Tire too fat for this rim?
04-25-16, 11:35 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 586
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 120 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Tire too fat for this rim?
Used to have a single rim. Now it's a double rim. Narrower. I always wondered if the tires are correct after I swapped in the new rim. I can pull the specs off the tires, but it's basically a 700c bike with 700c tires.
Just eyeballing these pics, are you able to tell if the tires are too wide?
If the tires are too fat for the rim, this is what I've been riding on for a few years so it's probably not an urgent solution required.
Just eyeballing these pics, are you able to tell if the tires are too wide?
If the tires are too fat for the rim, this is what I've been riding on for a few years so it's probably not an urgent solution required.
04-25-16, 01:08 PM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Roswell, GA
Posts: 8,319
Bikes: '93 Trek 750, '92 Schwinn Crisscross, '93 Mongoose Alta
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1438 Post(s)
Liked 1,092 Times
in
723 Posts
700c indicates the bead diameter of 622mm, there should be another 2-digit number like, 25, 32, 42 or the like which would indicate the tire nominal width. It will read 622 x 32, 32 x 622 or similar on the tire sidewall. We would also need the rim width; "narrower" is insufficient data.
Having said that it doesn't look excessive; I run 42mm tires on 19mm rims with no problems.
Having said that it doesn't look excessive; I run 42mm tires on 19mm rims with no problems.
04-25-16, 01:10 PM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 1,643
Bikes: 1997 Rivendell Road Standard 650b conversion (tourer), 1988 Schwinn Project KOM-10 (gravel/tour), 2013 Foundry Auger disc (CX/gravel), 2016 Cannondale Fat CAAD 2 (MTB/winter), 2011 Cannondale Flash 29er Lefty (trail MTB)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
700c indicates the bead diameter of 622mm, there should be another 2-digit number like, 25, 32, 42 or the like which would indicate the tire nominal width. It will read 622 x 32, 32 x 622 or similar on the tire sidewall. We would also need the rim width; "narrower" is insufficient data.
Having said that it doesn't look excessive; I run 42mm tires on 19mm rims with no problems.
Having said that it doesn't look excessive; I run 42mm tires on 19mm rims with no problems.
But, as you've proven over the last couple years, you're probably fine. I've run 60 mm tires on 19 mm rims without problems.
04-25-16, 10:36 PM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 7,639
Bikes: 61 Bianchi Specialissima 71 Peugeot G50 7? P'geot PX10 74 Raleigh GranSport 75 P'geot UO8 78? Raleigh Team Pro 82 P'geot PSV 86 P'geot PX 91 Bridgestone MB0 92 B'stone XO1 97 Rans VRex 92 Cannondale R1000 94 B'stone MB5 97 Vitus 997
Mentioned: 146 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 49 Times
in
31 Posts
It's fine, assuming pressure is adequate.
04-26-16, 09:55 AM
#6
Banned
I have 406-47* on a Sun CR 18 rims on my Bike friday..
*Schwalbe Marathon Plus, in my Case..
*Schwalbe Marathon Plus, in my Case..
04-26-16, 10:35 AM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,729
Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5793 Post(s)
Liked 2,593 Times
in
1,437 Posts
It's fine and appears to be well within the normal range. Bicycle tires should assume the shape on an Omega in cross section so typically the tire will be 1.5-2x the width of the rim.
I have no idea where you got the notion that there's something wrong here, but as you point out, it's been that way for a long time.
I have no idea where you got the notion that there's something wrong here, but as you point out, it's been that way for a long time.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
05-14-16, 07:43 PM
#8
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 586
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 120 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I usually do 50 pounds of pressure with the "new" (2012 or 2013 I think) rear wheel upgrade I got. I've always been leery that I'll pump it up and the sides of the tires will blow out or go over the rim edge somehow. The tire is just fatter compared on this current rim compared tot he old one.
Add in that my bike shop who sold me the rear wheel upgrade and installed it, and they specced it out for me (I assumed they knew what they were doing), but that the rim is 5mm too narrow for my bike.... It makes me wonder if the tire was correct or maybe just a little off. Or maybe when I bought tires myself later I got a tire that was a little off.
Thanks for the advice though. I'm not going to worry about it for now. I do have specs somewhere for that.... Rim specs here for sure (Mavics CPx22 i think)... and the tire specs on Amazon.
Add in that my bike shop who sold me the rear wheel upgrade and installed it, and they specced it out for me (I assumed they knew what they were doing), but that the rim is 5mm too narrow for my bike.... It makes me wonder if the tire was correct or maybe just a little off. Or maybe when I bought tires myself later I got a tire that was a little off.
Thanks for the advice though. I'm not going to worry about it for now. I do have specs somewhere for that.... Rim specs here for sure (Mavics CPx22 i think)... and the tire specs on Amazon.
05-14-16, 09:01 PM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 7,639
Bikes: 61 Bianchi Specialissima 71 Peugeot G50 7? P'geot PX10 74 Raleigh GranSport 75 P'geot UO8 78? Raleigh Team Pro 82 P'geot PSV 86 P'geot PX 91 Bridgestone MB0 92 B'stone XO1 97 Rans VRex 92 Cannondale R1000 94 B'stone MB5 97 Vitus 997
Mentioned: 146 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 49 Times
in
31 Posts
The tire width is fine for the rim.
02-19-17, 12:01 PM
#10
The Infractionator
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 2,201
Bikes: Classic road bikes: 1986 Cannondale, 1978 Trek
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 875 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
I dunno-I did a quick google image search, and found a bike similar to yours, and he looks like he's prolly got 40's on:
