Thorn Cycles Forum
Technical => Wheels, Tyres and Brakes => Topic started by: Daniel Beckham on September 12, 2014, 10:10:56 AM
-
A reputable wheel builder of touring bikes said something to me yesterday when I called to enquire about purchasing a pair of wheels to go on my Thorn Sherpa frame I am looking at purchasing shortly.
He stated that I would be able to ride further before getting completely worn out on a 700 wheel tourer than I would be able to on a 26” wheeled bike.
Now, I am a keen cyclist and love my camping weekends and odd week away but I don’t have years and years of experience of riding both 26” and 700 wheeled machines to counter his argument but common sense tells me this statement can’t be correct, can it?
I could understand in his experience he has felt the benefits of a 700 wheeled bike because it was perhaps fitted with lighter, thinner rims / tyres and maybe better quality hubs which has led him to this conclusion.
My thoughts are as follows.
A 26” wheel will give lower overall gearing to the bike but this has no influence over the speed the bike can travel as the rider can select a higher gear.
A 700 wheel may roll better as it is a larger diameter and the inertia of his will want to continue to roll for longer but this is equally countered by the reduction of the rate the wheel with accelerate by. The rider will have to put more energy into the wheel to get it up to speed.
The main influence as I see it to how a wheel rolls would be the quality of the hub used and bearing condition and setup, wheel weight and most importantly the tyre, its width and rolling resistance.
I also think a 26” rim must be inherently stronger due to spoke length.
A 26” wheel will allow a slightly lower of CoG, which becomes more important when carrying heavy loads.
A 700 wheel will be smoother and perhaps ride bumps better due to its larger diameter is my guess?
So in short, and in balance it is my current thought that a 26” wheel offers more versatility and has no major draw backs and if it is built from quality components with a tyre with good (low) rolling resistance will travel just as well with similar input of energy as a 700 rim. I would be really interested to hear thoughts from more seasoned riders than myself who can use experience to confirm or counter my thoughts on this?
Many Thanks
-
Sounds like a rubbish argument to me. A 26" wheel with a fat tyre is pretty much the same diameter as a 700c with a 25mm tyre anyway.
Effort for the distance covered is all going to be down to the gearing on the bike, of which the wheel size is a contributing factor. To travel in the same overall gear ratio on a bike with smaller wheels may just require selection of slightly higher cogs to counteract the down gearing of the smaller wheel, but effort put in will be the same (thats how gearing works!) so I call rubbish on his argument.
-
i have ridden both, sherpa now audax give me 700 wheels any day of the week.i found when i was cycling in a group riding my Sherpa even when everyone else was free wheeling i was peddling like a lunatic to keep up ;D ;D
no doubt the 600 wheels are stronger over rough stuff and more comfy with the wider tyres but there going to be far heavier that a good set of 700 wheels .
jags.
-
i have ridden both, sherpa now audax give me 700 wheels any day of the week.i found when i was cycling in a group riding my Sherpa even when everyone else was free wheeling i was peddling like a lunatic to keep up ;D ;D
no doubt the 600 wheels are stronger over rough stuff and more comfy with the wider tyres but there going to be far heavier that a good set of 700 wheels .
jags.
Thanks for the reply Jags. Surly it isn't as simple as that as the Audax is made from lighter material, has thinner tyres and generally be a lighter faster bike. Also its geometry will just make it feel perkier when you ride it?
-
dont get me wrong i loved the sherpa great bike for sure but its hard work in a group of riders on lightweigh bikes. your right of course but i still prefair 700 wheels.
-
i have ridden both, sherpa now audax give me 700 wheels any day of the week.i found when i was cycling in a group riding my Sherpa even when everyone else was free wheeling i was peddling like a lunatic to keep up ;D ;D
I reckon you just needed to bump up your gearing.
no doubt the 600 wheels are stronger over rough stuff and more comfy with the wider tyres but there going to be far heavier that a good set of 700 wheels .
Less metal. 26" wheels of the same rim width will be lighter - less metal in the rim, less metal in shorter spokes. Don't go comparing appples and oranges there jags, some 26" rims are heavier, mostly because they are wider.
-
I'd say your wrong on that score ilpadrone.i haven't come across a 599 wheel as yet that was lighter than a 700c wheel.i ride with the same group these day on my audax and there usuall sucking my wheel ;)
if i were to do the touring you guys do then yes the 599 set up is defo the way to go might even go with rohloff (what an i saying) but the touring i do which BTW is not much would be light as possible and on tarmac so a good lightweight bike that will carry my load will do me fine,not concerned about speed just make cycling as easy as i can get it.
I'm an old man ya know.
jags
go easy on me I'm uneducated as well.
-
What about Moultons with 20" and 17" wheels.
By the Wheel builder's reckoning you wouldn't get round the corner before you are knackered!! But they go round the world.
If he was arguing light fast bike v solid heavy bike then he would be correct but then you wouldn't be able to put everything plus the kitchen sink onto a light fast bike without something failing fast like a few dozen spokes.
-
What about Moultons with 20" and 17" wheels.
By the Wheel builder's reckoning you wouldn't get round the corner before you are knackered!! But they go round the world.
If he was arguing light fast bike v solid heavy bike then he would be correct but then you wouldn't be able to put everything plus the kitchen sink onto a light fast bike without something failing fast like a few dozen spokes.
the other end of that argument as well is if he were correct we'd be riding round on 36" wheel monsters already...
-
I'd say your wrong on that score ilpadrone.i haven't come across a 599 wheel as yet that was lighter than a 700c wheel.
Never say never ;)
Mavic XM719 (http://www.mavic.com.au/rims-mtb-xm-719) 26" - 475g
Mavic Open Sport (http://www.acta.org.nz/120805/DSCN1164-001.jpg) 700C - 490g
Yes, we are talking a bee's dick here, but the bee's dick is on the 700C rim.
-
;D ;D ;D very good i admit defeat ;D
-
;D ;D ;D very good i admit defeat ;D
Not so fast. Some of Daniel's assumptions, while based on "traditional cycling wisdom" (a very suspect quantity), are simply wrong, like the one where he lumps in wider tyres with greater rolling resistance. We know now that wider fatter tyres, otherwise like for like, have less rolling resistance.
There's more to being knackered faster than just the obvious, visible mechanical leverages. For instance, 700C wheels, again like for like, are likely to dampen microvibrations better than 559 wheels. That can make a big difference at the end of the day in how wiped you are. This effect is hidden in the Thorn range because the 700C bikes are old-feshioned narrow-fork tourers, whereas the 26 inch bikes are the ones with forks for fat tyres, including balloons or other types that can beneficially be operated at lower pressures, which are also good for killing microvibrations before they reach the rider.
There's more to a bike than just the mechanics, and at the wheel and tyre and there is much more that is counterintuitive.
I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that on 700 wheels you can, like for like, travel further than on 26in wheels. It may not be a huge amount on any day, but for a serious tourer it could mount up over a tour. There are other considerations though, like the nature of the terrain, and how far he will be from the nearest good bike shop. Andy Blance is pretty persuasive about 26in wheels being intrinsically stronger.
-
I have done loaded touring on a 700c Long Haul Trucker with 37mm wide Hutchinson Globetrotter tires and on a Thorn Sherpa with plain Schwalbe Marathons (with GreenGuard) that were 40mm wide. In both cases I ran pressures of about 80 to maybe 85 psi in the rear, about a half to one atmosphere less in the front. Both 700c and 26 inch bikes appeared to roll about the same. (I used the LHT on the last tour and decided that I prefer the Sherpa, will be using the Sherpa on future loaded tours on pavement what do not warrant the ruggedness of the Thorn Nomad which I also have.)
Also the Sherpa with 26 inch wheels offers more tire choices if you want to run wider tires, say 50mm wide. Some of my tours have predominantly been on gravel instead of pavement. For those tours I used a Dureme 50mm front and Extreme 50mm rear tire, it is hard to find a good 700c touring frame that can take the wider tires.
