Love this, Russ. I am 5'6" and I've thought about starting a RUclips channel called Short Cyclist Issues. It is absolutely ridiculous how difficult it can be to find appropriate fitting bikes and components for short riders. And to your last point, the bike shops are usually staffed by very tall dudes.
I'm 5' 4" and I bought my first cyclocross bike in the fall of '98. I loved taking that bike out on single track but the tire/toe overlap was a huge issue on tight turns as the bike was designed around traditional 700c wheels. Independent Fabrication was designing their cyclocross bikes around 26" MTB wheels for shorter riders around '99-'01 maybe '02 but their innovation was killed by the USCF and probably UCI because the racing federations deemed the 26" wheel size on cyclocross bike to be illegal to race on and IF went back to 700c wheels for their smaller frames, which was a huge set back for shorter riders, imho. I bought a 49cm Planet X designed around 26" MTB wheels in the fall of '00 and it quickly became my baby. I have ridden my Planet X on some fairly demanding terrain which I would only ride on my Steelman Manzanita because I learned to ride a MTB on a rigid frame. I'm turning 50 next year and I have the components to keep both of my 26" wheeled babies going for the rest of my life. Russ, I discovered your channel about 4 or 5 months and I've enjoyed several of your videos. Keep up the good work!
Agreed, Russ. Mountain Bike Action Magazine did a several page article back I 1990 or so where they landed on 24” as the ideal all road /MTB wheel size🤗
Seventy + years old and still on 26 inch on two bicycles and 20' on a folder. Went through 650 sizes and 700c back in the past on european bicycles, tried them again for a few years, stayed with the current Bicycles. Frame size and fork rake are important for me. Fads come and go it is the cycle of business for anything bicycle related, who knows what will be "In again" in 10 ->20 years time.
Another thing its all about ,trend ,fashion etc who's got latest ..looking at other channels all they say ,you need this that the other to go faster never talk about enjoyment...keep up the brilliant work ...and love cycling!!
Russ, this was well done and very helpful. I just bought a 20" tire E-bike. I was hoping for 24" but this one had all the things I wanted otherwise. 750 watt, 95NM torquer, hydraulic breaks, 54 volts, and so much more at a descent price. I"ve been worried that maybe the smaller wheels will look silly (I'm 5-8) and be like a kids bike. But after watching this I feel better about my purchase.
I will add that a frame/fork for 26” wheels is going to be stronger than similar construction for 700. With bigger wheels the axle to crown length increases (in addition to the radius of the wheel) which provides a longer lever to stresses on the fork and front triangle. In order to get similar rigidity larger diameter/thicker walled tubing is required - both of which add weight. For the rear triangle the chainstay and seatstay bridges are able to be a bit closer to the mid point of their respective tubes. This significantly increases strength and rigidity without adding weight or complexity. I will also add that (more of an issue for mountain bikes but still applies to gravel as well) that it’s easier to have clearance for wider tires, chainrings, crankarm /chainstay. Yes those compromises can be made successfully. It’s easier to make a rear triangle which successfully meets all of those parameters with smaller wheels. I will also add that when using hub brakes smaller wheels improve braking power.
I have two fixies. One with 700c the other with 26” wheels. The one with the 26” is by far more pleasant to ride, even though the gearing is pretty much the same and the 700c bike has a better frame. X factor has to be the wheels
Well no shit. The smaller wheels have a shorter circumference, which in practice is basically the same effect as reducing the final drive ratio in a car. Makes all the gears in the cassette easier, and since you have a fixie, having one gear that is easy enough to pedal is incredibly important.
I repeat; the gearing is the same, even allowing for the difference in the circumference of the wheels. However, the 26” does spin up quicker and feels more nimble. No shit.
as predominantly a tourer on paved and various dirt gravel stuff, I still love my 26in Surly Troll in dropbar mode. No toe overlap with fenders, and lower gearing overall with smaller wheels. Are my wheels stronger than bigger wheels, who knows, but touring in Latin America with more stuff than usual, the wheels held up great, but as you say, build and rider weight play a part. For my 5 ft wife, 26 really does work well for her XS frame. For the riding I do, 26 still works well, but it's also what I have. Tire choice limited, but not terrible.
LONG LIVE 26 INCH!!! My city cruiser is an old steel Hard Rock with a new 100mm fork and 26x2.15" Schwalbe Big Bens. It's such a comfy bike, and being a short rider it's the only bike that I've never crashed on from toe overlap.
I recently replaced 700с with 650b hunt wheels for my Wolverine and it’s really amazing. I’m always amazed that 50cm frames are the smallest many companies make. I’m 5’6 and sometimes those feel a bit big - depending on the frame. I’m not tall of course, but I’m also taller than a lot of people I know.
If you look at Bicycle Quarterly/ Jan Heine- He studied wheel size and speed. There was no difference in roll down speed between large and small wheels. Everyone keeps saying larger wheels roll faster and not true. Large wheels may be better on mountain bike trails with large rocks etc but that is a different issue. Another issue is that large tires on large wheels change handling. I have a bike with 700x44 tires. You can not throw it from side when climbing standing- it just wants to stay straight. I had 38mm tires before and the difference with going up to 44 is significant. My 650x48 bike handles “normally” when standing. One last point is that in terms of best all around tire size, something like 700x25 is considered best overall for all sorts of handling property compromises. As pointed out in Bicycle Quarterly, 2.2x26/ 650x42-48 and 700c road tires all have about the same final diameter but the smaller wheels allow for larger plush tires- and premium wide tires roll as fast as premium narrow tires without the rock hard pressures=the supple life
That usually depends on the frame. Some have ridiculous amounts of clearance, particularly older frames that took 27x1-1/4 (622-32) tires and some low-mid range hybrid or cruiser frames that do over 60mm in 700c/29er.
Counterpoint: Drivetrain efficiency. It's easier to make easier gear ratios that feel good than it is to make harder gear ratios that feel good. Every tooth under 14 in the back is nonlinearly way less efficient and durable, and an extreme difference between the front and rear gears adds more inefficiency. You also start to lose ground clearance without making the frame tippy by making the wheels small and chainring(s) huge. On the other end of the gearing range, imagine a massive pie plate on a 29er Fatbike to use an extreme example. It will be a way more efficient drivetrain for the same gear inches or gain ratio than a 16" brompton with a more modest granny gear.
I completely agree with everything that you said and have lived it. I mounted 700x50c tires on my Seven Evergreen and and I’ll probably been having those rebuilt with 650b hoops and subsequently new tires. It was way more tire and size that I needed for gravel and if I wanted to bike pack or explore looser terrain, sure more roll over but more awkward for short people on smaller frames. My 29er hardtail’s are in a entirely deferent category and I can plow through the more difficult terrain on riser bars plus progressive Geo with confidence that I can’t relate to with drop bars and all day pedaling Geo. Thanks again for sticking to real user experience and not bs.
Can't agree with you more on all points, Russ. All of my MTBs have 26" wheelsets. Once owned a 29er hardtail, liked the larger contact patch / traction in corners, but hated the toe overlap and the added size and weight of the wheels and tires that made the bike feel like a pig on climbs. Lastly, how about adding a "THANKS" feature to your channel? I'm not into patches and would prefer to support you more directly through the THANKS feature or picking up a t-shirt from your store.
It's such an understated point that shorter riders probably do not need all the extra weight/bulk of heavier materials and components. Does a 50cm bike need to be rated for 300 pounds bike + rider + gear just like a 60cm bike?
@@qcriverrat A good point. And when structural beams are shorter (top and bottom tubes), they are stiffer. So you'd think frame tubes could be smaller diameter and or thinner walled. That said, I think cyclists in general are overly concerned about weight.
@@wturber I think Russ has said in his videos about Jamis bikes that they actually do take this into account with their frames - the smaller ones use smaller tubing. (I might need to get on of theirs.) That being said, I'm trying to make my Marrakesh 52cm work for me and it is just obscenely heavy for what I need. Even self-containing on Ragbrai, I'm 150 pounds + 35 lbs gear. If I had mounts I could haul that on my Pacer, I'm sure. I'm not a weight weeny (I love my Ogre), but the Marrakesh is ridiculously overbuilt for a smaller rider.
@@qcriverrat Tell me how much lighter you think the bike would be if properly built to scale for a smaller rider? Also - getting back to the point of this video - are you running 700c or smaller wheels?
@@wturber Most steel gravel bikes seem to be about 25 pounds. That would work for me. I have 650b wheels ordered and at the LBS, hopefully they're finished building them soon.
My favorite bike for commuting was a Raleigh DL-1 (although the rod brakes weren't great). That bike had huge wheels and very slack geometry. As a taller person, it worked out really well for me. My daughter is 5' (152cm), so she has had trouble finding a bike that handles well for her. I'm glad there are many wheel size options. If you are buying, try out as many different bikes as you can at a bike shop. Borrow your friends bike, then borrow your non-friends bike. You'll be happy you did!
Another great video Russ. And I can attest to being a shorter rider and the benefits you spoke of. I totally agree with the trade-off thinking about bicycles, with speed (and weight) being one of many considerations. I’m in the process of building a bike right now and it’s going to have 26 inch wheels believe it or not. 🚲
Shorties are more down to earth. Love the videos! Especially the flyfishing and bike packing. I just got a 90s Marin and cant wait to partypace all summer catching fish in the Sun. Much thanks from Glasgow, Scotland!
I roll on a 29+ Jones, a 26x4 Pugs, and a 20x2.4 Neutrino. They’re all fun. The only blanket statement I can make about wheels is that two is better than four.
