>>2062588>Bigger wheels roll over things better>modern frames sloping TT>650B works for >150cmNo shit sherlock!
>number of people who would benefit from 26" back is smallIf I would follow through with your line of argumentation everyone would be on 622, not 559 or 584. Or 32" meme bikes. So I don't really see a definitive answer here.
On the contrary: 559 is just farther removed from 622 than 584, so IF the market was to offer options, I personally don't see the point of making them more similar or arbitrary even.
Sure you named one of the advantages of larger wheels. But smaller ones always had several advantages:
More obtuse bracing angle for the same flange width - > stronger.
More hoop strength - > stronger.
Shorter lever - > you guessed it: stronger.
Fatter tires for a given OD - > let's you fit fatter tires without awkwardly big wheels (559 probably lived the longest in fat bikes)
Lighter for the same strength (Yes yes II know, industry thinks they have solved strength and durability for good - or maybe just found out the majority neither uses nor loads up their bikes seriously)
etc.
So since there is no one single argument against a 'smaller' wheel (from a 700c standpoint) it still seems odd that people would choose to repopularize an antique and almost obscure wheelsize closer to 700C and ditch 26" for it.
Fuck market forces.
