Thanks for reading, this is my first thread and it is a suitably shamelessly ignorant but never-the-less important question to ask!

I recently bought a secondhand Scott Sub 10 to commute 13 miles each way to work through London. I love the bike, its a real responsive ride with a stiff fully rigid frame and fork combo. As it was secondhand I had no option to specify which wheels it comes with (either 26" or 700c). I now realise that it's much easier to get road rims and wheels for 700c.

Is it possible to interchange the wheels?? The brakes are discs so calipers aren't an issue. Would I really notice the difference if I could change them? What are the advantages?

Ride what you have, it's actually a pretty sweet bike.

I really think that attempting to change wheel sizes is the wrong way to go. I think the first problem that you will run into is hub spacing. Aside from that the diameter of the 700c wheel may prevent it from working with your current fork or rear wheel area. 26" wheels and tires shouldn't be too hard to get from a bike shop since many, many, many manufacturers use that wheel size.

You are going to have a much easier time and will spend a lot less money shooting for skinnier, higher pressure 26" tires if your aim is a faster ride with less rolling resistance (although you may end up with a harsher ride).

just to add that i know 700c wheels have a larger diameter, but the frame has extra long chainstays and there is a few inches of space to play with.

Also, while I'm at it are there any users of carbon forks/seatpost out there and do they make a noticeable difference to shock absorbtion??

You are going to have a much easier time and will spend a lot less money shooting for skinnier, higher pressure 26" tires if your aim is a faster ride with less rolling resistance (although you may end up with a harsher ride).

Yeah the pound factor is definately an issue! Yeah I think your right in that it's probably going to be more hassle and money than its actually worth in performance. Maybe it's just those damn cool couriers on their singlespeeds with giant wheels giving me an inferiority complex!!

Any thoughts on the carbon seatpost/fork issue? Is it worth the upgrade, some of the worse roads can really jangle the spine about!

Not worth upgrading. Keep the wheels, forget about the fork. When you feel the time is right, sell this bike and buy a new one.

i rode a sub 20 (26") for the last 2 years before switching to a crosscheck (700c) in july. imo wheel diameter is almost entirely irrelevant re: handling, speed, acceleration, comfort, or tire availability. keep your 26s and enjoy the ride.

its not that hard for 26. hell, for decently wide mountain bike rims you can get pretty narrow tires, at least in the hybrid tire range.

Your Scott bike is a pretty good commuter.
In my experience of 700c and 26" commuter wheels, the diameter plays a very minor role in efficiency. People do time trials and triathlons on 26" road wheels. Your 26" MTB-slicks are quite efficient with a bigger air gap for better reliability on potholes. You are not comparing an ultra-light road-race setup to a heavy duty off-road wheelset, just standard commuter wheels.
My new commuter wheel has a DT XR 4.2D; a disc brake xc rim at 400g. Mavic open pro is 430g so you wont save weight going to 700c.
Tyres play a big role. Make sure you are using a quality tyre of suitable width for your road surface , weight/load. The lighter and more agile you are the narrower you can go although I am having fun with Schwalbe Big Apples which float over cobbles and roadworks.

As others have noted the swap is not worth the $$$ or effort.

It is quite possible to swap the 26" disc wheels with 700c disc wheels, as with tires (assumes bigger tires for 26", smaller for the 700c) the two are virtually the same diameter. In fact, Mavic makes the Speed City Disc wheelset and markets them for that very reason you're inquiring. There are very few road disc wheelsets out there however. FSA, Bontrager also market them. Some 29er wheelsets will work such as the SunRingle Disc O Flea, but be mindful of the rim diameter, as some are too wide for a narrow road tire. Make sure any new wheelset you buy is 135mm rear spacing...

I had a set of 700c wheels built up for my MTB in the spring.

I have found it to be worth the the $$$ and effort.

What's the difference?

Do you like them better because of the size, or because they're lighter / better quality / better tyres / ???

Ride quality. Skinny tires on 26" rims (say 1.4" and down) ride rougher than 700C wheels.

Speed and efficiency gains would be minimal.

If your commute has good pavement throughout then there would be no real gains.

Practically, it is possible to get higher performance road tires for 700C of course, but most commuters use more utilitarian models.

To be honest, it's not like I've really got any complaints about the wheels that I have at the moment. The standard tyres are continental sport contact 1.2x26 which I find to be really nimble and the ride feels smooth. The main reason that I wanted to change was the fact that there was more choice in the market for rims, spokes and tyres dedicated for road use. Coming from a trail riding mountain bike background I have never even ridden a bike with 700c wheels, so I was wondering if there would be a noticeable difference in the ride quality. Thanks for all your imput, it seems that there would be not enough to gain by going to the effort of getting new wheels especially as I have disc brakes, futher limiting the choice.

However I am definately intrigued. London roads are pretty rough at times and if ride quality is improved, I would be definately tempted.

Ghettocruiser - Are 700c wheels really better at handling uneven road conditions? On the way back home tonight I was too busy trying to avoid some sporatic crazy drunken road crossing pedestrian when I slammed into a pothole! Luckily the rims are unharmed.