Agreed! Preach brother. I ride a Chumba Terlingua steel gravel bike. I have two sets of 650b wheels and love em. It makes my smooth bike super smooth. During gravel races I worry about nothing, cant remember the last flat and on the road, sure I loose a smidge of speed, but very little. Climbing is one area people forget, GCN did a show on this and you'll find 650b accelerate much quicker when climbing. Not knocking 700c especially for larger riders, but I a 5'9 with short legs I would never go back.
54 Surly Midnight Special with 650b. 5'10". Love it. Also love running 45 psi and eating up the bumps. That bike is like a comfy pair of jeans, whereas my road bike's 23s are like dress pants. Great in the right situation, but those situations are less ubiquitous. I find I'd rather take my steel fendered bike on a century over my graphite rocket. At the end of the day I have to go with comfort!
I have also felt that on the bike and not in the bike when riding bikes with bigger wheel/tire diameter than I am used to. As a smaller person at 5'6" I have also owned bikes with slacker HT angles in the sizes I ride. Great points all around.
Agree! I love the handling and ride feel of 650b wheels. I was a roadie for 30 years and only when I got a Cervelo designed with 650c wheels did I experience the kind of handling that they talked about in reviews--(of the medium and large sizes;) In addition, I really was sensitive to the increased wheel flop of a 700c wheel with a 42-50 tire on my gravel bike. I felt a significant decrease in the feel of wheel flop in my carbon 650b wheels. I hope that I never have to give up my 650b wheels.
Another reason I went for the ICAN Cycling G23 650 wheels on my Trek Boone was easier to fit the wheels in my travel bike case. I use the Orucase Airport Ninja and it's a compact case.
Great video. Smaller wheels are underrated. My everyday bike has 20 inch wheels and I’m more than happy with it. Asia and Europe have many smaller wheeled bikes.
My Kona Sutra LTD (size 54, 5’11 height) felt waay better with a 27.5 2.6 tire than with 29 2.2, super fast acceleration and a bb height much closer to 700x40. Could likely have gone narrower 2.25-2.4, but wanted to maintain a similar trail number.
You are spot on about the sizing based on the median height. In the bad old days, I would have to buy a 62cm+ frame to get a 57 to 58cm tt, now many road bikes are more square with almost equal st and tt sizes. It seems that, in an effort to build suppleness into all road/ gravel bikes, the trend to wider tires has lead to taller wheels. I have converted a 700x23 geometry road frame to 650x38, doubling the volume with a small decrease overall size. Night and day! Better ride while retaining the lively handling. With a 700x32 to 35, you might improve the ride but slow the handling. I am still holding on to 175 cranks though...
I know Jamis started doing this with their gravel bikes. The smaller frames use 650b and the larger frames use 700c. That is one of the reasons why I am a fan of gravel bikes because they are designed around two different wheel sizes. It makes owning one bike for commuting all year round super convenient. For summer commuting I use the narrow 700c wheels and in the winter I switch to wider 650b wheels and I can run the same fenders with both wheel sizes without running into clearance issues with the tires.
49-50 cm frames here 5’6” all torso short legs never bought into the new sizes Good thing I saved all my 80s & 90s steel lugged 26” & 700 rim bikes Always enjoyed the rides if it works why pay into all the hype especially keeping “party pace” Three rings 21 speeds back next week 😳 Sorry I need a granny gear way to often to ever think of changing from the 3 rings 😃 Oh and my rim brakes are just giant disc brakes but lighter right 😜 Great content as always Russ 👍🏻
I ride a sport 29'er iirc i picked it because the gearing was higher than other 29's at the time, best bike I ever rode orders of magnitude above the 26 i had. My cadence is low so having bigger wheels and higher gears allows me to keep up with other people
I used a 305mm (mini 16") for the front wheel on my new compact electric bamboo bike. Rear is 406mm (20"), Big Apples on BMX rims. One issue with super small wheels is that tires cover less distance before wearing out, or maybe that's just the 349mm 16"ers on my recumbent tadpole, which is hard on tires because they remain vertical and don't lean in turns. That means they scrub like car tires on a tight track. I enjoy your channel and attitude about bikes!
I ride a 4.5 inch full suspension all mountain mtb with narrow 26 inch wheels and 1.9 inch low profile tyres from early 2000s. It has 1x10 11-42/34 gearing and high rise and high sweep bars up front. I haul a 30L hiking pack and don flannel shirt, cargo shorts and hiking shoes. No designer technical apparel and bikepacking bag nonsense. An absolute rebel against current gravel bikepacking culture. The adventure is larger than the bike.
Seems like everyone's giving stats, so here goes...5'4" with 27.5 X 2.8 on my hardtail MTB. I don't feel like I'm giving up anything on speed or roll over. Also, I have a pretty much stock size 50 Midnight Special, standover is slim to none....But I don't find that bike is slower with the smaller wheel/ big tires either. I am actually damn near close to top 10ing some road Strava segments where I live. And I'm gonna try just to make a case for flat pedals X vans and smaller wheels X big tires.
My husband has a Formula 1 bike from the late 1980's, has 20 inch wheels. Dispite the less than optimal group set really is quite zippy. Good ergos too. Good video, bike shops will sell misfitting bikes just to move inventory.
I rode 3 or 4, 26 in. tire mountain bikes with front shocks over 40 years. they were stable especially on rough city roads. I now ride a 700 mm wheel Ebike with shocks that is heavy (momentum) and not as manageable as my 26 in. bikes. stick with 26 in. and good shocks for city roads.
This video is excellent summary. Because of PLP I put on a pair of 27.5/650b x 48 on an "all-around" type bike for winter thinking I'd switch back to 700c during the summer. I am still running the 27.5's and love them for poor quality roads bike packing (I only do minimal o/n).. I think there is no one-size fits all but it is nice to see the industry (MTB and "all around") embracing a few choice and some interchangeable options. That said somedays I still enjoy bombing down a steep descent on an aggressive road bike or sending a stupid drop on a full-sus MTB. I really appreciate the work that Russ/PLP have done in creating an place where the "unserious cyclist" curious can find reliable information.
I was surprised by the warning on my friends new road bike "clips must be used to avoid foot fouling front wheel" her new bike had 700c wheels so she had to bother with clips when she would rather had the choice. Way back there were plenty of smaller framed bikes that came with 26" wheels. I'm not sure if there is any disadvantage in smaller wheels for most rides. Smaller wheeled bikes a way easier to tour with if you are taking trains .Also, I love the Mini Velo style for city bikes.
I have a 26 inch 90's hybird with the toe overlap issue and it's even probably a bit of an oversized frame for me. I only wear a 7.5 shoe in women's and. It's 's hard to imagine someone with larger feet on that bike. With my perfectly fit gravel bike on 650B it's not an issue and neither is slamming the bars into my knee. Lol I do love 90s flat bars tho, just think they look cool.
I really like that certain MTB brands are matching different wheel sizes to different frame sizes. A large or XL will have 29" wheels, but a small or XS will have 27.5". I think this is a step in the right direction, as I think that there are a lot of generalizations made about bike geometry without much consideration to the size of the bike and height of the rider. Your centre of gravity thoughts are related to this and hit home for me. My bike and my partner's bike have exactly the same wheelbase even though I'm 6'4" and she's 5'7" and we ride 60cm and 54cm frames respectively. Hers is much more stable and she is a lot more "in the bike" while my frame looks like they just stretched out the seat tube and head tube and called it a day, putting me much higher and making me much less stable given the identical wheelbase. They also steepened the head tube when they did that, so mine isn't as slack as hers, which bugs me. I think putting 650b wheels on her bike and 700c on mine and then making the entire relative geometry of bike AND rider more similar would have been the best possible outcome.
MTB brands matching wheel sizes to frame sizes as you put it - I absolutely hate it. I specifically bought my current mtb hardtail because the brand offered all frame sizes with 27.5 as well as 29in wheels. I choose to ride 27.5 while I'm just over 6 ft tall, if a brand thinks that I'm only allowed a 29er for my height, they are not getting my money.
I think the smaller giroscope turns easier & quicker too,but I'm just happy us shorter riders still have a great selection of tires in the 650b sizing.
👍 on scaling the wheels to the frame size. I'm 6', so generally bigger wheels are not a fit issue for me, but I've always thought that the wheels should scale with the size of the rider.
I can still remember when 29ers first came out seeing a woman who was probably 5.3" standing at an intersection with a 29er...everything about it looked out of proportion.
Strongly agree. I'm 6'3" and never had a mountain bike that really fit me until 29ers came along. I got a Salsa Mariachi about 15 years ago and have never wanted anything else. Wheel size drives frame geometry and there's actually a pretty narrow range of sizes within any wheel size frame that doesn't have to make concessions of geometry.
Really interesting episode. I'm about 6 ft. and ride a 29" Fargo most of the time now. Doing a fair number of 2-300 km overnighters. Recently I did a kayak river run and took out my old dual suspension 26" MTB for the shuttle back to the truck on gravel roads. Could not believe how slow it was compared to my 29". I always thought it's not the bike, it's the motor but apparently, I'm wrong (possibly on both counts).
1. we use to get larger rims with more spokes with a larger hub with tall flanges. 2. taller wheels where first to help lift the bottom bracket, so also one could use longer cranks, and clear on old logging roads water bar ditches on cycle cross, as well as in road racing a block criterium in cornering one could lean and pedal on some corners or twisting road to get ahead of the pack, also on steep hill climbing having longer cranks meant you could get more leverage on your last gear when we only had 2x6 speed. it also was a standard to also give clearance on a velo drome track. thus we used the same size wheels for fall and early spring training cycle cross, and the same size for a indoor velo drome, then back on the normal road training, and for the diffrent road events like time trials, and criterium races, this way teams could also share spare wheel sets when we got a flat in a race. we even had special designed road bikes for going up steep mountain passes, at a time many riders had there bike frames custom made for there body. rather then stock frames.
Nice video and info sharing....I'm with you on so many of your points you've captured. Agree on the pros & cons and on the whys 700c dominates the industry....not enough shorter inseam people making geometry or marketing decisions, otherwise known as too many tall(er) people making those decisions, not considering the rest of the population and putting themselves into our bike shoes. Sounds like I'm similar to you in terms of build: I'm about 5' 7" or 8" but only have a 28" inseam, and have experienced many of the problems you mention. Guess I'm a modern day knuckle-dragger..... "Your world frightens and confuses me...." 😉🙂
There are times, I like to see a resurgence for the e 26" wheel, for travel loaded touring. Yes I have a 700c touring bike and a 29er, MTB. But travel, I like a 26" touring bike with S&S couplers. The 26: wheel will fit in the suitcase that TSA will allow. such as the Surly World Troller, or the Co-motion Pangea. Will the 650 B wheel will the fit in the S&S suitcase?
I think it depends on the application and the user. I used to commute with a 26, it was terrible to maneuver and inefficient (I had a lot of knee pain). But, I understand that for shorter people it should be more comfortable
on a lark I picked up a used 700c wheelset from a friend who was downsizing. It feels faster, not enough to convince me to make any changes but variety is the spice of life. Though it is mostly your fault I went from 26 to 650b, that has been a welcome change. I have an LKLM touring bike built for 26 but after binge watching a bunch of your videos maybe 4 years ago, I slapped some 650bs on that bike and haven't looked back
The difference in wheel diameter means the gear inches are different even if the cogs are the same. If you happened to find a combo of wheel/tire/gears that works well for you, you may be able to recreate it with a smaller wheelset by adjusting the tire size, cogs and chainrings. Maybe even mess with crank length if you wanna use Sheldon's Gain Ratio formula instead.
Tinfoil hat theory - slightly wrong. It's that most of them are "average" dudes. If they were actually tall dudes they would make bikes that fit me. They make bikes that hit the sweet spot of about 5'8" to about 6'2". If you're outside that range on either side, you're gonna have a bad time.
Good job! I will see you a (650X48)mm and raise you a (26 x 1.95)". 26 x1.95 is the sweet spot between weight, momentum, cost, strength, and availability. Oh! ya the stand over is better too. For most riding, because most of your weight is on your back wheel, it is best to size up on the back tire. Example; 26 x 1.95 front with a 26 x 2.1 back. Technically the balanced pressure in the tires it should be a 1.75 front and a 2.1 back. I find that makes your steering a little squirrelly.
Georgena Terry discovered back in the 1980's that the obsession with having wheels of identical diameter front and back is a major limiter of good frame fit for shorter riders. This is especially true for women, but it really comes down to your leg-length-to-torso-length ratio, and many male riders would benefit from a smaller front wheel as well. There's no good reason why front wheels can't be smaller than rear wheels. For many riders, having a larger "drive wheel" and a smaller "steering wheel" would be the best of all worlds.
I've found tire width/volume makes a bigger difference than roll over when it comes to gravel. There is a noticeable difference in rollover between 29er and 27.5/650b when mountain biking, but I tend to have more fun on 27.5+ than a 29er. 29+ is still my favorite though.
I ride both Mtb and gravel bike. I’m 5’7” I run 29/700 on both with the view that I’d I wanted the chunk I can ride the xc Mtb with 29x2.4 but if I wanted to ride the gravel bike it’ll be on smoother gravel. I did at one point own a 650b gravel bike with 2.2 and it was fun and super versatile but at the end of the day it was a jack of all trades. I think ultimately your choices on wheels and tyres come down to many physical and non physical factors. Height, weight terrain, speed, desired comfort, descending ability, aesthetic preferences.
A famous French comic once said “you are not a short person as long as both feet touch the ground” witch related to some of your top tube reference Russ 😜👍🏼👍🏼
Another slight advantage I see is for the same tire width on a smaller wheel, tire circumference is shorter yielding an easier pedal ratio (~5%) in climbs for the same cog/chainring setup on top of the weight saving
Regardless of the wheel size most bikes come with gearing which is sub optimal for the people buying/riding them. Different riders live in areas with different terrain, have different pedaling styles (spinner/masher), amounts of gear carried and different fitness levels. It is entirely possible and recommended to modify one’s bike to better serve the owners purposes. In addition chainrings and cassettes are wear components. Either replace perfectly good equipment or just ride what you have until you wear it out and replace your chain, cassette and chainring(s) with stuff that serves your needs better.
New wheels (even assuming you can convert them without a new frame) cost more in both parts and labor to set them up than a cassette/freewheel with a favorable ratio. And you lose out on the hard end in efficiency and drivetrain life.
I just got a 29er hardtail mountain xc mountain bike to use for touring and the things that surprised me were the really poor steering whilst climbing at low speeds and the high bottom bracket. The combination of sketchy handling and not being to touch the ground when the bike stops is.... disconcerting on narrow single track climbs with big drops off the side. If I was going to ride it a lot as an mtb I would definitely get remote dropper just to make bailing out safer. I'm 6'2".
Unless you specifically increase trail to accommodate a smaller wheel, you absolutely must use a 650b wheel with large excess overall outside diameter, such as the Schwalbe G-one allround in a 57mm width… this tire winds up exactly 700mm diameter.
Good rant! The biggest mistake the bike industry made was giving up on 650c wheels. Back in the 90's and early 2000's, there were a fair number of 650c road bikes. These were great bikes for smaller riders, women riders and tweens and youths.
I must admit I still think that the move to 27.5" and subsequent virtual death of 26" was a silly idea - "We had 26 & 29, pick one!" - but that ship sailed a long time ago I guess. I actually think that riders who are close to 5ft might even be better on 24" wheels, they would certainly save some weight and steer quicker!
Specking different forks, wheels, tires… for new bikes in different sizes costs a *little* more than just doing 1 size. It was cost. A lot of what manufacturers decide to push is simply profit. The easiest way to increase profit is reducing costs. Multiple wheel sizes would serve taller and shorter riders far better. It adds costs. It would also be nice if bikes for shorter riders had narrower handlebars, shorter cranks, possibly lower spoke counts/lighter rims… whereas bigger frames came with wider bars, thicker diameter tubing, wider tires, bigger rotors….
@@stefhirsch6922 Bike companies and bike shops are not profit-generating monoliths like other industries. There's probably still old timers in the business who never want what happened during the bike boom to happen again. That being, the destruction of most of the longstanding American and European bike companies due to getting outcompeted by Japan and Taiwan. SRAM is a frankenstein of dead companies.
@@Aubreykun bike manufacturers are businesses. A successful business doesn’t necessarily make the best stuff - they make money. Thus Klein and Bontrager, who were known for making exceptional quality products went out of business and were bought by Trek and their quality levels dropped. Significantly and rapidly. Their stuff was industry leading in performance but people weren’t buying enough to make ends meet. Why because they made it better. Similar story with Bridgestone. Or when wtb made aftermarket top shelf top $$$ stuff and Steve Potts/Richard Cunningham left so Mark Slate (and some other guy I forgot the name of) shifted the company to lower budget Oem products. Mass volume oem makes more money than selling a handful of top $$$ made in America parts. Back in the mid-late 1990’s cannondale used to use 28 spoke front wheels combined with 32 spoke rears (at least on mountain bikes). That stopped. It wasn’t due to the front wheels failing - ordering different wheels for the front and rear wheels adds costs. Not much but it does add costs. It’s common when working on bikes to have the nipples on the same wheel to require different size spoke wrenches. Surprisingly common. Whatever is cheap is what gets used. Even if they are different sizes. The machine building wheels has basically a big bucket for holding nipples and factory workers just dump more nipples into it when it gets low. Bottom bracket problems are an absolute plague in press fit carbon fiber bikes. Carbon fiber can’t be molded with the precision necessary for a trouble free bottom bracket (or headset/head tube) - it requires machining to properly ensure that the frame isn’t going to be a squeaking, creaking piece of junk that requires replacing the bearings on every few weeks/months. A properly faced head tube/bottom bracket shell combined with a decent quality well adjusted bottom bracket/headset should last a minimum of 25,000 miles/40,000km without trouble. Consistently. Heck most metal frames are at 0.25” out of alignment. New from the factory. Too accurately measure said frame alignment requires a frame alignment table which bike shops RARELY have. For what many bicycles cost the quality is vastly lacking. I say these things with 22 years of bike industry experience.
@@stefhirsch6922 I understand all of that, but what I was referring to was in the 70s thru early 80s when east asian manufacturers absolutely annihilated everyone else. Few companies that were around before the bike boom survived until the turn of the millenium and fewer lasted much longer. Everyone likes to talk about the golden age of the like, upstart dudes making bikes - early Trek, Grant-era Bridgestone and so on - but that's really only part of the story.
At 5' tall your "tin foil hat' theory feels spot on. There's not a whole lot of options and my personal experience says most LBS aren't likely to have those sizes in stock regularly. It's very difficult to find a bike that fits and handles well. I'm short enough that water bottle cages on the top tube are a joke of an idea even on step over frames and tail lights that conveniently strap on seat tubes are mostly blocked by rack and bags. My current bike has 650b and handles better than past bikes with 700. Much better fit for me.
