This is a hard one to word properly in a search, so I though I'd post a new thread on it.
What year or years did the 700c designation become standard or most common for road bikes in the US?

I'm looking to find an older/vintage steel double butted frame (for aesthetic reasons)[of good quality steel] to build into my daily rider, my commuter. But I want to upgrade to modern components, 700c wheels, Oh and yes, 130mm spacing, etc...

So in my searching, what years do I search in to begin finding compatible frames? I've been noticing it takes place around '84, but that is only through anecdotal evidence. Many folks when posting bikes for sale haven't the slightest idea of sizing beyond stand over height. I'm also bargain hunting...

Two questions here, I'll take a stab at it. I have no pre-1985 bikes that had 700c, and everything 1985 and after did. I'd put that as a vague dividing line as far as "standard" wheel set size.

However, I've had no problem converting 1983 and 1984 bikes to 700c. One simply required adjusting the brake pads, one required diffferent calipers that would reach, and one required a drill-out of the fork and brake bridge so I could mount long-reach Tektro calipers.

My 1968 Raleigh came with 700c. So did my daughter's '73 and wife's'76. But you'll have to man it up and use sew ups. Clinchers are for sissies.

Along with a 2 x 4 to fix the spacing, yer there.

Most true racing bikes have used 700C wheels for a long, long time. Up until the availability of good clincher wheels - and even beyond - most of these bikes originally had tubular wheels. Bikes with 27-inch wheels used clincher tires, but were generally not true top-line racing models. Many were designed for recreational use or touring. So the answer is, if it's a good-quality frame built for racing, it was in all likelihood built for 700C wheels.

Maybe what you want to know is when did spacing increase to 130, since that's really what you want. Any bike that takes 27 inch wheels can take 700c. It's the 130 that a modern drive train requires that's tricky.

Not necessarily,...

If your bike was designed for 27" wheels, you may find the brakes cannot properly reach the braking surfaces of the rims of a 700c wheel.

I would say that by 1980 the switch was in full swing. Exactly when more than 50% of new bike sales had 700c versus 27", I have no idea but I bet it's around 1980. There was also the issue of providing maintenance parts (tires & tubes) for all the 27" wheels. This will cloud the issue a bit.

What you would need is to define a set of criteria which constitute "become the standard". Is it bike sales, tire sales, both, all , none of these,...

That's true, as I look back on my question, it is the desire to put in an 8 or 9 gear cassette that's driving me. A modern drive train.

...and ah, no, no sewing for me thank you... I'm kind of more a hot rod guy than vintage purist. I like the overlay of modern tech on good old bones. Or in the case of clincher vs. tubular, ...lazy.

And I am steering towards a more touring style (keep looking at Nishiki, sweet) for a more all day in the saddle aspect for the daily rider. But on the other hand I am also slowly switching out components on my road bike (a cyclocross... it works) till I've gotten a good older steel race style frame for speed.

Well thanks for the input, it does look as though I'm looking in the correct year range, mid-80's up to find the gem.

Yes, but one can easily fix the brake issue, if there even is one. I can easily move the brake pads enough on my 73 Fuji to use 700c.

I agree that the 130 is more of the issue for him...unless he wants to have work done on the frame itself.

Edit: OP beat me to it.

Ah yes, which brings up the question, tweaking the frame. Going from 126 to 130mm, would this torque the stays too much? And is it just as simple as spreading the them and squaring the dropouts? And would this bring the wheel a mm or two closer to the brakes? OK, maybe that's more for the frames/mech forum, but maybe you an opinion.

The point I was making with my post was simply to say that most vintage racing bikes for quite some time pre-1980 were designed for 700C tubulars and could therefore just as easly accomodate modern 700C clinchers (with a few minor caveats.)

Sheldon Brown always has the answers:

https://sheldonbrown.com/frame-spacing.html

From 126 to 130 is 2mm on each side. You might not even need to do anything. A mm either way isn't much in the world of steel tubing. The difference in angle is trivial and the dropouts will not be off at an angle (we could do some trigs, but honest it won't matter). All the same it is a good time to check dropout alignment anyway. As one poster here keeps reminding, eight speed was introduced with the idea that you could just stuff the wheel in place and go.

Ah yes, Sheldon does have the answers... I hope the folks at Harris keep this treasure trove alive a very long time.

