650B tires?

One reason for the 650B (584mm) *revival* is nice summarized by Sheldon
Brown:

"Does it make sense to change wheel size on an existing bike? Sometimes
it may.

Racer to Tourer
If you have a racing-type bike of good quality, but wish to make it
more versatile, sturdy and comfortable, converting to 650B may be just
the ticket.
Newer racing bikes tend to have exceptionally tight tire clerance. Some
of them can't even accommodate a tire wider than about 25 mm, and
forget about installing fenders with any size tire!

By switching to 650B from 700C, you suddenly gain lots of clearance,
clearance enough for medium width tires, say 35-38 mm width, and for
fenders so you don't need to be a "fair weather" cyclist.

The wider tires will be more durable, more "sure footed", and give a
more comfortable ride on rough pavement or moderate off-road
conditions. Switching to 650B can also reduce front wheel/toe overlap
issues.

Switching to 650B will lower the bottom bracket a bit, making for
easier mounting/dismounting. (Many newer bikes have excessively high
bottom brackets to begin with.)

It also lowers the top tube, possibly making a bike safely usable for a
shorter rider than would otherwise fit it, due to lack of standover
clearance.

If you are going from a very narrow 622 (700C) tire to a fairly wide
584 (650B), the difference may be minimal. For instance, the outside
diameter of a 19-622 (700 x 19C) tire would theoretically be exactly
the same as a 38-584 (650 x 38B). Click here to see my personal IRO
Jamie Roy 650B conversion."

One potential problem is the lack of tire supply. However, that concer
should be eliminated or at least diminished now that QBP has "bought
into the program" and will be carrying not only a 650B frameset, but
wheels, rims and tires to match.

Similarly, brake reach or lack of brakes that will fit the 650B
standard may be another problem. Usually converting to 584mm wheels
requires a brake reach in excess of 62mm. Currently, Rivendell solves
this problem by pushing people to "rediscover" CENTERPULL brakes. Riv
claims that with modern cables and good pads like Kool-Stop Salmon,
centerpull brakes are "as good" as any brake on the market. Further,
Tektro and Riv have teamed up and by the Summer 2006 or some time
thereafter, a dual pivot side pull brake with a brake reach of 70+mm
will be available.

Things are changing and with the lead of Grant Petersen/Rivendell, Jan
Heine, Douglas Brooks, the Hampsten brothers (Andy and Steve), Sheldon
Brown, Curt Goodrich and many, many others, the 650B revival, also
known as *Country Bikes* is not only going strong, but HERE TO STAY!

Further, for more on 650B, check out:

Sheldon Brown's 650B article:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/650b.html

Also, there's a ton of info at this site that's dedicated to 650:
http://www.freewebs.com/650b/

Speak French? There's a "society" dedicated to 650B too:
http://www.cyclos-cyclotes.org/650/index_ang.html

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

Quoted message said:

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

Robin Hubert

Have not stirred this issue up enough on iBOB so it has to carry over
to r.b.t.? Seems rather pointless since you have seen all the
arguments already, unless you are looking for someone to validate your
view.

- rick

Quoted message said:

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

It's the Rivendell gang, looking to mine a new niche for $$$.

Well, of course, Rick. Isn't that what everyone does?

Robin Hubert

A couple quibbles. If that racing bike doesn't have clearance
vertically, it most likely doesn't have it laterally as well.

If the larger 650B tire is nearly the same overall diameter as a 622
tire, it won't lower the bb height or top tube.

Lowering the bb increases the chances of pedal strike. Dangerous.

So, a new tire standard to make an uncomfortable or poor fitting bike
into a better one also requires a new brake. What happens to
mechanical advantage with those long brakes?

I think Ozark has it right.

Robin Hubert

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.

Robin Hubert

For SOME reason, the only 40 or 44 bike frames have 650 tires.

Ozark Bicycle said:

Quoted message said:

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

It's the Rivendell gang, looking to mine a new niche for $$$.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Seriously, having another choice for wheel size isn't a tragedy.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

bfd said:

One reason for the 650B (584mm) *revival* is nice summarized by Sheldon
Brown:

"Does it make sense to change wheel size on an existing bike? Sometimes
it may.

Racer to Tourer
If you have a racing-type bike of good quality, but wish to make it
more versatile, sturdy and comfortable, converting to 650B may be just

[...]

Another solution: do not buy a bicycle with insufficient
wheel clearance, unless you race. If you have one and want
bigger wheels, sell the bicycle, and buy one with
sufficient clearance. Or buy a second bicycle; the
marginal benefit is tremendous. How much for new hubs,
spokes, rims, tape, tires, and brakes?

Many discussions here about proposed modifications to a
bicycle conclude that major modifications are expensive;
leave you with spare parts (not _necessarily_ a bad
thing); and a compromised bicycle inferior to a bicycle
designed to achieve one's goals.

--
Michael Press

Sammy Shuford said:

For SOME reason, the only 40 or 44 bike frames have 650 tires.

