Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Bicycle Mechanics
Reload this Page >

Why did we move from 27" to 700c?

Notices
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.

Why did we move from 27" to 700c?

Old 08-31-10, 09:06 PM
  #76  
I have senior moments...
 
bikinfool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Woodside, CA
Posts: 2,151

Bikes: Many

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
I knew what you meant, but by perpetuating these "standard" sizes instead of looking at specifically what you're buying just spoils poor consumers and causes grief when these dummies get unhappy. F*ck 'em! People really should use their brains when consuming...no?
bikinfool is offline  
Old 08-31-10, 09:08 PM
  #77  
I have senior moments...
 
bikinfool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Woodside, CA
Posts: 2,151

Bikes: Many

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by AEO
that's an interesting size....
glad it never materialized.
Never materialized for roadies? Love my 650b options on mountain bike frames/forks that can go that way but not 700c style. My Beckler (650b Heckler) is a great bike, no mods needed either. OTOH left 27" behind with my '70 Schwinn Super Sport.
bikinfool is offline  
Old 08-31-10, 09:17 PM
  #78  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 14 Posts
Originally Posted by fuzz2050
The ISO are my heros. You know what ISO actually stands for? It's the International Organization for Standardization. They decided that it would be to confusing having a different name in every language, so they standardized it.
I've run more than a few supposed ISO experts out of a room by asking them if they're an expert, why the **** can't they pronounce the name properly.
dscheidt is offline  
Old 09-01-10, 06:31 AM
  #79  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by HillRider
Sheldon Brown tried that a few years ago with the 650B (ISO 584) wheels. Apparently it never gained any serious audience and I haven't seen anything about it in quite a while.


This is hardly new and, if anything, there are now fewer commercially available sizes to deal with than in the past.

Go to Sheldon Brown's web site and look up the article on "Tire Sizing". He lists 31(!) different ISO standard rim sizes of which 29 are bicycle related. Add various tire widths available in many of these rim diameters and the number of tire models gets to be monumental.

Yep ! A couple of years ago, I bought a matching pair of bikes. The tire size was NOT even listed on Sheldon's site !!! KUDOS to Schwalbe for helping me out with a nice set !!
Esteban32696 is offline  
Old 09-01-10, 06:37 AM
  #80  
AEO
Senior Member
 
AEO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: A Coffin Called Earth. or Toronto, ON
Posts: 12,258

Bikes: Bianchi, Miyata, Dahon, Rossin

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by bikinfool
Never materialized for roadies? Love my 650b options on mountain bike frames/forks that can go that way but not 700c style. My Beckler (650b Heckler) is a great bike, no mods needed either. OTOH left 27" behind with my '70 Schwinn Super Sport.
does anyone really need a wheel that's between 622 and 584?
doesn't EA3, 650A, 26x1-1/8, or ISO 590 already fill that gap? why would you need a 603mm wheel?
grant peterson might have been influential in the past, but some of his ideas are downright wacky
__________________
Food for thought: if you aren't dead by 2050, you and your entire family will be within a few years from starvation. Now that is a cruel gift to leave for your offspring. ;)
https://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/arti...ger-photos.htm
AEO is offline  
Old 09-01-10, 10:30 AM
  #81  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Boston area
Posts: 2,039

Bikes: 1984 Bridgestone 400 1985Univega nouevo sport 650b conversion 1993b'stone RBT 1985 Schwinn Tempo

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 542 Post(s)
Liked 151 Times in 100 Posts
One of the reasons a 603mm diameter rim might be useful is that it would allow a wider tire and a fender to be used on many existing frames. Some of us have come to appreciate the comfort of wider tires and fenders. It might not be a wacky idea at all, but since the rim and tire combination doesn't exist we won't know.

The reason the project never materialized was that they couldn't find a tire manufacturer to make the tire.

There was a recent Bicycle Quarterly test comparing the performance of various wheels of different rim diameter and tires of various widths. Their conclusion was that smaller diameter wheels are less stable than large diameter wheels. Wider diameter tires help make smaller diameter wheels more stable, but make larger diameter wheels too stable. There is an interesting discussion of the various forces involved in the bicycle wheel. I'm not sure that their tests are perfect, but at least they have tried to make real world tests of various rims and tires.

