650B tires?

Ted Bennett said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

I guess
for larger people it might be more likely, but I really can't imagine
36 spokes wheels being a problem for anyone under 200lbs, and if the
wheel is built right a popped spoke on a racing bike with that number
of wheels needed cause the rider to stop.

"needn't cause the rider to stop"

JT

Glad to see you correcting your own spelling errors.

Now do something about your persistent spelling of "rode" as "road".

Dear Ted,

Good spelling may be over-rated. Mis-spelled words usually read aloud
perfectly well.

An illustrious Colonel and Congressman is said to have remarked that
it is a poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word.
Below is a link to an example of his poor spelling, capitalization,
punctuation, and grammar:

http://www.thealamo.org/Crockett%20Letter.htm

It's a pretty fair country letter.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

In article <[email hidden]>,

Chalo said:

Robin Hubert said:

Tim McNamara said:

[email hidden] wrote:

> I doubt it's here to stay. Of course, time will tell, but I'm
> not about to jump on the band wagon as there are clearly no
> benefits to me or most of the people I know who ride.

Then you won't be using them. What's wrong with that? Just
because you don't see a use for them doesn't mean that other
people won't. Of course, you might just give it a try and see if
it improves that ride from Lombard into Oak Park along the IPP
and whatever other streets you take. Those DuPage and Cook
County streets aren't always so well maintained, as I am always
reminded when I go visit my Mom in Elmhurst.

You're right, Tim. I rarely use that path except to get over Rt.
83, but the roads can be rough ('specially east of 1st Ave over the
river, and at night, at speed). I've had one pinch flat on that
route in 4 years on 700x25/28mm (about even) tires. Plus, I think
my bike rides comfortably.

To behold the silliness about 650B tires, you'd think that these
folks had never heard of 700x35 or 700x38 tires. If a 584-38 tire is
somehow better than a 559-38 tire, then a 622-38 is better still (not
to mention better supported). If it's not, then there is no real
reason to adopt a rim diameter that neither your LBS nor Nashbar
stocks rims or tires for.

We've covered that already, Chalo. There are few bikes- other than
'cross bikes and some hybrids- that can accommodate 700 x 38 tires.
There are lots of bikes that can accommodate 650B, being that the outer
diameter is about the same as 700 x 19. And the 650Bs will weight a
fair bit less than the 700 x 38s.

Quoted message said:

If they'd decided to get all weird about 650A, then at least folks
who got suckered into buying such a bike would be able to buy
[crappy] tires in any small town. Anybody intrepid/foolish enough to
adopt 650B had better be willing to serve as his own parts
distributor.

Too bad someone like Quality Bicycle Products doesn't carry this size.
Oh, wait...

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Good spelling may be over-rated. Mis-spelled words usually read aloud
perfectly well.

Spelling is visual. Good spellers tend to see whether the word is
spelled correctly, rather than whether it is spelled as it sounds.
That's why trying to teach reading by phonetics is ineffective when the
language is not written phonetically. You can't even spell "phonics"
phonetically!

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Good spelling may be over-rated. Mis-spelled words usually read aloud
perfectly well.

Spelling is visual. Good spellers tend to see whether the word is
spelled correctly, rather than whether it is spelled as it sounds.
That's why trying to teach reading by phonetics is ineffective when the
language is not written phonetically. You can't even spell "phonics"
phonetically!

Deer Tead,

Fonix?

Chiers,

Karl Fogle

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Paul Cassel said:

Michael Press said:

Oh, yes, folks do criticize manufacturers for pushing
racing frames on people who will not be happy with them.
And why not?

Never said or thought it was wrong in any way. Just seems to be the
culture here.

What is the purpose of the `culture' remark? In this
particular area the culture here on wheel clearance is
well formed to put people on bicycles that will make them
happy.

At least until war is declared over 650B. I will be
signing on with the anti's.

