Who else thinks that 27" > 700c ?
 

I know I can't be the only one.

I really like the ride of 27" wheels. There's something (that seems magical) about they way they "go" compared to 700c wheels. Maybe it's because they're ridiculously big looking on 50cm framesets like I use.

Who knows? Either way, I enjoy them, and have been known to "downgrade" 700c bikes if the clearances allow.

Anyone else feel that way, and/or would care to demystify what makes them so great?

-Nick

I too think that 27" wheels are bigger than 700C wheels. Measure them, it's true. What's the mystery?

It might just be the feel that wider tires are giving you. I have some 700c bikes with larger volume tires that feel like "magic" when I ride them.

Bigger, yes.

Better (or worse), no. If you made two pairs of wheels, with the same rim extrusion and the same tire, I cannot believe anyone would be able to distinguish them from the ride. As a factor in ride quality, wheel size is tremendously overrated.

Totally. I also prefer the whimsical ride of Hi-Ten over the harsh reality of double-butted cromoly.

+1

That's baloney. Wheel size effectively changes a wheel's willingness to accelerate. This also raises the gear ratios of the bicycle oh-so-slightly. It also changes it's willingness to flex and its shock absorbtion- tires play a part in that as well, though.

Most often you will be riding on 27's and have a higher volume tyre under you which will make for a better ride... if you had two identical bikes and one was rolling on 630's and the other with 622's with the same tyres at the same pressure you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between them since the difference is so small.

I run 27 by 1/1/4 Contis on my Cooper @ 110 psi... this makes for an extremely fast and very comfortable ride.

I find that more than wheel size, folks fail to appreciate the benefits of running a wider / higher volume tyre or think that unless they are running 23's that their bikes will be slow.

I find that when I can go through stuff rather than around it I make better time, conserve energy, and feel less beat up at the end of the ride.

Yeah, yeah. What you say is all true, but except for "oh-so-slightly" is quite irrelevant (sorry!). By the way, my point was not that there is no difference, but that you can't tell any difference. And I say this as a frequent poster on the folding bikes forum, where this subject has been debated ad nauseum and beyond, if not quite ad infinitum yet. Have you ridden much on 16" or 20" wheels? I have, and I venture to say I know what I'm talking about here. Different bikes ride differently. There are many factors that contribute to this. Among them, the effects of wheel diameter are vanishingly small.

8mm, dude. Perception is effectively reality and you've convinced yourself that 27" wheels are more comfortable. That's fine, but for the same given circumference (and therefore gear inches) I'll take a little more tire, a little less wheel, and a little less air pressure.

I have a set or two of 27" alloy wheels if you want to trade me set for set.

+1 Its all about the tires. The "standard" 27 inch tire is the 27 x 1 1/4. That's a lot wider than what most of us ride on 700c racing bikes. I'll have to put the calipers to them.

622-32 , or 622 40 seems fine to me , same tire cross section and wider..

are you comparing the same brand 700x32 to 27x1 1/4? Back in the day, we used to ride 27x1 on our racing bikes because it was so much cheaper than tubulars. I don't miss those wheels at all

Gear Inch Calculations for 52 x 14 gearing:

27" wheels
630 x 32 (1 1/4") - 100.4
630 x 28 (1 1/8") - 100.3

700c wheels
622 x 32 - 100.3
622 x 28 - 99.4

all within 1 gear inch of each other. If you can feel 1 gear inch thats some 'Princess And The Pea' kind of sensitivity.
To put that 1 gear inch in perspective a little, With these wheel sizes A mere 1 tooth difference in sprocket size generates between 7-10ish gear inches of change. 1 gear inch is nada.

IMHO it's all in the tires.

Don't know that I'd call 27x1-1/4 a standard. On my two bikes I've got 27x1-1/4 and 27x1. And a set of 27x1-1/8 tires hanging on the wall.

But yeah, it is about the tires. For the same width a 27" wheel has more volume than a 700C. And for the same pressure and load its contact patch will have the same area but shaped differently, marginally wider and shorter (longitudinally). For a given tire deflection the higher volume (note that their volume ratios are proportional to the cube of their diameter ratios) may absorb the bump with a smaller momentary pressure increase. That may make it feel smoother. But I don't know that it would be noticeable.

This is beginning to sound like threads on the 41...

From my recollection, it is pretty hard to argue with sew-ups (700c) for ride quality :)

I don't know what the 41 is, but it suffices to say that I'm always right. :lol:

I like 27s a lot too. Dunno about ride quality, gear inches, acceleration or any of that nerd crap.

I remember a thread either here or in the touring forum where a consensus was formed (with some opposition) that 27" tires were proper for touring, because they are old-school and therefore you feel more like a badass riding them. The effect of feeling like a badass should never be underestimated.

More so as I get older.

+1

wait, there's a special forum for biking on roads?

....I thought thats what most of us did.

I think you have a higher percentage of trail, MUP, and gravel riders here.

higher than the "Road" forum? :lol: I'd suppose so....I mean if there's a forum for riding on roads I'd assume there's a forum for riding on MUP's, Trails and Gravel.

Or possibly one for each.

Do they subdivide the road forum into the type of pavement?