Re: Tire sizes- from the trenches(was:Re: [CR]650B the perfect wheel size?


Example: Production Builders:Frejus

From: "Tom Martin" <tom@wilsonbike.com>
To: <ABikie@aol.com>
References: <aa.23f2f709.2ccac407@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Tire sizes- from the trenches(was:Re: [CR]650B the perfect wheel size?
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:49:21 -0700
cc: CR list <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>

A 700D rim has a ISO of 587mm. just a hair taller than the 650B type.

The 650C (571mm ISO) is different than the 26 x 1 1/2" / 650B (584mm ISO).

The 26x1 3/4" (Schwinn S7) has the same ISO as 650C, but is not interchangable due to the bead type.

So much for Standards; I thought the standards were to eliminate all these other standards and conventions. But then we have the headset standard for bikes. And then there's bottom bracket interfaces. And spoke thread and pitch.

Would abike shop in europe have a more dificult time than the ones in the US stocking tires because of the proximity of other countries and their own national standards on tires?

Gotta go back to work and avoid geeking out about obselete tire bead diameters.

Tom Martin
Oakland CA


----- Original Message -----


In a message dated 10/24/03 12:55:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, tom@wilsonbike.com writes: So I had this thought while I was commuting home from work on my off topic 559 ISO mtn bike:

If 605B was the most perfect size, how did bikes evolve with different size wheels? Were there a number of decisive TdF or Giro victorys made with 700c or 27" wheeled bikes? Victories that would not be made with the smaller and wider 650B tires? I surmise that better quality roads precluded the need for the fat tires, but maybe there is more to it than that. And how and why did the migration to 700 happen? Wasn't 27" good enough? Was it just kinda arbitrary that Mavic focused on 700c as 'the way to go' in the mid to late 70's?

Tom Martin Oakland CA OK Here's what I've concluded We need two sizes in this arena: 559 and 700c. Forget the dumbest size ever invented - the 700d (methinks 584) I met the guy who worked for GT at this yesr's bike show and he actually admits being responsible and the second dumbest and useless 571 aka 650c.aka 'triathlon/tt size. Seriously, crew, for a lousy 6mm radius difference (yes,three spoked side to side!!!) than a 559 (that we know has been around for almost 3/4 century and can be found at any Walmart or thriftshop or garden cart, etc)why , oh, why re-invent life? We have pencil-thin 559's i use for superfast racing on my all-purpose bikes and on my racing tandem (swapped for 650 tubulars in the big events-same brakes with a minor adjustment in pad)as well as 2.6" tires that fit the same rim The fattest of these are about the same diameter outside as the thinnest 700c, and now we have 700c going up to 2.3 " for what's become known as the '29"' bikes.

I already thanked the 700d guy because I was able to charge a worthy figure for having held onto spare tires for years, and now I'd like to let the air out of the 650c inventor. I know there must be a sizeable amount in his/her noggin.

For the record,there's a cossover somewhere- Doesn't a 650 fit some older Schwinn rim? I think it's the 26 1 1/2? Bike-a-log did not have this nor the famous 26 1 3/4 (S-7) but they will now that I called them. Sheldon, and Sutherlands have the info.

If I had but one size to live, it would be 559- and I come from a ten-speed, not a mtn bike background too.

more later, custromers are coming in

Larry Black
Tiretown, Maryland