You're spot on about the bottle cages - my gf is 5'8 with about a 33 inseam but still struggles with standover on her 27.5 e-MTB. The top tube has to be a certain height to clear the downtube-mounted battery, fair enough, but some design genius put the bike's only pair of bottle bosses on the top tube! Needless to say we have not made use of these..!
So should we tall guys stick with 700C? I am 6'2'' with a 34 inch inseam. I currently commute on the only bike I have, a hardtail 29er mountain bike, which fits me very well. However, I am interested in buying a gravel bike to be more efficient on the roads and still have the ability to do the occasional singletrack on weekends.
@@PathLessPedaledTV Do you think going to smaller wheels and thus a lower trail setup ever has a negative effect on handling? I know you talked about handling a bit but I am not sure how trail factors into that. I suppose it only matters if you are putting 650b wheels on a bike originally meant for 700c wheels, which maybe is a whole other conversation...l
I remember in your PLP talk with Crust Bikes he said he had built 6 gravel bikes around a 24" wheel size and they had sold out in minutes. I think the design height used is 5'10" so the further you inch away from that (pun intended) the more distorted things become. Connor from GCN never looks comfortable to me.
24" is used in Trials and some people use it for Urban Assault Bike builds. It's a nice sturdy compromise between the rugged high acceleration of BMX and the control and rollover of a 26.
Everytime I go bike shopping for a 26" wheeled bike, I get a speech about how the bigger wheels are better. Guess what? They don't fit in my car, or I don't own spares for other sizes. I'm tired of the entire bike shop industry. I end up not buying a new bike.
Generally I find that bike shops assume I'm an idiot because most customers know almost nothing about their/their kids' bikes. And some try to upsell or avoid doing certain work by banking on the idea that I don't know what they're talking about.
This is the thing that amazes me. Seems like a lot of money left on the table by the refusal to appropriately size bikes for a huge portion of the customer base. (Works the same with the clothing industry, incidentally.)
Thanks! Could definitely benefit from a more stable/durable wheel since I'm on the heavier side of life, at least for road rides. On the gravel or slightly chunky gravel rides I would feel more comfortable with a bigger wheel simply for pedal clearance from the ground while pedaling.
At 6' I'm always finding used bikes my size. But in the last year I've helped someone 5'2" and someone else 6'6" look for a bike and it is so much harder to find.
idk why tall dudes even ride bikes, they can just run with their long ass legs everywhere they need to go anyway and probably still be faster than us shorties on bikes.
Russ, one thing you didn't touch on is using 650b wheels and how that affects BB height and pedal clearance. On a bike designed for 700c/29" wheels, switching to smaller wheels obviously negatively affects BB height and pedal clearance. You've ridden a lot of both and, I'm assuming also, put 650b wheels onto bikes that were designed for 700c. I'm really interested in your thoughts on what happens with BB height and pedal clearance when you make that change. I plan on a gravel bike purchase next year and am considering 650b because I'm heavier (about 230 lbs) and am going to do loaded touring. So, the extra strength and lighter weight is what I'm after. I'm also 5'10", so I don't need 650b for bike fit. Riding "mountain bike" terrain I'd never consider swapping to 650b/26" wheels on a bike made for 700c/29" wheels. On a gravel bike, I think it might be a viable option IF there's not a downside to BB height and pedal clearance. I would not want to have to switch to shorter crank arms to make it work. Your thoughts?
As an enduro bro, I cannot agree with you more. Yeah 29ers can roll over just about anything (as if line choice isn't a thing) but you also sacrifice a nimble feeling bike you can whip around. On hard bottom outs from jumps or drops, my butt always buzzes from 700c but on my 650b I rarely have that issue. Don't get why bike companies don't have new frames with 26in compatibility would love a 27.5/26 mullet. I guess that is what happens when bike companies are only concerned about how fast the bike is rather than how fun it is.
@@maaduece5132 It's similar to the track/TT market catering to people who try to go pro. Few people actually go to bike parks and velodromes. Those that do can afford the cost of either the expensive real estate near them (location, location, location) or the massive expense and time off of work to travel to them. Many towns have ordinances against using bikes on local nature trails and even park footpaths.
I ride off pavement on 26x 2.4", 650Bx48mm, and 700Cx35mm. They are all about the same diameter and also fairly nimble. The tire/bike I chose depends on how chonky things get!
I don't think it's just me but I think that smaller wheels have quite a bit less Rolling resistance. For example I base this thought on comparing my two mountain bikes that I ride on the same trail. First one is a FS 29er. Second one is my 1990s Ridgid MTB with 26" .Both are running on WTB trail boss 2.25 tires. I run the 29er tire with a slightly lower pressure than the 26. Both are at the same appropriate firmness level I like. On the smooth flats its not even close the 26" guides over the path where as the 29er requires more effort and feels like the front tire is plowing the trail as compared to the 26 inch. With the 26 inch I'm able to coast through some sections whereas the 29er boggs down noticeably. I feel it takes less pedaling and less effort with the 26". I think it's due to the smaller front contact patch of the 26 inch. When it's rocky and rough, 29er rollover matters on the rest of the trail.
@@juancommuterindavao For sure the math adds up to larger wheels having a higher speed potential. I just found it interesting that in my case with the same model tires on both my bikes the 26 inch tire took less effort to peddle over hard pack and would coast further with the same (other than diameter) model tire than my 29er. The trail I'm referring to is mostly decomposed granite with some light sand.
@@noelbrown6771 there are typically different tires of the same tread pattern that have vastly different construction. Just because the tread looks the same doesn’t mean that the casing and rubber compound is the same. Also hub drag can vary wildly. Do the bikes have similar tubes/tubeless sealant? Different tubes have significant differences in rolling friction. Are the brakes dragging? In addition aerodynamics makes a big difference. At 14mph on pavement (on a road bike) 70% of your energy goes to air drag with significantly greater as speeds increase. The number that I’m familiar with is that a 29” wheel will typically roll with 6% less drag than a 26” (not including air drag). That said different tires of the same size can easily have a 10%+ difference in SPEED.
@@stefhirsch6922 So both sets of tires are running standard cheap tubes. The 29ers wheels are wider, so the total tire width is 2.5 inches. The 26" is at 2.3 inches total width. The tire nobbs are the same height. Brakes are clear, no rubbing. Hey, 29ers are great don't get me wrong. The obstacle rollover and the bigger contact area of their tires pays big dividends on the climbs around the turns and on the Brakes for sure. That said, with that wonderful fat contact area comes some extra friction, that's really only perceptible to me on the flat hardback sections where I ride. On the days I switch it up and ride the bike with the 26 inch tires that's the only way I think I would had noticed that it flows easier through those areas of the trail than the 29er.
On a similar theme, crank arm lengths are my pet hate ! As a small rider needing a S or XS frame you get if you are lucky 165mm but mostly 170mm ! With no option this is like asking a medium size rider/ frame to use 185mm cranks, which is utterly ridiculous! To the point i pretty much give up . My single speed Pearson Hanzo is a great bike but best i could get was 165mm cranks which are just about ok but 160mm would be so much better ! Can bike shops help ? Not really they look at me with blank looks , having little clue what i am on about ?
Is 650B for gravel/all-road now out of favor? Man, it was all the rage just a couple years ago. I remember when the Midnight Special came out, it was such a big deal. Personally I love my 650Bx48 size 50 drop bar gravel rig - I ride it everywhere, including many places I shouldn't. Anyhow, I had no idea the bloom was off the 650B rose in the bike industry.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Love this, Russ. I am 5'6" and I've thought about starting a RUclips channel called Short Cyclist Issues. It is absolutely ridiculous how difficult it can be to find appropriate fitting bikes and components for short riders. And to your last point, the bike shops are usually staffed by very tall dudes.
Come in asia and get your gear here bro 😊
Correct. I m 5’5’’ and shorter people have problems finding proper gear.
@@jfouellette5174 you'll find lots here 😊
I'm also 5'6", we have it GOOD compared to those shorter! 29ers are out, but everything else has an option that's ok.
5'6" isn't short. That's right sized. Carry on.
I'm 5' 4" and I bought my first cyclocross bike in the fall of '98. I loved taking that bike out on single track but the tire/toe overlap was a huge issue on tight turns as the bike was designed around traditional 700c wheels. Independent Fabrication was designing their cyclocross bikes around 26" MTB wheels for shorter riders around '99-'01 maybe '02 but their innovation was killed by the USCF and probably UCI because the racing federations deemed the 26" wheel size on cyclocross bike to be illegal to race on and IF went back to 700c wheels for their smaller frames, which was a huge set back for shorter riders, imho. I bought a 49cm Planet X designed around 26" MTB wheels in the fall of '00 and it quickly became my baby. I have ridden my Planet X on some fairly demanding terrain which I would only ride on my Steelman Manzanita because I learned to ride a MTB on a rigid frame. I'm turning 50 next year and I have the components to keep both of my 26" wheeled babies going for the rest of my life.
Russ, I discovered your channel about 4 or 5 months and I've enjoyed several of your videos. Keep up the good work!
I have a 26" and a 29" full suspension. I prefer the 26". I can accelerate out of turns quicker which works well on my local trails.
same experience here, 26 is snappier and easier to avoid obstacles
Agreed, Russ. Mountain Bike Action Magazine did a several page article back I 1990 or so where they landed on 24” as the ideal all road /MTB wheel size🤗
Seventy + years old and still on 26 inch on two bicycles and 20' on a folder. Went through 650 sizes and 700c back in the past on european bicycles, tried them again for a few years, stayed with the current Bicycles. Frame size and fork rake are important for me. Fads come and go it is the cycle of business for anything bicycle related, who knows what will be "In again" in 10 ->20 years time.