-
26 inch wheels didn't seem to slow this guy down too much:
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-1000/fastest-cycle-across-the-usa-%28n-s-and-e-w%29/
(Thorn posted this on their facebook page.)
more: http://glenburmeister.com/transport/
-
A 26" wheel with a fat tyre is pretty much the same diameter as a 700c with a 25mm tyre anyway.
here are some numbers: http://www.schwalbetires.com/tech_info/tire_dimensions#circumference
there is a bit of cross-over: a 54-559 has the same circumference as a 20-622, i.e. 2100 mm. These numbers are a bit imprecise, I must say, having made my own measurements to set my odometer. Of course I wanted the circumference loaded and these are almost certainly unloaded.
Sure does seem like bigger wheels ought to roll better over rough surfaces, all other things being equal. But there are so many other variables with steering geometry etc.! I think rim and tire selection is the most practical driver of such decisions, especially between 559 and 622 where the difference isn't very big.
-
My personal experience is that I'd agree with the OP wheel builder. In 2012 I cycled LEJOGLE on a Surly LHT, with two rear panniers and a bar bag, often covering 65-80 miles a day, day after day. I had 700x35c tyres on it. After the first two difficult tiring days, I had no problem covering the distance. In 2013, my wife and I rode down the North Sea Coastal path from Esbjerg to Hoek. I was on my Nomad 2 and she was on her Paul Villiers custom built tourer with 700c wheels. I struggled to cover more than 40 miles a day and needed a couple of rest days because of fatigue. Admittedly I was carrying more gear with me in 2013 but the route was definitely much flatter.
26" wheels have huge advantages over 700c in strength (and in getting spare tubes etc in certain countries) but in my experience they take more effort to get going and keep going. I'm sure that physics will disagree with me but that's my experience.
Fraser
-
Never say never ;)
Mavic XM719 (http://www.mavic.com.au/rims-mtb-xm-719) 26" - 475g
Mavic Open Sport (http://www.acta.org.nz/120805/DSCN1164-001.jpg) 700C - 490g
Yes, we are talking a bee's dick here, but the bee's dick is on the 700C rim.
jags and I both run 700c wheels with Mavic Open Pro rims which are 435g ... which is significantly lighter than the 560g weight of the 26" Rigida Grizzly CSS rims on my RST.
I'm with you jags!! :D
Jim
-
My own experience with Moultons and Bromptons (16" wheels, so much greater difference than 700C versus 26 inch) suggests that, for similar rims and tyres, the difference between 700C and 26 inch would be negligeable.
I have done 180 km day rides with old F-frame 16" wheel Moultons and Bromptons. Significantly less tiring on the Moultons compared to Bromptons, probably due to effective suspension. At that time I didn't use a 26" wheel bike for long rides (in 26 inch I only had a mountain bike with off-road tyres), but did have a lightweight touring bike with 700C wheels.
Comparing my 700C bike with my Moultons, the latter were better for comfort over long differences, but marginally slower, perhaps due to a combination of heavier weight and less suitable gearing.
This is on road. Off-road or on bad road surfaces a big wheel with a fat tyre works much better than a 16" wheel. But the difference between 26" and 700C is only about 11% at the rim.
In practice, 26" wheels are generally heavier to fit wider tyres (also heavier) so a 700C bike with thin lightweight tyres should perform better than a 26" with heavy tyres. But I find that a 26" wheel bike with lightweight but fat tyres (Supreme 2.0 in my case) rolls very easily, and, though slower, is more comfortable on long rides than my 700C x 28mm bike. So despite the weight difference I tend to ride my rather heavy 26" wheel bikes further than my 700C bike.
-
If it really makes that much of a difference you should all refit your bikes for 27" (630mm) :D :P
-
jags and I both run 700c wheels with Mavic Open Pro rims which are 435g ... which is significantly lighter than the 560g weight of the 26" Rigida Grizzly CSS rims on my RST.
