I personally cant stand the 27" rims i've tried. They feel alot less responsive.

So, is it the 8mm difference in diameter, or a diifference in design?

I don't believe you tried two bikes with everything identical except for the wheel size.

I don't believe he's tried anything that has anything over Wal-Mart grade tires either.

His statement amounts to diddly unless he's willing to name what he tested.

-Kurt

Well, I just noticed that Niagara Cycle Works is currently offering the Panaracer Pasela Tourguard 27 x 1-1/8 for only $15.29 each

Frankly, none of those tire options stack up to a good 700c. They're way heavier, have worse compounds for grip, and don't roll as well. Comparing a tan-wall 27" tire to a high TPI 700c racing tire is insane.

The rims thing is debatable, but once again, ultimately 700c has better options.

If you're tooting around the neighborhood or MUP on your 10 speed bike with 27" tires you won't notice any difference, but get into a more competitive situation and I daresay that the heavier wheel/tire combo and less grip / more rolling resistance will be an issue.

I also agree that this thread is mostly BS and that the difference is probably negligible for most casual riders.

If you are so very performance oriented, how would you ever even end up in the "old steel bikes" realm of the internet where we are finding ourselves right now?
I still wonder why 27" wheels are so popular on touring rigs if they are so "inferior in every way". It just seems like a larger wheel is going to have more spoke which would mean more weight, but then the ride quality could be improved in the way 29er wheels like to roll over things.

Because I like steel frames and vintage bikes, but I'm not delusional like some of the people (this isn't directed at anyone in particular) in the C&V forum are. I recognize the performance advantage to be had from newer technology, having owned many types of bikes. I'm very happy with my steel framed bike that has 9 speed, modern components + wheels + tires, and brifters

Now I see where you are coming from.

I consider 27" wheels purely from a C&V performance standpoint. Just how many of us actively use ultra-light racing tires on our 700C rims, much less try anything of the sort in 630? Very few. Maybe some folks here are running on Conti 4000's and tires of the like, but only some.

The good majority of the folks here are running skinwalls or blackwalls on VLW's (or Conti's red wall), and hardly any qualify to be an extreme-performance tire. Heck, hardly any 27"-wheeled machines from factory were intended for performance; they were sport tourers or tourers - bikes made for a tire such as the World Tour, Pasela, or the Armadillo. Fact is, if you've got 27" rims in the first place, chances are you're not looking for performance exceeding that of any of these three tires.

-Kurt

When I mount the Avocet TT30 folding tyres (20:630) to my 27 inch Araya 1W wheels it makes for one of the nicest setups I have ever run... but finding any high performance 27 inch tyres these days is nearly impossible.

If you really want to tear it up 700c has all the choices.

For the majority of its existence, 27"/630mm was never intended to be a high performance racing tire in the first place (and the 630mm tires that are available today run circles around the "performance" 630's of way back when).

I don't see why someone should expect extreme performance out of something never quite intended for it in the first place.

-Kurt

I should have used the tongue in cheek font for my post. I understand the steel preference with high performance parts.

There are so many kinds of riding between high performance racing and "tooting around the neighborhood." Go back to the roadie forum where you don't come off as a jerk.

you should try them with tires

That was uncalled for.

Thread looks as if it's run more than its intended life expectancy, IMO.

-Kurt

Fair enough all I'm saying is 700c has performance as well as comfort options which is why I think they're better.

Indeed, I'm not going to contest that.

Most folks seem to forget that the 27" size never did take off as a racing tire to start with - compared with 700C, anyway. It had its heyday in racing, but not within the last 25 years - wherein it might have benefited from new uber-lightweight compounds and construction. Instead, the tourers ran with it, and that's what we've got today: A very suitable lineup of all-purpose sport-touring tires that you can go pretty darn fast on. The Pasela isn't a slouch, I don't care what its weight is (and just like its expensive racing cousins, it gets sidewall tears easy ).