The test was in the Spring 2010 issue, vol.8 no.3. I guess you have to go to the paper copy as they don't make their issues available on the net.
ironwood is offline  
Old 09-01-10, 12:27 PM
  #82  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,688
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1074 Post(s)
Liked 295 Times in 222 Posts
Originally Posted by ironwood
There was a recent Bicycle Quarterly test comparing the performance of various wheels of different rim diameter and tires of various widths. Their conclusion was that smaller diameter wheels are less stable than large diameter wheels. Wider diameter tires help make smaller diameter wheels more stable, but make larger diameter wheels too stable.
That'd be stable as in providing stability to the bike while riding, and not stable as in a stable mechanical structure, right?
dabac is offline  
Old 09-01-10, 12:29 PM
  #83  
AEO
Senior Member
 
AEO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: A Coffin Called Earth. or Toronto, ON
Posts: 12,258

Bikes: Bianchi, Miyata, Dahon, Rossin

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by ironwood
One of the reasons a 603mm diameter rim might be useful is that it would allow a wider tire and a fender to be used on many existing frames. Some of us have come to appreciate the comfort of wider tires and fenders. It might not be a wacky idea at all, but since the rim and tire combination doesn't exist we won't know.

The reason the project never materialized was that they couldn't find a tire manufacturer to make the tire.

There was a recent Bicycle Quarterly test comparing the performance of various wheels of different rim diameter and tires of various widths. Their conclusion was that smaller diameter wheels are less stable than large diameter wheels. Wider diameter tires help make smaller diameter wheels more stable, but make larger diameter wheels too stable. There is an interesting discussion of the various forces involved in the bicycle wheel. I'm not sure that their tests are perfect, but at least they have tried to make real world tests of various rims and tires.

The test was in the Spring 2010 issue, vol.8 no.3. I guess you have to go to the paper copy as they don't make their issues available on the net.
I figured stability in a straight line was a direct function of castor angle (aka trail) and pneumatic trail.

But you realize that 650B and 650A both fit in 700c frames AND offer an even fatter tire to be fitted while keeping the total diameter the same.
it's not just the wheel, there's the tire also.
__________________
Food for thought: if you aren't dead by 2050, you and your entire family will be within a few years from starvation. Now that is a cruel gift to leave for your offspring. ;)
https://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/arti...ger-photos.htm
AEO is offline  
Old 09-01-10, 12:30 PM
  #84  
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver
Older British club and sport bicycles were fitted with a 597mm wheel and a 26 by 1 1/4 tyre... Dunlop was the chief supplier of these and rims were available in chromed steel, stainless, and aluminum (uncommon). Dunlop stopped making tyres in this size after they realized they made more money selling car tyres and for a time it was very hard to get a decent, high performance tyre in this size.

In the early fifties you could buy some English bikes with 27inch wheels although the 26 by 1 1/4 was the most popular and by 1956 - 57 the 27 inch wheel had replaced the 26 by 1 1/4 wheel as standard.

The British also used the 28 inch over sized rim and tyre . . .
I remember seeing a British road/commuter bike with 28" wheels and rod activated brakes. That was an interesting sight.

But, sixty fiver, please illuminate us, if you can, as to WHY the 27" size took over in the UK? I'm not sure from your post if it was simply because Dunlop quit the bike market or something else.

Thanks, dude.
hiero is offline  
Old 09-01-10, 12:31 PM
  #85  
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Grid Reference, SK
Posts: 3,768

Bikes: I never learned to ride a bike. It is my deepest shame.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by ironwood
One of the reasons a 603mm diameter rim might be useful is that it would allow a wider tire and a fender to be used on many existing frames. Some of us have come to appreciate the comfort of wider tires and fenders. It might not be a wacky idea at all, but since the rim and tire combination doesn't exist we won't know.
Not a wacky idea at all... designing bikes would be super easy if we had an infinite number of wheel sizes... just like we have an infinite number of rider sizes. It just doesn't make practical sense to break iit down into infintessimally small steps and would make virtually no difference in performance.
Existing wheel sizes have steps less than 1" apart between 500 and 635mm bead seat diameter, and the actual performance advantage of any one size over another is really only on paper - if three riders are racing on well set up high quality bikes, one with 700C/29", one on 6500b, and one on 26", the stronger rider will win the race - not the rider on the 'better wheel size.'

