# Why no 26" or 650 wheeled cross bikes?



## IronDad (Oct 7, 2003)

*Why no 26" or 650c wheeled cross bikes?*

In road bikes most smaller (sub 50cm) frames are built with 650c wheels to keep the geometry optimum and avoid toe-overlap problems with the larger 700c wheels. Why aren't there any 26" or 650c wheeled cross bikes? 

It's not really a tire issue because Hutchinson and Schwalbe and Ritchey make UCI-legal 1.3" (35c) 26-inch tires, and Dugast makes 650c cross tires (even though they're not listed on their site).

When you get much below 52cm top tubes on a cross bike you seem to encounter toe-overlap problems with 700c wheels.

The 24" bikes made by Redline and Kona are only good for kids/women up to about 4'6" and the available 24" tires are such low volume tires that you can't really run very low air pressure on them. The stock 700c bikes are good for people about 5'4" and up... that leaves about 10" of juniors/women/men who can't really get a proper-fitting bike.

A 26" or 650c bike would fit that niche perfectly.

Another advantage is that you could use, for example,your light (and expensive) Crossmax SL's or Stan's wheels from your mountain bike on your CX bike during cross season, and then adjust the brake pads slightly and pop on some 650c wheels for the rest of the season for road training.

No one builds one, though... what am I missing?


----------



## Woofer (Nov 18, 2004)

Someone has been reading Kerry's website.

Do these tweeners have problems with 26" wheel mountain bikes? Because if they don't have problems they can use their mountain bikes with road bars.l


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

IronDad said:


> In road bikes most smaller (sub 50cm) frames are built with 650c wheels to keep the geometry optimum and avoid toe-overlap problems with the larger 700c wheels. Why aren't there any 26" or 650c wheeled cross bikes?
> 
> It's not really a tire issue because Hutchinson and Schwalbe and Ritchey make UCI-legal 1.3" (35c) 26-inch tires, and Dugast makes 650c cross tires (even though they're not listed on their site).
> 
> ...



actually it was a tire issue... IF used to make one a few years back but tire selection was poor so they DC'ed it. Demand is prob not high for that size either. Custom is always an option.


----------



## IronDad (Oct 7, 2003)

Woofer said:


> Someone has been reading Kerry's website.
> 
> Do these tweeners have problems with 26" wheel mountain bikes? Because if they don't have problems they can use their mountain bikes with road bars.l


Have you seen what a mountain bike frame looks like for people that size? The top-tube is sloped so dramatically that it virtually continues in a straight line with the seat-stays. The triangle is so small and so low that you can't shoulder it.

Nothing in my post is as a result of looking at Kerry's website, it's knowledge gained while trying to find a smaller CX bike (although I did talk to her at Providence last weekend and she commented on her toe-overlap probems with her custom IF bike and that she's going to have them build her a 26" one because of that).


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

IronDad said:


> Have you seen what a mountain bike frame looks like for people that size? The top-tube is sloped so dramatically that it virtually continues in a straight line with the seat-stays. The triangle is so small and so low that you can't shoulder it.
> 
> Nothing in my post is as a result of looking at Kerry's website, it's knowledge gained while trying to find a smaller CX bike (although I did talk to her at Providence last weekend and she commented on her toe-overlap probems with her custom IF bike and that she's going to have them build her a 26" one because of that).



there's usually a way... you could shoulder with the nose of the saddle


----------



## IronDad (Oct 7, 2003)

FatTireFred said:


> there's usually a way... you could shoulder with the nose of the saddle


Nope... tried that...


----------



## tobu (Dec 19, 2004)

I'm not convinced that 26" or 650 is the best way to go even at that size. 700c's roll much better than 650's on hard bumpy terrain, especially on unsuspended bicycles. Pretty much every good 700c bike, road or cyclocross, at 500mm (c-c) and smaller has some degree of degree of toe overlap. Otherwise the front-center ends up being too long. I've been racing for over 15 years and I've never found toe overlap to be an issue, even in slow speed turns. In my mind, the disadvantages of 650 far out weigh any advantages, which I believe to be mainly aesthetic and increased durability (not really a benefit for most riders at that size). Perhaps we should have a 750c standard for people over 6' 2".....

I think the bigger issue with small cx bikes is that some frames slope their down tubes too much in an effort to create greater standover clearance. As noted in the previous posts, these small front triangles make it difficult or awkward to shoulder the bike quickly. In addition, small bikes tend to have more severe bends in the cable routing and require more thought when setting up the brakes due to straddle cable and brake reach issues.


