26" VS. 700C
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
26" VS. 700C
I know this has been covered a lot. I think I know all the arguments. I used to comute on a 26" montain bike with slicks, as good as it is, I don't think it ever rolled half as well as my touring bike, with 37mm tires even.
I am contemplating building a custom frame, since I don't fit perfectly off the rack. I am struck with how many tire choices there are for 26" wheels, even for touring. They weigh less, spares are easier to pack. I have some very racy Bontrager rims 36H for 26" a custom deal back in the early days of MTBs, never used. I like the fact one can get gear lower on a 26" frame, I like the extra space for bottles.
I was contemplating making a 26" rear vs 700c front, but the tire spare requirements are holding me back. The lower 26" gearing is right up my alley.
My only reservations are rolling resistance and the rougher ride. I saw some Panaracer kevlar armoured tires 26'x1.25, and they look just right, but would they roll with proper inflation, and would they shake my teeth out pound for pound of pressure versus the 700C?
I am contemplating building a custom frame, since I don't fit perfectly off the rack. I am struck with how many tire choices there are for 26" wheels, even for touring. They weigh less, spares are easier to pack. I have some very racy Bontrager rims 36H for 26" a custom deal back in the early days of MTBs, never used. I like the fact one can get gear lower on a 26" frame, I like the extra space for bottles.
I was contemplating making a 26" rear vs 700c front, but the tire spare requirements are holding me back. The lower 26" gearing is right up my alley.
My only reservations are rolling resistance and the rougher ride. I saw some Panaracer kevlar armoured tires 26'x1.25, and they look just right, but would they roll with proper inflation, and would they shake my teeth out pound for pound of pressure versus the 700C?
#2
Videre non videri
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Posts: 3,208
Bikes: 1 road bike (simple, light), 1 TT bike (could be more aero, could be lighter), 1 all-weather commuter and winter bike, 1 Monark 828E ergometer indoor bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
Given the same inflation pressure, tyre model/width, and number of spokes, the 26" wheel will be the faster one.
The main reason road bikes have larger wheels is gearing and tradition.
The top gear of a 26" wheel vs a 700C, is 6% lower, given identical gearing.
The main reason road bikes have larger wheels is gearing and tradition.
The top gear of a 26" wheel vs a 700C, is 6% lower, given identical gearing.
#3
I'm Carbon Curious
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,190
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I don't want to hijack this tread, but I interested in finding a lightweight road bike that uses 26" wheels. I know there's the surly LHT in smaller models, but it's heavy. Anyone know of a make and model. Anyone make them during the 80s 90s?
#5
In planning
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 81
Bikes: Revell custom tourer,Kona Stinky,Omega TI,Gaint TCR,Simonchinni,Raliegh ti,S&M Next Gen.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I wouldn't buy a Thorn after the way i was spoken to by Robin.
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SE Minnesota
Posts: 12,275
Bikes: are better than yours.
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
I avoid Panaracer tires after too many flats with kevlar Paselas. Maybe it was just a string of bad luck, but the problem ceased after going back to Contis.
I know for a fact that Fuji made small 26" wheeled road bikes in the 80's as I bought and resold one recently.
I know for a fact that Fuji made small 26" wheeled road bikes in the 80's as I bought and resold one recently.
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SE Minnesota
Posts: 12,275
Bikes: are better than yours.
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Originally Posted by Peterpan1
So halfspeed, what was your impresion of the rolling resistance issue, and what tires would you buy for 26 specifically?
#9
Banned.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: ny
Posts: 1,764
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I ride both and have so for over 15 years. IMO when all things are equal, (tire contruction, profile and pressure) the difference is equal to the width of a gnats's azz. I use 26" for touring these days because the wheels are slightly stronger and strong 26" rims are cheaper than 700c.
If the hypothectical situation of being stuck in BFE with a torn up tire occurs, A 26" tire can be found at many hardware stores , K-Mart or the evil "W". On the other hand a 700c tire can be fedex-ed overnight.
