jimmuller 

A year or more ago someone gave me a pair of tires labeled Linear, 27" x 1". They sure seemed small. They were also quite stiff. So I mounted them on some 27" Ukai rims I'm messing around with, pumped them up to the sidewall-recommended 100psi. They looked skinny. I put my calipers on them and the width measured 21.6mm. Yow! I've seen, um, optimistic labeling, but this is ridiculous.

I'm just curious. Any of you have experience with Linear tires?

Most likely I will not keep them.

icepick_trotsky 

I don't know the brand, but I recently took a spin on a pair of 700x22s. A bit wobbly, but I think they make for a fun ride. I think they're Vittorias. I wouldn't like them on a rough road, though.

jimmuller 

IIRC, I've seen postings for 22mm Vittoria and Veloflex. I've got 23s on two bikes, and really like them. But this isn't about how skinny those tires are, but about how they were so poorly labeled. This subject seems to come up in every third tire thread. It has been stated more than once in C&V that some tires are much skinnier than claimed. Panaracer Paselas at least (which I have on several bikes) seem to be dead on. But those Linears aren't just a little bit off. They are off almost 4mm.

RobbieTunes

Just my experience(s):

Panaracer made a Technova and Technova II in 700x18/19. The reason I say 18/19 is because the tire screened label said 700x19, the raised lettering on the sidewall said 700x18. They were OEM on the Ironman bikes, and so hard that every single reviewer mentioned them. They were so hard the reviewers felt they couldn't even give the frame a thorough review, and the wheels had to be trued fairly often during the road testing. In other words, almost everyone hated them. That being said, I had a crit-happy friend who thought they were the best thing since sliced bread. Having had about 3 pair of them, I agree with the testers of yore, too hard.

I've ridden IRC SpeedLite and Schwinn Record in "claimed" 28x1, and they were definitely no wider than 22mm. They rode OK, probably good for the era, but I'd not recommend them as a new purchase.

Tufo mades a tubular clincher in 700x22, and yes, it's narrow and fairly hard, especially if you decide to run 130-140 psi. Most tires are hard at that pressure, but the C S33 pro isn't that bad, and it wears like iron. Tufo seems to be in no hurry to go to 700x23 or even 700x25 on these models. I prefer them to any clinchers at the same price point, but once GP4000S II's go below $40/tire (such as this weekend's sale at Performance/nashbar), I go with those. I don't mind the extra weight for the ride.

I've always ridden 23's, and as far as 25's, I like the GP4000S II's, I do not like the Vittoria Rubino Pro's in '25, and the jury is still out on the Continental GrandSport 700x25's, but hedging towards a "naye." My favorite clincher is actually the Grand Prix in 700x24. Just a great all-around tire. I've only seen them for sale once, and bought them then. Never since.

I'm no scientist, but Continental and Michelin are telling me that wider is better, faster, and lasts longer, so I'm good with that, and won't be mounting anything less than 23's from now on.

I remember now that I had a set of these. They rode nice, and fast, but they'd been folded so long, they had permanent bumps that knocked my calipers out of whack.

AZORCH

Yeah, I remember those tires too. Thought they were pretty cool back in the day, but I think it would scare the hell out of me to ride 'em today.

Back to the OP's point though, there aren't a whole lot of tires out there that match up to the printed/claimed size. Is it my imagination, or did someone begin a thread sometime back attempting to peg those tires that were accurately marked?

dddd

Back in the 80's, 700x25 and 27x1" -labeled tires had accurate raised-letter sizing designations on the sidewall that read 20-622 and 20-630, respectively.

My 27x1-1/4" Turbo Sport tires from12 years ago have an accurate 26-630 designation on the sidewall, even though 1-1/4" is really about 32mm.

I've had Conti 28mm tires that measured an actual 25mm as mounted, and recently measured a 23mm 4000-S tire that measured fully 26mm wide on a narrow rim.

Paselas and World-Tour tires in the 1-1/4" size measure fully 32mm mounted on 22mm rims, wider than all other tires I've measured that are labeled as 1-3/8" wide.

Most 1-1/8" tires measure 26mm inflated, about my favorite width btw. Pasela tires are wider though, and their 1" tire measures the same 26mm as other's 1-1/8" tires.

I had Michelin Dynamic 32mm tires that measured fully 35mm on a narrow rim.

A new pair here of the 1990's Michelin SuperCompe HD tires in a 20mm width actually measure 22.8mm as mounted on narrow rims.

Just a few odd data-points.

JohnDThompson 

I don't have any experience with the "Linear" tires, but I did ride Michelin 700x18C tires for many years. Still have some, if you're interested.

scozim 

I remember riding both 700x 19 and 21 when I was in college. In fact, my PSV came new with 21's. I'm pretty comfortable with 23's and adjusting to both 25 and 28 sizes.

Bobtoo

I bought a wheel a while back that came with a 27 x 1 1/8 Michelin Select tyre fitted. A few weeks ago I bought another wheel that had an older Michelin Select in the more usual 27 x 1 1/4 size and if anything it's narrower than the one labelled 27 x 1 1/8. I read somewhere that the manufacturers used to make tyres slightly undersize to get the weight down, then their competition would make their tyre slightly narrower again etc.