--
Michael Press

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Hi! I betcha part of the motivation on Grant Peterson's part is that
none of the existing 650B tires on the market are skinnier than 30s.
This permits him to establish and maintain a certain focus ("Country
Bikes"😉 that would be much, much tougher to be subverted by the
skinny hard tire cabal.

"Skinny tire cabal?" Is that like the vast right wing conspiracy that
Hilary Clinton talked about, or the vast left wing conspiracy that the
right wing whackos think exists?

I think that the fattish tire deal at Rivendell is simply that this is
what Grant likes to ride, and that skinny tire stuff is already
available everywhere so why go through the hassle of trying to stock and
sell that stuff?

And the more people that know about the benefits of fat tires the more
people will buy them hopefully resulting in more tire choice for those
that are already riding fat tires. There's nothing worse than losing
choice or losing a product altogether because of the misleading
marketeering to the masses.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

In article <[email hidden]>, Tim McNamara

() said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Chalo said:

Robin Hubert said:

Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> [email hidden] wrote:
>
> > I doubt it's here to stay. Of course, time will tell, but I'm
> > not about to jump on the band wagon as there are clearly no
> > benefits to me or most of the people I know who ride.
>
> Then you won't be using them. What's wrong with that? Just
> because you don't see a use for them doesn't mean that other
> people won't. Of course, you might just give it a try and see if
> it improves that ride from Lombard into Oak Park along the IPP
> and whatever other streets you take. Those DuPage and Cook
> County streets aren't always so well maintained, as I am always
> reminded when I go visit my Mom in Elmhurst.

You're right, Tim. I rarely use that path except to get over Rt.
83, but the roads can be rough ('specially east of 1st Ave over the
river, and at night, at speed). I've had one pinch flat on that
route in 4 years on 700x25/28mm (about even) tires. Plus, I think
my bike rides comfortably.

To behold the silliness about 650B tires, you'd think that these
folks had never heard of 700x35 or 700x38 tires. If a 584-38 tire is
somehow better than a 559-38 tire, then a 622-38 is better still (not
to mention better supported). If it's not, then there is no real
reason to adopt a rim diameter that neither your LBS nor Nashbar
stocks rims or tires for.

We've covered that already, Chalo. There are few bikes- other than
'cross bikes and some hybrids- that can accommodate 700 x 38 tires.
There are lots of bikes that can accommodate 650B, being that the outer
diameter is about the same as 700 x 19. And the 650Bs will weight a
fair bit less than the 700 x 38s.

So if the 650B nonse is primarily about extending the useful lifetime of
old frames, what are people doing about brakes when fitting a rim 19 mm
smaller in radius than that for which the frame was designed?

I had enough trouble going from 630 to 622...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Whatever it is, I'd like it in mango & passion fruit, please.

bfd said:

I think the intangible that is missing is not so much that 559 or 622
mm tires are available, but more that the *quality* of the new 650B
(584mm) tires are superior in composition to any 559/622 tire out
there.

Oh, poppycock. There is nothing available for 650B that improves upon
well-made, modestly priced tires like Avocet FasGrips or Panaracer
Paselas. The same quality does cost more in the exotic size, though.

Quoted message said:

Further, that the 650B wheel can make old racing bikes more versatile,
makes it a wheel size that can't and shouldn't be dismissed.

This benefit has been overstated. Many if not most old road bikes that
can't fit a 700x35, couldn't fit a 650x38 either. Not enough width
between the chainstays. My sweetie's bike is a case in point-- it's a
mid-80s Schwinn Super Sport with just enough room for 700x28 tires, and
it works with either short reach or normal reach brakes. Pull the rim
radius in by 19mm, and there still isn't enough inside width for a 38mm
tire.

There are some old road bikes out there that can take 584-38 tires, but
I'll bet most of those can take at least 622-32 if not fatter. And
when the tire width is the equal, the larger wheel rides better.

Quoted message said:

What's not to like?

High cost. Low availabilty. Poor selection. Diminished versatility
(no knobbies, no studded). Pitiful choice of rims. No uncommon
drillings whatsoever. What _is_ to like?

