I don't know if hubgearfreak was also being flippant with his:
hubgearfreak wrote:Mick F wrote: It's surprising how much bigger 27" is compared to 700c.
. . .
of course mick may have a point if you use stupidly narrow (20-25) tyres. 35-622 look fine
but this is just what I was thinking of doing! Not only was I rather inclined to agree with Mick about the appearance, but I prefer larger wheels too. I have an ancient (late 1950's) Rudge 'Pathfinder' ("badge engineered" Raleigh 'can't-remember-which-model') that, like iron-clover I was wondering about resurrecting. And I did fancy putting on 35-622s, since they do produce pretty much the same overall dia. as the good ole 27x1¼s.
The potential trouble with that is that, although there is sufficient width between the forks and stays to take such a much fatter tyre, replacement brakes wouldn't just need the 4mm longer reach, but would have to go quite a long way round too!
Given that rim brakes are so much more powerful these days than formerly, and so good at chewing their way through rims that seem more flimsy, I was wondering if it would be feasible to fit hub or disc brakes instead.
BUT . . are hub brakes lacking in power? And why don't people usually use discs on tourers? If the reason for this is that the forks need to be too rigid, as on an MTB, then how come Avid BB5s and BB7s come in a "road" variant as well as the "mountain" version?
And if the forks do have to be rigid, how does one get round the problem for a road bike so as not to need replacement wrist joints after every ride?