650B tires?

Sheldon Brown said:

An anonymous poster retorted:

Quoted message said:

I disagree, and I've made detailed points elsewhere in this thread.

Retorted?

Quoted message said:

viz.:

Quoted message said:

2. Minimal clearance between tyre and seatpost is an aerodynamic
advantage.

I do not believe this is true. The region between the seat tube and the
front of the back tire is an area of very "dirty" air, chaotic from the
turbulent eddies generated by the front wheel, down tube and the rider's
legs. I do not believe that there is any functional benefit to
"streamlining" this part of the bike, because there is no linear
"stream" to line up with.

I realize that there is a long history of fiddling around with this
area, and that many people believe that shortening the chainstays makes
a bike faster in some way, but I do not believe there's any factual
basis for this.

I don't have wind tunnel data, so I must defer to the pros. In the field
of aerodynamics and performance cycling, I'll defer to those that *do*
have wind tunnel data. Take a look at the TT bikes from the Giro:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/giro06/tech.php?id=/photos/2006/tech/features/giro_disco/discogiro3-06
http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/giro06/tech.php?id=/photos/2006/giro06/giro_bikes5/IMG_0618
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2006/giro06/index.php?id=giro_bikes4/IMG_0479
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2006/giro06/index.php?id=giro_bikes3/IMG_0559
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2006/giro06/index.php?id=giro_bikes1/IMG_0496
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2006/giro06/index.php?id=giro_bikes2/IMG_0512
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2006/giro06/index.php?id=giro_bikes2/IMG_0525

Sheldon, your knowledge of bicycles exceeds mine, and I hesitate to
disagree with anything you say on the topic. But in this case, if I were
a gamblin' man, my money would not be on you.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

Quoting Rick <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

1) the existence of 650B tires/wheels/bikes is not threatening anyone.

No-one has suggested that it does. Why bother to mention it?

Quoted message said:

2) Rivendell/Grant P. will never be enriched by selling 650B even if
it does take off. The winners will be QBP and the tire makers, not the
bike makers.

I wonder if Rivendell sell tyres at a profit?

Of course, again, you're arguing with a fantasy scenario; no-one has
_suggested_ a long-reaching Rivendell plot to make lots of money.

Quoted message said:

3) Why do folks assume that everyone has to ride the same diameter rim?

Does anyone?

I think some people are suggesting it might not be a good idea to ride an
obscure size for which tyres are not readily available. That doesn't seem
so uncontentious.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?
Today is Sunday, June - a weekend.

On 05 Jun 2006 19:12:37 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

I think some people are suggesting it might not be a good idea to ride an
obscure size for which tyres are not readily available. That doesn't seem
so uncontentious.

Dear David,

[Engage Orwellian de-negativifier. Set de-qualifier to maximum . . .]

A mail-order-only tire-size is a pain--duh!

[Possible use of "uncontentious" for "contentious" ignored in welter
of negatives. Re-engage verbose mode . . .]

There, that didn't seem so unha--er, hard.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

David Damerell said:

Quoting Rick <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

1) the existence of 650B tires/wheels/bikes is not threatening anyone.

No-one has suggested that it does. Why bother to mention it?

Read the whole thread. It is implied throughout most of the anti-650B
messages. Why be so vociferous anti something if you do not plan to
own it and no one is forcing it on you? The reason is that you believe
that the existence of that thing threatens you in some way. There are
no factual arguments against 650B given in this thread, and a lot of
emotion. Now does anyone have an argument against the existence of
650B? The paucity of tires at *MART is not an argument against its
existence, only an argument against an individual buying it if they are
dependent on having their tires readily available at *MART.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2) Rivendell/Grant P. will never be enriched by selling 650B even if
it does take off. The winners will be QBP and the tire makers, not the
bike makers.

I wonder if Rivendell sell tyres at a profit?

Of course they do, but their profit margins are much higher on the
tires GP has designed and sells exclusively, like the Roly-Poly,
Ruffy-Tuffy, and the SpeedBlends. Those are mostly 700c

Quoted message said:

Of course, again, you're arguing with a fantasy scenario; no-one has
_suggested_ a long-reaching Rivendell plot to make lots of money.

Read the whole thread. That has been suggested.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3) Why do folks assume that everyone has to ride the same diameter rim?

Does anyone?

I think some people are suggesting it might not be a good idea to ride an
obscure size for which tyres are not readily available. That doesn't seem
so uncontentious.

