I just now wrote: "The Matthews has 700C X 51s and handles better than the Fargo with 700C X 65s. (But the Fargo had more or less mtb geometry, the Matthews more or less road geometry.)"
But I meant to say: "The Matthews with 700C X 51s handles better than the Fargo with the same wheels and tires thanks to geometry better serving my handling preferences. The Fargo had more or less mountain bike geometry, the Matthews more or less road geometry." [The lighter wheels and tires *did* greatly improve the feel and nimblenss of the Fargo compared to the earlier wheelset that was 2lb 4 oz or so heavier per wheel.] On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Patrick Moore <bertin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jan claims that there is a sort of handling sweet spot with the diameter > of 650B X 42s, so that if you go to rims of different diameters, to > preserve this sweet spot, you need to increase or decrease the size of the > tire. It's in BQ somewhere, and while I forget the details, it has to do > with circumferential weight as well as trail. > > Jan may be right; but I am not convinced yet. > > My experience is not nearly as broad a Jan's, but such as it is, I find > excellent handling with all sorts of different diameters, widths, and > weights. Here it is for what it has of worth for your question about 650B > wheels. > > My best handling bikes have very light 559 wheels and handled wonderfully > with 22 mm tires and do just as well with 29 mm ones. I've not had a 700C > bike that handles as well*. The Ram and the Sam didn't handle as well, even > with very nice tires (P Roubaix and Green whatchamacallems -- Jack Browns). > > The Matthews has 700C X 51s and handles better than the Fargo with 700C X > 65s. (But the Fargo had more or less mtb geometry, the Matthews more or > less road geometry.) > > I've not tried 650B in any width, so perhaps that's what I'm missing, but > I don't think so, given others' reports. > > Largely, I think it comes down to: > > Frame design: a frame designed for light 559 wheels can handle as well as > anything else, AFAIK. (Will this hold true for 406 bsd wheels? I dunno, but > I expect not; I think Jan is right about an ideal wheel size for handling; > just that it's a range and not an exact diameter.) > > Taste. (* "Well" here is always in the context of taste, of course.) > > Add to this: a larger wheel that is light will handle differently from one > that is heavy; 29" wheels with sub 450 gram rims and 360 gram tires and no > tubes may well gain back much of the nimbleness they lost (and couldn't > retrieve by frame/fork design) from heavier 584 wheels -- right? At any > rate, said wheels transformed the Fargo when swapped in for 800 gram rims > and 800 gram tires and 250 gram tubes. > > That said, if my goal with an off road bike was nimbleness above all, I > would not choose 700C wheels, light thought they be, since IME, light 559 > mtb wheels are more nimble yet. It's just that the difference diminishes > with the light 700C wheels. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
