 |
| 750D (L), 700c (R) Image courtesy of Mark Slate/WTB |
Then things went dark on that front....
Just yesterday, my friend in SoCal, Grannygear sends me a text with an image cut from a You Tube video. The caption said "New gravel wheel size! 750D".
Huh! Wait a minute!........
Where have I seen this before?, I thought to myself. (It has been five years plus some since I had that email from Slate.) At first I thought it was some arcane wheel size being resurrected. I hopped on Sheldon Brown's site (R.I.P.) and checked out all the antique wheel size info there but no dice. Hmm..... "I know I've seen this before!", I thought, but where?
Then Mark Slate popped into my mind. I searched my email archives, and BOOM! There it was. The entire email thread starting in February of 2018. Well, at least that mystery was solved now! So, about this video... (Watch here)
The video seems to indicate that, at least initially, this is for larger, taller riders. That's funny because it is exactly what people thought about 29"ers as well. So, don't write this off just yet. The thing I see here is that you get the outer diameter of a 29"er without the weight of a 29"er tire and rim. Oh.... Those are both 40mm Nano's in the image there. Could wider tires be done as well? Maybe that is where it will go, but here is what I think is happening....
 |
| Current image of Mark Slate's personal 750D bike. Courtesy of Mark Slate |
I'm not saying that is where WTB's head is at with this 750D thing, but.....maybe?
Or.... It's going to be its own thing. Maybe it will be for larger riders. The bike above equates to about a 59-ish centimeter frame, for reference. So, it would work for "average" sized folks, most likely. Time will tell, but this certainly will fire up all those keyboard warriors who bemoan every new thing as "not necessary", a ploy to make money, or worse.
Wheel size scaling to the rider debate kind of has been had by the market place already. Trek tried 650b for smaller riders on Mtn bikes and 29ers for larger. That trend lasted briefly for 2 years or so. I would argue that maybe 750d will be the 29+ of gravel. Awesome and hot, then fades out as riders want lighter and faster, and also wheel compatibility and parts availability. Life is about trade offs, so as with anything, the market will decide. With all that said, without innovation and different ways to solve problems we stay stagnant. So bravo WTB for attempting something different.
ReplyDelete@N.Y. Roll: I think Trek is still doing that. 650B on smaller sized MTB's. Makes sense.
ReplyDeleteWheel size gets people all worked up. I'm already seeing the reactions and naysayers coming out of the woodwork. It reminds me a LOT of when 29 inch wheels were introduced. If you ever wondered what the forums were like in 2003, you will see what it was about like back then when you see how people are reacting to 700D.
Same arguments against the 700D were spouted off in the early 2000's. You see how that all turned out. ;>)
That is NOT to say that 700D WILL be accepted or even GOOD. No, we will see..... But to just summarily trash the idea without any thought or hope to try it?
Dumb.
I guess I am interested in the ERD comparsions to 29 x 2.3 tires. I think that will halp people swallow it. If the ERD is close. Then 750d could be marketed as a gravel wheel set for Hard Tail Mtn bike and now you can drop the gravel bike. The more I ponder this, the more I see some viability in it, depending on some answers and information. At first I was like, great another snake oil. Now i am turning to lets walk this a bit more.
ReplyDeleteI'd really like to know how much practical advantage there would be over 700c wheels. Larger wheels would be heavier, create more problems with toe overlap (unless you use them on some very large frames), would take more energy to spin, and I wouldn't fit the bike in the trunk of my car anymore :(
ReplyDeleteWell we only have to look at kids bikes where 12, 14, 16, 20, 24 and 26” tires are still a thing to realize that there’s plenty of validity to having wheel size scale with rider size. So who says 700 / 29 has to be the largest available? There’s no physical reason not to offer larger sizes.
ReplyDeleteBut there might be economic justification to not have a larger yet size. Basically if there’s enough demand to support it, it so grow and survive. Some of that will be affected by manufacturers willing to take risks on it, some of that will be people willing to spend money to try it.
But in the current market conditions, I don’t expect many will. It’s not an ideal time to introduce something like this with over supply and a lot of the existing 29” product is already being discounted.
29” was different enough from 26” to really grab attention. This doesn’t seem different enough to garner as much hype.
Given all of that, I don’t think it will happen, at least not in the next few years. I’m prepared to be wrong though.
