[freeriding]

i think that the ha slacken year by year...

once we had 66 for dh, now it is 63. for aggressive trail we had 68-69, now it is 65-66.

now with 57.5 and 29ers, they slacken a bit more.

did some homework on how the wheel dimension affects the handling.

and the results are:

1. to find the head angle feel of the 27.5 bike in a 26 bike, subtract 1.20° from the 27.5's bike head angle.

2. to find the head angle feel of the 29 bike in a 26 bike, subtract 2.35° from the 29's bike head angle.

proof of that:

27.5 bikes are produced with 66 ha which means that they handle like 64.8 26ers!!!!

also 29ers with 67 (look at new niner)...

maybe in a few years, they will slacken even more...

prepare for 60 ha dh bikes and 64 enduro!!!

 

[frango]

It's fine for me
Eventually, manufacturers will come to the point, where there will be no need to further refinement.
Just like rear wheel travel of vast majority of DH bike 200-210mm.

 

[Nick]

Yes.



..

 

[norbar]

If it rides well who cares what's the number. If it rides bad, don't buy it.

 

[Electric_City]

That's why I didn't like the Turner with a 62* ha.Soon a 9" travel fork or a longer a2c will be needed to keep the bash ring off tthe ground. The 66* on my Sunday has yet to stop me. I'd be interested in the Turner and other bikes with slacker ha's, but I'm just going to wait for 58.5* so I can run an angleset and get it to 57* even.

 

[norbar]

That's why I didn't like the Turner with a 62* ha.Soon a 9" travel fork or a longer a2c will be needed to keep the bash ring off tthe ground. The 66* on my Sunday has yet to stop me. I'd be interested in the Turner and other bikes with slacker ha's, but I'm just going to wait for 58.5* so I can run an angleset and get it to 57* even.

Sunday is 65

But to be honest it depends on the trails you ride. Pure DH WC caliber trails are rare but I've been on a few trails wher my 63.7 felt like it could be slacker by quite a bit. Also the BB can be high on a slack bike

 

[Tomasz]

Iirc, our 26" tires are actually more like 26.5". The difference between 26 and 27.5 being closer to 1" than 1.5" in real world measurements.

 

[StiHacka]

Iirc, our 26" tires are actually more like 26.5". The difference between 26 and 27.5 being closer to 1" than 1.5" in real world measurements.

A vast majority of 2.2 and 2.35 650b tires is 28" (or very slightly less) tall.

 

[Udi]

Are bikes getting too carbon? First it was carbon brake levers, then carbon links, now entire frames are carbon. This is madness.

Probably time for another thread.

 

[jonKranked]

Are bikes getting too carbon? First it was carbon brake levers, then carbon links, now entire frames are carbon. This is madness.

Probably time for another thread.

carbon chains, carbon tires, carbon tubeless tire sealant, carbon suspension fluid

 

[norbar]

Are bikes getting too carbon? First it was carbon brake levers, then carbon links, now entire frames are carbon. This is madness.

Probably time for another thread.

Never! We all know carbonz is better as long as it is so expensive no one can afford it and try it.

 

['size]

A vast majority of 2.2 and 2.35 650b tires is 28" (or very slightly less) tall.

you got a list and some pics of these tires mounted and measured? i haven't researched it much but it seems i hear or see more about how most 650b tires are actually right at 27".

 

[freeriding]

what i am pointing at, is that maybe in a few years 60ha in downhill bikes, may seem very good and better than the steeper 63 old school ones

personally, i have a meta with 67ha and a tues 2 with 63.5.
the tues is even in loose trail rides my preference

 

[Tomasz]

you got a list and some pics of these tires mounted and measured? i haven't researched it much but it seems i hear or see more about how most 650b tires are actually right at 27".

Have heard likewise...

 

[Sandwich]

what i am pointing at, is that maybe in a few years 60ha in downhill bikes, may seem very good and better than the steeper 63 old school ones

personally, i have a meta with 67ha and a tues 2 with 63.5.
the tues is even in loose trail rides my preference

I don't think so. Most people have settled between 62-64*, depending largely on rider preference. I don't think anybody is going to push past 62, except on pinkbike, and they're too busy defending 26" wheels and dragging their rear tires through berms to worry about how a bike actually handles. It's a bit like the low stem fad. Everybody wanted dropped stems, flat bars, etc, so they could get aero on their road bike/Sunday. Now many pros are running spacers and tall crowns, because all that low stuff kinda handles like ****.

As for the conversion, yeah there's some change that happens as you go up in wheelsize, but it's largely negated when you change fork offset to adjust trail. Once the fork is trail adjusted, supposedly it handles the same with the same angles. Haven't screwed around much with offset though.

I think trail bikes are changing mostly because the way people ride trail bikes is changing. Every bike with a 65* head angle is an "enderpo" this or that or whatever, not a trail bike. You can still mash a bike like that to the top, but it's not going to win any climbing competitions.