It's akin to expecting extremely high-performance 590mm EA3 tires; best you'll get are some peppy Schwalbes that weigh a bit more than a Gommitalia Targa, but if you're fiddling with 590 in the first place, the Gommitalia Targa wouldn't be the type of tire you'd be considering in the furst place.

-Kurt

Hey, I don't toot and I don't appreciate the implication that all I do is toot.

(and for the record, I think you've bumped this to the top more than anyone else.)

The Performance Fortes are black wall and hold 120ish as I recall...maybe 140. If I inflate them over 110, the tire gets a blow out.

And this statement has exactly what to do about wheels and tires?

Pretty nice thing for you to say, considering I've initiated zero of the attacks in this thread.

-Kurt

I didn't notice any difference between the two sizes. If there is it's 90% perceptual. But anyways I'd always take 700C over 27" simply because of the fact it's standardized with any equipment/bikes made in the last 25 years. I really enjoy nice bikes from the late '80s, more than any other period (haven't tried early '90s though!) and 27" simply won't fit in these bikes.

I ride Bontrager Selects and Gatorskins on my 27"s; they aren't racing tires but do deliver good ride quality. I say the ride of a 27" is superior to a 700 all things being equal, but I'm not judging by racing standands. 27" was the recognized standard for a time, Euro racing fever produced the 700. And like many other MTB riders, I prefer my 29er over my 26er for similar reasons. The magic lies in the momentum of the tire spin.

As long as use the same tires, except for BSD, on 700c and 27" rims of the same make I would not expect to feel any difference. Be interesting to try a blind test though.

With the much wider choice of widths and makes available in 700c tires, at least in the USA, the only reason I would be tempted to choose 27" wheels and tires would be if I knew I was going to be touring where 700c wheels and tires are uncommon. India still has 635mm tires as the commonest size so neither 700c or 27" would be the best choice for there.

Interesting you point that out - one of the main reasons that tourers liked 27"s back in the '70s was the fact that bike shops in the middle of nowhere, back then, were more likely to have a spare 27" tire than a 700C.

-Kurt

Ok, perhaps this hasn't been the most informative thread to come along in a while but I'd like to make some general comments. First, the 8mm difference between 700C and 27" is so small that I'd dare anyone to notice it in a blind test. That said, Kurt is correct in that vary few 27" rims/tires were designed for performance applications back in the day. In the hayday of 27", the 60's and 70's, performance bikes almost always used tubular rims and sewups (yeah, I know you could special order a Paramount with 27s and stuff like that but I said "almost"). By the time good performance clinchers came along the move to 700C was already well underway. Additionally many European bicycles from the 60's and 70's that came with 27" rims (typically entry level to mid range models) were not designed for 27" rims but rather had that size rim installed for export to countries using English measurement standards. Take a look at the chain stays on a typical Peugeot UO8 where they are indented for tire clearence and you will notice that the indentations don't line up with 27" tires but do line up with 700C tires. That's because the frame is essentially the same as a French P8 models that didn't use 27" tires. Frank Berto, in his 1988 book 'Complete Guide to Upgrading Your Bike' recommended 27" for touring bikes not for performance reasons but because in a pinch you could find a replacement tire at any hardware store in BF Egypt should you be out on a tour while only a bikeshop would have 700C and there might not be a bikeshop in BF Egypt. For similar reason he recommended using 36 spoke rims (as opposed to 40 or 48 spoke) on touring bikes because any bike shop would have them in stock in case you bent one.

Personally I prefer 700C because of the tire width selection. If I want to run 23mm on a set of Mavic MA2 rims or a 35mm on my Rigida AL1622s or 38mm on my Fiamme yellow labels or some wide (wider than 1 3/8) knobby cross tires or even mount some studded snow tires on a bike (like I'd like to do this winter on my Panasonic but can't because it has 27s) I can easily do it with 700C. With 27" I'd be much more limited and generally have a harder time finding the tires even when they are made. Of course if you have a frame that will only fit one size or the other or already you have decent rims and no reason to change them then I don't see an issue with using either one.