You must be wearing rose colored glasses as you read. The arguments,
if you can call non-factual rantings arguments, have been contentious.
The arguments have not been against people buying bikes that take
650B, they have been against the very existence of the size. My point
is, why are folks taking the availability of an option, which they have
the personal right to accept or reject as a buying decision, with such
emotional rancor? The arguments here have been anti-choice. Why not
cool the rhetoric and let the market make the decision, rather than
trying to argue against a market-based sorting out of what will exist.

- rick

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Rick said:

David Damerell said:

Quoting Rick <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
>What is the motivation behind the trend to resurrect an old standard?
>Just another fad?
1) the existence of 650B tires/wheels/bikes is not threatening anyone.

No-one has suggested that it does. Why bother to mention it?

Read the whole thread. It is implied throughout most of the anti-650B
messages. Why be so vociferous anti something if you do not plan to
own it and no one is forcing it on you? The reason is that you believe
that the existence of that thing threatens you in some way. There are
no factual arguments against 650B given in this thread, and a lot of
emotion. Now does anyone have an argument against the existence of
650B? The paucity of tires at *MART is not an argument against its
existence, only an argument against an individual buying it if they are
dependent on having their tires readily available at *MART.

Some of us think 650B is unnecessary, and think that
people new to bicycles ought to know that the matter is
controversial.

Read the whole thread. Many cogent arguments against
adoption of 650B have been presented.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2) Rivendell/Grant P. will never be enriched by selling 650B even if
it does take off. The winners will be QBP and the tire makers, not the
bike makers.

I wonder if Rivendell sell tyres at a profit?

Of course they do, but their profit margins are much higher on the
tires GP has designed and sells exclusively, like the Roly-Poly,
Ruffy-Tuffy, and the SpeedBlends. Those are mostly 700c

So you admit it. You are a Rivendell shill.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course, again, you're arguing with a fantasy scenario; no-one has
_suggested_ a long-reaching Rivendell plot to make lots of money.

Read the whole thread. That has been suggested.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3) Why do folks assume that everyone has to ride the same diameter rim?

Does anyone?

I think some people are suggesting it might not be a good idea to ride an
obscure size for which tyres are not readily available. That doesn't seem
so uncontentious.

You must be wearing rose colored glasses as you read. The arguments,
if you can call non-factual rantings arguments, have been contentious.
The arguments have not been against people buying bikes that take
650B, they have been against the very existence of the size. My point
is, why are folks taking the availability of an option, which they have
the personal right to accept or reject as a buying decision, with such
emotional rancor? The arguments here have been anti-choice. Why not
cool the rhetoric and let the market make the decision, rather than
trying to argue against a market-based sorting out of what will exist.

Big wheels for big people. If a short person needs smaller
wheels, he needs wheels smaller than 650B. Anything a 650B
can do can be done by a wheel already widely used.

Not that I do not feel your pain. I'm still cheesed that
630 was abandoned for the smaller 622. [censored].

--
Michael Press

Quoting Rick <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

Quoting Rick <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
>What is the motivation behind the trend to resurrect an old standard?
>Just another fad?
1) the existence of 650B tires/wheels/bikes is not threatening anyone.

No-one has suggested that it does. Why bother to mention it?

Read the whole thread. It is implied throughout most of the anti-650B
messages.

No, it's not. That's complete rubbish. How on earth could 650B be forced
upon me?

[And why would I mind if it was? If it was, it wouldn't be a rare tyre
size that's awkward to find.]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course, again, you're arguing with a fantasy scenario; no-one has
_suggested_ a long-reaching Rivendell plot to make lots of money.

Read the whole thread. That has been suggested.

No, it hasn't. You won't be able to produce a direct quote. Chalo has
suggested Rivendell will be well off when no-one sells 650B but them, but
has not suggested that's a deliberate plot.

Quoted message said:

The arguments have not been against people buying bikes that take
650B, they have been against the very existence of the size.

You're advancing a fantasy scenario. Indeed, one of the most common things
people say is that 650B is a sensible choice for existing frames with
insufficient clearance for 700C - against the very existence? I think not.
--
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

Hiya!
I'd take all of this anti-650B stuff a bit more seriously after
someone gives Felt a hard time for the 24" extra extra wide tired
cruisers they've been marketing. After all, it takes special effort to
learn about and get a new bike that is built for 650B (used ones
sometimes pop up on Craigslist or eBay, I believe). Thus, buyers of
650B bikes should already know what they're getting into. The pretty or
"kewl" 24" wheeled cruiser buyer who gets caught in the LBS going for
style may not be so knowledgeable.

