Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Bicycle Mechanics Broken bottom bracket? Tacoed wheel? If you're having problems with your bicycle, or just need help fixing a flat, drop in here for the latest on bicycle mechanics & bicycle maintenance.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-05-10, 09:50 PM   #1
ghostm42
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Very simple bike tire question

Hi,

I'm new here, but I've been reading several of the archived threads and have learned quite a bit. I recently purchased a bike off CL - a chromoly Miyata SportCross hybrid (I believe it's the 1991 model after flipping through the Miyata catalog). Everything on the bike is original, including the tires. The tires are advertised as 700x35c.

The tire says "37-622 (700x35c)". This is the first point of confusion. Based on Sheldon Brown's tiring sizing page, I thought 700x35c would be called 35-622, not 37-622. What's the difference?

Next, I removed the tire and tube. The tube and rim strip actually say "28 x 1 5/8 x 1 3/8". I don't see such a fractional number on Sheldon Brown's page, though I do see a "28 x 1 5/8 x 1 1/4" that he says is "Northern European designation for the 622 mm (700 C) size". I'm not sure how this corresponds.

The real purpose of this exercise is to determine the thinnest tires the rim will accommodate. The inner width measures 17mm, so, again, based on Sheldon Brown's page, it sounds like I can put 700x25c or 700x28c tires on this. Is this correct? Also, will I notice any appreciable difference by changing from 35c to 28c tires?

Thanks for any help.

Ref: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html
ghostm42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-10, 10:51 AM   #2
RonH
Life is good
 
RonH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Not far from the Withlacoochee Trail. 🚴🏻
Bikes: 2001 Litespeed Tuscany and 2014 Cannondale SuperSix EVO Hi-Mod
Posts: 16,666
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 178 Post(s)
bump
__________________


The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy. - Psalm 103:8
RonH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-10, 11:08 AM   #3
Retro Grouch 
Senior Member
 
Retro Grouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: St Peters, Missouri
Bikes: Catrike 559 I own some others but they don't get ridden very much.
Posts: 26,914
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
I'm only about 90% confident in this answer: I think the first number is the outside tread width measurement, in other words, across the knobs. 35 mm is width of the actual carcass. One is important for determining if the tire will fit the bike frame, the other for fitting the rim.

A 28 mm tire will allow you to use more air pressure without blowing the tire off of the rim. That, in turn, will give you a little less rolling resistance at the expense of ride comfort.
Retro Grouch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-10, 11:18 AM   #4
HillRider 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Bikes: '''96 Litespeed Catalyst, '05 Litespeed Firenze, '06 Litespeed Tuscany, '12 Surly Pacer, All are 3x8,9 or 10. It is hilly around here!
Posts: 29,123
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
The actual and nominal width of bike tires don't always correspond and there is quite a bit of variation. So, the 700x37 and 700x35 designations on the same tire, while confusing, are not unusual. The difference is insignificant.

The "28" is an obsolete designation. Bike tubes are pretty tolerant and both 700c (622) and 27" (630) wheels use the same tubes. Tubes do vary in how wide a tire they are intended for and you will see packages marked things like 700x23 to 28 (27"x 1"- 1-1/8") or 700x 25 to 32.
Even then there is a fair bit of interchangability.

Your rims can easily take 700x25 tires and even 700x23 if you wish. Rims are also pretty tolerant of tire width.
HillRider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-10, 07:23 PM   #5
Al1943
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oklahoma
Bikes: Trek 5500, Colnago C-50
Posts: 9,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
700 X 25 tires would be a good choice on your hybrid if you plan to stay on pavement. 700 X 28 would be better if you expect to ride fine gravel or dirt as well as pavement.
Al1943 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-10, 08:18 PM   #6
garage sale GT
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 2,078
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Unless you currently run 35mm Panaracer Paselas you will experience a difference based on the different construction of the tire as well as the width. A finer sidewall and a thinner tread will contribute to reduced rolling resistance. However, the sidewalls can be a bit prone to damage if you ride through deep gravel or brush against broken pavement edges with them.
garage sale GT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-10, 09:11 PM   #7
DieselDan
Senior Member
 
DieselDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Beaufort, South Carolina, USA and surrounding islands.
Bikes: Cannondale R500, Motobecane Messenger
Posts: 8,521
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Usually I wouldn't go narrower then 28mm with a hybrid, but 17mm wide rims tells me you can go all the way down to 23mm.
DieselDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-10, 11:58 AM   #8
Grand Bois
Senior Member
 
Grand Bois's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pinole, CA, USA
Bikes:
Posts: 16,838
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
I wouldn't go narrower than 28c. It's a good compromise width. I have that size on most of my bikes, including the one with tubulars.
Grand Bois is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-10, 01:24 PM   #9
noglider 
aka Tom Reingold
 
noglider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: West Village, New York City
Bikes: too many
Posts: 28,085
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 748 Post(s)
28 is my favorite width. Jobst Brandt's measurements showed him that narrower tires have GREATER rolling resistance. They sure do ride harder, too.
__________________
Tom Reingold, noglider@pobox.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog

Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
noglider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-10, 01:27 PM   #10
10 Wheels
Galveston County Texas
 
10 Wheels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In The Wind
Bikes: 2010 Expedition, 03 GTO
Posts: 30,119
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
I ride with 700 X 20's to 700 X 35's

700 X 28's are my favorite size.
__________________
[SIZE=1][B]What I like about Texas[/B]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGukLuXzH1E

Set F1re To The Ra1n ( NY Night Rain Ride)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7jfcWEkSrI
10 Wheels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-10, 08:28 PM   #11
ghostm42
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks everyone. This was very informative. I will probably replace these tires with 700x28c based on all the recommendations. I will only be biking in paved roads either in NYC or Boston.
ghostm42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-10, 09:36 PM   #12
Kimmo
bike whisperer
 
Kimmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Melbourne, Oz
Bikes: velospace.org/viewcluster?c=873
Posts: 7,115
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by noglider View Post
Jobst Brandt's measurements showed him that narrower tires have GREATER rolling resistance.
O_o

Linkage?
Kimmo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-10, 10:03 PM   #13
Panthers007
Great State of Varmint
 
Panthers007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Dante's Third Ring
Bikes:
Posts: 7,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I run Rivendell Roughy Toughy's - made by Panaracer - in what they call 700 X 27C on my hybrid. They have a nice 2mm Kevlar belt, yet low rolling-resistance and are very nimble. I highly recommend them.
Panthers007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-10, 10:46 PM   #14
noglider 
aka Tom Reingold
 
noglider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: West Village, New York City
Bikes: too many
Posts: 28,085
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 748 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimmo View Post
O_o

Linkage?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jobst+brandt+ro...sistance+tests
__________________
Tom Reingold, noglider@pobox.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog

Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
noglider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-10, 01:45 PM   #15
jack002
Senior Member
 
jack002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southwest MO
Bikes: (1) 1993 Cannondale R900, red
Posts: 594
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by noglider View Post
... narrower tires have GREATER rolling resistance. ...
Gee, someone should tell bike racers this.
jack002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-10, 03:43 PM   #16
Al1943
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oklahoma
Bikes: Trek 5500, Colnago C-50
Posts: 9,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by noglider View Post
28 is my favorite width. Jobst Brandt's measurements showed him that narrower tires have GREATER rolling resistance. They sure do ride harder, too.
???
I've read the information and reviewed the data on Brandt's chart and what it says to me is:

1) rolling resistance decreases as pressure increases

2) smaller cross-section tires generally have less rolling resistance than large cross-section tires, 20 mm tires have less rolling resistance than 25 mm, which have less rr than 28 mm tires.

On a smooth surface this is what should be expected.

No doubt that larger tires ride softer. It seems that for today's road bikes the 23 mm size has become the most popular.
Al1943 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-10, 03:53 PM   #17
LesterOfPuppets
cowboy, steel horse, etc
 
LesterOfPuppets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Rock Springs, WY
Bikes: My War
Posts: 27,217
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 576 Post(s)
I like no larger than 25s on caliper brakes. 28s are the sweet spot if you got cantis or vees.
Just because 28s won't get past many caliper brakes without deflation.
That's of little consequence if you rarely remove wheels, however.
LesterOfPuppets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-10, 07:06 PM   #18
garage sale GT
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 2,078
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al1943 View Post
???
I've read the information and reviewed the data on Brandt's chart and what it says to me is:

1) rolling resistance decreases as pressure increases

2) smaller cross-section tires generally have less rolling resistance than large cross-section tires, 20 mm tires have less rolling resistance than 25 mm, which have less rr than 28 mm tires.

On a smooth surface this is what should be expected.

No doubt that larger tires ride softer. It seems that for today's road bikes the 23 mm size has become the most popular.
I find the 23s can actually seem to be riding softer at a given rolling resistance because they are narrower and can compress easier. Of course, the fatter the tire the lower the pressure you can use but the drawback is rolling resistance.
garage sale GT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-10, 10:20 AM   #19
Sluggo
aspiring Old Wart
 
Sluggo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Left bank, Knoxville TN
Bikes:
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al1943 View Post
???
I've read the information and reviewed the data on Brandt's chart and what it says to me is:

1) rolling resistance decreases as pressure increases

2) smaller cross-section tires generally have less rolling resistance than large cross-section tires, 20 mm tires have less rolling resistance than 25 mm, which have less rr than 28 mm tires.

On a smooth surface this is what should be expected.

