Originally Posted by
Iride01
Maybe my eyes were deceiving me, but weren't most of those bikes running 27" tires? I miss those. Only a 8 mm more diameter in the rim, but I always felt they were better riding. Maybe it's just the rims hid the fact they were typically a wider tire.
Yup, 1964, that was a standard size.
My 1976 Motobecane had 27" wheels, 1-1/4" tires, and that classic French fork -- long and curvy. Not great for racing but terrific for long rides on mixed pavement.
I enjoy my '89 Iroman but it's a bit twitchy in comparison, especially with the shorter 90mm stem I got from another BF member to replace the original (120 or 125, I think). On Thursday's ride on a fast downhill doing around 35 mph just coasting, I came across a set of three rubber rumble strips forgotten by a road crew. The black rumble strips blended with the pavement, which was a hodge podge of gray and black asphalt and chipseal, patched many times, so I didn't see the strips until it was too late to avoid them. I decided it was less dangerous (not to say "safer") to go straight over them rather than swerve toward the shoulder and risk sliding out on sandy gravel and debris. I was boxed in to my left by a passing car. Fortunately I was in the drops and had just enough time to relax my elbows to absorb the three consecutive jolts like a spring, so the front wheel barely bobbled. Not an experience I'd care to repeat.
But a bike with a longer wheelbase, more relaxed geometry and more favorable trail, like those 1960s bikes, would have handled that much more gracefully.