jdawginsc 

Predominantly yes...

And I can say that when I converted the Trek Elance over to 700Cs, there was a bit more tire clearance. I think I put 28s on there with no issues.

The touring variety bicycles from the 70s/80s will fit even wider tires in the rear with 700s since you steal a bit of angle of the stays...but need longer reach brake calipers in the back... the big thing is if they have cantilevers, which limits you a bit.

Hopefully explained this right...

bikemike73 

The first year Schwinn Prelude, I think 1985 has 27in wheels.

I have one.

VERY SMOOTH and LIGHTWEIGHT

You do not see these for sale that often though.....at least in my area.............

rustystrings61 

The tire selection argument has always felt bogus to me. So long as Panaracer makes the Pasela, there is at least one good tire at least as good if not better than anything sold back during the heyday of 27-in wheels. There are a lot of tire widths I have no use for, tire colors that I would never use, and general marketing garbage I have learned to ignore. For non-competitive, non-extreme riding, 27 x 1 1/4 is an awesome tire size, especially with a decent tire. Ian Hibell rode all around the world on them, and so did many of the Rough Stuff Fellowship folks. It's a 32 mm wide tire that with a decently supple casing rolls very nicely.

I'm not entirely joking when I suggest that it's a tire size awaiting a 650B-esque renaissance. All that it needs is some marketing pizzazz and some coolio nickname. I propose The Dirty Six-Thirty, but I'm sure someone will come up with something equally inane when the time comes.

I understand the history - it was originally a Dunlop proprietary size built to compete with 700C, and while for many years it was THE performance wired-on tire in the Anglophone world, the whole globalization/standardization of 700C make the 622 more logical from a supply-chain perspective. On the other hand, there were millions and millions and MILLIONS of bikes sold with 27-in wheels, and someone is always going to market rubber and hopefully rims, because it's just too big a market to walk away from entirely.

My turning point came when I rode the Clunker Challenge a few years back on a '75 Motobecane Grand Touring with cheap IRC 27 x 1 1/4 tires at 70 psi to accommodate the vintage hookless rims. It was so smooth, and when I rode the same route the next day on a bike with 700 x 28s there was no appreciable difference in speed. I have been known to take advantage of the 27-inch-BAD fallacy - my full 531 Allegro was relatively cheap in part because the bike shop selling it assumed that 27-in wheels were entry level. They'd obviously never seen an early 70s Paramount.

BikingViking793 

Hasnt it sorta come back already with new road bikes having similarly wide tires?

nlerner

I sorta remember that when Jan Heine was first working with Panaracer to produce supple, wider tires, he queried the CR list to gauge interest in 27” versions. Went over like a lead balloon.

MrK.

World voyageurs came with 27in wheels if you are lucky enough to find one for sale.

rustystrings61 

Yep, along with the whole category of "gravel bike," which was a "gravel grinder" (a loathsome term to my ears) and before that Grant was calling them "country bikes," which were also called "all road bikes" which were initially "all-rounders" which were based on - the bikes of the old RSF riders, which were usually garden-variety vintage road bikes with 27 x 1 1/4 tires. But the march away from 630 x 32 to skinny high pressure tires was to my eyes an attempt to make a tire that rode like a tubular (or looked kinda like one) for faux performance bikes. I still have nightmares about the original Michelin Elans I tried. Add to that the whole run 700C-clinchers-and-tubulars-on-the-same-bike-without-adjusting-the-brake-pads thing, though, and you can see how the 622 won out in the industry.

I'm actually not too surprised. I've been a member of that list since it started, and I went to the very first Cirque when it was held in the parking lot of the old store - and there has always been a bias on that list towards the zippier, lighter, speedier, SPENDIER bikes. And 27-in has long been regarded as passe, which is too bad, really. I wouldn't say go out and build a new bike using it, but it's still a surprisingly versatile wheel size.

The Golden Boy 

27" wheels are obsolete. It's not a judgement. It's not an insult. It's just fact. The standard has changed.

IMO- there's nothing better or worse about 630/27" as a wheel size compared to 622/700C. You can go on and on about the theoretical advantages and disadvantages of the wheel size- but they're so close they're effectively identical. At this point- the standard for wheel size has changed to 700C. Where you get into the difference is the tires.

Most of my bikes have 27" wheels. I almost made it a point of pride that I was running 27s. I changed a 700C bike to 27" to suit a set of brakes- and I was proud of that. I rode Paselas or Pasela TG or PT models and have one set of Sand Canyon tires. The one bike that I had that was 700C had Paselas on it. Around 4 years ago I decided to change to 700C on one of my bikes. I used Compass 35s. There was not just a noticeable difference... It was a full on different bike. It had nothing to do with the wheel size- it was all about the tire. As I get things more stabilized and settled in- I've been replacing 27s with 700C. And using good tires. Paselas are fine tires. But there's better. Much much better.