I'm with you jags!! :D
Jim
Thanks Jim that ilpadrone fella is way to clever for my little brain ;D ;D
-
Further to my earlier post....as I was riding this morning over the potholed bumpy roads of Hertfordshire and North London, I realised why I spend most of my time on my Nomad Mk2 riding 2" Duremes. The Nomad is by far the most comfortable bike I own. It may take a little more effort but at least I can ride in comfort.
-
If we are going to get into a debate about tire diameters, I looked up my data that I use for setting my bike computer. These are measurements I made, probably about plus or minus 5mm for tolerance. These are not guesses off an internet chart. My 37mm wide 700c Hutchinson Globetrotters are 2204mm circumference and the 26 inch tire that I consider to be comparable to that tire is the plain Schwalbe Marathon at 40mm width, that circumference is 2038mm. (If you want diameter, divide by pi.) Thus, the 700c tire is about 8.1 percent bigger.
As I noted in my previous post, I really do not see any real difference between these tires for rolling ability when I have a load of camping gear on my bike. They are so close to each other in width that I consider them to be virtually the same width and I use about the same pressure in each size.
I have some 28mm 700c Continental slicks that are 1.3 percent bigger than my 26 inch Schwalbe Extreme 57mm wide tires, but I see little use in such a comparison. Between these tires I clearly see a difference between which rolls better, the 120 psi in the 28mm slicks makes the bike want to almost coast up hills in comparison. But I would never consider carrying a load of camping gear on the 28mm tires, thus it is not a fair comparison of tire size.
If it really makes that much of a difference you should all refit your bikes for 27" (630mm) :D :P
That is too small, I think the Raleigh DL1 had a 28 inch tire, not sure what the rim bead diameter was, perhaps 635mm?
Just joking here.
-
If it really makes that much of a difference you should all refit your bikes for 27" (630mm) :D :P
You guys are all pikers. Real bicyclists fit 36 inch rims and buy their tyres from the monocycle suppliers.
(http://www.unicycle.uk.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/500x500/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/3/6/36stealth2rim.jpg)
http://www.unicycle.uk.com/unicycle-parts/rims/rim36stealth2.html
Unless of course the real cyclist is a hedonist who wants maximum comfort, then he goes for the 54 inch rim.
http://www.unicycle.uk.com/unicycle-parts/rims/54-velocity-deep-v-road-rim.html
Excellent for the really well-muscled cyclist.
If it really makes that much of a difference you should all refit your bikes for 27" (630mm) :D :P
I did actually say, further up the thread, that the distance "that on 700 wheels you can, like for like, travel further than on 26in wheels ... may not be a huge amount on any day..."
-
you would want to be mental to try one of those things . :o
where could i get one . ;D ;D
jags.
-
(Still riding the 27" wheels on my old 1981 Cecil Walker road Audax bike)
(http://i1327.photobucket.com/albums/u666/petesig26/Stray%20shots/CecilWalkerRoadAudaxbike_zps70c93a80.jpg) (http://s1327.photobucket.com/user/petesig26/media/Stray%20shots/CecilWalkerRoadAudaxbike_zps70c93a80.jpg.html)
Greatest challenge is finding high quality tyres for it. There are also challenges with the limited cassette range that I have. People have suggested that I convert it to a wider range cassette, but once you start on that, one change reqires another...... requires another..... and before you know it I'm $1000 poorer and the bike is no longer a 1980 classic ride.
Keeping it pretty much 'as is' for the foreseeable future.
-
Hmmm. 36ers do seem to smooth out the bumps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYt6IqaHk_Q
I'm with MartinF on this one. It's a Hare and Tortoise thing. After 12 or even 15 hours on 26x1.6 Marathon Supremes I don't feel beaten up and have avoided a lot of fatigue. (Mental as well as physical as I haven't had to concern myself with pinchflats, broken spokes, rim wobbles, wet grip, off road, technical descending or the odd pot hole, and I can use any rideable route (towpaths, NCN, sustrans, bridleways, byways etc) to avoid trunk routes and town centres and other stress raisers. And this on a bike stiff enough to carry some weight too: RST)
For me 700x32 on Mk3 Audax is faster for about 4 hours and then diminishing returns set in due to the greater harshness of the ride. Stopping for a rest is the same as stopping for a puncture: average speed =0.
