dabac

Well, traditional sizing names are based on the diameter of the tire in rideable condition, so it wasn't completely picked out of thin air...


But yeah, I'm not particularly fond of the old method either.

acidfast7

ISO makes the most sense ... 559 and 622 being the most common and there's no hassle then about the width of the tire itself.

I usually roll on 23-622 on my singlespeed bike, can't really confuse that.

ThermionicScott 

It's only been going on for a decade or so.

acidfast7

I've spent the last decade in Europe and there was a push from 26" to 29" inches (US terms) or -559 to -622 (ISO/DIN).

For example, CUBE didn't have any 27.5" / 650B / -588 bikes when I bought my last MTB (about 5-6 years ago) and I followed the company until moving to the UK (2013).

Thus, I am slightly surprised. It makes sense for proper riding in the mountains/trails when trees need to be rolled over.

https://www.cube.eu/2017/hardtail/

I guess I'm just out of the loop and I've become more interested in home restoration.

ThermionicScott 

Ooh, how's that going? My wife and I just redid our kitchen to add a gas stove/hood, subway tile backsplash, and a large farmhouse sink. She loves it now.

My answer about tire sizes may have come off more snarky than intended, since I had to run off to a meeting. I think in the US, mountain bike people realized that the really big wheels created by 700C rims with 2.3" (or bigger) tires can cause issues for smaller bikes and aren't really necessary for most riding. So they sought an in-between size that was taller than the old 26" standard, and went with 650B. (650A, or the old English 3-speed rim, would have worked just as well, but I guess 650B was more interesting.) Perhaps at some point the pendulum will swing all the way back to 26" wheels (lighter! more nimble!) but 650B is where things are right now.

fietsbob

I have a Suomi Nokian tire for Utility riding, .. 622-40 was My 1997 touring tires, & 559 - 50,

the 26" tires are studded, still functional , I got them 25 years ago.. it's a long wearing hard type of rubber.




.....

acidfast7

Those Nokian tyres are everlasting ... You should see their initial mobile phones as well.

Super durable, whatever they used to make.

acidfast7

Were restoring all of the original floorboards and adding 5 cast iron fireplaces to the house. We're currently opening the chimney breast is the kitchen for a dual-fuel cooker like this:

cookers

To be honest, there's not so much to the houses except wood and brick, so once it's out it's a blank template. It's quite fun but quite messy.

fietsbob

Nokia phones was Bought out.. I expect the places that assembled them, if in Finland, have been shut.

rumrunn6

cool, I guess they are like the Big Apples? what size (width) did you buy 2"? 2.15" & pressure(s) are you using?

acidfast7

Espoo.

ThermionicScott 

Very cool. Are you blogging the process anywhere?

acidfast7

Nah, man. Gf is German and likes her privacy. I'll through some into the BSO thread. She'll never find that.

ThermionicScott 

broncos730

They sure look similar to the Big Apples. I'm currently running 40psi but am not sure if this is optimal. The tire says 30-70psi (if I recall correctly). I'm concerned about premature tread wear vs. speed and comfort.

What is the prevailing opinion on commuter MTB tire pressures?

rumrunn6

[QUOTE=broncos730;19693655]currently running 40psi but am not sure if this is optimal. The tire says 30-70psi (if I recall correctly). I'm concerned about premature tread wear vs. speed and comfort. What is the prevailing opinion on commuter MTB tire pressures?[/QUOTE

that's a really specific question I couldn't answer. that pressure sounds OK to me tho. you are the best judge. I'd say if they deflect a lot with all your weight on them they might need more air. a little bulge is OK

optimal pressure is a balancing act for sure. I have some new high volume tires on my hybrid. max listed on sidewall is 87 but I run them 40/50 & they seem perfectly fine, practically no bulge & I'm approx 214 lbs lately. sorry if I already mentioned that

broncos730

[QUOTE=rumrunn6;19694197]Pretty much what I was thinking. Thanks for the feedback!

nayr497

Haven't had the time to read the full thread, so feel free to tell me to stop writing and start reading

I'm trying to find some new commuter tires. I ride to my office at least five days a week and also ride this bike around the city. Roads here aren't too crazy and while there is glass from time to time, don't need any serious heavy duty touring tires. I want a folding bead, not wire. Also looking to stay below $40USD per tire. Had some Clement LAS tires 33mm width on there and the fit was perfect with my fenders/clearance but they were a bit too soft and wore quickly and I also had a rash of punctures.

Picked up some Continental Travel Contact tires in 35 mm width. They're GREAT, but measure more like 33/32 mm. I'd like to go as big/wide as possible, while still clearing my fenders. I'm thinking something in the 35-37mm range will be perfect. Seems like all the Continentals in this size are wire bead and quite heavy. Have the SpeedRide Contis in 42mm on my cross bike for gravel/trail riding and those tires are awesome and cheap, but too wide to clear my fenders.

Any decent folding tires in the 35-37mm range that aren't too expensive? Trying to find a middle ground between too soft/easily wearing cross race tires and too heavy full-on touring tires. Thanks! Oh...looks like the Panaracer Pasela ProTite folding in 38 mm might be the ticket...and from another thread on here, seem to measure true to billing. Those might be what I need!

noglider 

The Pasela gives a great ride-quality-to-price ratio. It's one of my favorites, and it's inexpensive.

My impression is that Continental tires are more durable, though, and some of the models are not terribly stiff. I like a more pliant tire, so I don't buy their puncture resistant models.