KonAaron Snake 

I had 19c tufo tubulars on my Titanio - a buddy I rode with called them rim floss. The tire ran narrower than the Mavic rims. I remember 19cs from my youth, and I don't recall minding them. The tufos were fun, but also a bit scary. You'd hit a bump and it was an adventure.

I've got four NIB 27x1s...avocets. They measure close to a 23c.

jimmuller 

Rhetorical question: How skinny can skinny be? I think I understand. That one inch width must mean a metric inch.

Since this bike is destined for a friend who was previously riding an mtb, I suspect he'd be apprehensive about riding them. When I wrote in the opening note that I may not keep them, I was actually thinking I may not leave them on those wheels. My Raleigh still runs 27" M13-II rims, narrower than those Ukais, and wears 25mm Pasela TGs. I could give them to him and try these skinny skinny "metric" 1-inchers.

rhm

My folding bike s currently sporting Panaracer Minits Tough 20 x 1.25 but they actually measure 28.0 mm which is pretty skinny for 20" tire.

crank_addict

I don't mind them but of course it depends where used and with respect. I'd much rather be riding a wider tubular but these skinny clinchers are kind of fun that mixes up the cycling experience.

I'm not so sure there's an aero advantage but I'm often in the smooth boring flat lands with the wind as artificial hills. If anyone is done with them, keep me in mind.

Currently to burn up: For a front I have a 175gm / FasGrip time trial slick (Avocet) 700x20c (measure 19c).
Rear is an Italian made Vittoria Oscar-X 700x21c (measures exact). The Vittoria is a beautiful quality clincher, fine herringbone pattern, a bit stiffer sidewall than the above.

dddd

Even at a light 145lbs, I prefer not to ride on aged tires whose narrower width requires significantly-higher pressure in order to keep the rim away from the road surface.

Since older tires tend to suffer outer-ply de-lamination where the outer ply overlaps under the tread, and since used ones (with actual aging from exposure) tend to suffer outright outer-ply failure at the sidewall, the higher pressures that are required in narrower tires make blow-out more likely as the tube can more easily blow out of the single surviving ply when the pressure is higher and when the outer ply has failed in either of the ways I mentioned.

Since my vision isn't sufficient to identify and avoid the smaller road surface defects at the speeds that I often ride at, narrower tires are more hazardous as they 1) are more easily pinch-flatted, 2) they can more easily fall into or "hang" on directional surface defects and 3) also put the fragile sidewall closer to an irregular road surface. So an actual 23mm is my preferred minimum, and 26mm is more in the comfortable range for my area and riding habits.
At 28-30mm width, I have done an extensive amount of off-roading (real mountain-biking actually) at 60psi, with good reliability from both (gumwall) tires and (albeit wider) rims.

Chombi

back in my college riding days, I went for the skinniest and lightest high pressure, foladable, clincher tires I can get. Bibsport TS20's and Specialized Turbo S, R, vand VS in, IIRC, 19mm widths, combined with Specialized latex tubes.....
It was my very simple theory that less tire width + higher tire pressures + lighter weight = faster wheelset/less rolling resistance. Which despite them feeling really fast for me back then, might nor be always necessarily true, as proven by recent analysis on tire width and rolling resistance.
When I got back into cycling a few years ago, I thought the same as back then and snagged from a local PBS end of season clearance bin, oh-so-narrow Hutchinson Atom foldable clincher tires, called out as a 19mms, which turned out to be actually a bit narrower than 18mm when I mounted them up combined with Vittoria's lightest inner tubes. They felt fast, light and lively, but then, I was reminded on how harsh very narrow high pressure foldable clinchers rode. A big difference this time as my older butt does not have as much padding as it had back in my college days. and rides were turning out to be less enjoyable because of it. The penalty of a very harsh ride with skinny-skinny tires is definitely something to consider, especially if one is 40 and above in age..... That's why I decided to just go with tubs for all my bikes for a magic carpet ride and my harsh clincher wheelset has sat in a bag unused for something like two years now.....

ThermionicScott 

This observation piqued my interest, as I've had other tires where the ISO number was closer to reality than the nominal size. (Namely my Panaracer Col de la Vie's that say "650A" but are almost bang-on to the ISO "40-590" marking.) Setting aside the effects of different rims on the measured tire width, do you think there is something with ISO/ETRTO that mandates more truth than the nominal labelling?

ironwood

What's a "metric inch"?

EvilWeasel

32mm approximately. Lol.

Or is it 3.2 cm?

jimmuller 

Actually, an English inch is 25.4cm exactly, so a 25mm tire should be equivalent to a 1 inch tire. (32mm is equivalent to 1 1/4".)

But a metric inch is one of those little small inches, apparently smaller than an English inch. No one has ever seen a real metric inch, but I know they must exist.

2manybikes

Not to be confused with the metric inch worm.