Smart Wheel Size "Breakthrough"?

I've written in the past about how wheel size has become something of a "fashion" or a "trend" in the bike industry -- as bicycle buyers are convinced by the marketing machine that everyone needs a 29er, or a 650B (or 27.5, as the mountain bike crowd has re-dubbed it). The wheel sizes become new marketing segments -- rather than being a function of good bicycle fit. The result is that you'll find 29er mountain bikes with "XS" frames and tortured geometry being sold to petite people who would probably be far better served with a "traditional" 26 in. wheeled bike. I argued previously that just because somebody makes something doesn't make it a good idea.

Tiny frame. Big wheels. Bad idea.

A few smaller companies have recognized the nonsense of marketing wheel size as a trend, and have made it a function of good bike fit, as it should be. Rivendell, Surly, Velo-Orange, and Soma Fabrications, are all companies that offer some of their models with a choice of wheel size to correspond to frame size. Bigger frames get bigger wheels. Smaller frames get smaller wheels. Why haven't other companies done this? I suppose it's because stocking different wheel sizes for otherwise similar models means stocking not only the different wheels, and tires, etc., but also different forks, and ideally, some different choices for gearing as well. It's easier to just tell buyers that "bigger wheels are faster" and simply ignore the tortured geometry and massive toe overlap that comes with forcing large wheels onto a small frame.

However, I just read that one of the big mainstream companies, Trek, has finally taken a step towards sensible wheel sizing. In Bike Retailer and Industry News, I read that Trek is offering its new Marlin and Skye mountain bike models with two different wheel sizes. The frames smaller than 17.5 inches will get 27.5, while those larger will get 29 in. wheels. Trek calls it "Smart Wheel Size."

A press release from Trek announced, "For some time, riders and retailers across the world have debated the merits of both (27.5 vs. 29), causing bike shops and bike company product managers to scramble to meet the demands of a confused marketplace. Smart Wheel Size ends the confusion and simplifies the choice for riders while making it easier for shops to sell the best bike for their customer."

One thing I notice, though, is that 26 in. wheels seem to be forgotten -- and I've read statements from people in the industry predicting that the 26 in. size will eventually get phased out, or relegated to entry-level bikes. I still think that is terribly short sighted. For some small riders, even 27.5 might be too large for the best bike fit. Whatever benefits are supposed to come with larger wheels get lost when the bike simply doesn't fit the rider comfortably.

The other thing I notice is that on Trek's road bikes, it's still "one-size-fits-all" where wheels are concerned. Like many other big brands, they offer "women's specific" road bikes, but when you look closely at the geometry, they all use the same wheel size and pull the same tricks manufacturers have long used to make them "fit" -- steep seat tube angles, slack head tube angles, and tons of toe overlap.

Still, it's a step in the right direction. What I'd really like to see at some point is where the three most common wheel sizes 559, 584, and 622 (notice I'm using the ISO sizes here -- less confusing than 26 /650B/27.5/700C/29) become common for both road and mountain bike applications, and used to achieve the best bike fit for a wide range of riders. Trek might have discovered the benefits of "Smart Wheel Size" -- but it will be much smarter when it covers even more riders and more sizes.