Another thing its all about ,trend ,fashion etc who's got latest ..looking at other channels all they say ,you need this that the other to go faster never talk about enjoyment...keep up the brilliant work ...and love cycling!!
Russ, this was well done and very helpful. I just bought a 20" tire E-bike. I was hoping for 24" but this one had all the things I wanted otherwise. 750 watt, 95NM torquer, hydraulic breaks, 54 volts, and so much more at a descent price. I"ve been worried that maybe the smaller wheels will look silly (I'm 5-8) and be like a kids bike. But after watching this I feel better about my purchase.
I will add that a frame/fork for 26” wheels is going to be stronger than similar construction for 700. With bigger wheels the axle to crown length increases (in addition to the radius of the wheel) which provides a longer lever to stresses on the fork and front triangle. In order to get similar rigidity larger diameter/thicker walled tubing is required - both of which add weight. For the rear triangle the chainstay and seatstay bridges are able to be a bit closer to the mid point of their respective tubes. This significantly increases strength and rigidity without adding weight or complexity. I will also add that (more of an issue for mountain bikes but still applies to gravel as well) that it’s easier to have clearance for wider tires, chainrings, crankarm /chainstay. Yes those compromises can be made successfully. It’s easier to make a rear triangle which successfully meets all of those parameters with smaller wheels. I will also add that when using hub brakes smaller wheels improve braking power.
Very clear, intelligent and informative discussion of wheel size
Dude. I REALLY like that bike. Just the right amount of shine and chonk wrapped up in one serving of awesomeness.
26 ain’t dead / mtbbro 😅
I have two fixies. One with 700c the other with 26” wheels. The one with the 26” is by far more pleasant to ride, even though the gearing is pretty much the same and the 700c bike has a better frame. X factor has to be the wheels
Well no shit. The smaller wheels have a shorter circumference, which in practice is basically the same effect as reducing the final drive ratio in a car. Makes all the gears in the cassette easier, and since you have a fixie, having one gear that is easy enough to pedal is incredibly important.
I repeat; the gearing is the same, even allowing for the difference in the circumference of the wheels. However, the 26” does spin up quicker and feels more nimble. No shit.
as predominantly a tourer on paved and various dirt gravel stuff, I still love my 26in Surly Troll in dropbar mode. No toe overlap with fenders, and lower gearing overall with smaller wheels. Are my wheels stronger than bigger wheels, who knows, but touring in Latin America with more stuff than usual, the wheels held up great, but as you say, build and rider weight play a part. For my 5 ft wife, 26 really does work well for her XS frame. For the riding I do, 26 still works well, but it's also what I have. Tire choice limited, but not terrible.
LONG LIVE 26 INCH!!! My city cruiser is an old steel Hard Rock with a new 100mm fork and 26x2.15" Schwalbe Big Bens. It's such a comfy bike, and being a short rider it's the only bike that I've never crashed on from toe overlap.
I recently replaced 700с with 650b hunt wheels for my Wolverine and it’s really amazing.
I’m always amazed that 50cm frames are the smallest many companies make. I’m 5’6 and sometimes those feel a bit big - depending on the frame. I’m not tall of course, but I’m also taller than a lot of people I know.
Looking at the hunt 650s how are they? Did you get the carbon ones?
@@vindogg80 no. The hunt mason adventure wheel set. The price difference for carbon was bonkers especially given the minimal difference in weight
@@dougcohenmiller alot more differences between the two than weight but I see your point for sure.
If you look at Bicycle Quarterly/ Jan Heine- He studied wheel size and speed. There was no difference in roll down speed between large and small wheels. Everyone keeps saying larger wheels roll faster and not true. Large wheels may be better on mountain bike trails with large rocks etc but that is a different issue.
Another issue is that large tires on large wheels change handling. I have a bike with 700x44 tires. You can not throw it from side when climbing standing- it just wants to stay straight. I had 38mm tires before and the difference with going up to 44 is significant. My 650x48 bike handles “normally” when standing.
One last point is that in terms of best all around tire size, something like 700x25 is considered best overall for all sorts of handling property compromises. As pointed out in Bicycle Quarterly, 2.2x26/ 650x42-48 and 700c road tires all have about the same final diameter but the smaller wheels allow for larger plush tires- and premium wide tires roll as fast as premium narrow tires without the rock hard pressures=the supple life
That usually depends on the frame. Some have ridiculous amounts of clearance, particularly older frames that took 27x1-1/4 (622-32) tires and some low-mid range hybrid or cruiser frames that do over 60mm in 700c/29er.
I honestly think that 26" MTBs feel amazing.
Counterpoint: Drivetrain efficiency. It's easier to make easier gear ratios that feel good than it is to make harder gear ratios that feel good. Every tooth under 14 in the back is nonlinearly way less efficient and durable, and an extreme difference between the front and rear gears adds more inefficiency. You also start to lose ground clearance without making the frame tippy by making the wheels small and chainring(s) huge. On the other end of the gearing range, imagine a massive pie plate on a 29er Fatbike to use an extreme example. It will be a way more efficient drivetrain for the same gear inches or gain ratio than a 16" brompton with a more modest granny gear.
I completely agree with everything that you said and have lived it. I mounted 700x50c tires on my Seven Evergreen and and I’ll probably been having those rebuilt with 650b hoops and subsequently new tires. It was way more tire and size that I needed for gravel and if I wanted to bike pack or explore looser terrain, sure more roll over but more awkward for short people on smaller frames. My 29er hardtail’s are in a entirely deferent category and I can plow through the more difficult terrain on riser bars plus progressive Geo with confidence that I can’t relate to with drop bars and all day pedaling Geo.
Thanks again for sticking to real user experience and not bs.
Can't agree with you more on all points, Russ. All of my MTBs have 26" wheelsets. Once owned a 29er hardtail, liked the larger contact patch / traction in corners, but hated the toe overlap and the added size and weight of the wheels and tires that made the bike feel like a pig on climbs. Lastly, how about adding a "THANKS" feature to your channel? I'm not into patches and would prefer to support you more directly through the THANKS feature or picking up a t-shirt from your store.
It's such an understated point that shorter riders probably do not need all the extra weight/bulk of heavier materials and components. Does a 50cm bike need to be rated for 300 pounds bike + rider + gear just like a 60cm bike?
@@qcriverrat A good point. And when structural beams are shorter (top and bottom tubes), they are stiffer. So you'd think frame tubes could be smaller diameter and or thinner walled. That said, I think cyclists in general are overly concerned about weight.
@@wturber I think Russ has said in his videos about Jamis bikes that they actually do take this into account with their frames - the smaller ones use smaller tubing. (I might need to get on of theirs.) That being said, I'm trying to make my Marrakesh 52cm work for me and it is just obscenely heavy for what I need. Even self-containing on Ragbrai, I'm 150 pounds + 35 lbs gear. If I had mounts I could haul that on my Pacer, I'm sure. I'm not a weight weeny (I love my Ogre), but the Marrakesh is ridiculously overbuilt for a smaller rider.
@@qcriverrat Tell me how much lighter you think the bike would be if properly built to scale for a smaller rider? Also - getting back to the point of this video - are you running 700c or smaller wheels?
@@wturber Most steel gravel bikes seem to be about 25 pounds. That would work for me.
I have 650b wheels ordered and at the LBS, hopefully they're finished building them soon.
I changed from 700c to 650b I lose top speed but on the climbs It's Wonderful
My favorite bike for commuting was a Raleigh DL-1 (although the rod brakes weren't great). That bike had huge wheels and very slack geometry. As a taller person, it worked out really well for me. My daughter is 5' (152cm), so she has had trouble finding a bike that handles well for her. I'm glad there are many wheel size options. If you are buying, try out as many different bikes as you can at a bike shop. Borrow your friends bike, then borrow your non-friends bike. You'll be happy you did!
I'm 5'4" with a 26er, perfect for commuting in a city where you have to frequently stop for traffic.
Another great video Russ. And I can attest to being a shorter rider and the benefits you spoke of. I totally agree with the trade-off thinking about bicycles, with speed (and weight) being one of many considerations. I’m in the process of building a bike right now and it’s going to have 26 inch wheels believe it or not. 🚲
Shorties are more down to earth. Love the videos! Especially the flyfishing and bike packing. I just got a 90s Marin and cant wait to partypace all summer catching fish in the Sun. Much thanks from Glasgow, Scotland!
I roll on a 29+ Jones, a 26x4 Pugs, and a 20x2.4 Neutrino. They’re all fun. The only blanket statement I can make about wheels is that two is better than four.
Agreed! Preach brother. I ride a Chumba Terlingua steel gravel bike. I have two sets of 650b wheels and love em. It makes my smooth bike super smooth. During gravel races I worry about nothing, cant remember the last flat and on the road, sure I loose a smidge of speed, but very little. Climbing is one area people forget, GCN did a show on this and you'll find 650b accelerate much quicker when climbing. Not knocking 700c especially for larger riders, but I a 5'9 with short legs I would never go back.
54 Surly Midnight Special with 650b. 5'10". Love it. Also love running 45 psi and eating up the bumps. That bike is like a comfy pair of jeans, whereas my road bike's 23s are like dress pants. Great in the right situation, but those situations are less ubiquitous. I find I'd rather take my steel fendered bike on a century over my graphite rocket. At the end of the day I have to go with comfort!
