650B tires?

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.
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. It also keeps him from being, dare I say it, accused
of putting drop bars on an MTB. And it's not like a tire size, any tire
size, causes magic rubber-rot or something.
Disclosure: I'm short, so even a slightly smaller tire size for a
"road" bike, especially a rough road bike (my local municipality is
about to take street "deferred maintenance" into an entire new
dimension for at least a decade (my guess) due to an impending budget
crisis) is of interest.

Robert Leone [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

What is the motivation behind the trend to resurrect an old standard?
Just another fad?

Robin Hubert

bfd said:

Get with it, 650B is official *IN* and here to stay!

Yeah, just like that swell 700D size from a few years ago. That was
great!

Chalo

Tim McNamara said:

I actually broke three spokes in the past 12 months on one wheel, all of
them at the start of the threads. Color me baffled, this is something
that had literally never happened to me before. Dunno if I did
something wrong with the build, if there was some kind of notch effect
(Wheelsmith spokes). I haven't broken a spoke at the elbow in years and
was shocked by this. Two broke when braking and one while accelerating
out of the saddle at the bottom of a steep hill.

Let me guess... rear wheel, >=8 speed hub (lots of dish), right side,
"flexible" rims (i.e. MA2-like cross section), Jobstian spoke tension.
Been there, done that. At my weight (considerably less than yours), I
was able to solve the problem by going to 2.0 mm spokes/nipples on the
right side. I kept 1.8 mm spokes on the left side. I never resolved the
root of the problem, since the bigger spokes solved it for me.

Offset rims are greatly desired for wheels with lots of dish, IMO.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

Tim McNamara said:

Well, there is no advantage to having no clearance and no disadvantage
to having clearance. My race bike had a Ritchey fillet brazed frame
with room for 700 x 28s. Did that clearance slow me down when I was
racing on 700 x 23s? Of course not. Not having any clearance is about
the look of the bike, not its function.

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.

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.

There may be other reasons, too. I think we agree that that these
reasons are not applicable to the vast majority (couldn't help myself)
of riders.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

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

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

Well, there is no advantage to having no clearance and no
disadvantage to having clearance. My race bike had a Ritchey
fillet brazed frame with room for 700 x 28s. Did that clearance
slow me down when I was racing on 700 x 23s? Of course not. Not
having any clearance is about the look of the bike, not its
function.

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.

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.

Quoted message said:

There may be other reasons, too. I think we agree that that these
reasons are not applicable to the vast majority (couldn't help
myself) of riders.

In some cases, all riders.

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?

Chalo said:

bfd said:

Get with it, 650B is official *IN* and here to stay!

Yeah, just like that swell 700D size from a few years ago. That was
great!

I disagree. the "swell" 700D tire you're referring to was pushed by ONE
mfr GT:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/tires/587.html

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!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <[email hidden]>,

Paul Cassel said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Quoted message said:

What doesn't is this theme in this board about wide tires not fitting on
modern frames and the lack of fender accommodations. Why get a nice
light bike and then handicap it with balloon tires or heavy fenders? To
me this is like buying a KTM LC8 and then cutting a plug wire.

Well, it depends on what you need the bike for. I've got an old
racing bike that fits 25 and sometimes 28s. Not balloon tires, but
big. The bike is a blast on dirt roads. It's not ideal for racing
nowadays (it's heavy by 2006 standards) but handles like a racing
bike.

The culture of this ng is to criticize bikes unable to handle tire sizes
in excess of about 25 mm. 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 depends how you define "handicapped", a bike with 23mm tires
is handicapped when it gets anywhere but perfect pavement. Why
shouldn't people that like fat tires be able to have a light
bike? Fat tires are a very very minimal speed handicap as long
as they don't have knobby tread.

_ If a light bike is fun on paved roads, why wouldn't it be fun
on dirt roads? Why should I accept excess weight and poor
shifting just because I want to ride on less than perfect roads?

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBRH8uFGTWTAjn5N/lAQHc2QP/dx9B0A7fPTjnCFMhbuEZvLge9okz6pK6
ZK19p9tODstHkTEsEPAIjDSk0Mv/xfg3ZzTHEa9PySrWzrQPsAT6Bn9pFMYgQmT1
ZG0Gpf6nKURm3CAoCFOUIYwo0PFPeOT9qYts+L+yuoA+LAffUZKQWPCsC5kh2Msg
gl2di28OVqs=
=v8ds
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Quoting James Thomson <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

The British use both the 650A and 650B size, but they call them by
different names. The 650B is 26 x 1 1/2 in the UK.

Almost all tyres sold here are marked with ISO sizes these days (as well
as older designations). Thank God.

Quoted message said:

26 x 1 1/2" (650b) wanever been a common size in the UK.

Quite. I checked this out when Riv started pushing 650B - even in the
LBSes more noted for piles of old strange-smelling stuff, 650B tyres? No.
--
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

Tim McNamara said:

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

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

Well, there is no advantage to having no clearance and no
disadvantage to having clearance.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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).

