Originally Posted by
Skipjacks
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.
I'm with you (again), I had thought the width was measured at the widest part of the tire when mounted on a standard rim, and the standard for one company may not be the same as anothers (that's how they did it for automotive tires when I was in the tire business years ago). This style of measurement does make sense, and I may not have thought about it without this thread. I've been mounting thinner tires than the stock size for my bike for so long I don't even remember what it looked like with wider tires.