I have also felt that on the bike and not in the bike when riding bikes with bigger wheel/tire diameter than I am used to. As a smaller person at 5'6" I have also owned bikes with slacker HT angles in the sizes I ride. Great points all around.
Agree! I love the handling and ride feel of 650b wheels. I was a roadie for 30 years and only when I got a Cervelo designed with 650c wheels did I experience the kind of handling that they talked about in reviews--(of the medium and large sizes;) In addition, I really was sensitive to the increased wheel flop of a 700c wheel with a 42-50 tire on my gravel bike. I felt a significant decrease in the feel of wheel flop in my carbon 650b wheels. I hope that I never have to give up my 650b wheels.
Another reason I went for the ICAN Cycling G23 650 wheels on my Trek Boone was easier to fit the wheels in my travel bike case. I use the Orucase Airport Ninja and it's a compact case.
Great video. Smaller wheels are underrated. My everyday bike has 20 inch wheels and I’m more than happy with it. Asia and Europe have many smaller wheeled bikes.
My Kona Sutra LTD (size 54, 5’11 height) felt waay better with a 27.5 2.6 tire than with 29 2.2, super fast acceleration and a bb height much closer to 700x40. Could likely have gone narrower 2.25-2.4, but wanted to maintain a similar trail number.
You are spot on about the sizing based on the median height. In the bad old days, I would have to buy a 62cm+ frame to get a 57 to 58cm tt, now many road bikes are more square with almost equal st and tt sizes. It seems that, in an effort to build suppleness into all road/ gravel bikes, the trend to wider tires has lead to taller wheels. I have converted a 700x23 geometry road frame to 650x38, doubling the volume with a small decrease overall size. Night and day! Better ride while retaining the lively handling. With a 700x32 to 35, you might improve the ride but slow the handling. I am still holding on to 175 cranks though...
I know Jamis started doing this with their gravel bikes. The smaller frames use 650b and the larger frames use 700c. That is one of the reasons why I am a fan of gravel bikes because they are designed around two different wheel sizes. It makes owning one bike for commuting all year round super convenient. For summer commuting I use the narrow 700c wheels and in the winter I switch to wider 650b wheels and I can run the same fenders with both wheel sizes without running into clearance issues with the tires.
49-50 cm frames here 5’6”
all torso short legs never bought into the new sizes
Good thing I saved all my 80s & 90s steel lugged 26” & 700 rim bikes
Always enjoyed the rides if it works why pay into all the hype especially keeping “party pace”
Three rings 21 speeds back next week 😳
Sorry I need a granny gear way to often to ever think of changing from the 3 rings 😃
Oh and my rim brakes are just giant disc brakes but lighter right 😜
Great content as always Russ 👍🏻
I ride a sport 29'er iirc i picked it because the gearing was higher than other 29's at the time, best bike I ever rode orders of magnitude above the 26 i had. My cadence is low so having bigger wheels and higher gears allows me to keep up with other people
I used a 305mm (mini 16") for the front wheel on my new compact electric bamboo bike. Rear is 406mm (20"), Big Apples on BMX rims.
One issue with super small wheels is that tires cover less distance before wearing out, or maybe that's just the 349mm 16"ers on my recumbent tadpole, which is hard on tires because they remain vertical and don't lean in turns. That means they scrub like car tires on a tight track. I enjoy your channel and attitude about bikes!
I ride a 4.5 inch full suspension all mountain mtb with narrow 26 inch wheels and 1.9 inch low profile tyres from early 2000s. It has 1x10 11-42/34 gearing and high rise and high sweep bars up front. I haul a 30L hiking pack and don flannel shirt, cargo shorts and hiking shoes. No designer technical apparel and bikepacking bag nonsense. An absolute rebel against current gravel bikepacking culture. The adventure is larger than the bike.
Seems like everyone's giving stats, so here goes...5'4" with 27.5 X 2.8 on my hardtail MTB. I don't feel like I'm giving up anything on speed or roll over. Also, I have a pretty much stock size 50 Midnight Special, standover is slim to none....But I don't find that bike is slower with the smaller wheel/ big tires either. I am actually damn near close to top 10ing some road Strava segments where I live. And I'm gonna try just to make a case for flat pedals X vans and smaller wheels X big tires.
just switched from a 700cx25mm bike to a 650bx47mm--love the 650b, where was this back in the 70's... :)
My husband has a Formula 1 bike from the late 1980's, has 20 inch wheels. Dispite the less than optimal group set really is quite zippy. Good ergos too. Good video, bike shops will sell misfitting bikes just to move inventory.
I rode 3 or 4, 26 in. tire mountain bikes with front shocks over 40 years. they were stable especially on rough city roads. I now ride a 700 mm wheel Ebike with shocks that is heavy (momentum) and not as manageable as my 26 in. bikes. stick with 26 in. and good shocks for city roads.
This video is excellent summary. Because of PLP I put on a pair of 27.5/650b x 48 on an "all-around" type bike for winter thinking I'd switch back to 700c during the summer. I am still running the 27.5's and love them for poor quality roads bike packing (I only do minimal o/n).. I think there is no one-size fits all but it is nice to see the industry (MTB and "all around") embracing a few choice and some interchangeable options. That said somedays I still enjoy bombing down a steep descent on an aggressive road bike or sending a stupid drop on a full-sus MTB. I really appreciate the work that Russ/PLP have done in creating an place where the "unserious cyclist" curious can find reliable information.
I was surprised by the warning on my friends new road bike "clips must be used to avoid foot fouling front wheel" her new bike had 700c wheels so she had to bother with clips when she would rather had the choice. Way back there were plenty of smaller framed bikes that came with 26" wheels. I'm not sure if there is any disadvantage in smaller wheels for most rides. Smaller wheeled bikes a way easier to tour with if you are taking trains .Also, I love the Mini Velo style for city bikes.
I have a 26 inch 90's hybird with the toe overlap issue and it's even probably a bit of an oversized frame for me. I only wear a 7.5 shoe in women's and. It's 's hard to imagine someone with larger feet on that bike. With my perfectly fit gravel bike on 650B it's not an issue and neither is slamming the bars into my knee. Lol I do love 90s flat bars tho, just think they look cool.
I really like that certain MTB brands are matching different wheel sizes to different frame sizes. A large or XL will have 29" wheels, but a small or XS will have 27.5". I think this is a step in the right direction, as I think that there are a lot of generalizations made about bike geometry without much consideration to the size of the bike and height of the rider.
Your centre of gravity thoughts are related to this and hit home for me. My bike and my partner's bike have exactly the same wheelbase even though I'm 6'4" and she's 5'7" and we ride 60cm and 54cm frames respectively. Hers is much more stable and she is a lot more "in the bike" while my frame looks like they just stretched out the seat tube and head tube and called it a day, putting me much higher and making me much less stable given the identical wheelbase. They also steepened the head tube when they did that, so mine isn't as slack as hers, which bugs me.
I think putting 650b wheels on her bike and 700c on mine and then making the entire relative geometry of bike AND rider more similar would have been the best possible outcome.
MTB brands matching wheel sizes to frame sizes as you put it - I absolutely hate it. I specifically bought my current mtb hardtail because the brand offered all frame sizes with 27.5 as well as 29in wheels. I choose to ride 27.5 while I'm just over 6 ft tall, if a brand thinks that I'm only allowed a 29er for my height, they are not getting my money.
I think the smaller giroscope turns easier & quicker too,but I'm just happy us shorter riders still have a great selection of tires in the 650b sizing.
👍 on scaling the wheels to the frame size. I'm 6', so generally bigger wheels are not a fit issue for me, but I've always thought that the wheels should scale with the size of the rider.
I can still remember when 29ers first came out seeing a woman who was probably 5.3" standing at an intersection with a 29er...everything about it looked out of proportion.
Strongly agree. I'm 6'3" and never had a mountain bike that really fit me until 29ers came along. I got a Salsa Mariachi about 15 years ago and have never wanted anything else. Wheel size drives frame geometry and there's actually a pretty narrow range of sizes within any wheel size frame that doesn't have to make concessions of geometry.
Really interesting episode. I'm about 6 ft. and ride a 29" Fargo most of the time now. Doing a fair number of 2-300 km overnighters. Recently I did a kayak river run and took out my old dual suspension 26" MTB for the shuttle back to the truck on gravel roads. Could not believe how slow it was compared to my 29". I always thought it's not the bike, it's the motor but apparently, I'm wrong (possibly on both counts).
1. we use to get larger rims with more spokes with a larger hub with tall flanges. 2. taller wheels where first to help lift the bottom bracket, so also one could use longer cranks, and clear on old logging roads water bar ditches on cycle cross, as well as in road racing a block criterium in cornering one could lean and pedal on some corners or twisting road to get ahead of the pack, also on steep hill climbing having longer cranks meant you could get more leverage on your last gear when we only had 2x6 speed. it also was a standard to also give clearance on a velo drome track. thus we used the same size wheels for fall and early spring training cycle cross, and the same size for a indoor velo drome, then back on the normal road training, and for the diffrent road events like time trials, and criterium races, this way teams could also share spare wheel sets when we got a flat in a race. we even had special designed road bikes for going up steep mountain passes, at a time many riders had there bike frames custom made for there body. rather then stock frames.