I know Cannondale was still marketing 27" wheel road bikes as late as 1985 but they were certainly the exception by then.

Browsing old Trek brochures, you'll see that the racing bikes have 700c wheels, and the touring bikes have 27". The 520 was still spec'd with 27" wheels in '89, switched to 700c in '90.

I originally had my 1982 720 touring frame built up with 27" wheels and Suntour Cyclone brakes; when I switched to 700c wheels in 1984, I had to get a Campy drop center bolt to make the rear brake reach the rims; the front was still okay, though.

English "Club Racing" bikes like the Raleigh Record Ace and Clubman of the 50's had 27 x 1 1/4" clinchers (or 26 x 1 1/4) but I guess we wouldn't consider them true racing bikes, right?

As pointed out above, any "serious" bike came with 700c. This was true pretty much all of the modern era.

27" was a US standard. Cannondale marketed touring bikes with 27" because they had the thought that 27" tires and rims would be readily available anywhere, but 700c would be a little less common. Their road/race bikes had 700c wheels.

In 1980, 1981, "recreational" bikes had 27" wheels. "Race" bikes had 700c. I know because I bought two recreational 10 speeds, then a racing bike.

Spreading a frame 4mm (or 10mm, for a 120mm 5 speed) shouldn't be a problem for steel. For aluminum, probably more of a problem. My track frame came with 100mm rear spacing due to shipping (i.e. it got crushed) and I spread it to 120mm no problem.

cdr

Uh, the term "serious" had not been introduced before this point. Perhaps you should define it.

And while you're at it, you might define "the modern era" as well.

I have already pointed out that top of the line English bikes came with 27" wheels in the early 50's.

Cannondale started out marketing equipment for bicycle touring in the 70's, and when they expanded to bicycles, their emphasis was on touring. The first bikes they sold were touring bikes. They were not toy bikes or "recreational" bikes; they were serious touring bikes. They had 27" wheels because that was the standard for "serious" touring bikes. At that time you could get 27 x 1 3/8 touring tires, but I don't recall seeing 700c tires over 28mm until many years later.

The Trek 720 of the early 80's was also a "serious" bike. Reynolds 531 db frame and fork, Cinelli BB, Campy dropouts, Campy cable guides at the BB.... In terms of quality, it was no way inferior to, say, a 760. The 720 was a touring frame, the 760 a racing frame; what distinguished them was frame geometry and wheel size --27" for touring, 700c for racing.

Thanks for the education. I never knew.

my 1978 Peugeot Competition came with 700c wheels.

And not just "club racers," but top-of-the-line dedicated mass start and track bikes as well. The cutoff is approximately 1950; before that, 26-inch wheels were more common (though 27-inch wheels had begun to appear pre-war - my '39 Hobbs Continental Superbe was apparently built for 27-inch wheels.)

That's the reason I always used 27" tires on my long distance bikes, many hardware stores have bike tires in the 27" size. I have been standing in a small town hardware store 20 miles from anywhere looking at a 27 inch tire with a shredded 700c on my bike. It's not quite so bad today because 700s are common enough that they can be found nearly anywhere, but I still prefer riding a hardware store tire to carrying the bike.

For a while after 700 became the standard, many bikes could still take 27's without a problem, then they became 700 only with a somewhat limited tire size they would accept. Anyone know when the trend started to 'design' for a small tire? (anything bigger than a 23 was too tight on my old giant)

Ken.

Easily, yes, through the purchase of replacement brake calipers. Easy to do, if you have the money.

Picchio and the others are going the wrong way! They are headed further back in time to the transition from 26 to 27" wheels.

I think I read somewhere that bikes of that period were made such that the frame accepted any wheel in the 26" to 27" range, including tubular tires, and all you had to do was move the brake shoes up or down a bit.

Yes and no. It is that simple and it has nothing to do with your brakes.


You'll eventualy catch on.....

700c's became standard towards the mid to late 80's. We sold Peugeots, Schwinns and Miyatas back in the day and all 3 used 27" for the entry level bikes and 700c's for the mid to upper end in the mid 80's. By the end of the decade all Peugeots were using 700's and the entry level Miyatas were running 27's.

They may have been able to accomodate both, but they were generally designed with one or the other in mind (with either designed to accomodate fenders as well.) You can usually tell which by inserting a pair of wheels.