There is a lot going on with tire sizes, but it's so much, and is such a combination of obvious simplicity and actual and made up complication and opionion, that the only way to talk about it, the only way I could, would -- well, it requires being able to type three overlapping words at a time, or say the same out loud. If you do one word at a time (like this), it takes you down an off-course tributary, and then it's hard to get back on course, and it all sounds insane. It's not just tire sizes and volume and weight, suppleness, diameter. It goes to the frame and standover, and doesn't even stop there. It really is a three-dimensional issue that doesn't play well in 2D language, unless you're really good at it, but so far nobody is. It's not complicated in practical use and riding...it's gets that way and weird only when trying to explain it. There's no magic to anything. I have nothing figured out or under wraps, but I also don't question or wonder about anything having to do with this. It's not a topic to avoid or to harp on, and there's no answer-answere. Successful bikes can have all kinds of wheel sizes. The line graph has no bumps or potholes, and for every benefit in one way there's a corresponding and proportional drawback in another. They're all so subtle that they go unnoticed while you're just having a good time on the bike. You can make a case for a monster 700C wheel on a short-wheelbase frame being master of both singletrack hairpins and bumps, but to do that requires ignoring everything except those two things, and inflating in your head the theoretical plusses to the point where they seem to be real. I have nothing figured out, but I know what I like and what works for most..until the overthinking gremlins come. This is a general blahb...not a response to any particular comment, just my visceral response to a topic I used to feel differently about, but not that much.
On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 10:20:15 AM UTC-8, dstein wrote: > > 650b tires seemed to gain in popularity because you could fit wider tires > than 700c (with 700c being traditionally narrow in size both in the tire > clearance of frames made and the tires availabile), but now that wider > tires have gained in popularity in all sizes, including 700c, what are the > drawbacks to going 700c instead of 650b if you can easily and readily get > wide 42mm or larger tires on a lot of the new fangled gravel and allroad > bikes? Is there a tradeoff for making a 700c frame around large tires? Or > has frame building come around enough to compensate for any trade offs? > > I say this because I've tried a few 650 bikes but constantly find myself > gravitating towards 700c with wide tires. I understand from some of Grant's > writing that for smaller riders like myself 650b is a better design choice > and that's why there are several sizes within a model depending on the > size, so maybe it comes down to trade offs with geometry and rider height? > Even then, as a small 5'7" rider I still find I prefer wide 700c tires over > 650b. Or is it really just a matter of personal preference at this point? > > Was just skimming Jan's 'How Wide is Too Wide' article in the recent BQ > which got me thinking as they tested multiple widths and diameters, but > didn't really say how the wider tires on different diamaters came into play > (unless I missed it). > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