Nice video and info sharing....I'm with you on so many of your points you've captured. Agree on the pros & cons and on the whys 700c dominates the industry....not enough shorter inseam people making geometry or marketing decisions, otherwise known as too many tall(er) people making those decisions, not considering the rest of the population and putting themselves into our bike shoes. Sounds like I'm similar to you in terms of build: I'm about 5' 7" or 8" but only have a 28" inseam, and have experienced many of the problems you mention. Guess I'm a modern day knuckle-dragger..... "Your world frightens and confuses me...." 😉🙂
I remember you talking about those bars in a different video.. but what bars are they again?
There are times, I like to see a resurgence for the e 26" wheel, for travel loaded touring. Yes I have a 700c touring bike and a 29er, MTB. But travel, I like a 26" touring bike with S&S couplers. The 26: wheel will fit in the suitcase that TSA will allow. such as the Surly World Troller, or the Co-motion Pangea. Will the 650 B wheel will the fit in the S&S suitcase?
Does anyone have any opinions on which wheel size suits a Surly Bridge Club best? Greatly appreciate it
tall or short
what kind of handlebar is that?
As a tall dude let me assure you that none of the bike companies are particularly concerned with making bikes for anyone over 6’2” or so.
Hello Russ, what are the narrowest and widest tires that you use? A video describing all the different tires that you're using would be a nice one!
I think it depends on the application and the user. I used to commute with a 26, it was terrible to maneuver and inefficient (I had a lot of knee pain). But, I understand that for shorter people it should be more comfortable
on a lark I picked up a used 700c wheelset from a friend who was downsizing. It feels faster, not enough to convince me to make any changes but variety is the spice of life. Though it is mostly your fault I went from 26 to 650b, that has been a welcome change. I have an LKLM touring bike built for 26 but after binge watching a bunch of your videos maybe 4 years ago, I slapped some 650bs on that bike and haven't looked back
The difference in wheel diameter means the gear inches are different even if the cogs are the same. If you happened to find a combo of wheel/tire/gears that works well for you, you may be able to recreate it with a smaller wheelset by adjusting the tire size, cogs and chainrings. Maybe even mess with crank length if you wanna use Sheldon's Gain Ratio formula instead.
@@Aubreykun tomorrow is Sheldon Brown's Birthday, get out and ride to honor him
Tinfoil hat theory - slightly wrong. It's that most of them are "average" dudes. If they were actually tall dudes they would make bikes that fit me. They make bikes that hit the sweet spot of about 5'8" to about 6'2". If you're outside that range on either side, you're gonna have a bad time.
Good job! I will see you a (650X48)mm and raise you a (26 x 1.95)". 26 x1.95 is the sweet spot between weight, momentum, cost, strength, and availability. Oh! ya the stand over is better too.
For most riding, because most of your weight is on your back wheel, it is best to size up on the back tire. Example; 26 x 1.95 front with a 26 x 2.1 back. Technically the balanced pressure in the tires it should be a 1.75 front and a 2.1 back. I find that makes your steering a little squirrelly.
650b front 26 rear works great for my drop bar mountain bike with 2.35" tires
Georgena Terry discovered back in the 1980's that the obsession with having wheels of identical diameter front and back is a major limiter of good frame fit for shorter riders. This is especially true for women, but it really comes down to your leg-length-to-torso-length ratio, and many male riders would benefit from a smaller front wheel as well. There's no good reason why front wheels can't be smaller than rear wheels. For many riders, having a larger "drive wheel" and a smaller "steering wheel" would be the best of all worlds.
I've found tire width/volume makes a bigger difference than roll over when it comes to gravel. There is a noticeable difference in rollover between 29er and 27.5/650b when mountain biking, but I tend to have more fun on 27.5+ than a 29er. 29+ is still my favorite though.
That is a correct use of the term center of gravity (from an engineer).
I ride both Mtb and gravel bike. I’m 5’7” I run 29/700 on both with the view that I’d I wanted the chunk I can ride the xc Mtb with 29x2.4 but if I wanted to ride the gravel bike it’ll be on smoother gravel.
I did at one point own a 650b gravel bike with 2.2 and it was fun and super versatile but at the end of the day it was a jack of all trades.
I think ultimately your choices on wheels and tyres come down to many physical and non physical factors. Height, weight terrain, speed, desired comfort, descending ability, aesthetic preferences.
A famous French comic once said “you are not a short person as long as both feet touch the ground” witch related to some of your top tube reference Russ 😜👍🏼👍🏼
Another slight advantage I see is for the same tire width on a smaller wheel, tire circumference is shorter yielding an easier pedal ratio (~5%) in climbs for the same cog/chainring setup on top of the weight saving
Regardless of the wheel size most bikes come with gearing which is sub optimal for the people buying/riding them. Different riders live in areas with different terrain, have different pedaling styles (spinner/masher), amounts of gear carried and different fitness levels. It is entirely possible and recommended to modify one’s bike to better serve the owners purposes. In addition chainrings and cassettes are wear components. Either replace perfectly good equipment or just ride what you have until you wear it out and replace your chain, cassette and chainring(s) with stuff that serves your needs better.
New wheels (even assuming you can convert them without a new frame) cost more in both parts and labor to set them up than a cassette/freewheel with a favorable ratio. And you lose out on the hard end in efficiency and drivetrain life.
Proportional, it just makes so much sense 👍
I just got a 29er hardtail mountain xc mountain bike to use for touring and the things that surprised me were the really poor steering whilst climbing at low speeds and the high bottom bracket. The combination of sketchy handling and not being to touch the ground when the bike stops is.... disconcerting on narrow single track climbs with big drops off the side. If I was going to ride it a lot as an mtb I would definitely get remote dropper just to make bailing out safer. I'm 6'2".
Even on MTB terrain... smaller wheels have the advantage of being more maneuverable, & accelerate faster.
Unless you specifically increase trail to accommodate a smaller wheel, you absolutely must use a 650b wheel with large excess overall outside diameter, such as the Schwalbe G-one allround in a 57mm width… this tire winds up exactly 700mm diameter.
Remember when mullet bikes were 24" rear, 26" front?
Good rant! The biggest mistake the bike industry made was giving up on 650c wheels. Back in the 90's and early 2000's, there were a fair number of 650c road bikes. These were great bikes for smaller riders, women riders and tweens and youths.
I must admit I still think that the move to 27.5" and subsequent virtual death of 26" was a silly idea - "We had 26 & 29, pick one!" - but that ship sailed a long time ago I guess. I actually think that riders who are close to 5ft might even be better on 24" wheels, they would certainly save some weight and steer quicker!
It was marketing. Create a need and then supply the solution.
Specking different forks, wheels, tires… for new bikes in different sizes costs a *little* more than just doing 1 size. It was cost. A lot of what manufacturers decide to push is simply profit. The easiest way to increase profit is reducing costs. Multiple wheel sizes would serve taller and shorter riders far better. It adds costs. It would also be nice if bikes for shorter riders had narrower handlebars, shorter cranks, possibly lower spoke counts/lighter rims… whereas bigger frames came with wider bars, thicker diameter tubing, wider tires, bigger rotors….
@@stefhirsch6922 Bike companies and bike shops are not profit-generating monoliths like other industries. There's probably still old timers in the business who never want what happened during the bike boom to happen again.
That being, the destruction of most of the longstanding American and European bike companies due to getting outcompeted by Japan and Taiwan. SRAM is a frankenstein of dead companies.
@@Aubreykun bike manufacturers are businesses. A successful business doesn’t necessarily make the best stuff - they make money. Thus Klein and Bontrager, who were known for making exceptional quality products went out of business and were bought by Trek and their quality levels dropped. Significantly and rapidly. Their stuff was industry leading in performance but people weren’t buying enough to make ends meet. Why because they made it better. Similar story with Bridgestone. Or when wtb made aftermarket top shelf top $$$ stuff and Steve Potts/Richard Cunningham left so Mark Slate (and some other guy I forgot the name of) shifted the company to lower budget Oem products. Mass volume oem makes more money than selling a handful of top $$$ made in America parts. Back in the mid-late 1990’s cannondale used to use 28 spoke front wheels combined with 32 spoke rears (at least on mountain bikes). That stopped. It wasn’t due to the front wheels failing - ordering different wheels for the front and rear wheels adds costs. Not much but it does add costs. It’s common when working on bikes to have the nipples on the same wheel to require different size spoke wrenches. Surprisingly common. Whatever is cheap is what gets used. Even if they are different sizes. The machine building wheels has basically a big bucket for holding nipples and factory workers just dump more nipples into it when it gets low. Bottom bracket problems are an absolute plague in press fit carbon fiber bikes. Carbon fiber can’t be molded with the precision necessary for a trouble free bottom bracket (or headset/head tube) - it requires machining to properly ensure that the frame isn’t going to be a squeaking, creaking piece of junk that requires replacing the bearings on every few weeks/months. A properly faced head tube/bottom bracket shell combined with a decent quality well adjusted bottom bracket/headset should last a minimum of 25,000 miles/40,000km without trouble. Consistently. Heck most metal frames are at 0.25” out of alignment. New from the factory. Too accurately measure said frame alignment requires a frame alignment table which bike shops RARELY have. For what many bicycles cost the quality is vastly lacking. I say these things with 22 years of bike industry experience.
@@stefhirsch6922 I understand all of that, but what I was referring to was in the 70s thru early 80s when east asian manufacturers absolutely annihilated everyone else. Few companies that were around before the bike boom survived until the turn of the millenium and fewer lasted much longer.
Everyone likes to talk about the golden age of the like, upstart dudes making bikes - early Trek, Grant-era Bridgestone and so on - but that's really only part of the story.
