View Poll Results: Which would you choose
700x40
17
77.27%
27.5x2.00
5
22.73%
Voters: 22. You may not vote on this poll
700x40 or 27.5x2.00
06-25-23, 06:24 AM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: South Shore of Long Island
Posts: 2,799
Bikes: 2010 Carrera Volans, 2015 C-Dale Trail 2sl, 2017 Raleigh Rush Hour, 2017 Blue Proseccio, 1992 Giant Perigee, 80s Gitane Rallye Tandem
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1088 Post(s)
Liked 1,025 Times
in
723 Posts
I commuted for years on 28c tires and found them more than comfortable enough through Albany and Rochester, even after the spring thaws. Current fav tire for general use is a 35c but I wouldn't go larger on commuting, just extra weight and resistance to push along.
06-25-23, 06:21 PM
#27
Dirty Heathen
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: MC-778, 6250 fsw
Posts: 2,182
Bikes: 1997 Cannondale, 1976 Bridgestone, 1998 SoftRide, 1989 Klein, 1989 Black Lightning #0033
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 889 Post(s)
Liked 906 Times
in
534 Posts
As a passing comment, one of the reasons I could consider 51mm or 2.00" tires is the overall height. I measured 700x38c tires at 70.5cm high, 44-584 at 67.8cm and 55-584 at 69.6cm. I calculated 51mm might be around 68.8cm. Seems like a reasonable height to me (short enough to put your foot on the ground, tall enough for enough speed).
650s don’t just lower the whole bike.
There are some bikes (the Surly LHT comes to mind) that spec the S / XS side frames with 650 or 26” wheels, but that’s to decrease the size of the entire bike for smaller riders.
Likes For Ironfish653:
06-25-23, 09:03 PM
#28
Habitual User
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,997
Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4957 Post(s)
Liked 8,098 Times
in
3,833 Posts
I did want to make the point I can get plenty of speed with the Raleigh Knox with 55mm tires.
In any case, I did want to see other people's opinions. I can see now why so many manufacturers are stubborn about making skinny tire hybrids. I even saw Louis Garneau bikes convert their M1 hybrid one year to 650b then I think it was the very next year they went back to 700c. I was stupefied and wondered how that happened.
I suppose the only other factor I could wonder about is v-brakes vs disc brakes. I had a couple of experiences that showed the downside of v-brakes. One was a near accident when I didn't have enough cable tension with v-brakes. The other was when I decided I was going to prepare an old bike to sell it. When I saw the state of those v-brakes I wondered if it was worth it. But that bike was used also in the winter and the rain.
As a passing comment, one of the reasons I could consider 51mm or 2.00" tires is the overall height. I measured 700x38c tires at 70.5cm high, 44-584 at 67.8cm and 55-584 at 69.6cm. I calculated 51mm might be around 68.8cm. Seems like a reasonable height to me (short enough to put your foot on the ground, tall enough for enough speed).
In any case, I did want to see other people's opinions. I can see now why so many manufacturers are stubborn about making skinny tire hybrids. I even saw Louis Garneau bikes convert their M1 hybrid one year to 650b then I think it was the very next year they went back to 700c. I was stupefied and wondered how that happened.
I suppose the only other factor I could wonder about is v-brakes vs disc brakes. I had a couple of experiences that showed the downside of v-brakes. One was a near accident when I didn't have enough cable tension with v-brakes. The other was when I decided I was going to prepare an old bike to sell it. When I saw the state of those v-brakes I wondered if it was worth it. But that bike was used also in the winter and the rain.
As a passing comment, one of the reasons I could consider 51mm or 2.00" tires is the overall height. I measured 700x38c tires at 70.5cm high, 44-584 at 67.8cm and 55-584 at 69.6cm. I calculated 51mm might be around 68.8cm. Seems like a reasonable height to me (short enough to put your foot on the ground, tall enough for enough speed).
It sounds to me like your v-brake experience was mostly related to poorly-adjust brakes, not the type of brake. Properly-adjusted v-brakes work quite well, even in comparison to hydraulic disco brakes.
Being able to put your feet on the ground at a stop is related more to frame geometry than wheel size. If you’re trying to put your feet down while still seated, your seat height will be the biggest factor. I ride bikes with 26”, 700c, and 29” tires. At a stop, I can put one foot down equally easily with all of them. In the rare case I need to put both feet down, I’ll get off the seat.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
06-26-23, 07:31 AM
#29
we be rollin'
Thread Starter
Well, with 20 votes in there are 80% for 40mm and 20% for 2 inches. I guess if I wanted to sell a frameset I know I'd be selling a niche product. I don't think I'd ever "sellout" and sell a product I don't want to sell. My general ideas though would revolve around either an commuter hybrid with 27.5x2.00" tires or also having a separate adventure tourer with 27.5x2.40" tires. Some tourists really want large tires. But the Ryde Andra 40 rim though is 850 grams and the Schwalbe Marathon Plus Tour 27.5x2.35 is 1380 grams and the Schwalbe Pick-up 27.5x2.35 is 1290 grams. This is pretty hefty but would make a rugged tourer.