 

[freeriding]

sandwich i agree with all your points.

however fork offset is between 40-50mm.
to change the handling through that, when the trail is much, you need 55-65mm offset, which no fork company does for the moment. (i think one lefty fork had about 60mm offset)

what they do, especially in 29ers, is to use steeper ha like 69degrees, in order to compensate for the trail increase. however the niner 29er has 66ha with a 170mm fork...that would feel like a 64degree ha 26er!!!!!!

 

[Sandwich]

Yeah but what I'm saying is that some manufacturers are finally catching up. I think the fisher G2 stuff has like 51mm of offset. The durdado has like 50mm. Most DH forks hover around 40, and some are around 45.

You wouldn't want to put those on a 26" bike, but when you add them to a 29er, you can run a 67* head angle on both.

 

[amishmatt]

I, for one, welcome our new slack HA overlords. I couldn't be happier that the days of 69* HA trailbikes are behind me.

 

[Kanye West]

So in my quick research, I've found that 26 x 2.4" tires have an OD of around 26.8".

This 650b thing which is being marketed as "27.5" seems like total crap. A 650b x 2.4" seems to have an OD of around 27.2".

That's roughly 1/2" difference in diameter. 1/4" per side. Angle of incidence for the same size obstacle on both is basically identical. Anyone who says they "can feel a difference" needs to be dickslapped, hard.


On the topic of head angles and offsets - frame companies have reduced head angles by a pretty huge margin over the last decade, but offsets have stayed the same. These bikes don't steer right with the huge offset and slack angles. They need to be rolled back a good 4mm or so (which is a lot in offset/trail terms). I love slack bikes, but I like bikes that react quickly to leans and don't have this "wheel flop" tendancy that comes with them. Doesn't have to behave like that.

Now that geometries are kind of neutralizing (as far as head angle and BB heights go), the offset needs to follow. NOT introduce a new wheel standard which will F all that up...

 

[atrokz]

That's an interesting observation. Can someone verify the actual OD's of the two sizes?

Sandwich, it should be the other way around. No one needs to defend 26" wheels, especially with the slaying of the field in enduro. "27.5" on the other hand, marketing sure needs to defend that decision. If Hack is correct about it being a .25" difference, then heads should roll.

 

[Tomasz]

Hack said it's a .5" difference, .25" per side.

 

[marshalolson]

i measured a bunch of stuff a few months ago, and came up with a radius of approx .4" bigger for 650b, when comparing apples to apples. shiggy's mtb tire site posts similar numbers for comparing like tires (2.25 racing ralph 26 and 650b, nevegal 2.1 26 and 650b for example)

this is confirmed by sticking 650b wheels front and rear on my trail bike and it raising my BB .38"

 

[Jeremy R]

i measured a bunch of stuff a few months ago, and came up with a radius of approx .4" bigger for 650b, when comparing apples to apples. shiggy's mtb tire site posts similar numbers for comparing like tires (2.25 racing ralph 26 and 650b, nevegal 2.1 26 and 650b for example)

this is confirmed by sticking 650b wheels front and rear on my trail bike and it raising my BB .38"

Yep. The first trail ride I did with someone who had 650b wheels, as he was blabbering on about how they rollover stuff, I noticed he had a low volume 2.2 tire on his bike, and I had a high volume 2.3 tire on my 26" bike. I put them side by side and they were the exact same size. Exactly. Ha, I am not hating on wheel size either. I don't care what people run. And if bought a complete bike that came with 650b wheels, I probably would not care. All I am saying is that I am not buying a bunch of extra crap to run that small of a difference in wheel size.

 

[IH8Rice]

marketing!

 

[Sandwich]

he had a low volume 2.2 tire on his bike, and I had a high volume 2.3 tire on my 26" bike.

so he had a lower volume tire, carrying less weight and rolling resistance, but had the same effective diameter as your 26 with a fatter tire? Huh. I wonder what would happen if you had apples to apples?

Atrokz-
tell that to the apes in the comments section over on PB. Everybody is jumping to new wheel sizes but them. There are even people on ridemonkey now, in this very forum (God forbid) that have tried bigger wheels, and liked it.

 

[Bedlam]

So I've effectively gotten a 650B bike by just putting 2.4 Muddy Marys on? Damn, how's that for versatility!

 

[Jeremy R]

so he had a lower volume tire, carrying less weight and rolling resistance, but had the same effective diameter as your 26 with a fatter tire? Huh. I wonder what would happen if you had apples to apples?

My wheels are smaller and lighter and my tires were more comfortable to ride from the higher volume. I also had another inch of suspension travel for the same size and length bike. So, I will take my apple. It is F***ing delicious.

 

[nmn25]

my wheels are smaller and lighter and my tires were more comfortable to ride from the higher volume. I also had another inch of suspension travel for the same size and length bike. So, i will take my apple. It is f***ing delicious.

preach!!!!

 

[blindboxx2334]

So I've effectively gotten a 650B bike by just putting 2.4 Muddy Marys on? Damn, how's that for versatility!

so if youve got 2.4's on, then my 2.5 wicked wills must be something more along the lines of a 666B, or something of that nature.

still kinda surprised this thread is on here though.

