Mavic bought out their E narrow clincher rims in 1975 followed shortly after by the E2 with double eyelets in both 700C and 27in sizes; Michelin introduced their range of Elan tyres to match at the same time. This is not to say that there were not narrow clincher rims and tyres before, there were. The Dunlop Special Lightweight rims in steel and aluminium were narrow section; San Giorgio also did a very narrow section rim in the early 50s and the Asp version of the Constrictor rim was not wide either...
Super Champion followed suit with their narrow section Gentleman rim within about three years and many tyre manufacturers brought out suitable tyres for the new rims very quickly.
The crucial transition was that for race bikes from tubulars to clinchers \u2013 all serious race bikes had been built for tubulars which have the same brake drop as 700Cs for the previous ten years \u2013 no-one in the UK raced on 27in clinchers by the 1970s. And nobody had road raced on 27s since probably the 1940s (even then the numbers were tiny), it was only a few tight fisted time triallists that would use narrow section 27s into the 60s. But the transition from tubs to narrow clinchers did not properly take place until the early/mid 1980s. To reiterate, the choice was not 27in or 700C, rather it was tubular or narrow 700C clincher... The only frames which continued to be built for 27s were those for general club riding, training or for touring.
And we do have to recognise that the vast majority of pro riders do still use tubular tyres despite what their sponsors would like us to think.
Hilary Stone, Bristol, British Isles
Jerome & Elizabeth Moos wrote:
> The transition we are talking about was really in the US and in the British Commonwealth. Unless I'm mistaken, some French touring bikes had 700C clinchers before WWII, although 650B was more common, and AFAIK the French never used 27" in the domestic market. I think what drove the transition in the US was the appearance of narrow high pressure clinchers appropriate for racing, which happened around 1980 or the late 70's. Suddenly clinchers became a more practical option for racing bikes, at least for training.
>
> But this presented the problem that if one fitted high pressure 27" clinchers for training but actually raced on tubulars, one had to move the brake blocks each time one changed wheels. Perhaps the UK riders had long dealt with this, as they tell of having "sprint carriers" on bikes to carry their sprint (tubular) wheels to the race. Presuming their training wheels were 27" or maybe 26", so they would have had to adjust the brakes. But perhaps Americans just lack the patience of our British cousins.
>
> In any case, I do remember that the interchangeability with tubular wheels was seen in the US as a major advantage of 700C clinchers. But the transition was far from immediate, and most of the manufacturers of narrow high pressure clinchers made 27" as well as 700C.
>
> I personally had some clincher wheels built in the early 80's (before I began building my own wheels) for my 1973 LeJeune. I made the mistake of using 27" rims, although 700C were available by then. I was then confronted with the inconvenience of moving the brake blocks every time I switched wheels, and as a result never used the clinchers much, eventually having another pair built with 700C rims.
>
> 27" clinchers hung on a lot longer on touring bikes than on racing bikes, since the issue of tire availability in remote areas is a lot more significant for a bike on which one might actually make an extended trip. I don't know when the last high volume model was made for 27" wheels, but I imagine it was well into the 80's and maybe even 90's. Since the difference in clearance is only 4 mm, probably quite a few bikes in the 80's were designed to take either 27" or 700C.
>
> It seems there are still a lot of 27" wheels out there. I heard the comment that about a year and a half ago, when high oil prices seemed our greatest economic concern, the US bike industry was caught largely unprepared for a huge surge in demand for 27" tires, as bikes that had hung in the garage for decades were suddenly put back on the road.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Moos
> Big Spring, Texas, USA
>
>
>
>
> --- On Sat, 12/26/09, kevin sayles <kevinsayles@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> From: kevin sayles <kevinsayles@tiscali.co.uk>
>> Subject: Re: [CR] Long brakes,Short brakes and 700c...TIMELINE?
>> To: "Ken Freeman" <kenfreeman096@gmail.com>, "Bob Freitas" <freitas1@pacbell.net>
>> Cc: "CLASSIC RENDEZVOUS" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
>> Date: Saturday, December 26, 2009, 4:34 AM
>> Hi Ken, Bob etc
>>
>> 'When did we changeover to 700c'.?.......this is one of
>> those things that sort of happened without any conscious
>> degree of thought.....its not like we
>> thought 'wow, this frame wants 700c instead
>> of 27s'.......I think framebuilders just adapt to the
>> 'latest' trends without too much fuss, so I can't be sure
>> when we at Woodrup's finally stopped making frames for 27s.
>>
>> Most of the frames that were shipped to the states, either
>> via 'Ten Speed drive' or direct to the customer where based
>> on what we termed 'fast touring' [often had a transfer
>> saying Giro touring......which we realised later said tour
>> touring!] these frames where made for deep drop brakes and
>> 'fender' clearance.....as for 27s versus 700c.......
>>
>> I think Ken is right in saying early 80s......I'd say by 82
>> we were only building frames for 700c unless
>> specified......this seems to fit in with when the first 700c
>> clinchers came out...I know before 82 I was still riding
>> 'sew ups' in Winter.
>>
>> What is interesting is who or what instigates these
>> changes?.........who for example was the first to introduce
>> allen key fitting brakes?..........who decided that having 3
>> guides for the brake cable on the top tube was a good idea
>> [personally I hated it].....or hidden rear brake cable
>> [another duff Idea]
>> or who decided under the bracket cable run [though this was
>> not uncommon on Hetchins, or Jack Taylors]
>> I think? Dave Lloyd may have been instrumental in the trend
>> for brazed on front changers?
>>
>> Anyhow, I take it Ken that 'cushy' is good regarding your
>> handling of your Woodrup....though this is not to be taken
>> that all Woodrups have this particular trait......I
>> say this because I feel many of the folk on this list
>> who may have a Woodrup are based in the US so will have the
>> traditional fast touring geometry......but we didn't just
>> make fast touring frames, anyone who has seen my personal
>> bikes will know that.
>>
>> Time now to take such a bike out for a spin......having had
>> a week off due to icey roads.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Kevin Sayles
>> Bridgwater Somerset UK
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Ken Freeman
>> To: Bob Freitas ; kevin sayles
>> Cc: CLASSIC RENDEZVOUS
>> Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 8:23 PM
>> Subject: Re: [CR] Long brakes,Short brakes and
>> 700c...TIMELINE?
>>
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> No, I think they were not really obsolete.
>> Woodrup produced bikes made for 27's in the early
>> '80s. A local 'Lister (I'll allow him to out himself
>> if he chooses) and I each own a Woodrup of the early
>> '80s. He knows exactly how old his is, and mine, by
>> inference based on the Woodrup Registry on the CR site, is
>> perhaps a year older than his. His bike came with 27
>> inch wheels. Mine was unbuilt but a bit shopworn when
>> I got it, but it looks like it is intended for 27s: 700c
>> tubulars look too small and delicate, and tubular wheels
>> with fat 32 mm cross tires look about right, especially the
>> way they fill out the fender line. The handling is a
>> bit more natural with diameter that gets close to a 27 inch
>> wheel. Kevin Sayles' comment might be enlightening, if
>> he's on-line soon. These are both full Reynolds 531
>> butted frames with good dropouts and lugwork, very nice thin
>> and smooth paint, and at least in my case, a cushy, refined
>> ride. They're not leaving the 630 technology to the
>> lower cost bikes, as was done in the '60s and '70s.
>>
>> I've never known just how much of an outlier
>> Woodrups was then, but if Ron Coopers were also doing this
>> in those days, perhaps it was still normal for a more
>> mixed-surface or rough riding bike. Perhaps these were
>> designed for bombing up and down in the more mountainous
>> regions of the UK, Wales coming prominently to mind.
>> That would tend to explain the slow handling and cushy feel
>> of my Woodrup. If I'm going to ride all day on roads
>> of unknown condition with my survival in my Karrimor, let it
>> be in a Cadillac or a Bentley, rather than a Ferrari.
>> Better to be lost and comfortable than lost and bone-weary.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Bob Freitas <freitas1@pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> This is an interesting question as a recent Ron Cooper came
>> to me with 27'' wheels even though I figure the bike to be
>> 1980. I had figured 27''s were obsolete by then specially
>> with custom builders.
>> Are
>> there general dates we can attach to the swing away from
>> 27'' wheels to 700c ? I know it might be different between
>> European and Japanese/Asian makers.
>> With the base
>> line and midrange bikes, when did they or did they ever
>> switch? I left the business in 1980 and 27'' were still
>> common but since I slumbered for the rest of the 1980s I
>> missed the transition if there was one.
>>
>>
>>
>> BOB FREITAS
>> gloriously
>> Sunny in MILL VALLEY, CA USA
>>
>>
>> Best of Holidays to Everyone...............................
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Classicrendezvous mailing list
>> Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>> http://www.bikelist.org/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ken Freeman
>> Ann Arbor, MI USA