Side note: I just looked at the Gary Fisher bikes website and they are booasting that for the first time ever, a rider on a 29" (700C) wheeled mountain bike is leading the world cup standings... since these bikes have been available for years, if they actually gave you an advantage then this wouuld have happened before now. Such is the nature of elite cycling - the best riders are fairly well matched in competition, so any advantage will make itself known very quickly. I could bewrong, but this is how it seems to me.
LarDasse74 is offline  
Old 09-01-10, 03:23 PM
  #86  
Senior Member
 
DannoXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Saratoga, CA
Posts: 11,736
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked 9 Times in 6 Posts
Yeah, and the top riders also pretty much ride what ever their sponsors give them as well. Specification differences between the bikes are more about that than purely technical advantages.
DannoXYZ is offline  
Old 09-01-10, 03:37 PM
  #87  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 33,656

Bikes: '96 Litespeed Catalyst, '05 Litespeed Firenze, '06 Litespeed Tuscany, '20 Surly Midnight Special, All are 3x10. It is hilly around here!

Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2026 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,095 Times in 741 Posts
Originally Posted by DannoXYZ
Yeah, and the top riders also pretty much ride what ever their sponsors give them as well. Specification differences between the bikes are more about that than purely technical advantages.
As far as the top sponsored MTB racers go, most of them have a choice between 26" and 29" wheels as their bike supplier makes both so it is personal preference and the rider's assessment as to which will work better on a given course. It's the same with full suspension vs. hardtails and sometimes a full suspension bike is chosen despite its weight penalty.

Last edited by HillRider; 09-01-10 at 07:27 PM. Reason: mistake in wheel size numbers
HillRider is offline  
Old 09-01-10, 04:04 PM
  #88  
Senior Member
 
DannoXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Saratoga, CA
Posts: 11,736
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked 9 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by HillRider
As far as the top sponsored MTB racers go, most of them have a choice between 29" and 29" wheels...
Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me!
DannoXYZ is offline  
Old 09-01-10, 07:44 PM
  #89  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 33,656

Bikes: '96 Litespeed Catalyst, '05 Litespeed Firenze, '06 Litespeed Tuscany, '20 Surly Midnight Special, All are 3x10. It is hilly around here!

Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2026 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,095 Times in 741 Posts
Originally Posted by DannoXYZ
Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me!
It does now that I corrected the typo. I KNEW someone would comment before I fixed it!
HillRider is offline  
Old 09-02-10, 09:45 AM
  #90  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Boston area
Posts: 2,039

Bikes: 1984 Bridgestone 400 1985Univega nouevo sport 650b conversion 1993b'stone RBT 1985 Schwinn Tempo

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 542 Post(s)
Liked 151 Times in 100 Posts
Originally Posted by dabac
That'd be stable as in providing stability to the bike while riding, and not stable as in a stable mechanical structure, right?
Right, and when I wrote "wider diameter tires", I should have said "wider cross section tires", or simply "wider tires".
ironwood is offline  
Old 09-02-10, 10:04 AM
  #91  
Bicycle Repair Man !!!
 
Sixty Fiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: YEG
Posts: 27,272

Bikes: See my sig...

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked 128 Times in 95 Posts
Originally Posted by hiero
I remember seeing a British road/commuter bike with 28" wheels and rod activated brakes. That was an interesting sight.

But, sixty fiver, please illuminate us, if you can, as to WHY the 27" size took over in the UK? I'm not sure from your post if it was simply because Dunlop quit the bike market or something else.