@Nooge - I agree with your comments and would add that it will indeed be something that will hinge upon brand buy-in. "If the numbers are there" is a comment I've heard over and over again whenever something new came about and had a chance of production.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of 29"er wheels and tires, the wheel size was in big trouble and would have disappeared by the late 2000's had it not been for Trek's dedication and finally hitting a home run with The Rig in 2005. People forget that a tire bigger than a true 2.4"er did not exist for 29"ers until the late 2000's, nearly a decade after their appearance. So, will this 700D take off next year?
No.
It may never get off the ground, but...... WTB isn't stupid, and Moots isn't stupid, and with that said- IF the numbers show up, this wheel size will take off. At least for a bit, and the mere announcing of it by WTB and Moots signals that they at least "believe" in something here.
That's something we all cannot discount. So, while the current climate is not ripe for "big sales" or any sales, really, that is not what WTB is looking at here. They are betting five years down the line. Much like they did when they announced the 650B X 47mm Horizon and called it "Road Plus", back when 650B tires were 42mm wide - IF you could get them - and WTB created another market with the idea that you can swap truly wide 650B tires in with 700c based bikes. That was NOT a thing before that, although some internet articles out today have that bad take.
So, I think that your final comment is not wrong, but it is not wrong for reasons you may not have considered.
@bostonbybike - You stated in your comment this question: "I'd really like to know how much practical advantage there would be over 700c wheels."
ReplyDeleteBingo. That's what we'd all like to know. There is no telling for certain until riders get a chance to ride these 750D wheels. Until that happens, the answer to your question is all just pure speculation.
I think it would be a hoot to slide a 750Dx40 into my All~City JYD single speed.
ReplyDeleteSounds like another bike industry solution in search of a problem. Sure, Mark Slate can sugar coat it all he wants with his own (subjective) observations, but as a 6'3" rider who rides both 650b and 700c bikes I'm always amazed how little difference wheel size makes, both in measured times on a given route and in subjective ride feel on the bike.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone remember the marketing BS some gravel bike makers ran several years ago when disc brakes took over? How we could run both a wide 650b "dirt" tire off road for traction and a narrower 700c road tire on pavement for "speed" and performance? Those of us who ran wide, supple 650b tires were just as fast on the road, and a lot more comfortable.
Sorry if this comes across as a rant, but a new wheel size just seems so unnecessary. I think the real issue is Slate and WTB are loosing market share to superior products (tires and rims), and he's just looking for another "next big thing" sales angle.
@Owen - Alright, I'll give you that.
ReplyDeleteBut we wouldn't have 650B tires and wheels unless someone decided to give that a try to see if it would work.
Was that "marketing BS", or reaching to "save market share"?
Or - Maybe it was someone with an idea that they believed in that decided to just go for it despite the naysayers. Maybe.....
My point being that without people's ideas and without trying them in the real world, how would we be sitting now for bicycle technology? Should we think that we'd all be riding high wheelers yet?
Do we know that this 750D wheel idea is all on a whim to make a buck, or is it something more than that? Answer honestly, I think you'll come to the same conclusions I have - That being that you and I really don't know.
Your point is taken - You see it as being "unnecessary". Got it. Let's let the thing be then and if it works for others, then it works. If it doesn't, well no big deal. At least we'd really know by actually trying 750D out. But however that plays out, 750D is no threat to you, nor does it take away from anything you want to do on your bicycle.
So...650B = 27.5", right?
ReplyDeleteAnd...700C = 29", right?
Does that mean...750D = 32"?
Just trying to get my head around how much of a change this is? At any rate, if it is a 32" wheel...maybe you can start another blog called "Thirty-Two Inches"...;-)
@Jon Bakker - While it may come as a surprise to some, I've never started a "wheelsize.com" site. I was gifted Twentynineinches.com by the original owner of that site when he bailed on it, and another site called 650B.com as well, by someone else.
ReplyDeleteI passed the 29'er site on to my contributors when I left the site in early 2014 and I sold the 650B.com site a few years earlier. Neither are still in operation today. ;>)
So, no..... I'll pass on the 750D.com thing. I know the history.
If the overall tire height is 740mm, & a 622-52 (aka 29x2.1") is ~736mm (or 29"), then 750d would technically be a 29er (by old standards) with this particular 40mm tire only.
ReplyDeleteMy math says the bsd (bead seat diameter) of a 750d (misnomer BTW) with a 40mm tire that measures 740mm OD, should be 660mm (26", almost on the nose), &, therefore, the tire iso would be a 660-40.
Also, a Nextie brand 32" rim has a bsd of 686mm/27", so this is a new standard. Again, my math shows a 660-52 to be 30x2.1". In other words, 750d would be a 30" standard by old measurement standards.
