Ron Damon

Thinking of building a 26" (559) wheel set with fattish 2.5-3.0" tires for a dual 26" / 700c wheel set rig. Am I off my rocker for wanting 26" today?


Something like this

PromptCritical 

It's dying, but If you need it for the diameter......Tire selection isn't great. I had to put 26" wheels on my girlfriend's bike to get the standover height correct and the availability of rims and tires isn't great. Midrange to low end is easier find than high end stuff.

veganbikes

Plenty of 26" tires 119 models (with some different options in some of those models) from 16 different brands at different price points from $100 on down on QBP one of the largest distributors of tires. I would guess probably a decent portion are going to be mountain bike tires but it seems like that is what you are looking for anyway. 17 models of rims (with different options again) from 6 different brands also from QBP and that is just one distributor.

People keep saying 26 is dead or dying but I can still find parts easily. I am about to build a mixed wheel 26 rear 650b front set up (mountain bike) and not worried at all. Maybe 20 years from now I might be slightly nervous but ISO 559 is still fine. No it is not commonly spec'd on modern bikes but parts are still readily available and companies like Velocity still make quality rims and hubs and spokes aren't going anywhere so no need to worry. Heck if I can get 27" stuff still and that was a lesser used size that is not even used today I don't think 559 is going anywhere soon.

In the end yes it is a little less common and you probably won't see a ton of new 26" product and innovation but you will see plenty of product for a long time. It wasn't that long ago that we were using 26" stuff and plenty of people still ride it.

Ron Damon

Well, the thing is that to keep the BB sufficiently high I'll need tires no narrower than 2.5". That narrows the tire options further.

Aubergine 

Why not try 650b instead of 26? I put a 650b set on an old Peugeot and it is fabulous. The first photo shows 700c, the second is 650b.



700c x 32 tires

650b x 42.

Paul_P

What is the interest or advantage in running two sizes of wheels on the same bike ? I can see it raising the front a bit and bridging obstacles better, but does handling suffer ?

I ask because when you buy a rigid fork to replace a 26" suspension fork, you end up with a long fork that can (and may even be designed to) hold a larger wheel (only works for disc brakes).

Ron Damon

I did not mean one size wheel in the rear, another size wheel in the front.

Duragrouch

It's amazing how a standard can change so abruptly. I saw no logic to 584/650b/27.5, until reading how that makes a nice swap for cushier tires on the same bike as 700c, and then it made complete sense. As to whether that or 26"/559, I think it depends on a) like you said, whether you want to be forced to run ultra fat on 559 to get the same ground geometry as with 700c on the same bike, and b) availability of 559 vs 584 in the places you plan to use the bike. Also, different rim brake reach, if applicable.

But if you have a 559 bike, I wouldn't worry about supply of parts, unless you actually see a dearth of them in your desired use area.

Ron Damon

...the next step in that same logic -- smaller rim with fatter tire is better, 622 to 584 -- is a jump down to 559, leaving aside the consideration that there may be a sweet spot or a maxima. The problem is not the dearth of 559 tires generally, but rather the dearth of fatty 559 tires appropriate for touring, specifically. For now, Surly offers the semi-slick 26x2.5" Extraterrestrial.

​​​​

Duragrouch

Sure makes sense to me! But like you said, it may limit you to very fat tires on the 559 for the same ground geometry. But do you need an in-between? If not, "go big" with the 559! I haven't ridden that wide so don't know any downsides, but you have, at least on smaller diameters, so should know.

By the way, what's your motivation for building a big-wheel bike? I only ask because I know you are a committed small-wheeler. Just a build for kicks? Or do you need something hard-core for off-road? I know nothing about MTB, but the last vehicle I designed for the military was off-road, so I did a deep dive on things like soil "cone index", and man do big diameters provide better flotation on soft stuff.

Ron Damon

​​​​​​I am interested in doing harder-core touring where I need to fend off for myself.

Duragrouch

Makes sense. While I can put quite a bit on my 406 bifold with a good rear (aft) rack position, and have rode it with semi-touring loads and big food shopping, I've wondered about that difference myself. I've never ridden a large wheel touring bike, just my 700c road racer and a LWB recumbent with trailer. I don't know how much more I can fit on a large wheel tourer, and, truth be told, I have a LOT more cargo space in front between the (406) rack deck and the handlebars. I also don't know about difference in handling feel.

Have you ridden touring loads on a large-wheeler?

I wonder if John Flores has ridden both? He sure has enough small-wheelers, and he tours.

Yan 

If it's a dying standard, how will you find a replacement tire during the middle of the tour if you need one? Shops may not have them.

Duragrouch

Well that's the question, whether it is a dying standard. Certainly it seems, more off-road bikes are coming in "29er" (700c/622 ETRTO) and (27.5/584 ETRTO). But there's an immense supply of 26" 559 ETRTO bikes out there in use.

Let me put it this way... "English" (SAE) dimension fasteners, bolts and nuts, are a dying standard, the USA auto industry went full metric decades ago. But you can still buy SAE fasteners and tooling in any grade, any day of the week in the USA. So I know that 559 tires, tubes, and rims will still be produced. Will they be in the very latest designs? That's a question. It's about demand; I loved double-socket/eyelet rims for their fantastic fatigue life, but I don't see them made any more. I think you can only get newer designs which have a thicker aluminum wall where the nipple seats. Most people want a rim that is LIGHT, more than very DURABLE. Also, the "disposability" and obsolescence timeline have greatly accelerated, I'm the rare biker that rebuilds things until they are truly worn out. It's also the cost of repair service versus a new bike, often favoring new. I do all my own service so it's dirt cheap.