Thanks, dude.
Some early 50's British bikes were fitted with 630 wheels and believe that riders discovered that they preferred the ride and performance of these over the 597 although the 597, when fitted with good quality tyres, is very fast and very comfortable and I have knocked down a sub hour 40 riding a vintage Raleigh equipped like this.

The 630 rim could be fitted with a narrower higher pressure tyre and also may have been another one of those attempts by the British and the Americans to have a standard that was not French.
Sixty Fiver is offline  
Old 09-02-10, 10:10 AM
  #92  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Boston area
Posts: 2,039

Bikes: 1984 Bridgestone 400 1985Univega nouevo sport 650b conversion 1993b'stone RBT 1985 Schwinn Tempo

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 542 Post(s)
Liked 151 Times in 100 Posts
[QUOTE=hiero;113

As for why 27" happened in the first place (which is another excellent question!), didn't we get that size from the English bicycle imports? I need to go check what Sheldon has to say about that. Or there might be an old post in the rec.bicycles.misc archives.[/QUOTE]

I don't know why 27' clincher wheels began in Britain, but one of the reasons they took hold in America, was that British bicycle imports had a foot in the door early. After WW II, British bicycle manufacturers had a preferential tarrif over other countries. Therefore Raliegh had a dealer network already established when the bike boom of the sixties came along. Their ten speed bikes had 27" wheels, and pretty soon 27' tires became common and easy to get. When French and Italian bies were imported, they had 27" wheels on models that would have 700C wheels at home. Then the Japanese started sending bikes built to English norms.

Maybe if French manufacturers had got here before the British, 27" wheels wouldn't have become dominent, and 650B would be a lot more common.
ironwood is offline  
Old 09-02-10, 04:27 PM
  #93  
Old fart
 
JohnDThompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Appleton WI
Posts: 24,935

Bikes: Several, mostly not name brands.

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3571 Post(s)
Liked 3,367 Times in 1,916 Posts
When I built my loaded touring frame in 1981 I deliberately designed it to use the then-fading 27" wheel size so I could find replace tires or even wheels easily, even at the only place that in dozens of miles that stood a chance of having bike stuff -- like a hardware store in Coldwell ON. You could only find 700C tires and rims at upscale bike shops in fairly large towns and I preferred touring in near-wilderness areas.
JohnDThompson is offline  
Old 09-02-10, 05:26 PM
  #94  
Senior Member
 
Pinyon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 1,380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
In the 80s, all of my rider friends switched to 700c rims, simply because the Japanese and French rims stayed true much longer than their American counterparts. You still had to true your rims all the damn time, but the foreign aluminum rims lasted a lot longer than the mostly steel ones made in the U.S.

The same goes for cotter-pin cranks and the associated bottom brackets with sleeved bearings. They made really good cotter-pin cranks too, but most were junk. And the sleeved bearings in those bottom brackets were constantly needing to be re-packed with grease, having the bearings replaced entirely, etc. Both were killed off by campy and Japanese campy knock-offs with the square taper crank design, and bottom brackets that used a cone bearing set up.

That is how it was where I lived, anyway. Cycling was not that big there, so I'm sure there was more to it on a national/global level.
Pinyon is offline  
Old 09-02-10, 05:44 PM
  #95  
Senior Member
 
KD5NRH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Stephenville TX
Posts: 3,697

Bikes: 2010 Trek 7100

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 697 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by fietsbob
Metric system is so Napoleonic.
No surprise that a short (reportedly in more ways than one) fat guy wanted to go to a measurement system with little-bitty length units and big mass units. 168cm and 90 kilos (estimated from his pants size) sounds so much less short and fat than 5ft 6in and just under 200lbs.
KD5NRH is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Bigbus
Bicycle Mechanics
18
08-28-19 02:14 PM
markwesti
Bicycle Mechanics
8
06-15-19 08:40 PM
Monstermash
Classic & Vintage
87
05-03-19 11:42 AM
Fissile
Classic & Vintage
87
07-27-17 10:14 AM
MTBerJim
Bicycle Mechanics
22
04-18-11 05:51 PM

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.