I imagine this is why flexy titanium frames are so popular as they promise to square this circle. Albeit with huge expense and breakages. As a result I'd really like a Mk4 Audax to have smaller diameter steel tubes, a 1" steerer and a quill stem to give it more compliance at the expense of luggage rating. Basically a modern take on Il padrones Cecil Walker...
Dreaming on
Ian
-
one change requires another
That's how I ended up buying my Nomad! My Trek 520 has a seven speed rear.... then the shifter went... they don't make those anymore! My LBS did find some down-tube shifters that would work. But I got all freaked out by the shifting technology. Hoping the Nomad lasts a good many more miles... yeah, part of what motivates me to get out and ride is the desire to make that investment pay off!
This might help keep your beautiful old bike on the road at some point:
http://www.compasscycle.com/hub_gb_120.html
-
36ers do seem to smooth out the bumps
Wow, thanks for that! I want one of those!
-
This might help keep your beautiful old bike on the road at some point:
http://www.compasscycle.com/hub_gb_120.html
Wow! Thanks very much for that link. Just what I'd be looking for (eventually) as I have one 5-speed cassette spare (be it in a narrower range than I'd like). Looks like I may need to jump to a 6-speed cassette to get the ratios I'd desire though.
-
You guys are all pikers. Real bicyclists fit 36 inch rims and buy their tyres from the monocycle suppliers.
(http://www.unicycle.uk.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/500x500/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/3/6/36stealth2rim.jpg)
http://www.unicycle.uk.com/unicycle-parts/rims/rim36stealth2.html
Unless of course the real cyclist is a hedonist who wants maximum comfort, then he goes for the 54 inch rim.
http://www.unicycle.uk.com/unicycle-parts/rims/54-velocity-deep-v-road-rim.html
Excellent for the really well-muscled cyclist.
I did actually say, further up the thread, that the distance "that on 700 wheels you can, like for like, travel further than on 26in wheels ... may not be a huge amount on any day..."
I was thinking to build a 36"er bike for my trip down Africa (back in 2012) the only thing to stop me was that I would have had to take a number of 36" tube with me as there are very Hard to Find in Africa ;)
(http://twentynineinches.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/contiking09-038.jpg)
The Rule is the bigger the wheel the faster the ride.....
Kiwi Pete .... Having Fun Riding 8)
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yGB0wQXlWvE/TaNpAEzZY7I/AAAAAAAACnA/JakjMcRWEZk/s1600/dual%252520discs.jpg)
This one looks to be in my home town :o
(http://fcdn.mtbr.com/attachments/arizona/499844d1259087131-26-vs-29-kaos-zelda-36-inch-bicycle.jpg)
-
oh man those bikes are mental never even knew there was such a wheel as a 36.i'd need a step ladder to mount it ;D ;D
anto.
-
I love the orange bike!!
Twin disks up front, Thudbuster under yer bum, and a Rohloff or some other IH.
I'm in lust! :P What is that thing?
-
Not a Rohloff. Chainline shows a huge sprocket, but Rohloff sprockets are only available in 13, 15, 16 & 17t sizes.
-
I used to run a 43x21 with my rohloff.
SJS supplied the 21 Rohloff sprocket...
-
(http://twentynineinches.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/contiking09-038.jpg)
The Rule is the bigger the wheel the faster the ride.....
Kiwi Pete .... Having Fun Riding 8)
Give Kiwi Pete the I. G. Noble Prize for Bicycle Engineering Wisdom!
-
Give Kiwi Pete the I. G. Noble Prize for Bicycle Engineering Wisdom!
Hi Thanks :)
PS: Please Note I'm a Motorcycle Engineer working on Bicycle because they are a load more fun.... :D
Kiwi Pete 8)
-
that bike is just so wrong awful looking thing.its a bit like the chopper raleigh brough out years ago complete disaster. :-[ pure crap .
jags.
-
Thank you for your replies.