GT, thank you for a level-headed response to what I now realize was an overly snarky comment. For the record, none of the snark was directed at you and I apologize if you thought it was.
ReplyDeleteLet me re-phrase things: we know a lot more now in 2023, than we did in 2003 about wheel size, tire size, geometry, and performance. I think all of us would agree there is a big advantage to 29" and 650b wheels compared to 26" for off-road riding, and in the early days this did necessitate testing. My point was, I see little performance difference in 29" and 650b wheels when running the same size tire, and that larger tires, frame geometry, and tire construction have more affect on ride quality than wheel size.
It's interesting to note that in Europe (where I lived when 29" took off) they initially waited, then adopted 650b (27.5") for most MTBs, which they still use and which most people there are perfectly happy with, and which perform fine in that application, and which give more flexibility in frame design than 29" wheels.
We should also give credit to Bicycle Quarterly's extensive testing, regardless of what people might think of Rene Herse parts or Jan Heine. Their experiment design, control of variables, and most importantly interpretation of data meet academic standards--something that cannot be said for most industry "tire tests," let alone people trolling the internet with opinions. I've been astounded at how few technical editors even know what a statistical analysis is, or why it's absolutely essential when testing different tires. I bring this up because BQ established the three wheel sizes roll at roughly the same speed because they are so close in size. There are other variables that make wheels faster, but between 26", 650b, and 29", size isn't one of them.
So regarding 750d, I'm a 6'3" rider who would theoretically use these wheels, and based on what we've learned I don't think we need to test them to conclude they're of limited benefit. Mark Slate's photo actually shows us what we need to know: there are compromises being made in order to fit these wheels in a normal(ish) sized frame. Rear tire clearance is lousy, dangerous even, for serious off-road riding. Dry Marin County fire roads in the summer are a very low bar by which to test versatility (I know this because I live there). I do stand by my belief that 750d is WTB pushing a new concept to claw back market share in a competitive environment. It's convenient for a manufacturer to push the concept that "different size frames need different sized wheels," but thanks to all the testing that's been done in the last 15-20 years, it's clear this isn't true. I don't think it's just my opinion at this point, but, as you say they're welcome to test it--but personally I'm expecting the results to reflect WTB's marketing and not actual science.
@Owen - Thank you for your cogent, calm, and considered reply. No offense taken here, by the way. But thank you for taking care to make that known that you meant no offense.
ReplyDeleteIronically I have come to many of the same conclusions that Jan Heine has come to with reagrad to tires and what tests better. I believe in wider, more supple tires, and I have for years. I don't read Jan's testing or remarks much, if ever, so while it could be said that I was influenced by Jan, that simply is not the case. He has done what he has done in a relative obscure place to me, and I mean that in my case only. I just don't pay attention to him. That's not a negative comment, it is just a time thing. I simply don't read other's work often because I am too busy writing up my own stuff to notice.
That said, I did not want to respond to your comment until I did take a moment or two to scan Jan's remarks in his "How We Test Tires" article. I also took a brief glance at "Tire Test results". My further comments are informed from those pieces.
I don't have any real reaction to what Jan is saying there other than I think he's missing a key component to my concerns, loose crushed rock riding. He mentions that he wishes he had a test track with all surfaces, but apparently that's not a common surface, crushed rock that is, for his tests. That's pretty much all I care about.
Realizing I am a niche, weird outlier in cycling, at least in that regard, I would add to Jan's laundry list of concerns that width AND contact patch shape are what is most important to my riding. I utilize many of the same tactics Jan does in his testing, oddly enough, which I did not know about until today. Anyway, that was interesting.
So, in specific to this wheel size, again- We don't know what we don't know. We can guess that 750D is "this or that", but as Jan himself states: "Performance testing of tires is complicated because it goes to the heart of the interactions between rider, bike and road surface."
Subjectivity, variables, and the mix of those and preconceived notions can lead one astray. I advise that until you, or people that you trust, have actually tried 700D, then we should all sit on our hands and resist the temptation to elevate or damn the idea. If all we relied upon were notions based upon past experiences to judge untested new ideas we'd not have many of the ideas we have today to use and enjoy while riding bicycles. To wit: 29 inch mountain bike wheels which received much the same criticisms from all walks of cycling in the early 2000's and those who thought a bicycle designed for "all roads" just needed to stick to cyclo cross bikes.
So, I say, "Wait and see". If it works, then hooray. If not, nothing ventured nothing gained.