I'm trying to figure out the better option on whether to get a bike that runs 26" wheels or 700c wheels. I know people favor one and not the other but my insight stops there. So let me (and other newbs) in on what you prefer (or don't) and why.

I have 700c but if you ever intend to tour outside the US my understanding is that they can be really difficult to find....26" does build up into a less flexy wheel (or so I have been told) I weigh in at about 250lbs though and my 700c's have been great so far

Here's one point of view, from Thorn, which heavily favors 26-inch wheels for loaded touring but makes bike in both sizes.
https://www.thorncycles.co.uk/why26inchwheels.html

Thorn's view (as I understand it) is that for heavily loaded touring and partial off-road touring 26-inch wheels are better (stronger, more suited to fatter tires, etc.).

For light touring or sport riding they say it is a toss-up or better for 700c.

One practical problem is that 700c rims and tires can be difficult to find outside the US and Europe.

Interestingly, Rodriguez has 700c tires on their standard touring bikes but 26-inch wheels on their W2 touring bike, which is made with S&S couplers. Their argument is partly that with 26-inch wheels the bike is easier to fit inside the traveling case.

www.rodcycle.com


Co-motion now has a 26-inch model, the Pangea, for expedition touring. On the other hand, REI changed their "heavy duty" touring bike, the Safari, to 700c from 26-inch this year.

I had that same perception. While it was more easy to find low quality 26"x1.75" tires/rims in Russia or southeast Asia, this wasn't as big a deal for me for several reasons:

-- high quality tires seem to last for a long time, e.g. schwalbe marathons lasted half way across EurAsia, and folding versions of these aren't too heavy to carry along
-- good bike shops found in largest cities did carry 700c
-- I'm heavy enough that if my rims go, I'll want a good quality rim again

If I can easily pick, I'd go with 26" for third world touring, but that isn't as strong a preference as it used to be for me.

i think most of the people have the right idea on here, 26 for out of the US, no disc brakes either from what i've heard.

i prefer the feel of 700c, but my next ride will probably be a 54 trucker, with 26 rims, i guess they just feel like they have less momentum, something is different, but maybe it's just because i associate 26 inches with a larger tire : / either way, i suppose in the end it doesn't make a world of difference.

I'm not an authority, but what folks have been saying is basicly true. 26 in. for anything out of the States or off roading, 700c for paved roads. That's been my experience. If you're gonna be riding the roads, the larger wheels are faster. That may or may not make a difference to you.

Iīve always used 26" and never had a problem with them. Now, I got a new bike and it came with 700c. I don't notice any difference at all while riding. That being said, we are now touring in South America and I've been told I'll have a hard time finding tires. I might regret this decision... Check back in in a couple years and I'll let you know how it went!

Sorry, I just don't think there's any evidence that would demonstrate that 700c wheels are "faster" in the real world.

However, typically bikes with 26-inch wheels are set up with big, fat, heavier tires, mounted on pretty sturdy rims - so they are often heavier than the 700c bikes they are compared with (which typically have narrower, lighter tires). But one can obviously put pretty narrow tires on a 26-inch wheel and conversely mount fatties on a 700c wheel (assuming that the bike in question would accept those tires).

It is true that a 26-inch wheel would travel less far with each revolution of the crank, but that can easily be corrected by a change in gearing. It's also true that a Bike Friday with 20-inch wheels is plenty fast, too, given the right gearing.

But - all other things being equal - a 26-inch wheel would not necessarily make a bicycle slower than a 700c wheel.



Happy to stand corrected if there is evidence to the contrary.

I could be wrong here, but I think REI changed their Safari the other way- from all 26 (with disc for the past two or three years) to 26 for the smaller sizes and 700 for the larger sizes ala LHT and Atlantis.

Since most of our bikes (my wife`s and mine) are mountain bike based, I`m sticking with 26 inchers simply because it makes mix and match so easy. If I had a shed full of 700 or 27" shod bikes, I`d look for that size in my next purchase.

Ha ha yeah, I hope to get goin before then thanks all the same though.

Thanks for all the tips, In the end I sorta feel like getting 700c is limiting. Sounds like they aren't the best option if I suddenly get the urge to cruise down a dirt road or explore a trail near camp. I had my eye on an Aurora and a Randonee but they are both 700c wheels and I'm thinking a 54" trucker or another tourer with 26" wheels is they way I'm leaning.

