I know!0.75" more - which is a huge increase
The difference isn't really that big. 26" tires, especially big DH ones, are substantially bigger than 26". 27.5" for 650b is a closer to accurate number.So they're just dropouts?
Most frames these days seem to be built on the edge of the tire hitting something at bottom out, and also fairly close to the chainstay yoke.
You'd need (27.5-26 / 2) = 0.75" more space, so the chainstay would have to be that much longer - which is a huge increase - unless you want to sacrifice mud clearance, lame in itself.
If that's what they are doing, then count one more aboard the hater bandwagon.
So WTF is the point of it then? Same OD, but requires new rims, new tires, new spokes, and new frame geo.And remember these bikes are currently rolling on max 2.35" Nevegals. Compared to a 26" 2.7" Minion it's narrower and not much taller. When DH 650b tires are available sub 17" chainstays won't be possible and frames will have to provide suspension clearance. That's why I like 26" rear, 27.5" front.
Until there are real 650b DH tires there isn't much of one. But my DH bike could use another half inch of bottom bracket height so once that happens I think it'll be worth a shotSo WTF is the point of it then? Same OD, but requires new rims, new tires, new spokes, and new frame geo.
To sell more bikes?So WTF is the point of it then? Same OD, but requires new rims, new tires, new spokes, and new frame geo.
Yup. New frame or at least new rear is a must. 0.75'' more CS length is very noticeable.So they're just dropouts?
Most frames these days seem to be built on the edge of the tire hitting something at bottom out, and also fairly close to the chainstay yoke.
You'd need (27.5-26 / 2) = 0.75" more space, so the chainstay would have to be that much longer - which is a huge increase - unless you want to sacrifice mud clearance, lame in itself.
If that's what they are doing, then count one more aboard the hater bandwagon.
Maxxis High Roller II 27,5'' x 2.40''Until there are real 650b DH tires
I couldn't agree with you more. Even though I lust after new gear it's the first time in a long time when I can't justify my idiotic spending habbits without going full retard. I understand some of the new stuff is cool but most of it? MehMarketing! After standard 26" bikes got so good that many people don't have to buy a new one every year the companies started to push 'innovation'....but not by addressing the obvious problems (we still get flats, still no mass produced lightweight gearbox trail bikes). Instead they paint everything carbon and throw different sized wheels on existing frames with different dropouts. Wooohhooooo, isn't that great!
Marketing! After standard 26" bikes got so good that many people don't have to buy a new one every year the companies started to push 'innovation'....but not by addressing the obvious problems (we still get flats, still no mass produced lightweight gearbox trail bikes). Instead they paint everything carbon and throw different sized wheels on existing frames with different dropouts. Wooohhooooo, isn't that great!
I love you guys. SRAM spoon feeds you more gears year by year and you eat it up, because you NEED it and it solves every problem EVAR OMG. Take the same haggard old frame but make it CARBONZ TEH SHIMZ and it's "shut up and take my money"I couldn't agree with you more. Even though I lust after new gear it's the first time in a long time when I can't justify my idiotic spending habbits without going full retard. I understand some of the new stuff is cool but most of it? Meh
pretty much this comment sums it up. 29ers don't fit with acceptable geometry. 650b lets you use what works on 26ers with bigger wheels. Intense may not be the best example, as they're always #1 on the bandwagon, but if you take a look at the new norco bikes, they're really pretty dialed. Bigger wheels make sense in so many different situations, put applying them represents the challenge, which is why 650b has tons of promise.I'm all for the largest wheel that will fit while keeping ideal geometry. To me it just makes too much sense...ever compared the effect of wheel sizes on a skateboard?