In the end, I think availability and supply of replacement parts, matters more than the relatively small size differences. I just don't know how that looks for the future. I've been surprised before on other things; Try finding a Thudbuster seatpost in Dahon folder diameter and length; They used to be made. And now not.

Ron Damon

Yes. My first tour, in the 1990s, in Guatemala was on a 26" MTB.

Duragrouch

Well, this build will be interesting. You're capable of building up anything. Gosh there's so much good touring gear now, like panniers that stay bone dry inside. Although with a big diamond frame, you have the option of doing things bikepacking style, with a big triangle frame bag, and big seat and handlebar bags. So many great and tiny stoves available, from pocket size canister stoves to fist sized multifuel liquid stoves. Water filters if needed. Just great stuff.

Tourist in MSN

I use 57mm wide tires for my touring off the beaten path. That is the widest my frame takes, works well enough for me.



Above bike as 559 X 57 tires, although the Marathon Extremes are no longer made.

You could have asked the same question about 650b in the late 1980s. I had a 3 speed bike that I could no longer find tires for it. I hated to discard the bike, so it sat in storage for decades. Eventually 650b became a thing again, I bought a cheap pair of 650b tires for the bike about a decade ago, but by then I had a different bike for running errands. Have not ridden my 650b 3 speed bike for a few years now.

john m flores 

I've done loaded tours on 700c, 26", and 20". Last summer, my partner and I did some unladen gravel riding on a 20" Bike Friday All Packa and a 700c Surly Long Haul Trucker. We ride the same size bikes and swapped frequently to compare. My girlfriend summed it up well - the Surly rode like a Lincoln Continental while the Bike Friday rode like a VW Rabbit. When jumping from one to the other, the difference was immediately noticeable. But here's the thing, five minutes after the initial shock, they were just bicycles again, both bombing down big gravel hills, both navigating rock and root strewn singletrack. We subsequently took the Bike Friday to Spain and I've also ridden on the GAP/C&O trails for a week and I don't think that the VW Rabbit-like feeling caused any additional fatigue or difficulties. You certainly need to pick your line more carefully on 20" tires, but if you're fully loaded, you're doing that anyway.

The reason I bought the Bike Friday in the first place is that we're planning a big multi-continent trip that will likely include some multi-modal travel and I wanted to see if the All-Packa would be up to the task. Rear derailleur hanger issues aside (which could be addressed with an IGH), I think that the answer is yes. But we're still evaluating larger-wheeled options, including 700c and 26". Yeah, 26" is out of style among enthusiasts, but as you suggested, there's still a ton of 26" wheeled mountain bikes out there, which makes me think that there will be support for quite a while. If anything, in some of the wilder places that I've been to (Patagonia, the Philippines, parts of Brooklyn, etc...) the folks using bicycles for basic transportation are on 26" mountain bikes as frequently as 700c bikes.

I've got this theory that if I'm in Southern Chile and need a new tire, I have a better chance of finding a 26" tire than a 700c tire because a lot of locals are still on 26". The replacement won't be a super supple, tan sidewalled Terravail, but it will be round and it will fit. Likewise with a 20" tire because of children's bikes. By this measure, niche sizes like 650c, 650b, ETRTO 451, and 24" are not being considered right now. It's just a theory at the moment; I've more research to do, particularly in the places that we plan to ride. But we've got a couple of years before having to make a final decision.

I'd love to hear from folks who've toured South America and elsewhere and had to get a new tire in a small town.

Ron Damon

Well, the if depends on location. I have no doubt I can find a 26" tire in most places. But the issue is more specific. The issue would be finding a touring-capable 26" tire that is at least 2.5" wide tire. The way I would tackle that, admittedly not a good way, is to carry a folding spare.

Ron Damon

Gotcha. A key issue for a dual 26" / 700c wheel set rig is managing the BB height. 57-559, while good on your frame and road worthy, still leaves the BB too low on, for example, a Surly Bridge Club. Here it is with 700x41 meat. I estimate that with 26x2.50 meat, the BB will be only 0.9cm lower. I like my BB at least 28cm off the ground.



There's the S-size VO Piolet designed around 26x2.4" meat, but import taxes here kills it.

Duragrouch

Gotcha, in terms of ride. What about difference in load-carrying ability, both volume, and weight in terms of stability at all speeds?

Like I said, I haven't toured with large wheels, and haven't totally max-toured with my 20" yet. My perception around town on the 20" when food-shop loaded, is that with the panniers a bit lower, at the handlebars I have a bit more leverage when rocking the bike. And that, what unladen is more twitchy steering, loaded up becomes more "normal"; My guess is the same load on 700c might feel too heavy at the steering? ***Again, all of the above are pure guesses on my part, as I haven't toured or even heavy-cargo-townied on 700c or 26".***

So your opinion vis-a-vis that tour you mentioned, would sound invaluable. Thanks in advance.

EDIT: Oh I see now you said that tour was unladen gravel riding. So may not have data I seek.

Paul_P

I'm curious as to why the BB height is so important to you. We're taking cm's here. How can that make a big difference ?

Polaris OBark

Pedal strikes?

Ron Damon

Are you serious?

Duragrouch

Well, he said:
So we may be talking mm's and not cm's. And by "only" 0.9cm lower, he may be saying that is acceptable.

I think BB height matters, though less for CG height and stability (as I've read online), as much as crank and pedal clearance, and with the latter, crank arm length comes into play as well. I don't think I've ever struck a pedal on my folder at 29cm and 170 arms. My old road race bike, don't know the height, but very rarely struck a pedal, and that was because I tried to power around some fast turns. Off road with uneven ground, I could see pedal clearance being more critical.