What about tire width? Right now I have skinny road tires (23c) and my friend suggested getting something a little wider for a tour. I have tight brake clearance, so I think 26c is the widest I can go. Given I only weigh 150, would 23c tires just give me too much trouble, or do you think they would last 15 days of riding?

Another option is to get an older, steel mountain bike (hard tail, no suspension fork) and convert it into a touring bike. If you search around here on BF you'll find several threads on this. An older mountain bike (late 80's, early 90's) has a geometry a lot like a modern Surly LHT.

Just to be clear, though - I think the issue of 26-inch vs. 700c wheels gets a little confused; folks mix up wheel diameter with tire size.

A Surly LHT, for example, comes with 26-inch wheels in the smaller sizes and 700c in the larger sizes. Any of them, though, can take pretty fat tires and should be more than adequate for cruising down a dirt road or exploring a trail. After all, most cross bikes comes stock with 32c or 35c, and those do fine on dirt. Same with an REI Safari, as noted above - that's a pretty rugged bike that is more than adequate for dirt.

So for light trails/dirt road/gravel the key is tire clearance (I think the Jamis Aurora, a nice bike, has pretty tight tire clearance - the space on the hubs is for road hubs, not MTB hubs, so I think they don't take very large tires). Other 700c tires would be fine if you can put big tires on them.

Anyone have some 700c "stranded in a 3rd world country" stories we can hear? How much trouble was it finding rims/parts?

I currently own an old MTB but not old enough so I've found. Having a hard time deciding whether or not to go that route. Plenty of people in my area getting rid of old MTB's but the prices being asked makes wonder if I shouldn't just get a new frame. Trying to figure out if I want to salvage my falling apart MTB
or purchase another potentially falling apart bike. Another thought I've had is polishing up my current MTB listing on CL and use the proceeds toward a newer bike or an '80's build up. I suppose the next logical step is to crunch numbers. Only caveat there is quantifying potentially failing components. So I often ask myself, "If they will fail in the next year then should I just save up for a new bike?"

I wrote a short anecdote in this thread (also titled 26" or 700c)
https://www.bikeforums.net/touring/398139-26-vs-700-wheels.html

I have been using 700 with 35mm wide tires. I have done 1200km in Mexico and 1700km (and counting) in India. I have 700s because that is what my bike needed and I wasn't going to buy a new bike. Would I buy a bike that didn't fit because I was forced to use 26in? No. I haven't busted spoke, or warped my rim, then again I spent the cash to have really good rims, spokes and hubs. I'm not afraid to go off road or exploring, with a loaded bike you won't be getting air, or jumping curbs.

Mind you, it would sure be a bummer if you broke your wheel in the middle of nowhere and had to catch a ride somewhere to get a wheel (if it is possible in that country). Keep in mind that you won't be able to find a lot of things in a third world country (like an axle, or disc brakes). You can spend the money and hope it holds up to their name (which is what I do) or you could get a single speed, be like the locals and know that you can buy the exact same bike if it breaks. I think most people are somewhere in the middle.

Over my long bike touring life I went from 700c skinny road touring bikes to 26 inch mountain bikes until I found the best combination of the two styles 20 years ago in the 700x45 wheeled Bruce Gordon Rock N Road. I found that the larger diameter wheel rolled over obstacles better than the 26 inch ones due to the angle of attack with the obstruction and to roll with more momentum and speed.

I have been able to travel on almost any type of terrain with the bike loaded for self sufficient touring. That includes third world tracks and the Divide Ride. I have yet to have the dreaded wheel or tire destruction stated or implied in many previous comments.

Today's bike choices are even better with wide clearance frames fitting 700x2.4 tires or so. They allow a rigid/ unsuspended bike to handle the roughest terrain with the increased air volume rather than the complexity and vulnerability and weight of suspension systems.

Aside from wheel/tire availability issues outside of the US, smaller frames are better suited when designed around 26" wheels. One reason why my 52cm Surly LHT runs 26" wheels. Their larger frame sizes all run 700C.