Chalo

Tim McNamara said:

Chalo said:

If they'd decided to get all weird about 650A, then at least folks
who got suckered into buying such a bike would be able to buy
[crappy] tires in any small town. Anybody intrepid/foolish enough to
adopt 650B had better be willing to serve as his own parts
distributor.

Too bad someone like Quality Bicycle Products doesn't carry this size.
Oh, wait...

Sure, QBP has it... this year. But go into _any_ shop that most of us
have access to, and they won't have even one 650B tire in stock.
Doesn't matter whether it's a mom-and-pop LBS or an REI megastore, it
will be a special order-- just like a 28x1.5" tire, or a 22" tire, or a
20x1-1/8" tire. Unlike those other three tires I just named, though,
650B doesn't offer any unique benefit to offset the inconvenience of
its rarity.

Of course, when QBP drops 650B from their catalog, that should make
Grant P. pretty happy. That is, IF they managed to sell a significant
number of Bleriots in the meantime, and if anybody is still making 650B
tires for him to sell to the victims.

Chalo

Michael Press said:

What is the purpose of the `culture' remark? In this
particular area the culture here on wheel clearance is
well formed to put people on bicycles that will make them
happy.

At least until war is declared over 650B. I will be
signing on with the anti's.

Clearly here is a great opportunity for you. A chance to market a 1200 g
frame which will accommodate 35 mm tires on 700c rims. Personally, I
can't see much of a market because folks often ask for that which they
won't buy but I've been wrong before.

-paul

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>, dvt <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>, dvt
<[email hidden]> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> Well, there is no advantage to having no clearance and no
>> disadvantage to having clearance.
> There are a few functional reasons for small clearance...
>
> 1. Short reach brakes have higher mechanical advantage; short
> reach brakes do not allow large tyres.
A minor advantage at best, since even modern "long" reach brakes
will skid the tires with two finger braking.

I can't argue, since I don't have experience with modern long reach
brakes. Short reach brakes are a wee bit lighter, by the way. That's
a practical advantage (small, but real).

Only if you're splitting frog's hairs.

Your quote said "no advantage." The advantage may be small, but it exists.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 2. Minimal clearance between tyre and seatpost is an aerodynamic
> advantage. If you're pushing the performance envelope (and I'm
> not), then you're probably riding the narrowest tyres possible for
> the aero benefit.
IMHO a specious argument. The mechanical disadvantage caused by
short chainstays and 8/9/10 speed cassettes would more than
overcome the unmeasurable performance advantage theoretically
provided by having nearly zero clearance between the tire and seat
tube.

There are a lot of bikes in the pro peloton with this setup. I have a
bike with a tucked-in rear wheel and 8-speed rear wheel. It works
great in practice, despite what you say.

It works, sure. Does it give you an advantage over chainstays 1 cm
longer? If so, what advantage is that?

Higher lateral stiffness. Lighter weight. As I mentioned earlier,
improved aerodynamics when the rear wheel is tucked in behind the seat
tube. The tradeoffs are, of course, rougher ride on bad surfaces and
worse chain line in the crossed gears. Pick your poison.

I know your bias, and I too would choose a bike with longer chain stays.
But I would not claim there is "no advantage" to short chain stays and
minimal tyre clearance.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

According to <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Dear Lickbikeguy:
Hi! I betcha part of the motivation on Grant Peterson's part is that
none of the existing 650B tires on the market are skinnier than 30s.

I believe that his motivation is to not have to compete against Nashbar
on wheel and tire sales.

---
Lars Lehtonen

Booker C. Bense said:

In article said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>, dvt <[email hidden]>
wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> Well, there is no advantage to having no clearance and no
>> disadvantage to having clearance.
> There are a few functional reasons for small clearance...
>
> 1. Short reach brakes have higher mechanical advantage; short reach
> brakes do not allow large tyres.
A minor advantage at best, since even modern "long" reach brakes will
skid the tires with two finger braking.