With so many variables with tyres, riders, road surfaces etc, etc, I know this won’t get a conclusive answer and I am sure personal preference comes into play too.
There have been days when I have stopped my bike and checked the wheels were turning OK, just simply because it felt hard work, when in fact all was wrong was I was having a bad day ::)!
Having given this much thought I can only think the difference, if any, would be marginal and other influences such as weigh of bike, tyres and road surface etc have a much bigger influence.
For my money I will be going 26” as I still see the known benefits out way any alleged shortcomings.
-
Smart move. Buck the trend 8)
-
The frame colour is also very important.
:D
-
The frame colour is also very important.
:D
Road safety yellow.
-
26" wheels ordered today!
Think the frame will be black, unless you can go further on a red frame.................. :D
-
Good luck with your Thorn Sherpa build, which rims/hubs did you go for?
I've been experimenting with lighter/slicker/higher tpi tyres on my 26" bikes. I didn't ride a lot of miles last year so have put on weight and am less fit than usual. Compared to my 700c bikes with their 28/25mm Conti Gatorskin/Grand Prix tyres I was finding my 26" bikes with 2 inch Big Apple and 1.9 Conti Double fighter tyres hard work and draggy.
I decided to try some lighter/slicker tyres. I got some Conti Sport Contacts 26 x 1.6 (http://www.tweekscycles.com/components/road-clincher-tyres/continental-sport-contact-tyre) and Vittoria Randonneur Pro II's 26 x 1.5 (http://www.totalcycling.com/en/Vittoria-Randonneur-Pro-II-Folding-Clincher-Tyre/m-21056.aspx). The Sport Contacts measure 37mm wide and 36mm high on the rim. The Vittoria's measure 39mm wide and 39mm high on the rim.
Now the 26" bikes seem to roll as well as the 700c bikes, over the same 16 mile course riding at moderate effort the times are all within 30 seconds of each other. The new 26 inch tyres feel nearly as comfortable on rough surfaces as the fatter tyres they replaced, presumably the higher tpi makes them more flexible.
Tried the Randonneur Pro II's (http://www.vittoria.com/en/product/trekking/#product-4684) off-road on some dry trails (lots of gravel) round a local lake and they performed fine. I don't know how durable they will be but to me the low rolling resistance is worth the trade-offs.
-
I went for Exal LX17 black rims, LX hubs and stainless double butted (not on drive side of rear wheel) spokes.
I came to this spec from reading info on forums like this one, friends and professional advice plus budget I wanted to spend.
Sure they will be better than the £50 ebay wheels I have been using for the last couple of years.
-
I went for Exal LX17 black rims, LX hubs and stainless double butted (not on drive side of rear wheel) spokes.
I came to this spec from reading info on forums like this one, friends and professional advice plus budget I wanted to spend.
Sure they will be better than the £50 ebay wheels I have been using for the last couple of years.
Exal are just about the best rims you can buy, if you can get hold of them. My Utopia Kranich came with Exal rims, which definitely build into a superior wheel, for practical purposes beyond bulletproof, maybe even everlasting, especially when used with the heavier (but ever so ugly) Sapim spokes. Unfortunately Exal seems to concentrate on OEM distribution, so that finding their rims in the correct sizes in retail stores is a pain, and often simply impossible. The Exal XL I use offer the correct internal width of 24mm to build a true 29er wheel.
-
You learn something new every day,i never heard tell of thse Exal rims
http://www.spacycles.co.uk/products.php?plid=m2b131s116p1565.
so now having found them there on my wish list but love a dynamo up front.
What do you reckon Andre on the build what should i be looking at .i would want 700c 36 hole but what spokes ae best and what 9 speed hub on rear ,shimano dynamo up front ?
anto.
-
Sorry, Jags. I do touring bikes. I have no experiences of road bikes. I'm sure the Exal rims you've chosen will do you well. It is made to be uncompromised by the people who made Rigida (now Ryde) rims famous. But I have no idea about lightweight spokes; I specify the heavy end of Sapim as a reflex because I have a good history with them and they don't cost all that much more and I don't care about the weight -- I've never had a Sapim break.