At 5' tall your "tin foil hat' theory feels spot on. There's not a whole lot of options and my personal experience says most LBS aren't likely to have those sizes in stock regularly. It's very difficult to find a bike that fits and handles well. I'm short enough that water bottle cages on the top tube are a joke of an idea even on step over frames and tail lights that conveniently strap on seat tubes are mostly blocked by rack and bags. My current bike has 650b and handles better than past bikes with 700. Much better fit for me.
You're spot on about the bottle cages - my gf is 5'8 with about a 33 inseam but still struggles with standover on her 27.5 e-MTB. The top tube has to be a certain height to clear the downtube-mounted battery, fair enough, but some design genius put the bike's only pair of bottle bosses on the top tube! Needless to say we have not made use of these..!
Should I keep 1992 Bridgestone MB4?
Yes, keep it ...if it fits.
My Soma Saga Disc 52cm Touring Bike is 26in Wheels 26X2.0
So should we tall guys stick with 700C? I am 6'2'' with a 34 inch inseam. I currently commute on the only bike I have, a hardtail 29er mountain bike, which fits me very well. However, I am interested in buying a gravel bike to be more efficient on the roads and still have the ability to do the occasional singletrack on weekends.
Yes.
Doesn’t changing the front wheel size affect trail a lot?
Yes.
@@PathLessPedaledTV Do you think going to smaller wheels and thus a lower trail setup ever has a negative effect on handling? I know you talked about handling a bit but I am not sure how trail factors into that. I suppose it only matters if you are putting 650b wheels on a bike originally meant for 700c wheels, which maybe is a whole other conversation...l
Awesome video. Do you know where Can I find a quill stem that is 25.4 with 31.8 end ???
Does not exist. The best you can do is find a 22.2 quill and shim it to 25.4.
I remember in your PLP talk with Crust Bikes he said he had built 6 gravel bikes around a 24" wheel size and they had sold out in minutes. I think the design height used is 5'10" so the further you inch away from that (pun intended) the more distorted things become. Connor from GCN never looks comfortable to me.
24" is used in Trials and some people use it for Urban Assault Bike builds. It's a nice sturdy compromise between the rugged high acceleration of BMX and the control and rollover of a 26.
Everytime I go bike shopping for a 26" wheeled bike, I get a speech about how the bigger wheels are better. Guess what? They don't fit in my car, or I don't own spares for other sizes. I'm tired of the entire bike shop industry. I end up not buying a new bike.
Generally I find that bike shops assume I'm an idiot because most customers know almost nothing about their/their kids' bikes. And some try to upsell or avoid doing certain work by banking on the idea that I don't know what they're talking about.
This is the thing that amazes me. Seems like a lot of money left on the table by the refusal to appropriately size bikes for a huge portion of the customer base. (Works the same with the clothing industry, incidentally.)
Super interesting, as always ! Thanks for your video, see you !
Thanks! Could definitely benefit from a more stable/durable wheel since I'm on the heavier side of life, at least for road rides. On the gravel or slightly chunky gravel rides I would feel more comfortable with a bigger wheel simply for pedal clearance from the ground while pedaling.
Regarding speed, I just hit my fastest downhill speed with a new 27.5 x 2.5 bike. 74.5km/hr or 46.3mph. Nice and low and stabble
double check that speedometer tire size setting....46.3mph is wicked fast....i do it often on a vintage road bike with 700c x 23mm
@@lunam7249 tire size is accurate
@@juliapoelstra3624 ok...be careful ...that speed can be very serious....were your safety gear and helmet!!!❤️
At 6' I'm always finding used bikes my size. But in the last year I've helped someone 5'2" and someone else 6'6" look for a bike and it is so much harder to find.
idk why tall dudes even ride bikes, they can just run with their long ass legs everywhere they need to go anyway and probably still be faster than us shorties on bikes.
Surprised you didn’t mention more tire clearance on most frames designed for 605B
Russ, one thing you didn't touch on is using 650b wheels and how that affects BB height and pedal clearance. On a bike designed for 700c/29" wheels, switching to smaller wheels obviously negatively affects BB height and pedal clearance. You've ridden a lot of both and, I'm assuming also, put 650b wheels onto bikes that were designed for 700c. I'm really interested in your thoughts on what happens with BB height and pedal clearance when you make that change. I plan on a gravel bike purchase next year and am considering 650b because I'm heavier (about 230 lbs) and am going to do loaded touring. So, the extra strength and lighter weight is what I'm after. I'm also 5'10", so I don't need 650b for bike fit. Riding "mountain bike" terrain I'd never consider swapping to 650b/26" wheels on a bike made for 700c/29" wheels. On a gravel bike, I think it might be a viable option IF there's not a downside to BB height and pedal clearance. I would not want to have to switch to shorter crank arms to make it work. Your thoughts?
Multi wheelsize bikes are a dumb idea IMO. If you want a 650b bike get one designed around that wheelsize which will adjust for BB height etc.,
Interesting theory about the tall dudes. There’s some truth to that in regards to some gatekeeping in the industry. Thanks for the video.
As an enduro bro, I cannot agree with you more. Yeah 29ers can roll over just about anything (as if line choice isn't a thing) but you also sacrifice a nimble feeling bike you can whip around. On hard bottom outs from jumps or drops, my butt always buzzes from 700c but on my 650b I rarely have that issue. Don't get why bike companies don't have new frames with 26in compatibility would love a 27.5/26 mullet. I guess that is what happens when bike companies are only concerned about how fast the bike is rather than how fun it is.
@@maaduece5132 It's similar to the track/TT market catering to people who try to go pro. Few people actually go to bike parks and velodromes. Those that do can afford the cost of either the expensive real estate near them (location, location, location) or the massive expense and time off of work to travel to them. Many towns have ordinances against using bikes on local nature trails and even park footpaths.
I ride off pavement on 26x 2.4", 650Bx48mm, and 700Cx35mm. They are all about the same diameter and also fairly nimble. The tire/bike I chose depends on how chonky things get!
Lots of us, especially women, are even shorter (I'm 60"). An underserved niche, just waiting for an entrepreneur.
I don't think it's just me but I think that smaller wheels have quite a bit less Rolling resistance. For example I base this thought on comparing my two mountain bikes that I ride on the same trail. First one is a FS 29er. Second one is my 1990s Ridgid MTB with 26" .Both are running on WTB trail boss 2.25 tires. I run the 29er tire with a slightly lower pressure than the 26. Both are at the same appropriate firmness level I like. On the smooth flats its not even close the 26" guides over the path where as the 29er requires more effort and feels like the front tire is plowing the trail as compared to the 26 inch. With the 26 inch I'm able to coast through some sections whereas the 29er boggs down noticeably. I feel it takes less pedaling and less effort with the 26". I think it's due to the smaller front contact patch of the 26 inch. When it's rocky and rough, 29er rollover matters on the rest of the trail.
Larger wheels requires more torque to accelerate. But when it starts rolling, it is indeed faster than smaller wheels.
@@juancommuterindavao For sure the math adds up to larger wheels having a higher speed potential. I just found it interesting that in my case with the same model tires on both my bikes the 26 inch tire took less effort to peddle over hard pack and would coast further with the same (other than diameter) model tire than my 29er. The trail I'm referring to is mostly decomposed granite with some light sand.
@@noelbrown6771 there are typically different tires of the same tread pattern that have vastly different construction. Just because the tread looks the same doesn’t mean that the casing and rubber compound is the same. Also hub drag can vary wildly. Do the bikes have similar tubes/tubeless sealant? Different tubes have significant differences in rolling friction. Are the brakes dragging? In addition aerodynamics makes a big difference. At 14mph on pavement (on a road bike) 70% of your energy goes to air drag with significantly greater as speeds increase. The number that I’m familiar with is that a 29” wheel will typically roll with 6% less drag than a 26” (not including air drag). That said different tires of the same size can easily have a 10%+ difference in SPEED.
@@stefhirsch6922 So both sets of tires are running standard cheap tubes. The 29ers wheels are wider, so the total tire width is 2.5 inches. The 26" is at 2.3 inches total width. The tire nobbs are the same height. Brakes are clear, no rubbing. Hey, 29ers are great don't get me wrong. The obstacle rollover and the bigger contact area of their tires pays big dividends on the climbs around the turns and on the Brakes for sure. That said, with that wonderful fat contact area comes some extra friction, that's really only perceptible to me on the flat hardback sections where I ride. On the days I switch it up and ride the bike with the 26 inch tires that's the only way I think I would had noticed that it flows easier through those areas of the trail than the 29er.
I'm cruiser bike fan
Definitely saw the difference between a 24 Inch and the 26 inch
I love the 24 Inch better
And I am a big guy
On a similar theme, crank arm lengths are my pet hate ! As a small rider needing a S or XS frame you get if you are lucky 165mm but mostly 170mm ! With no option this is like asking a medium size rider/ frame to use 185mm cranks, which is utterly ridiculous! To the point i pretty much give up . My single speed Pearson Hanzo is a great bike but best i could get was 165mm cranks which are just about ok but 160mm would be so much better !
Can bike shops help ? Not really they look at me with blank looks , having little clue what i am on about ?
Is 650B for gravel/all-road now out of favor? Man, it was all the rage just a couple years ago. I remember when the Midnight Special came out, it was such a big deal. Personally I love my 650Bx48 size 50 drop bar gravel rig - I ride it everywhere, including many places I shouldn't. Anyhow, I had no idea the bloom was off the 650B rose in the bike industry.
650B for road bikes would be pretty nice too.
I've never been over the bars on anything other than a 29. Enough for me to stay 650b/27.5. 😅
6:42 Sinn 556?