bikebuddha 

Anybody know what's the biggest tires you can squeeze on one of these.

hillyman

Regularguy built one of these last year and I think he put 700x35s on it but had some trouble mounting fenders.
Check out the build here;
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...+touring+frame

NoReg

I looked at the blown up picture, and the forks go out a fair bit from the tube before coming down. The tube is 28 MM to start with, and if you add the space on either side it looks as though the fork would easily take 38mm tires. I have a similar welded fork, and it is very tight shouldered up at the top, more a racing look, and it takes 37mm Schwalbes, and fenders. Mine is tight with coolstop blake blocks, but as I mentioned its a narrow fork.

bikebuddha 

Sigh. Maybe I should just bite the built and invest in an LHT frame.

Tom808

I had a look at mine this morning. It has 700x32 in back (Vittoria Randonnur) and 700x23 in front (Vittoria zaffiro). I have mounted zefal fenders front and back.

In back: There is not problem in terms of width (a bit over ½” on each side of the tire), only height since 700x37 tires have a taller profile. It is pretty tight down by the bottom bracket near the fender mount. I think I have seen this mentioned before that tube on which you mount the fender is set a bit far behind the bottom bracket shell.

In front: I don't think you would have any problems as there is almost 3/4 inch clearance between the fork and the tire, and 1 1/4 inch between the top of the tire and the bottom of the fork.

In summary: Without fenders, should be okay. With fenders, It might not fit in back. Sorry, I don’t have a digital camera, so I cannot post a picture.

bikebuddha 

Thanks. For me at least fenders are pretty much a must have.

NoReg

A lot of frames have some minor fender fititng drama. You can always make it work as long as there is space, on this one it was just an issue of where they placed the brace which is an easy workaround. There was some suggestion in regular guys story that they might have fixed it. I wouldn't be so sure since this frame has been aroung for like 20 years, or maybe it just seems like it.

Richbiker

I know it will take 35s, but here's my impression of this frame (I haven't taken it touring yet):

1. Wierd geometry. The picture on the Nashbar website shows what looks like a traditional horizontal top tube frame design. What you get in a 52 or 54 is a semi sloping design. Maybe that's to give you a more upright ride, but it also gives you a very high standover height. It's almost like a hybrid frame.

2. Unusually tall standover. What's the BB height for a traditional lugged steel tourer? I have no idea. But I initially ordered a 54 on this frame, and got it partially built up with wheels & tires on before I discovered that the frame was WAYY to big for me. So I measured the BB height--it is 12" from the ground (with 700 x 28 tires on). None of my other road bikes or road tandem have such a high BB. Are touring bikes supposed to have such high BBs? So I sent it back and got a 52. Built it up and that's what I have now, but I still think it just barely fits me. The standover clearance is 1" or less. I could have gone with a 50, but then I think I would not have enough room in the cockpit, with too short of a top tube. I normally ride a 53 or 54 in a road frame. If you buy this frame, I would order 1 size smaller than you normally use in a road frame.

Also, nashbar doesn't list standover height or BB height in its frame spec table, so beware!

NoReg

Sloping top tube is pretty comon on even modern day classic inspired touring bikes (though classic bikes didn't have it). The Rivendell has 2.5 degrees, yours may be a lot more, but it's a new normal kind of deal. I guess post mountain bike, people just want a little more seat extension, could be for a post shock or they want more stand over.

BB height is normally a lot lower. Sakkit is 10.5, Riv is 10.75, My Urbanite is 11.25, but it has a level top tube and I find it hard for standover. As far as I know those are all @ 37mm tire values. Generally BB height does not vary between sizes, at least not nominally. I don't mind riding up high on my touring bike, it's a great big ride. Generally, though, designers seem to believe lower is better on a touring bike.

According to Jobst Brandt you take 240 and subtract your crank length and the correct drop would work out to 11.3 inches at 700x37mm tires. However for touring where tight cornering is not an issue it seems the standard level is lower. Like Riv at 80 mm.

NoReg

Nashbar got back. 4.5 cm BB drop, basically like Richbiker said or worse. If one could sort out the brakes, this is almost begging for 26" tires, or 650s>