_ It's also not true. The mechanical advantage is the ratio of
the lengths of the arms on either side of the pivot, as long as
this ratio remains constant then the MA should be constant.
Long reach brakes are longer in both parts.

If that's true, then the equivalent short reach brake should be much
stiffer and/or lighter.

(Waiting for Carl and his Andorran reference...)

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

dvt said:

Booker C. Bense said:

In article said:

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email hidden]>, dvt <[email hidden]>
> wrote:
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> Well, there is no advantage to having no clearance and no
>>> disadvantage to having clearance.
>> There are a few functional reasons for small clearance...
>>
>> 1. Short reach brakes have higher mechanical advantage; short reach
>> brakes do not allow large tyres.
> A minor advantage at best, since even modern "long" reach brakes will
> skid the tires with two finger braking.

_ It's also not true. The mechanical advantage is the ratio of
the lengths of the arms on either side of the pivot, as long as
this ratio remains constant then the MA should be constant.
Long reach brakes are longer in both parts.

If that's true, then the equivalent short reach brake should be much
stiffer and/or lighter.

(Waiting for Carl and his Andorran reference...)

Dear Dave,

Years ago, I used to scribble "x, y, or both" on essays.

Grateful students would tell me that they didn't understand, couldn't
read my handwriting, or both.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoting Tim McNamara <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Chalo said:

To behold the silliness about 650B tires, you'd think that these
folks had never heard of 700x35 or 700x38 tires.

We've covered that already, Chalo. There are few bikes- other than
'cross bikes and some hybrids- that can accommodate 700 x 38 tires.

Excellent reason to convert bikes made for 700C wheels. Reason to build
new bikes for 650B? Hmmmm.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:okonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

Quoting bfd <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

mm tires are available, but more that the *quality* of the new 650B
(584mm) tires are superior in composition to any 559/622 tire out
there.

How strange, given the decades of development of 700C tyres. And why can't
these magic techniques be used on 700C?

Quoted message said:

Check it out, Riv describes the Panaracer Col de la Vie and Mitsuboshi
Trimline as providing a lightish, puffy skinwall ire that measures 38mm
wide and weighs 430g. It grips well, rolls smooth and fast, and with a
psi rating of 50, it's like riding on fast marshmallows.

Rivendell, WHO SELL THESE TYRES AND LIKE MONEY, describe..., I think you
mean.

I remain to be convinced these would feel any different to the Bonti
cosmetic-treaded 700x35s I use on the tandem (if run at 50psi, which
obviously we don't on the tandem).
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:okonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

Lars Lehtonen said:

According to <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Dear Lickbikeguy:
Hi! I betcha part of the motivation on Grant Peterson's part is that
none of the existing 650B tires on the market are skinnier than 30s.

I believe that his motivation is to not have to compete against Nashbar
on wheel and tire sales.

Actually, Grant does have "competition" from Nashbar as it now carries
a 650B (584mm) tire, Kendra 650x40:

http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=121&subcategory=1260&brand=&sku=16436&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=

Chalo said:

bfd said:

In contrast, 650B (584mm) has been around for ages and there are more
than 5 mfrs currently selling tires that fit this size - Panaracer,
Mitsuboshi, Kendra, Schwalbe, and Michelin. I understand the Mitsuboshi
may be discontinued, but the others are still being made. What do you
say about that!

I say that the availability of both 650A (ISO 590) and 27" (ISO 630) is
a whole whopping lot better than that, and both of those sizes have
been rejected as obsolete.

Furthermore, I say that the outer diameters of ISO 559 tires and ISO
622 tires already have a lot of overlap.

A lot of overlap? Hardly. A 622 with 700cx19 tires, the small end, is
nominally 660mm. You need a 559 that is more than 50mm wide to match
that. So there is a small amount of overlap at the extremes, not 'a
lot of overlap'.