My advice is go with your gut feeling, and since this is going to be a custom frame your frame builder is going to have his opinions also
If the hypothectical situation of being stuck in BFE with a torn up tire occurs, A 26" tire can be found at many hardware stores , K-Mart or the evil "W". On the other hand a 700c tire can be fedex-ed overnight.
My advice is go with your gut feeling, and since this is going to be a custom frame your frame builder is going to have his opinions also
Last edited by Cyclist0094; 01-29-06 at 01:16 PM.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: SW Washington, USA
Posts: 373
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
All well said, above. I can only add to the chorus.
The advantages of 26" are: slightly stronger wheels (all other things being equal), and easier to find tires in the boonies. I've used Specialized Fat Boys (26x1.25) at 100psi for almost 20 years on tours. They're slicks, they're "fast". And very few flats. Of course, if you use knobbies, you're gonna get rolling resistance.
If 700c wheels are "faster" than 26", it's simply because there's lower friction in the hubs. You can calculate it, it's a 4% or less difference in angular speed. However, the friction in good quality hubs is certainly less than 1% of the forces you overcome in pedaling. (Of course, "all things being equal" -- different tires&wheels would affect wind and rolling resistance, etc.) I can't imagine how you could notice the difference.
I'm a die-hard 26" fan for touring. Part of that is from happy experience, part is because I need fewer parts to maintain my stable of bikes. Also, I'm not a big guy, 5'9", so the geometry works for me. Bike geometry for taller people might be the deciding factor for 700c.
-- Mark
The advantages of 26" are: slightly stronger wheels (all other things being equal), and easier to find tires in the boonies. I've used Specialized Fat Boys (26x1.25) at 100psi for almost 20 years on tours. They're slicks, they're "fast". And very few flats. Of course, if you use knobbies, you're gonna get rolling resistance.
If 700c wheels are "faster" than 26", it's simply because there's lower friction in the hubs. You can calculate it, it's a 4% or less difference in angular speed. However, the friction in good quality hubs is certainly less than 1% of the forces you overcome in pedaling. (Of course, "all things being equal" -- different tires&wheels would affect wind and rolling resistance, etc.) I can't imagine how you could notice the difference.
I'm a die-hard 26" fan for touring. Part of that is from happy experience, part is because I need fewer parts to maintain my stable of bikes. Also, I'm not a big guy, 5'9", so the geometry works for me. Bike geometry for taller people might be the deciding factor for 700c.
-- Mark
#11
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
I'm taller, and I intend to build the exact same geometry into the larger bike, except I will make fitting related changes I would make if I was building a 700C. I did run into the tire resupply problem last fall, but that isn't the motivating factor in this case. I'm just trying to come up with the best combination. I find my current bike just rolls out better than most other bikes I end up next to on a hill, regardless of how trick, and even if they are running 700s, for that mater. It may just indicate there is an advantage to new components. Maybe changing out bearings is worthwhile, before each trip.
#12
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I just have to say here, regarding Thorn cycles, that Robin Thorn has an astonishingly good reputation for personal service. This is the first negative comment I've ever heard about him. Thorn makes several extremely high-quality touring bicycles and frames, and they make a strong case for the 26-inch wheel.
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Southern Oregon
Posts: 208
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The Thorn Nomad is my dream bike. I dream of someday being able to get one. Maybe even just a frame. I have a full suspension mountain bike that I do not use anymore so I could use the parts from it on the frame of my Nomad. Some day...
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 912
Bikes: A bunch
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
The Schwalbe Marathon Slick is a nice compromise in an urban-style puncture resistant tire that still gives you good speed. Compared to the Specialized Nimbus EX Armadillo, which is a more armored tire, the ride is smoother, even though the Schwalbe tire is a 35, compared to the Armadillo 38.
#15
Lentement mais sűrement
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
The Specialized Nimbus EX (now simply called "Nimbus") and Nimbus Armadillo are two different tires, Armadillo being the heavier one. I use the Nimbus EX in 700/32c and I'm satisfied.
