View Single Post
Old 06-08-19, 07:44 AM
  #72  
Skipjacks
Senior Member
 
Skipjacks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Mid Atlantic / USA
Posts: 2,115

Bikes: 2017 Specialized Crosstrail / 2013 Trek Crossrip Elite

Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1002 Post(s)
Liked 237 Times in 155 Posts
Originally Posted by noglider
As von Neumann said, in theory, there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.

Those of us who have more experience than you, and we do exist, know that the tire's width does not match the rating. There are many reasons for this. One of them is that the width rating is not a measurement of inflated width but of bead-to-bead distance, divided by 2.5. Reading the specifications and telling us that this is what we encounter is not a substitute for knowledge gained empirically. Stating that you are the expert does not make it so. Enough of us know about the variations between rating and measured width that asking about experience makes sense to many of us, though you lack enough experience to understand the usefulness of the question. So listen and learn rather than call the rest of us wrong. OK? Try it.
So manufacturers label a tire width based on a formula of bead to bead divided by 2.5?

Do you mean bead to bead when the tire is uncurled and laid flat? As in the total length of the rubber between the beads?

My mind just got blown.

I guess that kind of makes it a more neutral measurement though because it eliminates the variable of the rim width and inflation pressure.

(I still think Continental uses a broken ruler)

By the way...this is the 3rd or 4th really interesting thing I've learned about bike tires and tire manufacturing in this thread.
Skipjacks is offline