I bought a set of 27x1 1/4 Paselas for my Peugeot PH10, to find out that they are really too big. I have read over and over on the undersizing of tires back in the 70s and 80s, old Michelin 1 1/4 came off it with plenty of room, and was just curious as to how current tires compare to one another in that regard. Would I be better to drop down to a 1 1/8 or 1 inch Pasela, or try a different brand? For clarity, the tire is both too tall (I have to deflate it a bit and use some force to get the back tire in the frame), and too wide (there is little room between the tire and the frame, so that any decent bump that could wiggle the back tire the slightest gave me a rub). I've got other options to put the tires on, so I'm not worried that these will go to waste, just need to find something that fits a bit better for this bike.

what year ph10? are the wheels original? ie: did it come with 27" wheels?

i would've tried 1" paselas in the first place, but i prefer 23-25mm tires.

i had a '73 pr10 that originally came with 700c tubulars. but i mounted 27" nos mavic wheels in it. they looked great and the mafacs fit well. i used 1" paselas with little problem, but i still couldn't dismount a fully inflated rear tire on its wheel without deflating it first. it was a tiny bit too big to clear the space between the drops and chainstay bridge near the bb. that was a huge problem upon first discovery when i got a flat on the road after inflating it with my co2 off the frame.

.

edit: '84's ph10 tires were 1 1/4"; '85's were 1 1/8".

https://cyclespeugeot.com/1984-1989PeugeotCatalog.html

Paselas run pretty true to labelled size these days. The 27"x1-1/4" are right around 32mm on my fiancee's Schwinn.

To match your old Michelins (hopefully you haven't thrown them out yet!), flatten one out on a table and measure the width from bead to bead. Multiply that number (in mm) by 2.5 and order a Pasela with that width.

I find the 1 1/4 inch Paselas too fat too. I was surprised. But, they measure out at 1 1/4.

Try the one inch Paselas. I really like them. Wide enough for me and they look better on a "racing" bike, IMO.

Should that be multiply, or divide? If it is multiply, what should I be flattening, as 70mmx2.5 would run 175mm, a number I would think to be wrong.

If divide, it looks like they were even smaller than 1 1/8 inchers

D'oh! Yes, it would be to divide -- I mix that stuff up sometimes.

I always interpreted Sheldon's advice as measuring between the centers of the beads -- that measure would be about 65mm, giving a 26mm tire. I could be wrong on that as well, but it puts you in the ballpark of a 26-28mm tire either way. If it were my bike, I'd be tempted to try the 1-1/8" Paselas next, since I like to use as big a tire as I can fit in my frames.

OK, thanks! Not too sure on the guess and check system, but as a bigger (as far as bikes go, 205#) guy, not too sure I want to roll on 1 inch tires either Maybe Ill give the 1 1/8 inchers a try on my next Niagra order. I picked up a cheap Le Tour III at the Salvation Army today that I don't want to put much money into but that could use new tires, so at least the 1 1/4 inch wont go to waste!

I have the 1 1/4" paselas on my Paramount and they look huge. I don't really care for the look, but there new so I'll run them for awhile.

+1 on the 1 1/8.

I had refurbished a Motobecane Mirage Sport, where the chainstays would rub up against the 1 1/4 tires. A switch to 1 1/8 solved the problem. Neither of the tires were Paselas and I believe 27"mrims were the original wheelset.

Yep, try the 1 1/8". Paselas are one of the few tires that measure out the way they're marked. Everything else seems to be a bit skinnier than the nominal size. I don't know why this is; you'd think it'd be a very straightforward measurement, within a few percentage points at max inflation...

FWIW, I just sold my PH10LE, and it had Forte Strada K tires marked 27 x 1 1/4" that measured almost exactly ... you guessed it; 1 1/8"

My wife's Jamis hybrid came with Vittorio '32mm' tires that are the same width as the 28mm Pasela TGs on my Paramount.

Have used paselas in the past, but recently picked up a set of 27 vittoria zaffiros which I think looks great on 27 araya alloys. Probably personal preference for all black tire, plus run rubinos on most my bikes. In 1/8 or 1/4, a bit cheaper than paselas too if you look around.

Lascauxcaveman - How'd you like those Fortes? There is a Performance on my commute, and I think they had them on sale for about $12 for the regular or $15 for the Kevlar belted and 27" in stock in both when I was in there this weekend. It'd be a lot quicker than waiting for another Niagra order (my last one took over a week and a half to show up), as I'm trying to have this bike in shape and ready to go with some practice time going from a mountain to a road bike for a ride at the end of June.

Dailycommute - agree on the blacks, the Paselas I ordered were the blackwall version. I really liked the whitewalls of the Michelins that were on it, but I can't find anything in that size that isn't black or brown/tan walled.

I do like the wider tires.

My Trek 400 came with 700c x 28 tires. I had been riding it with 700c x 32 absolutely fine. Because I wanted to use a particular brake set, I put on some 27" tires- I started with 1 1/4, but they were too tall for the fork crown, but had clearance at the brake bridge- I just settled on 1 1/8" Paselas.

My Trek 730 would not fit 32s- I had room at the fork crown (barely) but they rubbed on the brake bridge. Settled for 28s on that one.