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
So many different opinions... I prefer bigger wheels since they tend to smooth out the road better. I use 700c wheels on my mountain bike for that reason (or 29" as they are called in that area).
In regards to Panaracer tires, I have had great luck with Panaracer Tserv tires. Very grippy and very few flats.
In regards to Panaracer tires, I have had great luck with Panaracer Tserv tires. Very grippy and very few flats.
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Vancouver, Wet Coast
Posts: 305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I am in the process of getting a custom frame built. The torch should hit the metal any day now. I agonized for months, even before talking to the builder, about which size of wheel to build the bike around.
The debate about which wheel is more efficient seems to always revolve (pun intended) around rolling resistence and such. I cant see that that is a huge issue. To me, what seems to be over looked is the circumference of the two wheels. Look at Sheldons gear calculator chart and select "meters development" this gives the number of meters a given wheel will travel for each revolution of the crank. With the same drivetrain selection and cadence enter the two wheel sizes with the typical tire you would put on each. For me it would be a 26x1.5 and 700x37. The way I read it, and anyone can correct me, is that you are going to go further on a 700 wheel that on a 26 for the same amount of energy expended. Roughly about 6-8%. Doesnt sound like much but when we talk about increasing our car's fuel efficiency by 6-8% it is a big deal.
In the end, after much fretting and sleepless nights, for my size (5'6") I chose a 26" wheel. Partly because of general sizing and standover and partly because of looks, its more proportional. I do think it will be a bit more of a slug over the 700 but that is the choice I made.
My 2cents.
The debate about which wheel is more efficient seems to always revolve (pun intended) around rolling resistence and such. I cant see that that is a huge issue. To me, what seems to be over looked is the circumference of the two wheels. Look at Sheldons gear calculator chart and select "meters development" this gives the number of meters a given wheel will travel for each revolution of the crank. With the same drivetrain selection and cadence enter the two wheel sizes with the typical tire you would put on each. For me it would be a 26x1.5 and 700x37. The way I read it, and anyone can correct me, is that you are going to go further on a 700 wheel that on a 26 for the same amount of energy expended. Roughly about 6-8%. Doesnt sound like much but when we talk about increasing our car's fuel efficiency by 6-8% it is a big deal.
In the end, after much fretting and sleepless nights, for my size (5'6") I chose a 26" wheel. Partly because of general sizing and standover and partly because of looks, its more proportional. I do think it will be a bit more of a slug over the 700 but that is the choice I made.
My 2cents.
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Vancouver, Wet Coast
Posts: 305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Peterpan1
What is the actual diameter of a 26" wheel with a touring tire on it like the Schwalbe 35?
#20
Senior Member
Originally Posted by sth
The debate about which wheel is more efficient seems to always revolve (pun intended) around rolling resistence and such. I cant see that that is a huge issue. To me, what seems to be over looked is the circumference of the two wheels. Look at Sheldons gear calculator chart and select "meters development" this gives the number of meters a given wheel will travel for each revolution of the crank. With the same drivetrain selection and cadence enter the two wheel sizes with the typical tire you would put on each. For me it would be a 26x1.5 and 700x37. The way I read it, and anyone can correct me, is that you are going to go further on a 700 wheel that on a 26 for the same amount of energy expended. Roughly about 6-8%. Doesnt sound like much but when we talk about increasing our car's fuel efficiency by 6-8% it is a big deal.
In the end, after much fretting and sleepless nights, for my size (5'6") I chose a 26" wheel. Partly because of general sizing and standover and partly because of looks, its more proportional. I do think it will be a bit more of a slug over the 700 but that is the choice I made. My 2cents.
#21
Senior Member
Originally Posted by Peterpan1
What is the actual diameter of a 26" wheel with a touring tire on it like the Schwalbe 35?
#22
Videre non videri
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Posts: 3,208
Bikes: 1 road bike (simple, light), 1 TT bike (could be more aero, could be lighter), 1 all-weather commuter and winter bike, 1 Monark 828E ergometer indoor bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
Originally Posted by sth
The way I read it, and anyone can correct me, is that you are going to go further on a 700 wheel that on a 26 for the same amount of energy expended. Roughly about 6-8%. Doesnt sound like much but when we talk about increasing our car's fuel efficiency by 6-8% it is a big deal.
