Human nature can be baffling sometimes. One thing that never ceases to amaze me about bikes is the endless variations designers and builders can derive from what is in essence a very simple machine.
Rather than break bad on some one's bike for being different seems someone into bikes would want to check out how the whole thing comes together. It may be the bike would not work for you at all. But it is still interesting to see another approach to what you take for granted. On Feb 3, 8:21 pm, newenglandbike <matthiasbe...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think spending a lot of time on a particular wheel size, and riding > with people who also ride that wheel size, makes you sort of > xenophobic torwards other sizes. Having spent most of my bicycling > miles on 20" wheels, I can say that _well_ into adulthood 'big' wheel > bikes looked strange to me. That included anything from 24" > upward. After getting over that, I certainly have no aversion to 26" > wheels. I am totally sold on the 650b size, the way it works on the > bombadil. > > Maybe a 26" wheeled bike in sizes larger than 59cm doesn't make sense > structurally, but if there was a double top-tube on a 26" wheel bike > in a larger size (to keep the frame well triangulated as Grant > Petersen pointed out), I'd ride it in a second. I think people who > avoid 26" wheels because they look funny are probably just afraid to > break from the herd. And as for being significantly 'slower', I'd > need some pretty compelling empirical data on that to believe it. > On the other hand, I can readily believe that a smaller wheel can be > quicker in terms of acceleration, as well as handling/ > maneuverability. > > It's crazy that in the bicycling enthusiast community, where people > obsess over the advantages of one-degree headtube-angle differences, > or 1cm top-tube-length changes, or you-name-the-tiny-geometrical- > change alterations for their custom frame, the same group of > enthusiasts can get all freaked-out when someone like Grant Petersen > comes along and tries to address a relatively huge 2.5" gap in wheel > sizes with the re-ntroduction of 650b, and the suggestion of a size > like 603. I know 603 hasn't been product-ized, but I kind of wish it > was, just because if frame geometry variations are necessary in such > small increments, it only makes sense to have wheel-sizes available in > small increments as well. > > On Feb 3, 7:39 pm, Angus <angusle...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > The TCO discussion appears to be morphing into a 26 inch wheel > > discussion. > > > My 59cm All-Rounder has 26inch wheels. I have received a grand total > > of two comments about the wheels size during the 12 years I have owned > > the bike. > > > One was "what's with the small wheels?" the second (apparently not > > realizing the wheels were small) said "Wow, I've never seen a frame > > that big!" He seemed so excited about the frame size I didn't have > > the heart to correct him. > > > When I got the bike it was much easier to find BIG tires for 26inch > > wheels...650b wasn't that popular back then.... > > > AnguI -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