Not that this pertains to anything in this thread- the "Swift Tire Sand Canyon" 1 3/8" tires look really great- I'm going to get a set, just because the only 1 3/8" tire I've ridden was 30 years old and I didn't trust it.

I've always found the Pasela tires true-to-size in the sense that when mounted on an appropriate-width rim, they always measure extremely close to the nominal width.

I can't say that about any other tire I've ever used. It's sort of unfair that they get anything but the best reputation in this regard.

I would describe the ones I had as a solid, durable tire. Suitable for a commuter or gravel grinder. I'm guessing they were at least four or five years old when I got them a couple years ago, so it may not even be the same tire anymore. I would give them another try on any bike where I was looking for durability over suppleness.

For whitewalls I chose the Scwhalbe HS 159. Ambiguously labeled 27 x 1 1/4" (28/32) they measure 30mm when inflated on a standard width rim and just barely fit the Trek 600 I have them on right now. They're also pretty durable, in my experience. I've abused them pretty badly and they seem to hold up.

Partially agree. I get it but the downside to some of the really wide rubber is weight. They end up being beastly flywheels on climbs, the lower psi makes one bob up a climb. And in some cases, short wheelbase / tight fork rake bikes will have an induced shimmy.

Still looking around for fast gravel / tarmac 27" in gumwall.

The other issue I've come across is wide tires with supple sidewalls don't necessarily have an advantage in longevity. Nothing in relation to puncture preventive but rather about tire wear. Add higher ambient temp, road temps and brake friction and it really gets tricky.

Read all the reports you want by top editors about wider is better, but nobody addresses this issue. That's fine if a manufacturer keeps tossing freebies to a tester but where's the real world long term test?

I mentioned on another thread about a Pasela tire for a tandem. I'm sure many have had good service with them, but they spook me far beyond safe application.

If I understand what you're saying, you said that wider tires may not last as long?

I source discards from the shop for my bikes, tires that are old enough that I wouldn't want to inflate them near to their max pressure rating.

The wider tires allow me to use lower inflation pressures, so no blow-outs and the tread seems to last much longer, presumably since the lower contact pressure with the road surface isn't as abrasive to the tread surface.

I didn't really see the Pasela's true-to-size width as an advantage since I prefer all tires to meet expectations as to inflated vs. printed width. I bought a large number of 1-1/4 Paselas that were wider than I would have wanted. The 1" Pasela measures more like 27mm wide on a 22-23mm touring rim, so is my preference.

Yours is the first report that I have heard of a wider tire causing any kind of shimmy, even at lowered pressure. Isn't there a "pneumatic trail" phenomenon that gives the wider, softer tire some added stability? And doesn't the softer tire have enough damping to it's flexing to help damp out oscillations?
Racing bikes with high handlebars, short stems and flexible frame/fork structure are the recipe-makers for shimmy as I have noticed, that and a weight-bearing rack located above the rear tire.

i have 1 pasela, tg in 37 . measured it around 32. not sure what happened there

What happened was that Panaracer only chose to use the true-to-size printed sizing on their 27" tires and on their smallest (23mm or so) tires.

My Ritchey Cyclocross tires say 38mm but measure 33mm installed!

I have Michelin Dynamic tires that are labeled 32mm but measure fully 35mm installed!

There are all kinds of sizing anomalies with even today's tires. Only Michelin's never seem to be undersized.

One has to measure their tires inflated, being prepared to return tires that fall to far out of line with expectations. New tires typically grow 1mm or so after a day or two of use.

Color me a little confused: I would expect that a wider tire with a larger footprint would take longer to wear out than a skinnier one, all else being equal. Are you positing that there is more destructive sidewall flex thanks to the lower pressures? Or just that the tread is too thin for really long life (Compass/GB acknowledge that they tried to compromise between tire life and rolling resistance.)

With "supple" tires that have thin natural-colored sidewalls, I think it's generally agreed that sunlight and heat can put them out of service before their black-sidewalled equivalents, but I think that's more of an argument for wearing them out before they "age out."

^ To be fair, my concerns are with a tandem and limited selection for 27" application. Gumwall for style points. I mentioned some of the problems in another thread so won't repeat too much here. The longevity issue is not talked much by test / journalist for heavy weight usage and sidewall flare out. Those bulging sidewalls are getting an extra workout.

So the typical answer by most is to further inflate, in this case, over the spec rating.

Add the problem of an overinflated clincher on a hot ambient day, brakes that work extra hard, creating more heat and to the tire. I find it difficult to believe this type of situation is going to be easy on such tire. Those sidewalls have a shred or burst point but even if they hold, it can't help in longevity. Its like driving your car with over inflated tires trying to compromise for a large load. That tire is going to run hotter and wear out quicker.

Thanks dddd- Agree and that's one of the reasons I'm going back to a longer stem on the tandem.

Long story but for other reasons, I'm re-configuring both capt. and stoker set-ups. By luck, super BF member happened to have a unique seat post rail adapter mount so I can reverse set the saddle. He posted in the for sale section and couldn't believe my luck. Cool thing the bb is eccentric and so I can adjust accordingly knee drop line to the new saddle position.

Last part of the ingredients is finding the magic 27" fast gravel / road tire in a vintage looking gumwall.

Thanks for the info. Kind of bizarre that they get it right for 27s