I understand the tire diameter designations for common bike tires marketed in the U.S. on commuter bikes, in particular the 622 and 559, using the new ISO terminology, colloquially 700 and 26 in. respectively. However, it is not clear to me what practical difference in performance there is between 622 tires and 559 tires, assuming other relevant factors are equal, e.g., similar tire width (e.g., 37 mm, etc.), similar tire style (road, knobby, etc.), similar bike setup, etc. I've searched around here but not been able to find much. While some places describe the confusing tire size systems and the attempts at international standards, I have not found a compelling explanation of performance differences.
In bike marketing materials, some generalizations get tossed around: 622 tires roll over paved terrain better (including potholes ) and are faster, 559 are tougher. It seems like road bikes usually have 622 diameter tires and mountain bikes have 559 with hybrids and commuters usually being a mixture between the two.
It makes sense to me that, all other things being equal, if you were pedaling a bike with larger tires (such as a 622 tired bike) you would go farther with each stroke since the tire's circumference is larger than a smaller tired bike, e.g., a 26 in. tire, and therefore each turning of the pedals would bring you a bit farther in distance.
This article does a fairly good job but is written with tandems in mind, not a typical commuting situation IMO.
Is there something else here regarding performance and these two tire sizes that I'm missing?