Sheldon,
Thank you for explaining. Yes, of course I was referring to 559 mm.
At least I don't need to have any prejudices toward British "26 inch" bikes (based on my disliking of 559 mm bikes), as they actually have larger wheels than 650B!
But I won't disagree with Phil Brown - it probably is more a matter
of design than wheel size. With VERY small wheels, however, I feel
that the lack of gyroscopic force can be a problem (that
out-of-timeline Bike Friday again).
--
Jan Heine, Seattle
Editor/Publisher
Vintage Bicycle Quarterly
http://www.mindspring.com/
>Your use of the term "26 inch" is vague and confusing. "26 inch" is
>not a single size--there are at least _6_different_ "26 inch" sizes,
>including all 3 of the "650" sizes! 650B is actually in the middle
>of the range, with other "26 inch" sizes being larger or smaller.
>
>It is better to use the ISO size designations, which are not
>ambiguous. "650B" is 584 mm. The decimal "26 inch" size used on
>mountain bikes is 559 mm (the smallest "26 inch") size. The 559
>size goes back to the 1930s in the U.S., but was not common in the
>U.K. before the advent of the mountain bike.
>
>English lightweights generally used the 590 mm (26 x 1 3/8"/650A)
>size for the more utilitarian models, and 597 mm (26 x 1 1/4") for
>sportier models, such as "club" bikes.
>
>I know this is a bit confusing, if you want the straight skinny on
>tire sizing, see my article http://sheldonbrown.com/
>
>Sheldon "ISO/E.T.R.T.O." Brown
>+---------------------------------------------+
>| The nice thing about standards is that |
>| there are so many of them to choose from. |
>| --Andrew S. Tanenbaum |
>+---------------------------------------------+
>--
> Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
> Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
> http://harriscyclery.com
> Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
> http://captainbike.com
> Useful articles about bicycles and cycling
> http://sheldonbrown.com