


Grand Bois

Cypres 32
Ourson 35
Hetre 42
 

·
Maaaaan
Joined
·
4,259 Posts
Ah yes...the good old shills are hard at work, trying to get us to buy into some add hype, so they can make a buck on another niche market.

I've ridden 29ers a couple of times and even they don't have the advertised huge advantage.
When a 29er does have an advantage, it's usually when things are fast and smooth.
26" bikes still have the advantage in tight technical terrain, when a rider has to accelerate and decelerate a lot.
And I still say from years of mechanical experience in different fields, that a 650 is a gimmick without a significant difference, except to say, "I'm different, therefor I'm better than you!"

Eric.

PS the San An is a trail bike, so what if it doesn't fit a 2.6" tire.
Also; none are better, just best suited to different conditions.
And; the manufacturers will embrace almost anything that's different, because too many people have come to believe that "it's new, so therefore it must be better..."
 

·
Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
Joined
·
10,938 Posts
Yeah the SanAnn DHS...six inch travel in early 2000s... that was a "trail" bike. A pretty poor one then if it couldn't match the tire clearance of other better brand "trail" bikes of the period, not to mention the skyscrapper BB height and the crappy sizing geometry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
270 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Ericmopar said:
Ah yes...the good old shills are hard at work, trying to get us to buy into some add hype, so they can make a buck on another niche market.

I've ridden 29ers a couple of times and even they don't have the advertised huge advantage.
When a 29er does have an advantage, it's usually when things are fast and smooth.
26" bikes still have the advantage in tight technical terrain, when a rider has to accelerate and decelerate a lot.
And I still say from years of mechanical experience in different fields, that a 650 is a gimmick without a significant difference, except to say, "I'm different, therefor I'm better than you!"

Eric.
Couldn't disagree with you more Eric. Been riding my niner now for 3 months. There are huge advantages over my old 26. The most important thing is that differnt riders will percieve differnet advantages, if you think that just because you rode one a couple of times, you are able to throw out a blanket statement, you are very wrong. I won;t be riding a 26er anytime soon. I ride tech trails, my niner is easier to ride, simple as that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Personally I have always lived by the maxim 'shut up and ride'....... prolly why I am still riding a San An.

Fads come and go. Only those with true basis stick and to that matter I do think 29r is a standard that will stick around. I have not ridden one, I like my 26 but know guys who do and love it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
270 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Mate. Couldn't agree more. I think the great thing about MTB today is that there are choices. If one bike did it all, there would only be that one bike. Horses for courses really.

29 for me!!. 26 for you, both happy, thats all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
I'm all for choices... I just picked up a Kona 29er hardtail, and it will never replace any of my 26" wheeled bikes, but it makes a fun addition to the "harem" (i think that word is just more fun than "quiver"). Not sure why people say they are no good for tech riding- I bought mine specifically for Pacific NorthWest technical XC. Took one for a demo ride, and loved it- maybe the acceleration is not as snappy as a 26, but the way those big wheels roll over the tricky root sections...:thumbsup:
 

·
Maaaaan
Joined
·
4,259 Posts
You know, I was watching Klunkers the other night and they were way ahead of all of us.
They were using motorcycle brakes and tires.
I was also surprised to learn that, mountain bikes were all originally down hill machines. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Ericmopar said:
I was also surprised to learn that, mountain bikes were all originally down hill machines. :D
Hence the name 'Repack'. They used to repack the grease into the hubs at the bottom of the hill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
DeeEight said:
Yeah the SanAnn DHS...six inch travel in early 2000s... that was a "trail" bike. A pretty poor one then if it couldn't match the tire clearance of other better brand "trail" bikes of the period, not to mention the skyscrapper BB height and the crappy sizing geometry.
I LOVE my '03 San Ann, ESPECIALLY the BB ht. bought a used 29er, this weekend and was reminded why the BB ht. IS an advantage on the trail. I was a little startled the first couple of times the pedal clipped obstacles.

Hope the MC 29er carries the BB ht. & amps up the unique industrial design. Funny when was the last swingarm change in motocross, or atv's? Forget the gimmicks valving tech & lockouts knock out pedal bob, not to mention technique.
 

·
Maaaaan
Joined
·
4,259 Posts
I never have figured out what DeeEight was talking about.
The San Ans don't have the tire clearance of a downhill bike, but they take tires up to 2.5", depending on brand and model of tire.
The front derailleur wont work multiple rings too well with wider tires anyways...
It gets kinda hard to use a granny ring with wide tires, regardless of the frame builder...
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top