Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 Then that could open the whole 'how big is 2.6 really' discussion. I've got 2.6 on the front that is dwarfed by my previous 2.4. Maybe we need a new niche in the tyre land for the 2.6 tyres that people talk about in reviews either claim to be great grippers that add more plush & grip or counter claim make the handling vague and a 2.4 would add more precise handling. I'd call that the semi-fat segment Perfect for me, then. And yeah, that's so true. Magic MAry 2.35 actually reading 2.45" on the casing width, vs a WT Maxxis Minion 2.5 measuring slightly narrower than that on the same width rim. Then the Spaz 2.6" which is actually a 2.4" and and and... Should just be a standard measuring convention. 30mm rim, 30psi, width at knobs.
Christie Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 All things remaining equal, I think that there will be a point like the one you describe. Where S / XS bikes are 650, and medium & up are 29er. HOWEVER - and this is a big one. The gyroscopic effect of a larger wheel & tyre combo (not to mention the extra weight it carries) is not to be discounted, and will definitely affect the way a bike handles. This is (imo) what affects the difference in handling characteristics between 2 bikes of equal geo, but diff wheelsizes, and makes one "playful" and the other "stable" This. To expand further, imo it is the flywheel effect that makes the 29er faster most places saffas ride when timed. 29er wheels need less energy to keep going than smaller wheels. The difference in roll over angle is not big enough to to explain the difference in time for a skilled rider. When going down tight technical terrain, the reduced flywheel effect of smaller wheels would be noticed less, as the runs are measured in minutes, and they would feel more nimble to accelerate. Unfortunately, that also makes 29ers feel more stable than playful. I stuck to my 26er for long, then knocked 5min off my 25km local trail loop (mostly singletrack) on the first go with the 29.
Yo-Yo Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 Perfect for me, then. And yeah, that's so true. Magic MAry 2.35 actually reading 2.45" on the casing width, vs a WT Maxxis Minion 2.5 measuring slightly narrower than that on the same width rim. Then the Spaz 2.6" which is actually a 2.4" and and and... Should just be a standard measuring convention. 30mm rim, 30psi, width at knobs. Ask anyone if what little thing can effect the handling of a bike the most and most people would say 'tyre choice' but it's a lottery on what you're getting as they are in a box and you don't get to test ride them in advance. Especially now with a few manufacturers in the 27.5 trail segment making bikes specifically for use with 2.6 tyres they need to sort that guide out.
gummibear Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 You can even use a 27.5/650b in the snow [emoji3587] [emoji1787][emoji6]
Headshot Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 I like high volume tyres - but they must be the right tyres. 2.6 on 650B may well work with the correct tyre and wheel combo. I don't think that the Butchers and my Roval wheels work well at all. Pressure needs to be too high to allow them to work at speed which results in a harsher ride, negating the point of the wider tyres. Too soft and they try and come off the rim. If you're just going to plonk around then you may not notice the downside. I think that once you hit the geo sweet spot as I have on my HT, you adapt and compensate for any shortcomings more easily. So, if your 26er works well but has slightly less grip or roll over, you compensate with how you ride it. eg, you unweight or hop rock gardens or pay more attention to your body position in the corners. Basically it boils down to whats stated in my signature. The more I ride and experiment, the more it appears to be true...
Hairy Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 If you are a rider with lots of explosive power then a 29'er is not a hindrance on tighter trails where you are having to accelerate out of corners or over obstacles on a regular basis.....well that is my theory anyway
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 If you are a rider with lots of explosive power then a 29'er is not a hindrance on tighter trails where you are having to accelerate out of corners or over obstacles on a regular basis.....well that is my theory anywayI have explosive power, but it's from the beans...
Hairy Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 and that is why no one rides behind you ..................I have explosive power, but it's from the beans...
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 and that is why no one rides behind you ..................Nope, that's just cos I'm slow...
Odinson Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 Perfect for me, then. And yeah, that's so true. Magic MAry 2.35 actually reading 2.45" on the casing width, vs a WT Maxxis Minion 2.5 measuring slightly narrower than that on the same width rim. Then the Spaz 2.6" which is actually a 2.4" and and and... Should just be a standard measuring convention. 30mm rim, 30psi, width at knobs. Always handy to look at the ETRO of the tyre in question. I've read that for some newer mid-fat tyres, specifically Maxxis, you should mount them on the rim and inflate them to max pressure and leave them for about 48hrs. That way, the stretch just that little bit and should be in range for the claimed size.
Eddy Gordo Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 Always handy to look at the ETRO of the tyre in question. I've read that for some newer mid-fat tyres, specifically Maxxis, you should mount them on the rim and inflate them to max pressure and leave them for about 48hrs. That way, the stretch just that little bit and should be in range for the claimed size. I do this when setting up tubeless.
thisismyotherbike Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 This is about a road bike, but largely applies to mtb. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3VThDiZ-HU The video that made GCN decide to hire Emma Pooley once she retired as a pro, it's the 1.57m tall engineer's perspective on riding 700c. Pro's need to worry about what wheel could be handed to them from neutral service cars should they have a flat, but as a shorter amateur you get to ride what suits you best. For this reason alone I think 27.5 should persist. Same for 650 road wheels. Canyon are taking this to its natural progression with the same mtb models being offered in 27.5 up to Small and 29 from medium upwards. Same thing with road, with XXS/XS made in 650 and S upwards in 700C. My wife thrives on her 27.5 which fits her perfectly. Not because she is a lady, but because she is shorter. As for myself at 1.82m, I love my 29er but it is a 100mm travel XC racer and I've got it built up just the way I need it to last me another 5 years. Next on my n+1 wish list is a 27.5 trail bike. I hear what they say about the improved latest 29er trail bikes, but for a "rondf#k at Meerendal" bike I'll take the 27.5 every time. I'll keep racing my 29er though.
DieselnDust Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 650b Road bikes have been around for decades for the very reason Emma describes. Shorter riders.Even for TT bikes the front wheel used to be 650 and the rear 700 to get the front end lower. Now the UCI wants both wheels the same size.The debate is only in mtb where the latest talking point dominates opinion. Road racers have embraced and will continue to embrace 650a,b or c for whatever purpose the bike needs to fulfill.
Christie Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 Interestingly, almost all roadies ride 700c wheels - small riders like the Colombians at 1.62m. 650 size was a fad there for a while, but blew over. Edit: Diesel beat me to the roadie comment
DieselnDust Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 Interestingly, almost all roadies ride 700c wheels - small riders like the Colombians at 1.62m. 650 size was a fad there for a while, but blew over.Edit: Diesel beat me to the roadie commentNot really a fad as many bikes are available in the 650b wheel size.But as Emma says, 700c is what neutral support offers so small riders are forced to ride 700CIt's a suboptimal solution but there's no choice. Xco there is Choice (as far as sponsors allow)
thisismyotherbike Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 Not really a fad as many bikes are available in the 650b wheel size.But as Emma says, 700c is what neutral support offers so small riders are forced to ride 700CIt's a suboptimal solution but there's no choice. Xco there is Choice (as far as sponsors allow)Exactly. If you aren't fortunate enough to have neutral service chasing to swap your wheel, might as well ride the superior geometry for your size. I'm no aero expert, but in the bunch it seems the 650 riders are tucking in so comfortably behind us guys on 700c... plus nobody asks them to take a turn on the front
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.