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There may be other reasons, too. I think we agree that that these
reasons are not applicable to the vast majority (couldn't help
myself) of riders.

In some cases, all riders.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article said:

Tim McNamara said:

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

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara wrote:
> Well, there is no advantage to having no clearance and no
> disadvantage to having clearance.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBRH9dsWTWTAjn5N/lAQGKagP/Ww6dk3zHOZSe/vY1SQGPL0tzCBSblHhk
uYcHnafr5FYd859i71E0RetP52o/APuwNsbHkh2o/AjIdtBFkBI5bChPjLpZfjOq
r/CcBE9L/e81sE3Raod4aI42nMA6X43pHUFlVZgCeM3U1n7d1jxGZqDkhb6tfRfC
fGjo9wYgRjs=
=83Hm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>, dvt

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara wrote:
> Well, there is no advantage to having no clearance and no
> disadvantage to having clearance.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

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?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There may be other reasons, too. I think we agree that that these
reasons are not applicable to the vast majority (couldn't help
myself) of riders.

In some cases, all riders.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree.

A-OK.

Robin Hubert said:

Tim McNamara said:

Quoted message said:

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.

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.

Chalo Colina

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. With a huge number of road
tires between 23mm and 60mm in either size, there is no compelling
reason to reanimate an extinct size that is certain to vanish back into
obscurity.

Chalo

Tim McNamara said:

You Luddite! 28 spokes? Jeez, get with the program. 16 spokes are
where it's at, maybe 20. You're never going to win a race on that
old-fashioned ironmongery! You must be a retrogrouch like Grant
Petersen! :-D

Gee, I'm headed out to the garage now to count my spokes. Never occurred
to me to do so before....

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.

My friend who started me in bicycling makes this ng look like a bunch of
weight weenies. He's a retro grouch and proud of it. When we go to the
annual bike swap, he's always pointing out some chunk of rust which
someone rode somewhere in 1972 or so which, to him, makes is a wonderful
something or other. He thinks my Al bikes are idiotic because they won't
last beyond 20k miles or something like that.

He also says that a proper bike will NEVER wear out. He can rebuild
anything that breaks on a decent bike so it'll go another 40k miles or
whatever.

-paul

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.

What you and many other doubters here don't understand is that through
the genius of Grant Petersen, 650B (584mm) tires, rims and complete
wheelsets are NOW available in any small town. Besides the fact that
FedEx/UPS or any other delivery service can get delivery 650B tires
"overnight," maybe more importantly is that ANY LBS that does business
with Quality Bicycle Products Distributors (QBP) can get them NOW.

YES, Grant Petersen has contracted to QBP to not only sell his highly
sought after Bleriot frameset (with a retail price of $750!), QBP has
committed to stocking rims, tires and wheelsets. Thus, any LBS can get
it!

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. With a huge number of road
tires between 23mm and 60mm in either size, there is no compelling
reason to reanimate an extinct size that is certain to vanish back into
obscurity.

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.

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. When the roads
get rough, who wouldn't want to ride on "fast marshmellows?"

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. What's not
to like?

Rick said:

But the bikes folks are talking of using for conversions are not
new/relatively new bikes that they bought for lightness. By and large
they are older bikes they had from the past, bought at the local thrift
shop or off EBay/Craigslist. A lot of bikes out there that can be
functional as commuters/rain bikes/etc. except they have narrow
clearances. That is the pool of bikes which folks are using for
conversions. If they wanted a bike with large clearances, fenders,
etc., then they often buy those at the outset. There are high-end
bikes, meaning pricey, that do well with wide tires and fenders, but
that is part of the designed use. No one is saying that folks should
buy a zooted out Seven and then convert for wider tires; but if someone
found a nice bike that was high end in its day sitting at a thrift
store, and they could use it as a daily rider if it had wider
tires/fenders, why not convert?

OK, I can see that point. I thought that the phenom of frames like mine
which can handle only very narrow tires is a new thing. Apparently it
isn't. OTOH, per another part of this thread, I can't see how my bike
would be harmed in any way if it could accommodate wider tires.

Then too, my bike may never make it onto Craigslist or in a thrift
store. My friend who is quite expert says that it isn't built to last
terribly long. Apparently, if he's right (which I suspect) these light
Al bikes just fracture after a while and that while isn't something like
100k miles. It may just be that the new gen of high end bikes won't last
long enough to get to the discount stores like, say, a 1970's steel
racer may have.

Quoted message said:

And do not get me wrong; there is a place for lighter bikes without
fenders, etc. My tri bike is a light carbon bike that can barely
handle 23mm tires and would never fit a fender in any universe. It is
great you like your light bike; a good bike is one that is ridden, and
one that sits around is a waste.

Well, I do enjoy the riding and I"m not alone. Today I flatted on my
usual route home so got to sit by the sidelines a while and watch how
many bikes came by. The count here is pretty high. I'd say one every 45
seconds all of who seemed to be commuters. I guess I don't see them
usually because I'm moving along so only see those who pass or who I pass.

-paul

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".

--
Ted Bennett