The size of the wheel only affects speed indirectly, through rolling resistance (depends on tyre design/materials, tyre pressure and road surface) and drag (mainly number, length and shapes of spokes, but also total wheel-tyre surface area and tread pattern).
The fact that one revolution of a larger tyre takes you slightly farther doesn't matter. The power required has nothing to do with the number of revolutions per second. If you want to go 6-8% faster, you have to work harder - simply getting a larger wheel doesn't help at all (and in some cases, it can actually slow you down).
#23
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
I have something similar on my mountain bike, but I don't have the tiny tires on them, and that is where my info falls off, but it sounds as though 25" might not be too far off. I need this measurement to start designing the frame. I think my recumbent has small schwalbes on it and my 700 has schwalbes on it so I should be able to get pretty close.
#24
♋ ☮♂ ☭ ☯
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 40205 'ViLLeBiLLie
Posts: 7,902
Bikes: Sngl Spd's, 70's- 80's vintage, D-tube Folder
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by CdCf
The fact that one revolution of a larger tyre takes you slightly farther doesn't matter. The power required has nothing to do with the number of revolutions per second. If you want to go 6-8% faster, you have to work harder - simply getting a larger wheel doesn't help at all (and in some cases, it can actually slow you down).
And, to not belabor the point at others expense, this will be my last post on it.
Ive commuted different distances through the years and on different bikes. My
commute last year was 14 in and 14 back every day. The 700x28 bike was
noticably faster and more energy efficient riding in a brisk but not hard manner.
The MTB didnt have a computer on it but by using the clock in my front office I
would arrive anywhere from 5-8 minutes sooner on the big wheeled bike. Every time.
I am riding the MTB now due to not wanting to beat the 'good' bike up. I am
reminded every day how much more ponderous the MTB is. You can feel energy
being sucked into the road and dying on every pedal stroke. This is with high
pressure, low rolling resistant road tires, not knobs. There simply is no comparison
between a 700c equiped bike and a 26'er. If 26'ers where faster, racers would
be using them.
Be safe.
__________________
☞-ADVOCACY-☜ Radical VC = Car people on bikes. Just say "NO"
☞-ADVOCACY-☜ Radical VC = Car people on bikes. Just say "NO"
#25
Videre non videri
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Posts: 3,208
Bikes: 1 road bike (simple, light), 1 TT bike (could be more aero, could be lighter), 1 all-weather commuter and winter bike, 1 Monark 828E ergometer indoor bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
Originally Posted by -=Łem in Pa=-
I respectfully disagree.
. . . . .
The 700x28 bike was noticably faster and more energy efficient riding in a brisk but not hard manner.
. . . . .
The 700x28 bike was noticably faster and more energy efficient riding in a brisk but not hard manner.
The size of the wheel simply doesn't make a difference in favour of the larger wheel, given identical design. The reverse is true in this case.
Originally Posted by -=Łem in Pa=-
If 26'ers where faster, racers would be using them.
1. 700C-size wheels are available in lighter and more aerodynamic versions - a major factor for an elite racer.
2. The size of the wheels is one of the factors determining the gearing of a bike. The larger the wheel, the higher the top gear is, for any given chain ring/sprocket combination. For pro racers, the top gear might be 53-11 or higher, and they're still able to push that at reasonable cadences. For equal tyre widths, the 700C wheel will provide a 6-7% higher top gear - giving them that extra bit of speed before they spin outside of their optimum cadence.
3. The longer spokes offer slightly more cushioning. (I'm not sure about this one, but it seems reasonable... Do correct me if this isn't the case.)
On the other hand, if we look at the fastest bikes ever, they typically have very small wheels.
That's because they're not subject to UCI rules and regulations, limited team budgets, sponsoring parts manufacturers' requirements and many other factors...