ITT: 650B is the new 27.5" See, if you put "fattie" tires on your 26" you can get all the benefits of 27.5"'s increased circumference but with bigger contact patch, better ride quality, mountain goat climbing, and "slack" geometry. Not to mention you can have a confidence-inspiring 1X drivetrain. BUY BUY BUY! Or, just put big tires on your 90's rigid and spend the rest on weed.
Surely you mean 26+ is the new 27.5"
Ignore the circlejerk and ride your damn bike
>>931779
Holy shit, it's actually called 26+?!?! As the late, great Jimmy Traficant used to say "BEAM ME UP!"
Has the industry gone full oroboros yet? When will quill headsets be providing laterally stiff yet vertically compliant road feelz?
>cogs bigger than the chainring
I'll never understand this. What are you, climbing walls?
>>931791
Are you trolling or a roadie?
>>931752
>650B is the new 27.5"
Nice typo.
Interesting chainstay design on that frame, a rather creative way to get around the limited tyre clearance.
>>931790
>Holy shit, it's actually called 26+?
That's what people have termed it, yes. I don't get the reference in regards to the rest of your post.
All it really is, is larger than usual tyres, it's not a new standard or even a new idea, just slightly larger than what was available in the past (around 3 inches, "26+" goes up to something like 3.8). It's basically the largest you can go without getting wider fat bike hubs and BBs.
>>931752
>650B is the new 27.5"
Except those are the same thing, idiot
>>931779
>26+
>not 27+
What about 700C and BB30? How about those typos Mojambo!
>>931791
It's fat, weak faggots who have to have granny gears to crank up 5% hills. Meanwhile I've got an 11-23 cassette on my road bike to try to keep me honest and legit with a shitty 30/39/53 crankset, schlepping my ass up long >=10% climbs.
>fucking casuals
>fucking casuals
>rides a triple
I bet you grind up hills at 20 rpm in 53-11 too. I love passing people like you up hills on my 35lb mtb. A 10% road climb is weak as hell when 40%+ grades aren't uncommon in the MTB world.
I think your Latte is ready...
>>931850
Trying riding your shitty roadbike up a 25+% pinch climb covered in enough rocks and roots to deny any chance of continuous traction and then get back to us. Or don't, and go back to riding laps around your momma's house in flyover country.
>>931861
>rocks and shit
Why would I bother? If I want to see that shit I'll go hike
>25+% pitch
Come ride with my team over Sonora Pass, TWICE, this summer, faggot, at 9000' elevation at the summit, fucking hot as hell, and 24% grades in both directions. Loser buys lunch.
>fatass casuals think they're tough
60% grade climbs on rough gravel and root filled trail is quite an accomplishment to slowly rise gears from a 36/42 combo, something a 26'r would struggle at a faster pace
>>931863
Woah, how do you climb up a hill at 24% grade while turning around to face another 24%
>>931863
Impressive elevation, I'm only at 4000' where I live which sucks.
You still can't compare MTB and Road climbing to each other, they're way too different.
MTB climbing is way harder by far. On the road you sit there and stay at a constant level, On a MTB you have to be constantly worrying about traction and putting out bursts of power as well as constant power.
>>931871
You first then. If not, then sit back down
I want a Trek Stache, but even though I thinj about getting a mountain bike fairly often, I always end up spending my money on just roadie things.
>>931872
>Impressive elevation, I'm only at 4000' where I live which sucks.
9000' feet sucked. I've lived within a few hundred feet of sea level my whole life. I really couldn't breathe all that well until we go down below 6000' again.
Also at a 24% grade, good bloody luck keeping the front wheel on the ground.
>You still can't compare MTB and Road climbing to each other, they're way too different.
Heh, yeah, I know, I'm sure it is. This is 4chan and everyone smack-talks.
>MTB climbing is way harder by far. On the road you sit there and stay at a constant level, On a MTB you have to be constantly worrying about traction and putting out bursts of power as well as constant power.
Riding fast in the wet, especially cornering at high speeds, ain't no picnic either, but yeah I get you on that.
>>931875
See attached pic.
I was giving you shit because I don't believe you.
You must have meant something other than a 60% slope. You'd never keep the front wheel on the ground. You probably wouldn't be able to walk up that, even, not without a rope to pull yourself up with.
>>931752
Isn't that a short af chain?
I mean, in the big sprocket it could damage the RD.
>>931867
With two left feet.
>>932028
Looks right at the limit of the RD which isn't an issue on a hardtail. If the chain blows up and bends an inner link, he loses first gear after the repair though.
ITT: MY DAD IS BETTER THAN YOUR DAD
>>931887
Okay
So
Bikes sometimes have belt drives. Memes aside, why do they use that dumbass split-frame thing instead of doing this?