That sucks also that I have to run 10-speed on a dh rig now (selling isn't an option because it would cost too much to replace it) although 9 or even less would be perfectly fine.I love you guys. SRAM spoon feeds you more gears year by year and you eat it up, because you NEED it and it solves every problem EVAR OMG. Take the same haggard old frame but make it CARBONZ TEH SHIMZ and it's "shut up and take my money"
Are you being serious? I bet you can't scientifically proove that a bike with 650b-wheels is faster down a dh-course. The difference is simply too small to notice.pretty much this comment sums it up. 29ers don't fit with acceptable geometry. 650b lets you use what works on 26ers with bigger wheels. Intense may not be the best example, as they're always #1 on the bandwagon, but if you take a look at the new norco bikes, they're really pretty dialed. Bigger wheels make sense in so many different situations, put applying them represents the challenge, which is why 650b has tons of promise.
I don't necessarily buy that it's a good idea for the competitive world of DH racing, but it didn't kill XC racing, only made them faster. So, in 5 years you can still clutch onto your 26" wheeled bikes, but everybody will probably be faster than you.
The inconsistencies of the riders on each run would outweigh the "bigger wheels".Are you kidding? That's the easiest scientific test possible, and much easier than quantifying "100% antisquat" for anything besides one single point at one single time.
Take two bikes of similar/same design. Which one is fastest to the bottom? Which one is fastest through different sections? Same rider, same course. No need to discuss "feel" or anything like that. Just one dude (or rather, several riders participating in the test) then time them top to bottom with splits.
so downhill racing is not a test of who's fastest, but rather a randomized lottery of what rock is where? Of course you would do multiple runs, then average the times, but experimental design doesn't have to be that complicated to get a good result.The inconsistencies of the riders on each run would outweigh the "bigger wheels".
So why did nearly nobody show this data for the oh-so-super-fast 29-er trail and DH bikes? Only Dirt mentioned it in their 29er test that they timed the bikes (and supported it with data!) and 29 was faster.Are you kidding? That's the easiest scientific test possible, and much easier than quantifying "100% antisquat" for anything besides one single point at one single time.
Dammit, "must spread rep around" etc blah blah...
very well putMarketing! After standard 26" bikes got so good that many people don't have to buy a new one every year the companies started to push 'innovation'....but not by addressing the obvious problems (we still get flats, still no mass produced lightweight gearbox trail bikes). Instead they paint everything carbon and throw different sized wheels on existing frames with different dropouts. Wooohhooooo, isn't that great!
shhhh.intense needs to come out with a carbon dh frame.
they already dowill these come in rootbeer?
i find it funny that in the world of dirt trucks the same applies. there is a reason trophy trucks run 40" tires and not 31s like stock trucks...
i fail to see how bikes wouldn't benefit as long as you keep the geometry you are looking for.
I'm yet to see huge merit in the 650b trend for DH racing, but I'll disagree with that.For the most part all what matters is the rider. There are no better or worse dh bikes on the wc-circuit. The bikes are on par and the main difference from rider to rider are ergonomic preferences. Not the machine makes the difference but man.
So you are saying Aaron Gwin isn't fast because he is Aaron Gwin but because he is on Trek? And that he wouldn't be as fast if he would be on a Demo?I'm yet to see huge merit in the 650b trend for DH racing, but I'll disagree with that.
This isn't the men's 100m sprint - getting down the hill the fastest is indeed a combination of bike and body, and while the rider is a much bigger part of the equation, you'd be foolish to think the bike was not significant enough to make a difference.
I can jump on a different bike and easily feel improvements that allow me to ride either more safely for the same level of speed, or faster for the same level of safety.
I think these small differences actually become more critical at the pointy end of competition because the riders are so good - and thus small performance improvements in the bike (whether it's better bump absorption from the frame / suspension, better brakes allowing for later braking, whatever) might make all the difference when it comes down to split seconds.
Well he certainly stopped winning in a hurry when his equipment stopped working.So you are saying Aaron Gwin isn't fast because he is Aaron Gwin but because he is on Trek? And that he wouldn't be as fast if he would be on a Demo?
Not really. You forget that WC-pros have mechanics and techniques to get the bike-setup they want. Just look at the athertons and how they updated the outdated geometry of the fury. Geometry-wise current stock frames are as simliar as it can get. Same for damping and rearend kinematiks. There is no frame that doesn't work in this respect. If you set up the shock right it will work. Same goes for forks and other components, the posibilites are endless.