As the roads are pretty atrocious in parts, especially in the cycling lane, any improved ride would be welcome. Which was also the reason I was considering carbon parts. I love working on and improving bikes so I'm always tempted to upgrade but maybe as Yan blunty put maybe I should just upgrade the whole bike as it seems all commuters eventually want to take the full leap and convert to darkside and go with a full-bore singlespeed racing bike!

Thanks again to everyone guys it's really good to hear from people with experience in exactly what I'm considering. Having only just joined bikeforums, I wholeheartedly feel that it rocks!!!

I have a Scott SUB 30, and also bought it secondhand with the 26" option. I've never had a problem. Thinner 26" tires are widely available online, many as thin as 1.0, around 90-110psi. For commuting I don't think you'll see a difference, I know I don't.
and don't get carbon anything. buy some nice accessories now, then wait a bit and get a new ride. I'm currently looking at stuff to build a fixie or SS.

theres plenty of thin slicks for 26", the problem is your rims might be too wide for some of them. you could get narrower wheels still in 26" if thats the case

edit: now that i look at the bike, you can probably go with rather narrow tires without a problem. have you looked on nashbar/biketiresdirect?

If they are that rough I'd suggest going to a slightly wider slick like a Ritchey Tom Slick or Tioga City Slicker in 1.4 or 1.5 inch width respectively.

I've done all these options. Commuted on an older Trek 970 for about 5 years using Panaracer Pasela TG1.25. Sold that and bought a Speciallized Stumpjumper and then built up a set of XT hubs with Mavic Open Pro 700c rims to produce one of the first disc brake hybrids a year before Kona came out with the disc equipped Dr Dew for about 1/2 the price of my own solution (GRRRRRR ain't that always the way?). More recently my "grocery getter" errand bike is running the old Tioga City Slickers that I removed from the Trek in favour of the Paselas. Between all three options there's extremely little difference between the Pasela's in 26 inch and the current 700c tires on the Speciallized. If I had to call it I sort of wish I still had my Trek. It seemed to climb hills a hair more easily. As far as flat speed and ride quality goes it's a wash. The Tiogas currently on the heavier and more upright mountain bike roll amazingly well but I remember when I swapped to the Paselas from these on the Trek that there was a noticable difference in speed. But with that speed came a harsher ride and the desire to go around some of the rough stuff. But the height of the Paselas was such that I never had any issue with denting rims or any other such nonsense.

I spent a few days in the downtown core of London this spring on my first ever European holiday. If I had to ride the sort of roads I saw in Piccadily Circus and Trafalgar Square and the other roads around there and if the rest of the stuff is like that or similar to the roads I found up in Dundee in town I'd suggest sticking to the 1.5 inch tires. Especially since you're running without the "crutch" of a suspension fork to ease the shocks coming up into your hands. If you did go with 700c you'd likely end up with 28's or wider just so you could run with a little under 100psi to help soak up the hits. At that point you're just as well off with the 26'ers as far as speed goes.

Of course the grass is always greener on the other side, eh?

The ride is less harsh on 700s since the larger-diameter wheel doesn't drop as far into a depression. The improvement is especially noticeably on the freeze-thaw cracks that tend to go all the way across residential streets here, which get even wider in the winter.

They would not be more impact-resistant if your potholes are big enough to be trashing wheels. They would be more likely to be damaged by such an impact, rim design and spoke count being equal.

I put 700c on my 08 Kona Blast and I love it. I got the wheels used on the Bay and they came with rotors for $200 delivered. I noticed an immediate difference in climbing ability. Mod your bike, have fun, and learn what you want in your next bike.

If you're looking for a cheap/easy way to improve ride quality,then you should look to wider tires. Conti also makes your tires in 1.6". They'll weigh a little more,but the added width will soak up bumps better. I'm running 2" Schwalbe Marathon Supremes on my commuter. Not cheap,but really light for such a wide tire,and they're both fast and comfy.

A carbon seatpost isn't carbon normally. It's a metal seatpost wrapped in carbon fiber to make it look cooler. Some very high end time trial bikes have seatposts that might actually be a plastic/carbon fiber composite. No idea how that would work, and the ride on those bikes is *not* meant to be about comfort.

A carbon fork is usually a plastic/carbon fiber composite. The reported behavior of carbon fiber on a bike is so far from what I'm used to in aircraft applications that I don't trust it (and no sane shop would let me test it to my satisfaction tests to destruction are quite expensive), and thus have no experience with it. Your mileage will vary. It is supposed to produce a softer ride.

IME, you can get a plush ride out of almost any bike materials. You can also get a crappy ride out of the same materials. I've ridden steel bikes that were great fun, and steel bikes that were just awful. Same with aluminum. If I had the budget and less engineering paranoia, I could probably say the same about carbon fiber composites . For me, a moderate pressure tire, leather saddle, and an old fashioned rigid fork seem to work best (so curvy and meant to bend, not a more modern straight blade design). Other riders have different tastes. At commuting speed, it mostly is taste... you'll lose more speed to lights than you can ever make up for by bike components.

?

The TriCross, like many touring and commuting rigs, came with a full-carbon seatpost stock. It's quite comfortable, although how much of this is due to the material the seatpost is made of is questionable.