Is the Muscle Bike Build Off Annual?

[threeforks]

If I read corectly, 700 x 38 c would be OK for this "skinny" challenge.
If so, I have a set of wheels, with tires, ready to build something.
That sounds great.

 

[GuitarlCarl]

Technically it's 38.1mm but for the sake of blowing people's minds maybe 40 and under? Thoughts

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

 

[SwissGuy]

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

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?

 

[ingola]

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?

Would definitely have to go with labeled tire width different tires sit differently

 

[Captain Awesome]

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

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

 

[SwissGuy]

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

Rules are set to be bent! That's where the real fun begins!

 

[SwissGuy]

One more question:
When do we start?

 

[Karate Chicken Industries]

So why not keep down on two, skip offroad for this year and do skinny instead?!

Off Road appears to be ahead of Muscle in the voting so far.

Just Sayin...

 

[Captain Awesome]

One more question:
When do we start?
View attachment 208277

Probably 11/1 to 3/1

That gives everyone a nice 2 month(ish) break in between each contest to regroup

 

[SwissGuy]

Off Road appears to be ahead of Muscle in the voting so far.

Just Sayin...

View attachment 208278

Just tossing ideas around here, I don't want to take away anything.
I can delay my skinny build until next summer (even though the itch to build would be hard to keep under control)

 

[SwissGuy]

Almost missed the voting thread...
https://ratrodbikes.com/forum/threads/winter-build-off-2022-2023-please-vote.116440/

 

[Captain Awesome]

Almost missed the voting thread...
https://ratrodbikes.com/forum/threads/winter-build-off-2022-2023-please-vote.116440/

Nice

 

[ingola]

Or maybe a new Hudson roadster

 

[GuitarlCarl]

Need some SKINNY ideas?
https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-...favorite-vintage-time-trial-bicycles-why.html
I'm in if I'm still in the mood TWO MONTHS FROM NOW...I'll likely be over it by then...

GC.

 

[OddJob]

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

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.