27" wheels making a comeback?

Not too long ago a riding buddy of mine said that 27" wheels are making a comeback - primarily for
time trial/triathlon bikes since a larger wheel has less rolling resistance. Actually, I think this
would be a good idea for larger frame road bikes (62cm and up). Anybody here this?

 

Ken wrote:
>
> Why stop at 27"? Why not use 29" wheels? Good quality 29" rims are being made for mountain bikers.

The 29" rim is actually a 700C size (622mm), ie slightly smaller than 27" rim (630mm). The nominal
29" is what you get with a 2" MTB tyre.

James

 

Thanks for the responses. Yes, my riding buddy actually did say 27" wheels over 700c for TT bikes. I
think he was perhaps misinformed but I didn't want to hurt his feelings so I just went along with it
without having to question him too much. But you never know! "Benjamin Weiner"
<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Not too long ago a riding buddy of mine said that 27" wheels are making
a
> > comeback - primarily for time trial/triathlon bikes since a larger wheel
has
> > less rolling resistance. Actually, I think this would be a good idea for larger frame road bikes
> > (62cm and up). Anybody here this?
>
> What he means is that many time trial and tri bikes are moving back to using 700c (622mm) wheels
> rather than 650c (571mm). Not 27" (630mm). The difference between 622 and 630 is negligible for
> most practical purposes like rolling resistance; brake reach is about the only dimension that's
> seriously affected. It's hard to find a lightweight tire as used in most TTs and tris in 27". It's
> also hard to find good rims in that size. So no, 630 is not going to make a comeback.

 

"Dark Fiber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:07:25 GMT, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Not too long ago a riding buddy of mine said that 27" wheels are making a comeback - primarily
> >for time trial/triathlon bikes since a larger wheel
has
> >less rolling resistance. Actually, I think this would be a good idea for larger frame road bikes
> >(62cm and up). Anybody here this?
> >
>
> are you sure its for trial/triathlon bikes? i know there is a push on to get MTBs over to 27"
> wheels..

Thought that was 29" wheels that a few builders are producing.

 

> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:07:25 GMT, <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Not too long ago a riding buddy of mine said that 27" wheels are making a comeback - primarily
> >for time trial/triathlon bikes since a larger wheel
has
> >less rolling resistance. Actually, I think this would be a good idea for larger frame road bikes
> >(62cm and up). Anybody here this?

"Dark Fiber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> are you sure its for trial/triathlon bikes? i know there is a push on to get MTBs over to 27"
> wheels..

I was puzzled by that too. It seems someone in the mountain bike world is calling 700xfat wheels
"twenty nine inch".

--
Andrew Muzi http://www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April 1971

 

"Pete Geurds" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >I was puzzled by that too. It seems someone in the mountain bike world is calling 700xfat wheels
> >"twenty nine inch".
>
> Marketing....... After all what self respecting MTB'er would put roadie sized wheels on
their
> bike? But 29", wow, sign me up! ; ) So anyway, what's the difference between a 29"er and a hybrid?
>

Generally, serious front suspension on the 29"ers, and always a lot more clearance for really big
29" (700c) tires.

29"ers are generally serious hardtail MTB's with 700c wheels and lots of clearance for big tires.
They are designed for serious off-roading, although witht the right tires, they would also make very
nice hybrids.

Ed Chait

 

Pete Geurds at [email protected] wrote on 6/15/03 7:57 PM: <snipped>
> So anyway, what's the difference between a 29"er and a hybrid?

29ers go up to 11

 

Maybe hearing the term 29" for mountain bikes and city bikes is causing confusion too. People call
them 29" but they are just bikes that usually have 26" wheels moving to 700c wheels and they call
them 29" based on the average outside diamter of the tire.

<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Thanks for the responses. Yes, my riding buddy actually did say 27" wheels over 700c for TT bikes.
> I think he was perhaps misinformed but I didn't
want
> to hurt his feelings so I just went along with it without having to
question
> him too much. But you never know! "Benjamin Weiner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > Not too long ago a riding buddy of mine said that 27" wheels are
making
> a
> > > comeback - primarily for time trial/triathlon bikes since a larger
wheel
> has
> > > less rolling resistance. Actually, I think this would be a good idea
for
> > > larger frame road bikes (62cm and up). Anybody here this?
> >
> > What he means is that many time trial and tri bikes are moving back to using 700c (622mm) wheels
> > rather than 650c (571mm). Not 27" (630mm). The difference between 622 and 630 is negligible for
> > most practical purposes like rolling resistance; brake reach is about the only dimension that's
> > seriously affected. It's hard to find a lightweight tire as used in most TTs and tris in 27".
> > It's also hard to find good rims in that size. So no, 630 is not going to make a comeback.
>

 

"Jim Edgar" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BB129931.46BED%[email protected]...
> 29ers go up to 11
>

11 what?

 

Jim Edgar wrote:

>>29ers go up to 11

A culturally deprived person asked:

> 11 what?

From: http://www.krug.org/scripts/tap.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL: This is a top to a, you know, what we use on stage, but it's very...very special because if
you can see...

MARTY: Yeah...

NIGEL: ...the numbers all go to eleven. Look...right across the board.

MARTY: Ahh...oh, I see....

NIGEL: Eleven...eleven...eleven....

MARTY: ...and most of these amps go up to ten....