Robert Leone [email hidden]

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Rick said:

Read the whole thread. It is implied throughout most of the
anti-650B messages. Why be so vociferous anti something if you do
not plan to own it and no one is forcing it on you? The reason is
that you believe that the existence of that thing threatens you in
some way. There are no factual arguments against 650B given in
this thread, and a lot of emotion. Now does anyone have an
argument against the existence of 650B? The paucity of tires at
*MART is not an argument against its existence, only an argument
against an individual buying it if they are dependent on having
their tires readily available at *MART.

Some of us think 650B is unnecessary, and think that people new to
bicycles ought to know that the matter is controversial.

Read the whole thread. Many cogent arguments against adoption of 650B
have been presented.

Not so cogent, actually. The objections boil down to two things: (1)
the size is unusual as far as Americans are concerned and (2) some
people are resistant to change.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>2) Rivendell/Grant P. will never be enriched by selling 650B
>even if it does take off. The winners will be QBP and the tire
>makers, not the bike makers.

I wonder if Rivendell sell tyres at a profit?

Of course they do, but their profit margins are much higher on the
tires GP has designed and sells exclusively, like the Roly-Poly,
Ruffy-Tuffy, and the SpeedBlends. Those are mostly 700c

So you admit it. You are a Rivendell shill.

Umm, Michael, not only is that ad hominem (with the attendant admission
of a weak position) but it's a non sequitor as well.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Big wheels for big people. If a short person needs smaller wheels, he
needs wheels smaller than 650B. Anything a 650B can do can be done by
a wheel already widely used.

That's certainly not true. You can't convert lots of road bikes to a
wider tire with the 622 mm rims because there isn't enough clearance;
571 mm rims only have one choice of tire size so there's no benefit
there; and 559 mm rims would be unuseable due to brake reach and ground
clearance.

However, it's a waste of time and electrons to continue discussing it.
Your attitude is entrenched and you have manifestly no interest in
considering the issue, only in exercising your knee reflexes.

David Damerell said:

Quoting Rick <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

Quoting Rick <[email hidden]>:
>[email hidden] wrote:
>>What is the motivation behind the trend to resurrect an old standard?
>>Just another fad?
>1) the existence of 650B tires/wheels/bikes is not threatening anyone.
No-one has suggested that it does. Why bother to mention it?

Read the whole thread. It is implied throughout most of the anti-650B
messages.

No, it's not. That's complete rubbish. How on earth could 650B be forced
upon me?

[snip]

Dear David,

Rumor has it that your government plans to make the 650B tire
mandatory once 60% of the cycling population is seen using it.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Tim McNamara said:

However, it's a waste of time and electrons to continue discussing it.
Your attitude is entrenched and you have manifestly no interest in
considering the issue, only in exercising your knee reflexes.

But you do want the last word.

--
Michael Press

Tim McNamara said:

571 mm rims only have one choice of tire size so there's no benefit
there;

There is certainly more than one choice of tire size in 571mm.

Serfas and Terry make 28-571 tires

Bontrager makes up to 25-571 tires

There are many choices in 23-571 tires (the one size I assume you're
referring to).

And of course there are some even narrower tires, but that's not
relevant to this thread.

--
I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tim McNamara said:

However, it's a waste of time and electrons to continue discussing
it. Your attitude is entrenched and you have manifestly no
interest in considering the issue, only in exercising your knee
reflexes.

But you do want the last word.

LOL!

Chalo said:

Not only is 24" (ISO 507) a very common size with good support as you
have pointed out, but the use of that size confers an advantage that is
not available with the couple of sizes that are even more common: it
allows a 3" tire on a wheel that is not unusually large in overall
diameter. That's why both the cruiser folks and the downhill folks use
it.

Felt is not the only manufacturer using such a layout. Dyno, Nirve,
Electra, Torker, and 3G also offer bikes with 24 x 3" tires.

Unfortunately Nirve doesn't have this tire in 24":

http://tinyurl.com/n6hvh

--
Dane Buson - [email hidden]
"The Internet is totally out of control, impossible to map accurately, and
being used far beyond its original intentions. So far, so good."
-- Dr. Dobb's Journal May 1993