Your MTB isn`t old enough? If you`re considering going the MTB route, try it on the bike you`ve already got. As long as your current bike doesn`t have rear suspension or disc brakes, a rear rack that fits it should fit any future non suspension MTB or "touring" bike you might buy- just move it to the new bike. Or keep riding the one you have. If you have suspension forks, it`ll cost a bit more for a front rack than for a rigid fork, but the suspension fork racks will also work just fine on rigid forks. Even if the geometery isn`t "ideal" on your MTB, it won`t be terrible. If you do have disc brakes rack apparently selection gets a bit pickier and rear suspension probably isn`t worth messing with (unless you REALLY want to go that way). Aside from racks, and maybe a pair of cheap barend grips or a $25 butterfly bar, what else could you want to tourize a mountain bike?

About buying a used bike or selling your old one on CL, keep in mind that you`re looking at asking prices. That doesn`t mean people are actually getting the money they`re asking. I see a lot of bikes lately on my local CL that seem very overpriced and I kind of doubt they`re selling. If you go to sell yours, just remember that it might not get what the other guy is asking for his bike of the same model- he probably won`t get that much for his either.

About wheel size, I read the other thread linked above and came to the conclusion that I`d need to be a physics major to see any real benefit to either of the two common sizes as long as I plan to ride in the US.

Close. The current Safari uses 26" wheels for the smaller frames, 29" wheels for the larger ones. I think you're correct about the older ones, but I'm not certain.

I don't know how it relates to the 700C wheel size, but the Ribbon of Road guys went from Alaska to Argentina on Co-Motion Americano bikes that had 700C wheels. Apparently the bikes themselves did well, but the wheels not so much:

"Rear Rim - Cracked the first time in British Columbia, replaced in Seattle, cracked again in Mexico, replaced in Guatemala. Cracked again in the Bolivian desert, replaced in Argentina. Current status of rim 4 - cracked on the Carretera Austral in Chile, glued and duct-taped together. Keepinī my fingers crossed! Thank you Co-Motion Cycles for sending replacements!"

Scroll down on https://www.ribbonofroad.com/journal.html

I would imagine a smaller diameter wheel might be stronger that a larger one, all other things being equal, but I have to admit that 700C bikes do "feel" faster on the road - but that could be due to other factors such as gearing, rim size/weight, tire weight and size etc etc.

If I was building a bike for all-over touring (as I am) then I would use 26" wheels. To me it kind of comes down to a choice between "better road bike" or "bike like jeep".

Edit: Another factor that should come into play here is bike fit. For shorter people, overall height and body dimensions can make it difficult to make the frame small enough to be able to accommodate the larger 700C wheels without compromising the geometry. Smaller people often would be better off with 26" wheels, since the frame can be much more reasonably proportioned. Also, you're less likely to have issues like toe overlap with the front wheel with 26" wheels, and incidentally there's more space on the downtube for the underside full-size water bottle, and even sometimes extra stuff behind the seat tube (if the bike has long chainstays). You can still build a 26" wheel bike for taller people, there's nothing stopping you there, but building a 700C bike for a small person can be tricky. The most important thing is fit - if that doesn't work then everything else is out the window.

Finally, often the 26" wheel bikes have larger tire clearances, and there is a better range of larger tires and knobblies available for 26". But at the same time, you can still put smaller slicks on there if you want more speed on the road, so I think 26" is perhaps a bit more flexible in the options.

Neil

The bikes

700c 63cm (25in) C-dale Touring
26in Rodreguiz UTB

The major: Physics. How ended up with one still baffles me.

Why do I have both?

I bought the Rod so I could ride gravel roads and transition travel better. If I'm on decent tar 98%+ of the time I'll always choose the c-dale. It's extra big size grants so many comfortable positions. However, on gravel or crap roads I'm so high up that at low speeds life is not fun. Also, 63 bikes are beastly to lug around. (Bus racks have destroyed two 700c rims)

The rod-cycle is more "fitted" and easy to control on bad road. As bonus it fully cases in about an hour.

On the estitics, 26 in tires just look right on smaller touring bikes but on a tall bike the geometry seems freaky. Same deal with 29ers on short Mtn bikes.

(side note) A short person in the family has a 26in novara and rides B-hams Galbreth Mtn much to the shock of the fully suspended crowd.

-esc

I think you meant 26" not 16" for the smaller frames. A 29" wheel uses a 700c rim (ISO 622 mm diameter). So, they're doing something similar to the LHT. 26" on the smaller frames and 700c on the larger frames.

Speedo

Whoops! Corrected.

I must have been thinking of my folder.