This is a follow up regarding a thread I just started called "Lesson Learned". I just didn't want this to get lost in the other thread.

I had a major problem with tire/fender clearance on a recent trip regarding mud. I'm riding a 2005 or 2006 Trek 520 with wide Planet Bike fenders. I put on Continental Top Contact 700x37 tires and thought that all was well until mud occurred and the lack of sufficient clearance ruined my ride.

I don't think that I can raise the fenders as they are at their limits, so I need to "lower" my tires. I know that 35's (not made by Continental in the Top Contact) or 32's will have a lower profile but is there a chart anywhere that compares various tire HEIGHTS regarding different widths across tire brands and for different tire brands?

Thanks for any help or advice.

MAK, the problem with what you seek is that the exact same tire can take on different dimensions as to its width and height depending on the specific rim that it's placed on. You'ld be surprised how much it can vary.
Speaking in generalities, Continental at times tends to overestimate the size of their tires, so often a stated 28mm tire will often more times than not measure 25/26mm. It's always been assumed that this is done for marketing purposes so they can advertise their 28mm tire weighs less than the competition's 28mm tires.

I generally find tires to be actually the same size or a bit smaller than specified WRT width/height, but hardly ever larger than spec.

Most gear weight specifications are exaggerated to promote sales. I have a spreadsheet with ~35 backpacking items that I weighed over the years, compared to advertised weight. IIRC, about 4 were right on spec, 1 was lighter than spec, I couldn't find an advertised weight on 2-3, 27-28 were heavier than spec, usually by more than 10% (beyond manufacturing variation), several were 20-30% over advertised weight. People will usually lie to make a sell.

No.

There are charts that list height and circumference of tire-mounted-wheels assuming no dishonesty involved:

https://www.bikecalc.com/wheel_size_math

Several bike computer companies have tire circumference data that is generic, not tire model specific. In this chart, the L column is the circumference, presumably L means length of distance for one revolution.
https://www.cateye.com/data/resources..._chart_ENG.pdf

A smooth tire that is good for pavement might be smaller circumference than one with more tread. And of course the knobby ones would be bigger yet, so the table is very generic.

Take the circumference value, divide by pi (3.14159) to get diameter (or height). Then divide by 2 to get radius. Radius would be the distance from the axle to the tire tread, thus that is the number you want.

I am not endorsing Cateye chart, I did a quick google search, that was the first chart I found. I use different brands of computers.

As soon I state that, I go out and put a micrometer on my new Conti GP 4000S II 28mm tires, and what do they truly measure out at on a Mavic Open Pro rim and @ 85lbs psi
..... 29 mm DOH!

Good Idea, Get right on it!, I'll wait for your survey results ..

generally tires are round in cross section.. 37 too big in height? try a 32 tire .

Or a lot wider rim ..

( My 26x1.9 tire on a 45mm wide rim has a D cross section profile )

If you're going to be riding in thick mud, fenders are a poor choice. A narrower tire is also a poor choice...

It's the limit of fenders. Fantastic for the road, unreliable if you plan on going anywhere less groomed, in my experience. I prefer to just get dirty and have a good time in mud and snow!