----------



## IronDad (Oct 7, 2003)

tobu said:


> I'm not convinced that 26" or 650 is the best way to go even at that size. 700c's roll much better than 650's on hard bumpy terrain, especially on unsuspended bicycles. Pretty much every good 700c bike, road or cyclocross, at 500mm (c-c) and smaller has some degree of degree of toe overlap. Otherwise the front-center ends up being too long. I've been racing for over 15 years and I've never found toe overlap to be an issue, even in slow speed turns. In my mind, the disadvantages of 650 far out weigh any advantages, which I believe to be mainly aesthetic and increased durability (not really a benefit for most riders at that size). Perhaps we should have a 750c standard for people over 6' 2".....
> 
> I think the bigger issue with small cx bikes is that some frames slope their down tubes too much in an effort to create greater standover clearance. As noted in the previous posts, these small front triangles make it difficult or awkward to shoulder the bike quickly. In addition, small bikes tend to have more severe bends in the cable routing and require more thought when setting up the brakes due to straddle cable and brake reach issues.


Larger wheels roll better, smaller wheels accellerate better, etc. ... just like the 29'er v. 26" wheeled mountain bikes there are pros and cons to each size. I asked 6'6" Ryan Trebon why he doesn't use 29" wheels on his MTB and he said the quicker accelleration of the smaller wheel outweighed the better rolling characteristics of the larger wheel. Regardless, aesthetics and durability are non-issues to frame designers as far as wheels are concerned... geometry and the frame's purpose is. 

I'm not sure what your point is when you say small frames have toe-overlap problems and then you go on to say that you've never had toe-overlap problems. You either ride a large frame or you've contradicted yourself... regardless it supports my post. 

Big wheels in small frames cause problems, but small wheels in large frames don't, so your 750c standard is nonsensical. 

I'm also confused about your post regarding small frames... while mountain bikes have dramatically sloping tubes, small CX bikes don't... additionally, smaller frames have less severe bends, not more.


----------



## Woofer (Nov 18, 2004)

my mistake


----------



## Woofer (Nov 18, 2004)

IronDad said:


> Have you seen what a mountain bike frame looks like for people that size? The top-tube is sloped so dramatically that it virtually continues in a straight line with the seat-stays. The triangle is so small and so low that you can't shoulder it.
> 
> Nothing in my post is as a result of looking at Kerry's website, it's knowledge gained while trying to find a smaller CX bike (although I did talk to her at Providence last weekend and she commented on her toe-overlap probems with her custom IF bike and that she's going to have them build her a 26" one because of that).


If the only tubular available is Dugast, and one plans on having spare wheels, whoever needs a 650 wheel cyclocross bike can probably afford to go custom. 

I am familiar with the small frame/carry problem since I am a cheapskate riding a 17 inch mountain bike frame in my cross races and my proportions (long arms/short legs) mean I have trouble getting my forearm through the frame. I have a cyclocross bike that works better for carrying/has toe overlap but I like the mountain bike more/has no toe overlap.


----------



## mikesee (Nov 4, 2005)

IronDad said:


> I'm not sure what your point is when you say small frames have toe-overlap problems and then you go on to say that you've never had toe-overlap problems. You either ride a large frame or you've contradicted yourself... regardless it supports my post.


What he said was that he has toe overlap, but it doesn't cause problems for him.

The bottom line is that the bike industry is a money-making venture. A business, if you will. The reason that what you're looking for does not exist is simple economics: the industry does not perceive the market to be big enough to turn a profit.

MC


----------



## tobu (Dec 19, 2004)

IronDad said:


> Larger wheels roll better, smaller wheels accellerate better, etc. ... just like the 29'er v. 26" wheeled mountain bikes there are pros and cons to each size. I asked 6'6" Ryan Trebon why he doesn't use 29" wheels on his MTB and he said the quicker accelleration of the smaller wheel outweighed the better rolling characteristics of the larger wheel. Regardless, aesthetics and durability are non-issues to frame designers as far as wheels are concerned... geometry and the frame's purpose is.
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is when you say small frames have toe-overlap problems and then you go on to say that you've never had toe-overlap problems. You either ride a large frame or you've contradicted yourself... regardless it supports my post.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I was just trying to point out that even if you have toe overlap, it's not a real problem -- it's just something people on smaller bikes learn to live with and you only have to be careful when you are doing U-turns on a sidewalk.

I was just joking about the 750c standard. Even though small wheels on big frames can cause minor problems, you're right that there are issues with using big wheels in small frames. As I pointed out earlier, the issues, don't really pertain to toe overlap. It's difficult to design a small frame with a decent length head tube unless you are willing to have a significant sloping top tube design. If you look at most modern small bikes, the head, top, and down tubes kind of blend together. Ideally, the headset bearings would be further apart for greater support. In addition, some small riders find it difficult to get enough handlebar drop on a frame with 700c wheels.

You're also right about mountain bikes having more dramatically sloping tubes, but there are many sub- 480mm CX frames that just don't have a big enough main triangle for efficient shouldering -- especially with the advent of oversize tubing. 

Finally smaller bikes DO have more severe bends. All the cables are shorter and have less distance to make the bends. It's pretty obvious if you look at the STI and brake cable routings of a 600 mm bike with a 130mm stem and 46 cm bars and compare that with a 480 mm bike with a 90mm stem and 40cm bars. 


I sympathize with your major point though, that there are very few bikes being built or stocked in that size range. There might not be a big market at that size, but maybe there's no market because the bikes aren't there.


----------