>>931891
>You must have meant something other than a 60% slope. You'd never keep the front wheel on the ground. You probably wouldn't be able to walk up that, even, not without a rope to pull yourself up with.
Absolutely correct, anon. Such a feat is an impossibility for anyone but the paragon of physical fitness in the video I link below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEEgINoP2-o
>>932054
I also want to know this
>>932028
>>932035
It's already half way through the cassette, if anything the chain is too long. It only needs to be long enough to wrap around the largest chainring and cog without going through the derailer +1 link, that's how you correctly set the length on a rigid frame. The lower cage of a derailer can rotate around quite far, so much so that the chain could run in a straight line.
>>932054
I do believe I've seen some frames like that running belts. It's fine with MTB gearing, the problem comes when you want to gear it higher for road use with a larger chainring (belt ring?) and the chainstay (belt stay?) has to be moved even further up which would make the drive side much less stiff without some clever engineering.
>>932056
I didn't realise until you posted that 60% is only around 30 degrees, I was looking at the 60 degree mark on the other image. I wonder if the other guy made the same mistake because 30 degrees would be a piece of piss to ride or walk up where as 60 would be impossible (unless it was short enough to hook the front wheel over, in which case it becomes an obstacle and not really a slope).
>>931850
>having a triple
>complaining about casuals
>>932056
TopKek.
Anything above 30% slope is too much for anyone to ride up, except for maybe the fittest of the fittest.
At such slope to sustain a 6mph you need to produce crazy watts. Sure, for a short stretch it might be possible for most causal cyclists, but not much than that.
40% is pretty much unridabe without major body english - and doing a longer climb on such slope requires quite the fitness level or major vertriding skills.
>li
>>932109
30% isn't even 20 degrees, that's nothing. Even 30 degrees (~60%) isn't that steep if the gearing's low, sure you'll be going up it slowly but you'll still make it.
>Sure, for a short stretch it might be possible for most causal cyclists, but not much than that.
Have you ever ridden off road? Most of the steep sections aren't long at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vepam0d-zH0
>casuals itt
>>932116
Am I getting thing's completely wrong or is that actually far steeper than 38%? Going by the chart posted earlier that's about 20 degrees, yet it looks more like 38 degrees.
>>932116
Is that guy dying of aids or what why is he so fucking gaunt it actually spooked me I mean I don't want to body shame or whatever but what the FUCK seriously eat a burger or something
>>932109
>>932110
YOu guys are fucking retards one of you is obviously arguing about riding up a long stretch of road at a certain grade and the other one is being a retard smartass and talking about rolling up a fucking ramp or some shit thats 3 ft long and 2 ft high and calling it a 67% climb what a waste of time
>>932109
Found the road only flatlander.
>>932107
>laughingsloots.jpeg
>>932107
>implying that having a triple crankset means you're using all three chainrings all the time
On Sonora Pass? Hell yes I used the 30-tooth chainring.. but remember I have an 11-23 cassette for a reason. It keeps me from getting lazy and spoiled, otherwise having really low gears like 30:28.
30:23 isn't much of an advantage over 39:28, which is what a standard double would have.
>>932115
>delusional idiot detected
>>931752
But 650B is for city bikes and randonneurs and porteurs.
>>932054
Rigidity. It's not the same thing as strength, belts need quite a bit more of it than chain, and it's hard to do like this without being really heavy. It's such a big deal Gates tests frames before they even sell OEM parts for them. A broken backstay is not all that awkward.
>>932234
contd.
>>932239
Who the hell has a 22-39 gear?
Could you calculate this please:
29%grade
pedals 15rpm
chainring 22F
sprocket 34R
mountain bike 16kg (35lbs)
rider weight 100kg male
speed 4km/hr
wheel size 26" x 2.215"
thanks
>>932234
Is just over 400w supposed to be a lot? We not talking about a 10 minute climb here, maybe like 30 seconds at most. I suppose that answers my question as to whether you've ever ridden off road before.
>>932239
>700c 23mm tires
Brah, we're not talking about road bikes, and I don't know where you pulled those gearing numbers from. Also for steep climbs when riding a MTB off road you can expect to be going even slower than 4mph, it's not about being quick but rather conquering the obstacle. Shit, a lot of the time you could get up the climb much quicker on foot (without carrying the bike of course).
>>932253
1 Your numbers don't add up. You tyre size, impossibly low cadence and that gearing does not equal your speed.
2 You don't just calculate. You calculate something specific. What do you want?
>>932234
>5.95W/kg
I'm pretty sure that's top-level pro-rider power.
Where'd you get that calculator, anyway?
>>932316
At that height and weight he damn well better be powerful.
