700 x 28... I don't think so

Workshop tales, trials and disasters.
Maintenance tips, techniques and myths.
Technical discussion, description and outright lies

700 x 28... I don't think so

Postby Johndec » Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:49 pm

Am I missing something here? I always assumed the 23, 25, 28 whatever related to the width of the tyres. I got some Vittoria Rubino Pro 28's today from one of the usual suspects in the UK. Whacked them on a cheapo ride to the pub/shops bike I got from Reid to replace the horrid Kenda tyres that it came with. After being rather pleased with myself for not buggering up any tubes fitting the tyres, I noticed that they didn't look much wider than the 22mm tyres they replaced.

A quick measure with my digital calipers showed them to be an average of 25.4mm wide (exactly an inch in the old money). A long way short of 28mm. I also measured the 23mm GP4000s on my Colnago, the average was 23.7mm. My Olmo with 23mm Vittoria Diamante Pros was 24.1mm.... All tyres were at 100 psi for the comparison.

I did notice that the rolling circumference is slightly larger for the 28m tyres, 2150mm compared to 2130mm for both the 23mm tyres (measured with a dress makers tape under no load, subtract bit for tyre drop under my weight).

Huh?
Last edited by Johndec on Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Johndec
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:10 pm
Location: Sydney

by BNA » Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:07 pm

BNA
 

Re: 700 x 28... I don't think so

Postby open roader » Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:07 pm

I had a similar experience with Schwalbe Ultremo ZX clinchers in a 25mm size which mounted onto Eurus 2 way fit rims ( a 20.5mm wide rim) at only 23.8mm which is only 95.2% of specified width but not as far out as your 90.7% discrepancy. How wide are the rims you have these fitted to?
3rd class cycling is always better than 1st class walking
User avatar
open roader
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Dueling Banjo Country

Re: 700 x 28... I don't think so

Postby rkelsen » Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:08 pm

Isn't it the height of the tyre, measured from the bead seat to the outside of the tread?
User avatar
rkelsen
 
Posts: 4362
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: 700 x 28... I don't think so

Postby Johndec » Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:15 pm

OK, as soon as I posted the above post, the little wheels in my tiny mind started turning. Rim width, you idiot... The no name Chinese rims on the Reid are only 18.6mm wide (measuring the brake pad width) which is 1.2mm thinner than the Braccianos on the Colnago and 1.6mm thinner than the Fulcrums on the Olmo. Put the 28mm tyres on the Fulcrum rims and they would be damm close to 28mm.....
Image
User avatar
Johndec
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: 700 x 28... I don't think so

Postby bigfriendlyvegan » Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:25 pm

User avatar
bigfriendlyvegan
 
Posts: 3248
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 1:18 pm
Location: Denistone, NSW

Re: 700 x 28... I don't think so

Postby Nobody » Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:49 pm

My understanding is 25 and 28 are pretty much the same size, just for different rim sizes. Put a 28 on a 15mm inner rim and it should be closer to 25mm. Put a 25 on a 19mm inner rim and it should be closer to 28mm.
Nobody
 
Posts: 6679
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: 700 x 28... I don't think so

Postby Carriage » Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:03 pm

Forgive my ignorance Johndec, but what's wrong with the Kenda tyres? I don't have experience with any others.
Carriage
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:47 pm

Re: 700 x 28... I don't think so

Postby ozdavo » Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:33 am

Widths are nominal only and actual width will vary model to model. Also they will often stretch from new 1-2mm or more.
Always looking for new rides & ride partners in SE QLD area
User avatar
ozdavo
 
Posts: 997
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Gold Coast (nth)

Re: 700 x 28... I don't think so

Postby rkelsen » Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:28 am

Carriage wrote:what's wrong with the Kenda tyres? I don't have experience with any others.

Try some better brands and then you'll know.
User avatar
rkelsen
 
Posts: 4362
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: 700 x 28... I don't think so

Postby MichaelB » Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:57 am

ozdavo wrote:Widths are nominal only and actual width will vary model to model. Also they will often stretch from new 1-2mm or more.


Nailed it in one !!!
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6837
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Re: 700 x 28... I don't think so

Postby foo on patrol » Sat Sep 29, 2012 2:18 pm

Johndec wrote:OK, as soon as I posted the above post, the little wheels in my tiny mind started turning. Rim width, you idiot... The no name Chinese rims on the Reid are only 18.6mm wide (measuring the brake pad width) which is 1.2mm thinner than the Braccianos on the Colnago and 1.6mm thinner than the Fulcrums on the Olmo. Put the 28mm tyres on the Fulcrum rims and they would be damm close to 28mm.....


Just read this thread and was going to say, if, you have narrow rims then they will pull in narrower. :mrgreen:

Foo
I don't suffer fools easily and so long as you have done your best,you should have no regrets.
Goal 6000km
Image
User avatar
foo on patrol
 
Posts: 4592
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 10:12 am
Location: Sanstone Point QLD


Return to The Shed

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Ebay Ebay AU
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit