Tourist in MSN

I own a couple Thorn bikes that are 26 inch. And I used to watch their forum. But I am ignorant of other bike companies.

And Thorn being in the UK, not sure if you would say they are European any more considering Brexit. But that is a different issue.

I think Thorn pushed 26 inch more than anyone else. But since I did not watch what other companies were doing, I could easily be wrong on that.

One of my Thorns is a Nomad Mk II. That is a Rohloff only bike that has been replaced by the Nomad Mk III which can be Rohloff or derailleur. My Mk II was clearly 26 inch only. But the Mk III frame has canti posts that can be moved for another size, I do not recall if it was for 650b or 700c. But I recall reading that you could use 700c wheels, 650b or 26 inch in that frame. I do not recall if the fork was specific to one size if you bought the rim brake version fork or not, but the disc fork would probably work with all sizes. Two other changes they made that are not size specific is that their Mk III frame can't be used with a 100mm suspension fork where the older Mk II could. And, they no longer offer an S&S option. I noticed those changes because I have used both suspension and solid forks on mine and mine is S&S.

I think with discs becoming prevalent, you could say that everybody is looking at bikes that can take multiple wheel sizes since the frame could allow different rim sizes as long as the fork trail and geometry was not too different.

Thorn website says they still sell the Sherpa (derailleur) and Raven (Rohloff) as 26 inch bikes. But I have no idea if they plan to continue selling those models for years to come or not. I bought a used Sherpa frame over a decade ago, I use that for some of my tours.

Tourist in MSN

I always think of 650b as a French size. I recall hearing decades ago that where 26 inch was most prevalent in developing nations, 650b instead was more common in former French colonies, such as in SE Asia.

djb

it was interesting to see in Mexico a lot of old bikes that use a size that looks bigger than 700 (622) , I think it might be 635. Often called 28 inchers.
Always remember in one small city which has cobbled streets everywhere, and these bikes with probably 40-45mm tires were all over the place, and looked like they rolled really well over the bumpy roads. I regret taking a photo of a really stylish older gent on one beautiful bike like this, looked like the perfect bike for his cities roads.

Tourist in MSN

Did the bikes have rod brakes? If so, they might have been old Raleigh DL1 or they might have been copies that were made in India of the DL1

djb

seems to me some were Mexican brands. Yes rod brakes. Will look at photos.

djb

Most seen were these. Double tubed top tubes.
Mercurio brand.

Tourist in MSN

Rod brakes. Cottered crank. I can't tell from the photo if the tubes were welded or brazed to the headtube.

I will never understand why but the Raleigh DL1 bikes that I worked on had seat stays that were bolted to the frame at the seatpost clamp. That one looks like it is too.

Interesting.

Front wheel, amateur built it, spokes adjacent to the valve stem angle over it instead of away from it. Impairs access to the valve stem for the chuck.

djb

Ya, that does look like the seatstays are bolted. This was a neat example of these bikes. Owned by an old guy as leathery as his bike seat, sitting yakking with a couple of other leathery old guys on a park bench. (Yup, a missed photo, I know- sometimes it's nice just walking around and observing, maybe if I'd been on my own, but no matter ) He thought it was neat I was taking such an interest in his bike. Told him I thought it was great looking.

So many of these were being pedaled around by guys or kids way too short for the frames, a lot of Mexicans aren't tall, not in the south anyway.

JaccoW

Any time a once very common bike type that was not in style anymore became available for cheap people jumped on them for all kinds of fun wacky stuff that wasn't affordable before. The first mountain bikes were modified Schwinn Balloon Tire bicycles.

Schwalbe is generally pretty good at keeping at least a couple of different models for rare tyre sizes but I don't think many European makers still use 26 inch tyres. It's all 650B/27.5" now.
Bikes that use 26 inch tyres have become a thing in the Xbiking scene, think drop-bar mountainbikes or the kind of people running around The Radavist. Though those bikes mostly run knobby tyres.

Tourist in MSN

I am glad my S&S bike is 26 inch, it is enough trouble to get everything into the 26 X 26 X 10 inch case, I can leave the 57mm wide tires on but they need to be deflated to get everything to fit. And I use the S&S Backpack case which is more flexible, the hard case does not give very well. A pair of 700c wheels would not work well.

djb

I still see and appreciate a few real world advantages to 26"--
- as said, smaller diameter overall for packing into boxes (probably not a big thing really, but who knows. For sure yes for those S+S folks)
- lower gearing for "crapload of stuff in mountains" touring
- I really like how on my Troll with bigass fenders, I still have no toe strike and can willy wally all around at .5 kph and not hit my toes.

in the end, when I'm riding they are just round things going round and round, so I don't mind the visual thing, although I think its pretty clear that going over rough stuff a bigger tires does roll over things easier, so I get that ange.

already unfortunately, there are probably a lot less rims available, simply due to lack of demand. Economy of scale and all that and sales.....

IPassGas

Our newer touring tandem is S+S and 26. It was a tough decision between 26 and 700 a few years back. The combination of wheel strength and ease of packing swayed us to the side of 26. Wheel strength is very important for a loaded tandem, cause I don't want to think about spokes when riding on badly cracked roads/bad trails in the middle of nowhere. We can't imagine touring without fenders (well perhaps Arizona). Fenders for 700 + wide tires + big feet = great toe jam, so 26 was an important additional benefit in this regard, 2.1" tires with fenders!

However, I did not foresee the rapid decline in 26 a few years back and rapid increase in 650. Our decision on tire size would possibly be different now. But then, who knows what wonderful new bike "standards" the industry will poop out next year. Que sera sera...

djb

Gaseous guy, ya I forgot to mention the wheel strength thing.
I do realize that in the anecdotal view that 26 is stronger than 700, that many technical factors come into play--specific rims, spokes, and build quality and keeping on top of spoke tension.--OH, and rider weight--this is a big one.
But I kinda get the logic that shorter spokes will be tougher than longer ones, but how much one can quantify that is pretty darn hard with all the various factors mentioned are involved.

I do know that using wider tires on my trips, the 2" Supremes that inherently have very good flex, so inherently putting less forces into the wheelset over rough stuff and bangs, is and was a real factor in my 32 spoke wheelset, 26 inch, with rims that I understand are basically Cross Country mountain bike rims--ie, not super light, but lightish, and certainly not specific super tough touring disc rims.
I've recounted numerous times here whacking pretty hard into a downhill pothole first thing in the morning in my second day in Guatemala, and being lucky as hell to only ding the rim a bit, but didnt break a spoke. I wasn't careful enough on this downhill and was gawking (as in "WOW, I'm biking in Guatemala, look at those mountains all around!" ) combined with wearing sunglasses and the shadow / sun thing was tricky, plus the roads previously in Mexico had been a lot better, so I had gotten complacent about potholes, but Guatemala is a lot more run down overall, roads included.
So, did 26in wheels built with pretty standard stuff, straight spokes and average rim, make the difference?
Who knows? But I'll take it.

robow

Yea, I know when our nearest bike shop closed last year, they had a boat load of 26" tires that they could not get rid of. They had very little interest even when posting online.

Tourist in MSN

I do not think that 26 inch wheels are that much stronger. I suspect that they are a bit, but I think the increase in strength is less than 10 percent. But using a tandem rear hub that is not dished probably adds more strength than the difference in size.

I have a few more 26 inch tires that are yet to get used, I am good for a while. Most of my distance is on 700c, so the 26 ones are not wearing down very fast. I am not looking to stock pile any more at this time.

Rear tire at end of my last tour in photo, I think it has one more tour to go before it gets relegated to riding around near home. Center knobs are about 50 percent worn off. 559X57 Marathon Extreme, they have been out of production now for quite a few years. Stored in a cool dry place. The tire sidewalls are quite flexible, these tires roll much better on pavement than they look, but they are quite noisy.

DropBarFan

BikeInn & sister sites like SnowInn get many terrible reviews, they seem like con-artists.

As for the Supreme 559-50 tires, I think mine are going into 5th year, maybe 5,000 km, not a flat yet.

djb

interesting your take on strength, I haven't a clue really, but for sure the fact that I'm not heavy makes things easier on my wheels.
those tires of yours are quite the chunky monkey tread. Did you use those in Iceland? They don't look that worn in the center.

Tourist in MSN

Yup.

The very very small grooves within the blocks that you can see in the blocks on the side, the center blocks also had those smaller grooves. I think the small grooves run about half the depth of the blocks, thus I think the center blocks are at about 50 percent remaining tread depth.

That was the rear tire, I do not rotate front to rear, I prefer to have my best tire up front. When I replace a rear, I move the front to the rear and put new on front.

I used those on Iceland and Maritimes tours. On Maritimes, you would typically think of that as a all pavement tour, but where there were good trails, I often took the trails instead because they were flatter.

Also used those for a couple weeks of mountain biking out west including Canyonlands, for that I fitted a 100mm suspension fork. At that time I did not have any pure mountain bike tires. For around home riding, that bike is almost exclusively used on local gravel trails, for home use I have invested in some pure mountain bike tires to use on it.

They look very aggressive, but I found in both Iceland and in mountain biking that it was pretty easy to lose traction on steep uphills. I think there was a bit too much rubber on the road with large blocks and small grooves between the blocks. A pure mountain bike tire, the knobs are a much smaller amount of the total surface area and probably work better to dig in for grip. In Iceland I rode for a day with an Italian. He was packed a bit lighter, but still had four panniers, handlebar bag and rack top bag on his Stumpjumper with mountain bike tires. Steep uphills, he could keep pedaling but I often would spin the rear wheel and come to a complete stop. And once stopped, it was too steep to start out pedaling again, thus would have to walk. And maybe the loss of traction was because I had a first gear with 16.2 gear inches, I could put a lot of torque on the wheel.

