View Single Post
Old 06-08-19 | 06:51 AM
  #70  
noglider's Avatar
noglider
aka Tom Reingold
Titanium Club Membership
15 Anniversary
Community Builder
Community Influencer
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 44,160
Likes: 6,382
From: New York, NY, and High Falls, NY, USA

Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem

Originally Posted by acidfast7
That is not true. This can be evidenced by my detailed responses. Thus, can you please stop trolling me?

The question is very bizarre from the OP, when the answer is printed on the side of most reputable tyres. Maybe it's not in the US as it's a European standard. Maybe that's what all the fuss is about in this thread.
As von Neumann said, in theory, there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.

Those of us who have more experience than you, and we do exist, know that the tire's width does not match the rating. There are many reasons for this. One of them is that the width rating is not a measurement of inflated width but of bead-to-bead distance, divided by 2.5. Reading the specifications and telling us that this is what we encounter is not a substitute for knowledge gained empirically. Stating that you are the expert does not make it so. Enough of us know about the variations between rating and measured width that asking about experience makes sense to many of us, though you lack enough experience to understand the usefulness of the question. So listen and learn rather than call the rest of us wrong. OK? Try it.
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog

“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author

Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
noglider is offline  
Reply