Until there's supple 27" tires with the options like there are for 700C- the 27" wheel is purely legacy.

BikingViking793 

Anyone have an estimate of what years quality steel framed road bikes with 700 wheels would of been common?

bwilli88 

From early 1900s until now.
I have this Raleigh Record Ace from 80 with 27" wheels, full 531 Reynolds steel.





In the top pic it has Kenda 27x1 1/4 tires in the bottom pic it has the original Blumel fenders and 27x 1 3/8 tires I brought from Cambodia. it would be better with the 1 1/4 tires and the fenders or the 1 3/8 tires without.

madpogue 

While you're looking at shifters, also look for a frame with brazed-on mounts (instead of a band/clamp) for the downtube shifters. Generally a sign of a higher-quality build.
FIFY

dedhed

You should do some reading here on Randy's old site

​​​​​​https://cycle.haus/mytenspeeds/FREE_...TRODUCTION.htm

BikingViking793 

I was under the impression that 700 wheels didn't start getting common until the late 70s or early 80s. And it seems like steel bikes lost popularity in the 90s? That's not all that much overlap.

BFisher

You'll never pop that balloon!

BikingViking793 

Thanks, very interesting. This one gonna take me some time.

nlerner

I also suggest you look through the catalogs in this thread: https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-v...t-w-links.html

You'll see who offered road bikes with 27" wheels and where those models fit in the hierarchies.

rustystrings61 

That kinda depends on when the frame was built. There were a lot of racing-oriented frames in the 60s and 70s with no braze-ons, like certain Raleigh Pros, PX-10s, Gitane TdF and Super Corsa, earlier 531-tubed Austrian-Daimler Vent Noir, Puch Royal Force and Royal X, etc with maybe a down tube pip to keep clamped on shifters in place or a chain stay cable stop only. What I heard at the time was the no braze-on a thing was to prevent overheated tubing losing it’s strength, though clearly it also sped up and simplified frame production.

My perception is that there were more and more brazed on fittings in the late 70s and early 80s.

thook

Ah, man...no way...lol.. My '82 Trek 614 (27" wheeled) came full cyclone mkII with symmetric band clamp shifters. There's plenty of other high quality bikes that didn't come with braze ons, either; miyatas, univegas, nishikis. other trek models.....

Dura Ace candy....
CC Bicycle Gallery: Jim Vasapoli's Nishiki ONP

I'll second the super le tour for OP topic. My '85 is pretty sweet.

The Golden Boy 

Generally.

BikingViking793 

Do you think there would be a noticeable improvement with a super Le Tour over the regular Le Tour? I'm not sure of all the differences, but I think the Super is like 4lbs lighter, had downtube shifters, and alloy rims.

ollo_ollo

Not mentioned so far is a quick way to I.D. a light weight (Quality) frame would be presence of forged rear dropouts, especially with axle adjusting screws, or at least the holes where they used to be. I have only once seen both on a mild steel frameset (was an entry level Sekai). Don

repechage

I guess does not want to contend with the unclean BF masses?

27" wheels and tires had the same evolution that 700c did, the introduction of hook bead rims allowed higher pressures.
Unfortunately they also arrived when narrow was "better"
The clearances tightened up too save for dedicated touring bikes.

HTupolev

The issue isn't how they stack up against clinchers from 1975. It's how they stack up against clinchers today.

Paselas are fine. I run the non-PT ones with latex tubes on my '83 Miyata 710. But higher-end models do have a tangible edge on them.

650b's rise as a road+ size happened in a market where it was completing with basically nothing, and 650's brief explosion of popularity in MTB happened in the void left by 26ers.

27" is almost exactly the same radius as 700c, its existence as a separate road size would create supply chain permutation overhead, and I'm not sure what the proposed benefit would be. Both cyclists and the manufacturers would be hurt by this.

rumrunn6

I was very happy riding this 1985 LeTour for several years (2010-2016). it wound up being my summer commuter for at least one of those years. in 2016 I donated this bike to a bicycle coop & they gave me $20.


the seat tube decal read:

cro moly
4130
stays
double butted
main tubes
frame built in America

daverup 

The "regular Le Tour" lost 4 lbs in 1983. If you buy a "regular Le Tour" older than 1983 you will be hauling around 4 lbs extra. On hills, that would be noticeable.
The "Super Le Tour 12.2" got the lighter weight in the late 70's.