I think the Extremes are a good compromise tire, if a trip is a third or half pavement and the rest gravel, they seem to be good for that. I used them on front and rear.

I also have a 50mm wide Extreme that I used on my medium duty touring bike in rear, and a 50mm wide Dureme on front, that was a nice pairing of tires. You can't really see those tires in the photo below from my GAP and C&O trip almost a decade ago, but considering current events, I thought I would add this photo from the good old days when there was only one small fence around that building.

djb

gotcha on the little line thingees worn down. I have to say, your Iceland trip looked really cool, it must have been a super neat experience. For lots of trails that are moderate, I'm fine with tires that work better on pavement, but can see how you go with these if you aren't sure of surfaces.
Ya, I remember you telling of the Italian guy and his tires working better on the hills with loose stuff. Sometimes even just pressures can make all the differenced. My main experience on loose surfaces these last few years have been on snow, and all the variants of types of snow and ice, and I find the biggest factor is tire pressure, and lower it a lot by feel. Always tricky to do though with a loaded bike, risky at times to get a pinch flat with the extra weight.
Good shot of the White House. Have been there only once about 40 years ago....

Tourist in MSN

WInter, mostly use two bikes, my Nomad (the heavy duty or expedition Rohloff bike) gets 50mm wide Schwalbe Marathon WInters front and rear, those are studded. The Lynskey (light touring) has 37mm wide tires on it. A very close to new rear tire that has reasonable pavement tread.

I did an exercise ride a couple days ago on the Lynskey. Rear tire slipped a little when I started out after stopping for another swig of warm coffee/coco mix. I expected it to be all clear pavement but there was a lot of packed snow that required some care.

A year or two ago I bought a used 35 or 37mm studded tire at a swap meet, put that on a spare wheel so I can put that on the front of the Lynskey, if I think the conditions do not need studs front and rear, but I am nervous enough to want some extra grip on front. If I would have know about the hard pack, I would have used that tire wheel on the bike instead.

Winter, regarding pressure, I mostly only drop that for more grip on studded tires, not on regular tires. And where I do not need the grip as much, raise the pressure on studded tires to reduce rolling resistance.

balto charlie

This is so sad. I was down there a few weeks ago, looks 3rd world and that was before the maga crowds coup. Over the last 4 years I have seen fence after fence put up to keep back the masses.

Marathon Supreme, has turned into my favorite tire. They do have a sidewall issue though. I had to throw out a fairly new tire recently after hitting a sharp metal bridge edge. Plus they are pricey in the states. Never used them on my 26" mnt bike (converted to rail trail). Might give 'em a go but they don't do well on muddy trails. Currently using 26" Panracer Paselas but they kinda suck on muddy trails too and weak (but comfy) sidewalls.

djb

the schwalbe winters I've just started using are 1.75 in, or 44mm, which are true to stated width on my rims, and I do the same pressure changing thing--generally more for just pavement stuff but sometimes taking some out for added grip. Up until this winter, I've just used mtb tires, so 2.1 or 2.5" knobbies, and lower pressures make a big difference in traction, really no different than with any other riding on whatever two wheeled thing. Like I've mentioned before, I generally go by feel, starting out with a known psi and then experiementing and adjusting by feel and very much notice a difference, especially in front end feel.

The Winters, with their only two "line" of studs, seem to be a good compromise for my riding in winter, generally on plowed streets , so I'm happy with them and don't think the other models with twice as many studs would be necessary. The cost difference is significant also, so made an inexpensive test for using studded tires.
Because I've been riding in the dark so much this winter, they were worth getting compared to non studded mtb tires, simply from the visual thing. In the day and on the flats I could easily take it easier and spot ice, but at night and with some downhills, its just safer overall and I don't have to be so ultra careful as before. In deeper and softer snow, they still dont work much and can "push" like gangbusters, and sometimes the wider mtb tires had the advantage with "float", but overall they are great.

djb

Absolutely the sidewalls are thin, so one must always be aware. I took a chance using them for the trips I did, but really wasn't on rough enough roads to worry, but was always aware of how anything like your bridge story thing could happen if I was not careful.
I was also very aware of how any slick is going to be a bugger on any mud, but again, I was travelling during the dry seasons, and even when crossing France, I figured the chances were low that I would be on trails that were overly muddy (and we did ride on trails a lot).

The nice thing is that we have numerous options of different tires out there, even still in 26, but alas less so than before, so it really comes down to choosing correctly, and or just accepting some downsides and living with it.

djb

Balto, even this sort of road was doable, but if this was the norm, I would have chosen different tires. Dry it was ok, but if wet I would have been

walking mostly.

just as with snow, lower pressures made all the difference here, but I had to constantly search for the less deep line, and had a bunch of pushing moments. Winter riding is great practice for this, but I enjoy being on the edge of traction, so it's not a bother. Would have gotten tiresome if it had been regular and more often....

balto charlie

Walking for me! Peddling through that would be a leg burner. That is fairly thick sand.