No doubt that larger tires ride softer. It seems that for today's road bikes the 23 mm size has become the most popular.
Unfortunately, real roads are not not smooth steel, as the drums were in the Avocet tests. Other tests (Bicycle Quartery,Vol. 5, No. 1 (Autumn 2006)), performed on actual roads, reach somewhat different conclustions. Velochimp's summary: "The test’s findings point to a new direction for performance bicycles. For most cyclists, wide, supple tires at low pressures offer more speed, better comfort, increased versatility and improved safety than today’s narrow high-pressure tires. However, this type of wide, fast tire currently is not available. Hopefully, these test results will help persuade manufacturers to produce them."
Sluggo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-10, 12:14 PM   #20
noglider 
aka Tom Reingold
 
noglider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: West Village, New York City
Bikes: too many
Posts: 28,085
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 748 Post(s)
Interesting article! But, like many studies, while it brings many new facts, it creates new questions. What does he mean by "wide"? Does it mean relative to anything narrow, or does it mean up to a certain width? If he means 28mm, that's narrow to some people's thinking. I'd like to know the widest tire he tried.
__________________
Tom Reingold, noglider@pobox.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog

Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
noglider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-10, 12:23 PM   #21
garage sale GT
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 2,078
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sluggo View Post
Unfortunately, real roads are not not smooth steel, as the drums were in the Avocet tests. Other tests (Bicycle Quartery,Vol. 5, No. 1 (Autumn 2006)), performed on actual roads, reach somewhat different conclustions. Velochimp's summary: "The testís findings point to a new direction for performance bicycles. For most cyclists, wide, supple tires at low pressures offer more speed, better comfort, increased versatility and improved safety than todayís narrow high-pressure tires. However, this type of wide, fast tire currently is not available. Hopefully, these test results will help persuade manufacturers to produce them."
I wouldn't say that goes contrary to Avocet's conclusions simply because they didn't comment on hypothetical 28mm tires with super supple sidewalls which don't exist.

Last edited by garage sale GT; 01-14-10 at 03:21 PM.
garage sale GT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-10, 12:30 PM   #22
noglider 
aka Tom Reingold
 
noglider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: West Village, New York City
Bikes: too many
Posts: 28,085
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 748 Post(s)
What does supple mean? I have 28mm tires called Panaracer Pasela, and it's made of nylon, of course, and the sidewalls are very supple. And yes, they do feel very fast and comfy. They're also surprisingly round, so they may be close to the ideal design you're speaking of.
__________________
Tom Reingold, noglider@pobox.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog

Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
noglider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-10, 01:57 PM   #23
Sluggo
aspiring Old Wart
 
Sluggo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Left bank, Knoxville TN
Bikes:
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The original BQ test is not available on line, and do not have a copy, so I don't know how wide they went on the original test; I assume it was at least 28 mm. I need to buy the back issue, I guess. Here is a more recent article, but it does not include the roll-down testing of the original article.

There are more wide, supple tires available now that there were in 2006, many of them imported by BQ. The Pasela has been there all along, and has the same cords, but more rubber, than the tires BQ sells. My experience is that the BQ tires do indeed roll better than the Pasela or the nearly identical Rivendell tires, but the BQ tires are significantly more fragile.

BQ also did a test in the most recent issue that involved a power tap to measure the amount of rider power necessary to maintain a given speed over rumble strips. The conclusion of that experiment was that tire casing made little difference with this lower-frquency higher-amplitude vibration, but lower pressure (up to a point) generated lower rolling resistance. Of course, if you want to prevent bottoming-out, that means wider tires.
Sluggo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-10, 02:13 PM   #24
noglider 
aka Tom Reingold
 
noglider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: West Village, New York City
Bikes: too many
Posts: 28,085
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 748 Post(s)
Interesting stuff which debunks our intuitions and folklore. I'm in the computer biz, and as you know, computer and electronics technologies move very fast. By contrast, bike technology moves very slowly. But one thing that is exciting is that tires are constantly improving.

I don't doubt that there are better tires than the Pasela, but I often sing its praises because of its value. I have them on my old Raleigh Super Course, which is set up as a commuter bike. They make the bike feel much lighter than it really is.

I have some Schwalbe Stelvio tires on a road racing bike, and they feel very supple. I tested them at 130 psi, and while I may have sacrificed rolling resistance with that pressure, it didn't seem to make the ride rougher.

So this thread has evolved and is no longer about simple stuff!
__________________
Tom Reingold, noglider@pobox.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog

Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
noglider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-10, 02:46 PM   #25
Al1943
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oklahoma
Bikes: Trek 5500, Colnago C-50
Posts: 9,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sluggo View Post
Unfortunately, real roads are not not smooth steel, as the drums were in the Avocet tests. Other tests (Bicycle Quartery,Vol. 5, No. 1 (Autumn 2006)), performed on actual roads, reach somewhat different conclustions. Velochimp's summary: "The test’s findings point to a new direction for performance bicycles. For most cyclists, wide, supple tires at low pressures offer more speed, better comfort, increased versatility and improved safety than today’s narrow high-pressure tires. However, this type of wide, fast tire currently is not available. Hopefully, these test results will help persuade manufacturers to produce them."
No argument there. My issue is that there was a comment, above, that Jobst Brandt said that narrower tires have more rolling resistance. And then in another post the test data offered as evidence shows just the opposite. Misinformation.
Al1943 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:54 AM.