Just a quick check list so far (that ive heard of/seen or is found on our web site) of 20" and 22" basic moves characteristics: Manuals = the same on both 20" and 22" bikes. Inverts = same on both. Chris Smith bunnyhop photo over 40" bench on 22" (with pegs on)rrp £350.00 bike is a good start in these early days (20" record is 47" on rrp £600.00? bike). Turn downs /Lookbacks (opposite and normal) = same on both bikes (Jason Davies). Single tailwhip jump (Jason Ellis) = same (or close) on both bikes. Roll backs = same(Chris Smith). Grinds on mini ramps (see old school jam article with Jason Davies on web site). No handers = same on both bikes. Jason Davies went 8ft on both his 20" the 22" at the Old school jam = same height on both bikes. No hander 360 jumps = same on both bikes (Joel Alamo). Back flip = same on both bikes (Jason Lunn, Eddie Fiola). Im just pointing out these early days examples of our findings re the agility test riding. Wall rides = same, 540 tyre taps, foot jams, ice picks,over x up jumps,toboganns,tyre grabs, its all gradually getting found to be the same on both bikes. (with no dissrespect of 20" bikes implied).

Street Pt 2: The 20", 22" and 24" agility limits will forever be pushed and moved forward and thats just the nature of rider progression/ bike design. So the logic being as i see it is that 20" bikes will carry on leading the way forever in terms of agility but the constant moving forward of both the 22" and 24" behind it will inevitably reach where 20" agility level is now in present day. We all just have to look at MTB riders like Sam Pilgrim today in comparrison to MTB riders 10 years ago to see how that is possible. The 22" has a different unique characteristic to the 20" and 24" in that it is stable in the air yet still agile + higher top speed so it is possible it can open up a new level of riding in the future. We may have already seen the beginnings of that with our race video and my story of riding spots on my 22" i couldnt in the past on my 20" for the simple fact the terrain was too rough to get at (sounds dumb, but i have more spots i aim to shoot at to explore this theory before i say its a relivant issue). Everything were doing is a constant work in progress and never ending R&D process of how good can you make a 22" bike and what is possible on them? theres only one way to find out which is to go ride.

Street: Just looked at our web site www.factionbikeco.com and no mention on there either about it being better on Street than 20" or in Park. The Park video of Jason Davies (+ Jason Lunn flips) on our site and the Street vid of Chris Smith are examples of riding covering loads of different moves, they are just early videos of these guys getting used to the bikes and finding out what they can do? Our basic rule of thumb regarding Street and Park to begin with, was as long as they are half way in agility between a 24" Cruiser and a 20" then the Park/Street 22" version would be worth developing. What suprised us over the last two and a half years of asking riders to try them (and from owners in US and Europe) is what they say about them and how close the comparison between the 20" and 22" is(rather than it being closer to the 24" in handling). The 22" has gone past that 'half way mark' in agility we had aimed for and is edged ever closer to the 20" by the newer 22"versions that we are developing + what Jim Cilynski has acheived with the C24 is to be commended as he just blew everyone away with how agile a 24" bike can be.(need a part 2)

The danger with the written word is that there is always the risk of saying somthing and it being missinterpreted (or in my case misspelt). One of the other things is it is a fine line between making a strong point and coming across as conceated or arrogant(we all run this risk). Im not into putting people down on forums and i do my best to avoid putting my point accross in a way that leaves the person im responding to feeling like they've just been insulted (even if they insulted me first). Your last post was the most polite post anyones put toward me in disscussing 22" bikes, (so respect to you for that). Still dont see where ive gone around saying 22" bikes are better than 20" bikes for Street? Racing i'll say yes, Trails? others have said yes, Flat? (others have come to me asking to make a flatland version but i dont see the point), Park? we never intended it as a park bike to begin with but it has since proved it can ride better than we thought so were developing a prototype to find out how it rides. Street? ill continue in 2nd post:

Sorry about lengthy reply but re the strength issue our 22" compatible Amero frame is 13.75 rear (same as 20" frames) 21" tt (same as some current 22" frames) virtually the same seat tube length (see our web site for frame specs but the 22" Amero frame compared to 20" frames is same tubing thickness, same heat treated process, same design almost throughout so no weight or strength difference to give your point wings).With our wheels, our 48 spoke rims on our Zeitgeist model have yet to be buckeled (thats not intended as a brag its just the case)our new 36 spoke rims are speced on our web site but in short no worries their either and again just look how Jim C and Danny M's bigger than 22" wheels hold up to their flairs ect. Finaly re the looks in street, Danny M's video got over 1 million veiws on You tube so i heard, when was the last time a 20" vid got that many? im not saying the riding level was any different to hundreds of exellent 20" vids but my point is the general mainstream public showed more interest because they like the look of bigger wheel bikes. Im off for a day at the sea side now with me missus because i have a life outside of this computer. Later forum warriors.

Yum yum i just cooked up that severed horses head i found in my bed this morning. I just read my photo caption again, i used the term ugly in reference to racers using skinny front tyres on their 24" and 20" bikes and i dont like to use words like ugly but it fits the bill in this case as a fat front tyre like we used on the 22" in the photo looks better, is more traditional, is safer in the corners and also says im not desperate to win and am more sporting hence i use a heavier, slower fat front tyre. Also i wasnt using clips as i dont beleive BMX bikes should become 'strap ons'. Re: Street. Google Danny Macaskill MTB as he's doing just fine on a bigger wheel bike, as is Jim Cilenski on his c24 and as far as agility on bigger wheel bikes just pick up any MTB mag or watch current MTB vids and their all doing a great job of proving you can do pretty much anything on bigger wheels than a 22.

In the age groups over say 20 years old at race meetings you get riders showing up on 24" bikes. The older the age the more likely they race on a 24". If you ask these guys 'why dont they continue to race on 20" bikes' you always get the same answers, they want a bigger looking bike, then they talk about stability and how the bigger bike 'feels' to race. So thousands of riders world wide over the last 25 years have voted with their feet and gone for a bigger looking bike that they say feels better to race on. By making a 22" bike you also get a bigger looking more stable feel to the bike which is what older riders say they want and the 24" market would'nt exist if this were not the case. Re the term ugly, i agree it sounds harsh but limited text space in my caption and for want of a better more subtle word was'nt possible. I'll try to think of a more diplomatic one while i have my breakfast and come back and finish in post 3 where i disscuss your ref to street ect.

Our hope was always to get the 22 to eventually have its own class, maybe in the future so our intention wasnt for it to be raced against 20" or 24" at all. In the meantime there is no one else for it to race against so its just all part of that journey that 22" bikes will get pitted against 20" and 24" bikes until the idea grows to warrant their own class. Were not trying to dissrupt the 20" or 24" class popularity at all, but rather bring new blood into BMX by offering somthing that looks and feels different to the current options. So in a sense there are no negetives with the addition of the 22" option to BMX at all. we guessed it would do well acorording to our theory but it suprised us as much as everyone else how quickly it proved itself to work as good as or better than the bikes it was racing against. If it had taken us 10 or 20 or 50 race meetings to get a win, then even then we could say look these things work and its not a dumb idea. (ill continue in 2nd post)

Yes it does round a BMX track which was the original reason we developed them. What looks more BMX 24" wheels or 22", 5" bars or 8" as seen here on the 22. Long stretched out wheelbase on the 20" or a wheel base in proportion with itself on the 22. Big guys on bikes with big handlebars and little wheels or big guys on big handle bars and bigger 22" wheels. Skinny front tyres as seen on most if not all 24" and 20" race bikes at this and most other race meetings or the traditional looking fat front tyre as seen here on the 22? Jamie Edwards the editor of Wideopen MTB Online magazine commented on the race video on our web site (shot at this race meeting seen here) that 'the 22 beat the 20" bikes by a country mile' (whatever that means). see http://wideopenmag.co.uk or visit our web site to read up on bump steer effect. + we were called 'cheats' on the forums for doing so well against the cruisers. Nuff said.

Oh nearly forgot ol Love Marsh Riding with his 'Agreed' comment. I say: 'show workings out' mate.