Is the Muscle Bike Build Off Annual?

BOXKARS
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Bike Wall
Rat Rod Bikes Bicycle Forum

Help Support Rat Rod Bikes Bicycle Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Captain Awesome said:
Technically it's 38.1mm but for the sake of blowing people's minds maybe 40 and under? Thoughts
Click to expand...
You're mixing ISO with metric. Not exactly the same, like 38c is 40mm.
Plus I did all the math two pages ago...
Actually I like Three Forks idea. 26x1 3/8 or 27x1 1/4 or 700x? It's that ISO number that makes or breaks some...

GC
 
Last edited:
GuitarlCarl said:
You're mixing ISO with metric. Not exactly the same, like 38c is 40mm.
Plus I did all the math two pages ago...
Actually I like Three Forks idea. 26x1 3/8 or 27x1 1/4 or 700x? It's that ISO number that makes or breaks some...

GC
Click to expand...

This morning I checked my ClearOut bike from some BOs ago. Its tyres are labeled 42-622 and 28x1,75 which would not be skinny anymore. The example I brought up earlier was 40-622 and 28x1,5 which would be the max to be considered as skinny so far. A few minutes ago I checked my daily ride the Wolverine, it runs on 35-622 front and 47-622 back, so front skinny yes, back nope...
If I would take out my caliper gauge to measure the real thickness of the tyres I most probably would get another set of numbers and it would get complicated.

I know, that the exact conversion inbetween measures is somewhat off. So I would suggest we stick to what the tyres are generally labeled and not start measuring and converting back and forth...
So speaking for all 28 or 622 or 700c tyres (which are most of the tyres I have around here):
If its above 40/1,5 it's not skinny anymore anything labeled with this numbers or lower is fine.
For lower diameters (27/26/24/20/18/...) I would suggest a similar approach but I'm lacking examples/experience there...

Maybe we could set in general that the labeled tyre width shouldn't be above 40/1,5 no matter what diameter.
Is that something we all could agree on?
 
SwissGuy said:
This morning I checked my ClearOut bike from some BOs ago. Its tyres are labeled 42-622 and 28x1,75 which would not be skinny anymore. The example I brought up earlier was 40-622 and 28x1,5 which would be the max to be considered as skinny so far. A few minutes ago I checked my daily ride the Wolverine, it runs on 35-622 front and 47-622 back, so front skinny yes, back nope...
If I would take out my caliper gauge to measure the real thickness of the tyres I most probably would get another set of numbers and it would get complicated.

I know, that the exact conversion inbetween measures is somewhat off. So I would suggest we stick to what the tyres are generally labeled and not start measuring and converting back and forth...
So speaking for all 28 or 622 or 700c tyres (which are most of the tyres I have around here):
If its above 40/1,5 it's not skinny anymore anything labeled with this numbers or lower is fine.
For lower diameters (27/26/24/20/18/...) I would suggest a similar approach but I'm lacking examples/experience there...

Maybe we could set in general that the labeled tyre width shouldn't be above 40/1,5 no matter what diameter.
Is that something we all could agree on?
Click to expand...
Would definitely have to go with labeled tire width different tires sit differently
 
GuitarlCarl said:
You're mixing ISO with metric. Not exactly the same, like 38c is 40mm.
Plus I did all the math two pages ago...
Actually I like Three Forks idea. 26x1 3/8 or 27x1 1/4 or 700x? It's that ISO number that makes or breaks some...

GC
Click to expand...
He asked what the metric equivalent of 1.5 is. I told him

You guys are getting way too far in the weeds for this with ISO and strict definitions. It's supposed to be fun
 
Captain Awesome said:
He asked what the metric equivalent of 1.5 is. I told him

You guys are getting way too far in the weeds for this with ISO and strict definitions. It's supposed to be fun
Click to expand...
Rules are set to be bent! :grin: That's where the real fun begins! :wink1:
 
One more question:
When do we start? 😜
start Bugs.gif
 
Last edited:
GuitarlCarl said:
Well a bit of Google math and 1.75 inches to mm yields 44.45 if we allowed the dutch 28 's in at 40-635 (which is a fairly wide tire) the max of 40mm still leaves 1.75" tires out as too wide. View attachment 207867
I've got a 40-622 which you can see is a 700 x 38c and it is not really a skinny tire. But on the larger diameter rim does have the skinny vibe. Google math says 40mm = 1.57" I think maybe that's our limits, 40mm or 1.5"

GC.574
Click to expand...
I like the 40 mm for 700c or 1.5" for 26er as limits. That leaves room for a nice randonneur or gravel bike build or city bike build.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top