went out to Riv in Walnut Creek today. curiousity has been peaked re: 650B, vertical compliance and other things philosophical. took a fairly long ride on a 59 cm Bleriot. if you are ever concerned about riding something smooth and comfortable, yet slick and trick, forego some carbon and ride on the cush of some 650B-ness. maybe every multi-bike herd should have one.

tempted to buy a Bleriot, but may try some rounder fatter tires on the Rambouillet first.

The problem with putting big tires on a bike not designed for them is that the handling is degraded. That is an important issue that bike companies, Riv included, often don't mention. The trail on a bike with big tires must be lower than on a bike with, say, 23mm tires to maintain good handling. For most all-around bikes like the Rambo, Kogswell P, or Ebisu a tire width of about 28mm is perfect, 32mm is okay, but above that you really feel the effect in fast turns.

650B bikes, on the other hand, are designed for wide tires. And, as the extensive test in Bicycle Quarterly showed, 650B tires are not necessarily slower.

many a current story on the riv list at bikelist.org about 650B conversions from 700c to 650B. Those look good and sound as if they ride fine.

that 650B Surly Pacer project is interesting.

i currently run 23's on my rambouillet, so 28 or 32 could be fun and not make any difference negative in how the bike rides.

The Bleriot is not a low trail bike, 6cm trail with a slack head angle.
Grant doesn't go for the French geometry, he likes the rear loader handling.
Part of GPs quest for the best Mt. Tam bike, X0-1 -> Atlantis -> Saluki


Scott G.

FWIW, I do not prefer a low trail bike unless the front is loaded. I think that a low trail bike without a load rides less well than a higher trail bike with one. I have good examples of both and that's my experience, albeit anecdotal in comparison to those who wish to quantify it all. Plus, I prefer a smaller saddle bag to a handlebar bag in most instances, something I have come to understand in personal experience. YMMV.

dbrk

__________________
“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” Charles Darwin

My point is not that low trail is better, though I prefer medium-low trail, but that trail should decrease as tire size increases to maintain the handling that a designer envisioned. In other words a bike designed with 23mm tires in mind will not handle the same with 35mm tires. You may prefer the feel of one or the other, but you probably won't like both.

Converting a 700c bike to 650b is diffrent since the rim size changes and the overall diameter of the tire, though fatter, is usually smaller.

We can discuss trail and geometry until the cows come home but the simple facts are: there are several ways to design a 650B bike - most of them good (depending on who you read), and riding a 650B bike is FUN.

It's not just about the tires, or the lugs, or where you hang the bag - it's a fundamentally different style of riding and of thinking about riding. I rode four hours yesterday on a damp, drizzly, wetleaves/wooljersey type of ride with plenty of climbing, descending, and some sketchy roads/paths thrown in - and it was great.

I find that on my 650B bike I have less inclination to hammer or to throw in a series of intervals, I simply like to keep a good steady pace whether going uphill or rolling on the flats.

I think this will make a great Seattle winterbike with the fat fenders, grippy tires, and bag to carry extra jacket and gloves. I may not be sprinting for city limits signs with this bike but I don't think I'll have much trouble keeping up with my Sunday morning pals on their skinnytire bikes.

I'm not convinced that a 650B conversion would be as good as a bike actually designed for those tires, but I've never tried one.

YMMV

Based on my experience with my 650B conversion, Steve has captured the essence of why you would do it. Go for the 650 if you want a smell the roses, relax and be comfortable, go for the groceries kind of ride. I find it very hard to be deliberately slow and non-competitive when I'm on my go fast bike. But once I'm on the 650, I'm not bothered when people pass me. I'm out for a different kind of ride. It's surprisingly liberating, especially if you also don't dress in lycra.

Stupid Question,

What is a 650b bike and what is it's intended use? Please educate me.


Jack

Oh please! please! pretty please, can we?!?!





-g




(ok, lets not!)

Grant/Rivendell thinks that 650B wheels are not well suited for large frame sizes. Thus the A Homer Hilsen. I think it is an aesthetic thing on his part.
I am 6'3" and would like Forumites thoughts on this. Mine are that it really doesn't matter.
Thanks,
bobscott

Bingo - exactly.

Jack, 650B tires/wheels/bikes were developed in France - possibly between the wars - as a way for French riders to deal with the lousy French roads, full of cobbles, potholes, gravel, and dirt. The fatter tires also enable one to carry a large load, if desired. These tires may be overkill and may feel sluggish on smooth pavement, but if you have access to dirt or gravel roads you will find cycling Nirvana.

It's also a secret-handshake way to step outside of the cycling mainstream. Some dig it but it's not for everyone. 650B tastes great with lugs or brazed fillets; it's less filling when used with titanium. My next single-speed will be 650B with old French parts and my wife is getting a 650B winterbike.

You'll need a beret.

i suffer from trail mix


up.
what measurements are considered low, medium-low, etcetera?

__________________
________________________
the tao of atmo
the tao of e-RICHIE©™®
________________________
Campagnolo = The Journey
Shimano = Mapquest

More tail = less suffering. Oh trail. I don't know anything about that.

Curt

__________________
I'm the decider.

I don't know if I could do that. Would I have to start wearing turtlenecks all the time, too?