>>932318
I'd also like to point out that even W/kg only tells you so much. Muscular endurance becomes the limiting factor at Threshold intensity levels; how long can you keep going at that level before your muscles become so fatigued that you have no choice but to back off? Pretty much anyone who rides regularly can produce their maximum power for the entire duration of a climb that lasts for only a minute or two, but how about a sustained climb of several miles? Think in terms of a hill-climb time-trial.
These calculators can give you a target value for average power given a set of circumstances, but whether you're capable of producing that for a given duration is another matter entirely.
>>931791
It's mostly about having the ground clearance in the middle with the small chainring, and then you have the really big cogs to climb over roots and shit.
>>932237
It's good for racing because the torn up racecourse ridden by 500+ people making brake bumps all over the damned place
>>931779
No one is pushing 26+
>>931791
Trails get steep, faggot.
>>931863
When riding on a smooth road, all you have to worry about is how much power you can put out for a long period of time. When climbing a difficult trail (which actually requires technical skill) you have to climb over water bars, large rocks, and tighter switchbacks than you will even come close to encountering on the road. They are both difficult, there is no denying that. But anyone can spin up a steep road with just cardio and strength training. But it takes real cycling ability and talent to be able to maneuver your bike over obstacles at a steep pitch and put out power for a long period of time. Not to mention it's way more satisfying. Pic related is my cx bike with slicks because local trails are muddy, ice packed, and extremely prone to rutting right now.
>>931887
29+ is the fuckin tits man. If you're not some gottagofast fred faget you'll never look back.
>>931891
> Riding fast in the wet
> cornering at high speeds
That definitely never happens mtn biking.
>>935743
It's still just as fast if you're trail riding
>>935741
>with just cardio and strength training
not the other dude but >with just cardio and strength training
just just just just.
you have never deeply trained those right? cause if you start to get deep into it.. you will realize its more than just pedaling.. its a whole world of suffering (and technique, skills,and mind training).
>>935185
yet
that's why I haven't gotten back into MTB for years, it's one fucking meme after another
>>931860
40% grades dont go on for 15km fatass
>>932130
this motherfucker gets it
>>935773
True, but a 20% average grade over 15km isn't uncommon, and that's a lot of 40%+ climbs mixed in. Still a lot more intense compared to a road climb which legally can't be over ~10%. You're also forgetting about the 2kg's of rotating tire mass and constant changes in traction.
>>935777
Please, just stop. You're embarassing yourself with your mongoloid tantrums.
>b-but muh MTB trails are hardur than roads!!
You are literally retarded.
>>935802
the road is easy, you just sit there on a easy gear. a technical mountain climb is more rewarding as it requires more power and precise body language to ascend. the only impressive aspect of road is the DH where you go 60mph+
>>935816
>the only impressive aspect of road is nothing
FTFY. Chances are you're a sexual deviant of some sort if you enjoy road cycling.
>>935777
> trails with 3km vertical
> common
sure hun
>>935816
Competitive road descents regularly take place at speeds several orders of magnitude faster than that.
>>935870
Several orders of magnitude ? Like >600mph or >6000mph or more?
>>935880
The latter, easily.
>>935880
The SI autist has taken to pretend-interpreting MPH 'metres per hour' instead of 'miles'. The brochure sperg wasn't even his final form.
>>935870
Can't you ask your tard-wranglers to explain why your behaviour is disruptive, counter-productive and plain factually wrong? Because no-one here can be fucking bothered. We do not care about you, your mental welfare or the windmills you're tilting at. At worst you provoke some lesser kind of pity.
>>935777
> Still a lot more intense compared to a road climb which legally can't be over ~10%
wat
> a 20% average grade over 15km isn't uncommon
uhh
>>935887
>Implying 'M' is the symbol for the metre
>Implying 'P' symbolises 'per'
>Implying 'H' is the symbol for the hour
Please re-read the SI Brochure.
>>935777
watts * hours
↑ This is litteraly all there is to it. Now go away.
>>935889
>argument to authority
Please re-read a list of logical fallacies.
26+ fo lyfe!
>>935887
i'm not implying you don't know what mph means
i'm implying you don't know what order of magnitude means
>>935906
>woosh
You were being trolled by the SI autist. Pay attention.
>>935922
Ah
No idea who's trolling whom anymore
>>935930
It's easy. Autist make his standard 'serveral orders of magnitude' post. Someone goes 'wtf', giving autist a reason to explain that 60 metres per hour is slow, and even 60000 metres per hour is only 40mph, but because 'mile' is not an SI unit, you must have ment metres. Because that's the only valid unit.
Don't feed autist. Let his tard-wranglers handle him.
>>935887
Ah, the sublime point were being "technically" correct turns into just plain being pointlessly contrary...and technically wrong.
>>935892
>Consult the source of the information
>hurr apeel to athortty durr fallacies
Please revise your understanding of logical fallacies.