- rick

Dave Larrington said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Tim McNamara

() said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Chalo said:

Robin Hubert wrote:
>
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >
> > [email hidden] wrote:
> >
> > > I doubt it's here to stay. Of course, time will tell, but I'm
> > > not about to jump on the band wagon as there are clearly no
> > > benefits to me or most of the people I know who ride.
> >
> > Then you won't be using them. What's wrong with that? Just
> > because you don't see a use for them doesn't mean that other
> > people won't. Of course, you might just give it a try and see if
> > it improves that ride from Lombard into Oak Park along the IPP
> > and whatever other streets you take. Those DuPage and Cook
> > County streets aren't always so well maintained, as I am always
> > reminded when I go visit my Mom in Elmhurst.
>
> You're right, Tim. I rarely use that path except to get over Rt.
> 83, but the roads can be rough ('specially east of 1st Ave over the
> river, and at night, at speed). I've had one pinch flat on that
> route in 4 years on 700x25/28mm (about even) tires. Plus, I think
> my bike rides comfortably.

To behold the silliness about 650B tires, you'd think that these
folks had never heard of 700x35 or 700x38 tires. If a 584-38 tire is
somehow better than a 559-38 tire, then a 622-38 is better still (not
to mention better supported). If it's not, then there is no real
reason to adopt a rim diameter that neither your LBS nor Nashbar
stocks rims or tires for.

We've covered that already, Chalo. There are few bikes- other than
'cross bikes and some hybrids- that can accommodate 700 x 38 tires.
There are lots of bikes that can accommodate 650B, being that the outer
diameter is about the same as 700 x 19. And the 650Bs will weight a
fair bit less than the 700 x 38s.

So if the 650B nonse is primarily about extending the useful lifetime of
old frames, what are people doing about brakes when fitting a rim 19 mm
smaller in radius than that for which the frame was designed?

I had enough trouble going from 630 to 622...

Modern side-pulls from the last few years are the problem; most have a
limited amount of reach, and all on the historically low end of what
brakes had in the past. There are a lot of newer, longer reach
side-pulls now available, and center pulls also, that make fitting
brakes less of an issue. The 1988 frame I rode to work this morning
has maybe 12-14mm of additional reach, not quite enough to fit a 650B,
but if I were to convert I know of a lot of brake options I could use
that would fit.

- rick

Paul Cassel said:

The culture of this ng is to criticize bikes unable to handle tire sizes
in excess of about 25 mm.

And rightly so. There's no valid reason to design such a limitation
into a bike frame.

Quoted message said:

While I can see the utility and even joy in
riding bikes with wide tires, I can't see why one would buy a very light
bike and then handicap it by using wide tires, that's all. I meant a
bike which is still current tech, not older where I suppose it makes no
diff.

It's not about wide tires, it's about medium-width tires. The bikes
being ragged on only work with super skinny tires.

Perhaps you've never actually ridden a light bike with wide tires. You
might be surprised how pleasant the experience can be.

An anonymous poster alleged:

Quoted message said:

1. Short reach brakes have higher mechanical advantage

That's not necessarily so. The mechanical advantage of a simple caliper
is the ratio of the cable-to-pivot distance/brakeshoe-to-pivot distance.

If you make the cable attachment arms longer when you make the brake
shoe arms longer, you can have any mechanical advantage desired, with
any reach desired. I will grant that not all manufacturers take
advantage of this, but in fact the readily available long reach
dual-pivot calipers have as much mechanical advantage as anybody needs.

Dave Larrington asked:

Quoted message said:

So if the 650B nonse is primarily about extending the useful
lifetime of old frames, what are people doing about brakes when
fitting a rim 19 mm smaller in radius than that for which the
frame was designed?

I used a classic centerpull caliper in front, and a DiaCompe BMX caliper
in back. See: http://sheldonbrown.com/iro

This bike before was very harsh and unpleasant riding before I did the
wheel swap. These days it's my main ride.

Sheldon "Demi Ballon" Brown
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Aerodynamics don’t make a difference. |
| How much do you hate riding that your ten mile ride |
| has to take you fifteen seconds less? – Grant Petersen |
| http://sheldonbrown.com/podcasts.html#grant |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com