|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mountain bike tire/wheel sizes
In what seems to be perennial efforts to churn the market, mountain bike
designers went from 26" (ISO 559) to the ones knicknamed 29" (ISO 622, same as 700C) because they claimed the 26" was too small. Then they soon claimed the 29s were too big, so they started selling what they called 27.5" (584, same as 650B), supposedly "just right." Does anyone know how successful the latter size has become? Is it a dominant size now? Does it look like it's going to stick around, or is this likely to become an orphan - as in "nobody uses that any more"? -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mountain bike tire/wheel sizes
On 12/3/2017 5:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In what seems to be perennial efforts to churn the market, mountain bike designers went from 26" (ISO 559) to the ones knicknamed 29" (ISO 622, same as 700C) because they claimed the 26" was too small. Then they soon claimed the 29s were too big, so they started selling what they called 27.5" (584, same as 650B), supposedly "just right." Does anyone know how successful the latter size has become? Is it a dominant size now? Does it look like it's going to stick around, or is this likely to become an orphan - as in "nobody uses that any more"? No idea. http://www.bicycleretailer.com/studi...r#.WiSTRUq99PI As I've mentioned before, in bicycles or any other industry, success is wholly due to management's intellectual gifts. Failure has a thousand causes, all external (weather, commodity prices, regulations, trade flows, The Fed, politics, rim diameter, BB format and so on) -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mountain bike tire/wheel sizes
On 04-12-17 00:59, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In what seems to be perennial efforts to churn the market, mountain bike designers went from 26" (ISO 559) to the ones knicknamed 29" (ISO 622, same as 700C) because they claimed the 26" was too small. Then they soon claimed the 29s were too big, so they started selling what they called 27.5" (584, same as 650B), supposedly "just right." Does anyone know how successful the latter size has become? Is it a dominant size now? Does it look like it's going to stick around, or is this likely to become an orphan - as in "nobody uses that any more"? I think the problem is more that 26" is on its way out, although I expect replacement rims, tires, and tubes to be available for a long time. Last year I bought a new mountain bike, and [my knees] wanted the lowest possible gears. The smaller the wheels the lower the effective gearing, so I wanted 26". The available bikes with such wheels were all bottom-of-the-line, with at best Acera components. I ended up with 27.5". But at least 24/42 gearing, which I use a lot. Here in Switzerland there is another new problem related to wheels on mountain bikes. You can take your bike on the train, which is great for tours: You don't have to start and end in the same place, and in fact you don't need a car at all. However, usually you have to hang the bike from a hook in the entryway of the rail car, and the hooks don't work with fatter tires. I had this problem recently with 27.5 x 2.25" tires, and had to just stand with the bike. My impression is that 2.8 and 3" wheels are becoming popular, which will make things that much worse. I registered this with the railway service's customer line, and the woman I spoke to said that also she had had this problem. But there are an awful lot of railway passenger cars that would need new hooks, so it could be awhile... Ned |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mountain bike tire/wheel sizes
On 12/4/2017 4:56 AM, Ned Mantei wrote:
On 04-12-17 00:59, Frank Krygowski wrote: In what seems to be perennial efforts to churn the market, mountain bike designers went from 26" (ISO 559) to the ones knicknamed 29" (ISO 622, same as 700C) because they claimed the 26" was too small. Then they soon claimed the 29s were too big, so they started selling what they called 27.5" (584, same as 650B), supposedly "just right." Does anyone know how successful the latter size has become? Is it a dominant size now? Does it look like it's going to stick around, or is this likely to become an orphan - as in "nobody uses that any more"? I think the problem is more that 26" is on its way out, although I expect replacement rims, tires, and tubes to be available for a long time. Last year I bought a new mountain bike, and [my knees] wanted the lowest possible gears. The smaller the wheels the lower the effective gearing, so I wanted 26". The available bikes with such wheels were all bottom-of-the-line, with at best Acera components. I ended up with 27.5". But at least 24/42 gearing, which I use a lot. Here in Switzerland there is another new problem related to wheels on mountain bikes. You can take your bike on the train, which is great for tours: You don't have to start and end in the same place, and in fact you don't need a car at all. However, usually you have to hang the bike from a hook in the entryway of the rail car, and the hooks don't work with fatter tires. I had this problem recently with 27.5 x 2.25" tires, and had to just stand with the bike. My impression is that 2.8 and 3" wheels are becoming popular, which will make things that much worse. I registered this with the railway service's customer line, and the woman I spoke to said that also she had had this problem. But there are an awful lot of railway passenger cars that would need new hooks, so it could be awhile... Hmm. To solve that problem, could you bring along your own S hook? Make one end big enough to handle your tire and rim, and hang the other end from the train's hook? I can see how designers have problems trying to accommodate all bike designs. The difficulty arises whether the task is to design a hook in a train, a bike rack for parking bikes, a bike rack to carry bikes on a bus or car, etc. Most bikes are close to typical, but then you've got fat bikes, small-wheel bikes, recumbents, tandems, electric bikes, bikes with panniers ... -- - Frank Krygowski |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Mountain bike tire/wheel sizes
goo.gl/dP2ZHo |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Mountain bike tire/wheel sizes
On 12/3/2017 4:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/3/2017 5:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: In what seems to be perennial efforts to churn the market, mountain bike designers went from 26" (ISO 559) to the ones knicknamed 29" (ISO 622, same as 700C) because they claimed the 26" was too small. Then they soon claimed the 29s were too big, so they started selling what they called 27.5" (584, same as 650B), supposedly "just right." Does anyone know how successful the latter size has become? Is it a dominant size now? Does it look like it's going to stick around, or is this likely to become an orphan - as in "nobody uses that any more"? No idea. http://www.bicycleretailer.com/studi...r#.WiSTRUq99PI As I've mentioned before, in bicycles or any other industry, success is wholly due to management's intellectual gifts. Failure has a thousand causes, all external (weather, commodity prices, regulations, trade flows, The Fed, politics, rim diameter, BB format and so on) 27.5 seems to be the new super-standard size, being an acceptable compromise between 29 and 26. Definitely an advantage to the larger wheel size on mountain bikes. It's not surprising that sales of the newer wheel size bicycles are increasing, but if sales of mountain bikes overall were down then it probably means lower sales of department store quality bicycles. Still a few 26" wheeled mountain bikes at the LBS for shorter riders, but not many. There are factors other than "management's intellectual gifts" in any industry, factors beyond the control of management. Look at places where bicycle usage has plummeted, and the reasons go beyond what management could control. In China, massive investment in mass transit has made transportational cycling much less necessary. On my alma mater's campus, where almost everyone used bicycles to get around, the distances between buildings, and the distances to off-campus housing have increased as the university has expanded and bicycling is less practical. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Mountain bike tire/wheel sizes
Frank Krygowski, 2017-12-04 17:08+0100:
Hmm. To solve that problem, could you bring along your own S hook? Make one end big enough to handle your tire and rim, and hang the other end from the train's hook? That may not be possible, because train hooks position is a compromise between not being too hard to reach and yet having the entire bicycle off the car floor. If you add your own hook to that, your bike will be about 10 cm down, and the rear wheel may touch the floor, resulting in a very less stable position. -- Tanguy |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mountain bike tire/wheel sizes
On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 7:34:45 AM UTC-5, Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
Frank Krygowski, 2017-12-04 17:08+0100: Hmm. To solve that problem, could you bring along your own S hook? Make one end big enough to handle your tire and rim, and hang the other end from the train's hook? That may not be possible, because train hooks position is a compromise between not being too hard to reach and yet having the entire bicycle off the car floor. If you add your own hook to that, your bike will be about 10 cm down, and the rear wheel may touch the floor, resulting in a very less stable position. I think it was in Estonia that we hung our folding Bikes Friday from train hooks and had them dangling and swinging. Other bikes would have had their rear wheels stabilized by a sort of attachment on the floor of the train car. The best they can do is design for what's common. Those of us with uncommon bikes have to adapt. - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tire Sizes for KH 20 | Unicorn | Unicycling | 21 | July 29th 07 09:15 AM |
Availability of Better Wheel and Tire Sizes | 32GO | Recumbent Biking | 2 | February 2nd 07 04:24 AM |
Folding Bike Wheel Sizes | Captain | Recumbent Biking | 2 | May 22nd 06 09:09 AM |
Folding Bike Wheel Sizes | Captain | General | 0 | May 18th 06 09:52 PM |
Trek bike weights and tire sizes - ping Mike Jacoubowsky? | jj | General | 7 | January 18th 05 11:10 PM |