 

[HardtailHack]

Pfft I've got 2.4" Rubber Queens on 26" rims, it's like a 29er.

The trails I ride are often quite boring and offer few tech sections so I don't really want anything to make my trails easier, 69deg HA, 60mm fork and a slick back tyre coz I'm hipster as ****!

 

[buildyourown]

They are. I think we're approaching a plateau of sorts. It has taken awhile for people to learn how to rider slacker bikes. Same with low BBs. 10 yrs ago we all thought you needed a bigh BB for rough terrain so you didn't hit stuff. Then we learned that you can learn not to hit stuff and a low BB makes for a pretty awesome handling bike. My 5" trail bike has DH geo from just a few years ago. Sure it's long and a bit floppy at really low speed, but you learn to deal with that and take advantage of low BB and 65 deg HA.

 

['size]

this all makes me feel much better about eventually throwing 26" wheels (or more importantly, tires) on a 650b frame...

 

[sethimus]

Pfft I've got 2.4" Rubber Queens on 26" rims, it's like a 29er.

yeah +1

 

[HardtailHack]

this all makes me feel much better about eventually throwing 26" wheels (or more importantly, tires) on a 650b frame...

Yeah I was thinking of doing the same on a hardtail, Most AM HT frames sit a bit higher than I like so this could be a good solution.

It does make you wonder how much quicker the sport would have progressed if MTB mags didn't criticize DH bike for being too low or too slack in reviews. I certainly remember reading AMB(**** Aussie mag) and they were whining about bikes pushing through corners, maybe if the rider was better the bike would have got a better review, who knows?

Hmmm, I thought I was off topic but this isn't a wheel size thread, haha!

 

[marshalolson]

this all makes me feel much better about eventually throwing 26" wheels (or more importantly, tires) on a 650b frame...

Exactly! The whole reason I went thru the exercise about 650b tire size was to put them on a 29er!

 

[buildyourown]

It does make you wonder how much quicker the sport would have progressed if MTB mags didn't criticize DH bike for being too low or too slack in reviews. I certainly remember reading AMB(**** Aussie mag) and they were whining about bikes pushing through corners, maybe if the rider was better the bike would have got a better review, who knows?
!

You do have to step back and consider what the median skill level is. Especially for the user group that is buying $3k Dh frames new. I'll give you a hint, it's not high.
Go and browse the manufacturer forums on MTBR. It's a **** show of people complaining about pedal strikes with a 14" BB on a trail bike. Look how popular the Intense Uzzi was. One of the worst creations ever made. And people loved it because it had a nice high BB. Too bad it did nothing well.

Bike companies/designers need to design bikes to be sold and that means they need to be easily ridden by 40yo dentists. This is why the Angleset exists.

 

[frango]

But, it we all moved to 27,5" wheels, would we really use lower volume tires, than we use now?
Is there any reason not to use 2,5(OLD)/2,4 current Maxxis tires, ot 2,35 Schwalbe, on big Contis on 27,5"?
So, if we kept those big tires on our new, bigger wheels, wouldn't we gain more or less what's advertised? (apart from some weight penalty, etc)

 

[freeriding]

Yeah but what I'm saying is that some manufacturers are finally catching up. I think the fisher G2 stuff has like 51mm of offset. The durdado has like 50mm. Most DH forks hover around 40, and some are around 45.

You wouldn't want to put those on a 26" bike, but when you add them to a 29er, you can run a 67* head angle on both.

yeap, but why not put them in a 26 bike with 63-64ha? it will make it more quick handling.

 

[sethimus]

But, it we all moved to 27,5" wheels, would we really use lower volume tires, than we use now?
Is there any reason not to use 2,5(OLD)/2,4 current Maxxis tires, ot 2,35 Schwalbe, on big Contis on 27,5"?
So, if we kept those big tires on our new, bigger wheels, wouldn't we gain more or less what's advertised? (apart from some weight penalty, etc)

don't ruin the hate party

 

[StiHacka]

you got a list and some pics of these tires mounted and measured? i haven't researched it much but it seems i hear or see more about how most 650b tires are actually right at 27".

I did almost $2.5k miles on 650b wheels in the last 18 months, built 1/2 dozen of wheels and three conversions.

There is not a single tire that is at 27". They all start at 27.5". This is a picture of a 2.4 Trail Taker pre-strech, now it sits almost exactly at 28".

My Michelin Advanced Grip'r 2.25 is equally tall. People do not believe it is a 2.25 tire when they see it mounted.

Nobby Nic 2.35 and Hans Dampf 2.35 are both at 28" or a little more on wider rims. Ardent 2.25 is a hair under 28", so is Kenda Honey Badger 2.25.

The height of the available tires is a problem for me since I ride a converted Mojo HD and it is really tough to find a good AM tire under 27.75" that would fit in there.

Do not let the facts get in the way of your hatred! Now I am going to mount one of the big bad 650b babies on this 40mm wide carbon rim and get a few more mms out of them. I suspect the new Magic Mary 2.4 will be even bigger than anything available today, possibly pushing 28.5"?