Sheldon says this is due to proportions. That is, a 700C wheel/tire
would look silly on such a small frame. Makes sense to me.

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.

When an LBS of long duration went out of business here, the remaindered
stock was auctioned and this includes some wide tired fendered cruiser
type bikes. Many of the local bike experts fought over these bikes often
paying what I thought was astounding prices for them. They looked to me
like bikes you see in WWII era movies where someone is delivering death
telegrams.

Anyway, these went for a lot of money, but I've never once seen anybody
riding one of them on the street or bike paths. Oh, yeah, LBS have
current production ones of these in the windows, so I suppose they sell,
but they don't seem to be ridden either.

-paul

Peter Cole said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

Quoted message said:

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

It's the Rivendell gang, looking to mine a new niche for $$$.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

If Rivendell sells a hundred or so Salukis, I guess it's a good thing
for Grant and the gang. I don't see where cyclists in general benefit
from this disintering of a dead standard.

Quoted message said:

Seriously, having another choice for wheel size isn't a tragedy.

Perhaps we should ask the Raleigh Portage owner's club about this, eh?

Paul Cassel said:

Sammy Shuford said:

For SOME reason, the only 40 or 44 bike frames have 650 tires.

Sheldon says this is due to proportions. That is, a 700C wheel/tire
would look silly on such a small frame. Makes sense to me.

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.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Ozark Bicycle said:

I don't see where cyclists in general benefit from this disintering of a dead standard.

I think the general public and cyclists in general may benefit from
using 650B (584mm) wheels. First, 650B wheels offer an *option* to make
old racing bikes, those that are sitting in the back of the garage
unused, more "useful" by allowing the bike to be fitted with tires and
fenders to be used on all types of roads/trails and in different
weather condition. This makes the bike more versatile and hopefully
more useful.

Second, Riv's population base are usually in their 40s and up. Most of
these riders have already gone to higher bars and the 650B wheels allow
them to put on fatter tires for more comfort.

Both of these reasons could benefit the general public and cyclists as
it provides yet another option of getting people onto bikes. Of course,
Riv would also benefit as it creates a "new" market for them to sell
parts related to 650B wheels, i.e., frames, rims, tires, and brakes.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

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

Robin, ISTR that you subscribe to the iBOB list where this was discussed
at length. The short answer is a really fat tire with the same overall
diameter as a 700 x 18 to 700 x 23, which creates fewer design
compromises than building bikes around 700 x 38 to 700 x 42 tires.

This is not so much an "old" standard in that there are tens of
thousands of bikes still in use that use this size tire. The British
use it, the French use it, the Swedish use it, the Japanese use it, etc.
It's an odd size in the U.S., but that just means that we may be out of
touch. ;-)

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

bfd said:

One reason for the 650B (584mm) *revival* is nice summarized by
Sheldon Brown:

"Does it make sense to change wheel size on an existing bike?
Sometimes it may.

Racer to Tourer If you have a racing-type bike of good quality, but
wish to make it more versatile, sturdy and comfortable, converting
to 650B may be just

[...]

Another solution: do not buy a bicycle with insufficient wheel
clearance, unless you race. If you have one and want bigger wheels,
sell the bicycle, and buy one with sufficient clearance. Or buy a
second bicycle; the marginal benefit is tremendous. How much for new
hubs, spokes, rims, tape, tires, and brakes?

Cheaper than a new bike.

Quoted message said:

Many discussions here about proposed modifications to a bicycle
conclude that major modifications are expensive; leave you with spare
parts (not _necessarily_ a bad thing); and a compromised bicycle
inferior to a bicycle designed to achieve one's goals.

The conversions to 650B seem to work very well. They avoid the
compromises occasioned by trying to build a bike around 700 x 38s, which
doesn't work well at frame sizes 56 or smaller.

In article <[email hidden]>,

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.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ozark Bicycle said:

Peter Cole said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> What is the motivation behind the trend to resurrect an old
> standard? Just another fad?
>
>
>

It's the Rivendell gang, looking to mine a new niche for $$$.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

If Rivendell sells a hundred or so Salukis, I guess it's a good thing
for Grant and the gang. I don't see where cyclists in general benefit
from this disintering of a dead standard.

Not so much a dead standard. The 584 mm BSD has been in constant use
around the world for at least 75 years. Not so much in the U.S., but
much to some people's surprise we are not the epicenter of the universe.
We hung on to the dead standard of 27 x 1 1/4 inch tires for a long,
long time.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Seriously, having another choice for wheel size isn't a tragedy.

Perhaps we should ask the Raleigh Portage owner's club about this,
eh?

They were always able to get tires, unless ill-informed bike shops
didn't know where.

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

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. I have no comfort issues at all. Amazing even though I
don't think I'm an exceptionally tough human. Maybe it's because I
know how to pick my ass up off the saddle when necessary.

FWIW, I don't have anything against this "movement", but I am befuddled
by it.

YMMV,

Respectfully,

Robin Hubert