NIGEL: Exactly.

MARTY: Does that mean it's...louder? Is it any louder?

NIGEL: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most...most blokes, you know, will be
playing at ten. You're on ten here...all the way up...all the way up....

MARTY: Yeah....

NIGEL: ...all the way up. You're on ten on your guitar...where can you go from there? Where?

MARTY: I don't know....

NIGEL: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is if we need that extra...push over the cliff...you know
what we do?

MARTY: Put it up to eleven.

NIGEL: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.

MARTY: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top... number...and make that a
little louder?

NIGEL: ...these go to eleven.

Sheldon "Spinal Tapster" Brown +----------------------------------------------------------------+
| A moment's insight is sometimes worth a life's experience. | --Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton,
Massachusetts Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041 http://harriscyclery.com Hard-to-find parts
shipped Worldwide http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

 

"A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote:

> It seems someone in the mountain bike world is calling 700xfat wheels "twenty nine inch".

That's to distinguish them from 700xcrippled bikes that can't fit decently fat tires.

My favorite 700c tire is the Schwalbe Big Apple 700x60, but just try to put it into any frame other
than one calling itself a "twenty-niner".

It is a categorical distinction-- and a useful one to make, whether or not you like the terminology.
The WTB Nanoraptor 700x52 seems to be the benchmark by which the category is defined. Calling a bike
"cross" or "hybrid" does not imply compatibility with any given tire size, but "29 inch" does.

Chalo Colina

 

> "A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > It seems someone in the mountain bike world is calling 700xfat wheels "twenty nine inch".

"Chalo" <[email protected]> , a man of many interests, wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> That's to distinguish them from 700xcrippled bikes that can't fit decently fat tires.
>
> My favorite 700c tire is the Schwalbe Big Apple 700x60, but just try to put it into any frame
> other than one calling itself a "twenty-niner".
>
> It is a categorical distinction-- and a useful one to make, whether or not you like the
> terminology. The WTB Nanoraptor 700x52 seems to be the benchmark by which the category is defined.
> Calling a bike "cross" or "hybrid" does not imply compatibility with any given tire size, but "29
> inch" does.

Thanks. That actually makes some sense.

--
Andrew Muzi http://www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April 1971

 

"Sheldon Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jim Edgar wrote:
>
> >>29ers go up to 11
>
> A culturally deprived person asked:
>
> > 11 what?
>
> From: http://www.krug.org/scripts/tap.html
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> NIGEL: This is a top to a, you know, what we use on stage, but it's very...very special because if
> you can see...
>
> MARTY: Yeah...
>
> NIGEL: ...the numbers all go to eleven. Look...right across the board.
>
> MARTY: Ahh...oh, I see....
>
> NIGEL: Eleven...eleven...eleven....
>
> MARTY: ...and most of these amps go up to ten....
>
> NIGEL: Exactly.
>
> MARTY: Does that mean it's...louder? Is it any louder?
>
> NIGEL: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most...most blokes, you know, will
> be playing at ten. You're on ten here...all the way up...all the way up....
>
> MARTY: Yeah....
>
> NIGEL: ...all the way up. You're on ten on your guitar...where can you go from there? Where?
>
> MARTY: I don't know....
>
> NIGEL: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is if we need that extra...push over the cliff...you know
> what we do?
>
> MARTY: Put it up to eleven.
>
> NIGEL: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
>
> MARTY: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top... number...and make that a
> little louder?
>
> NIGEL: ...these go to eleven.
>
> Sheldon "Spinal Tapster" Brown

Utterly classic. If you haven't yet, you *must* get Spinal Tap on DVD and watch it with the
original cast doing in-character commentary over the entire film (including the opening flying
logo animation). The outtakes are extensive, and excellent, especially the scene where Billy
Crystal explains the origins of "Shut Up & Eat," the all-mime catering service. I fell on the
floor laughing.

Barry

 

"B. Sanders" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> Utterly classic. If you haven't yet, you *must* get Spinal Tap on DVD and watch it with the
> original cast doing in-character commentary over the entire film (including the opening flying
> logo animation). The outtakes are extensive, and excellent, especially the scene where Billy
> Crystal explains the origins of "Shut Up & Eat," the all-mime catering service. I fell on the
> floor laughing.

Don't miss "A Mighty Wind," the latest from McKean, Shearer, Guest, & Co.

Matt O.

 

"A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Chalo" <[email protected]> , a man of many interests, wrote:
>
> > Calling a bike "cross" or "hybrid" does not imply compatibility with any given tire size, but
> > "29 inch" does.
>
> Thanks. That actually makes some sense.

Well, it doesn't make as much sense as ISO sizing (e.g. "622-56 compatible"), but it seems to appeal
to a less-technical vernacular.

Why we should continue to suffer a nomenclature that gives us at least two sizes each of 16" and 20"
wheels, three sizes of 24" and four of 26", and two of 28" (one of which is also called 29" but is
usually < 27" in diameter) is beyond me. But there it is nonetheless.

I would have picked something besides "twenty-nine inch" as a designation myself, but I
recognize the marketing advantages of that term. Namely it's a simple, familiar and descriptive
label that divorces the size from its "roadie" (and therefore suspect) roots. Plays well to the
cheap seats, IOW.

Chalo "eighty inch" Colina