Cycling UK Forum

Tyres last a long time, if stored in a cool and dark place. But I would not be too worried. There are still a lot of 26 inch bikes, and there will continue to be 26 inch bikes for anyone who is a bit shorter (like many women - 29 is really a men's size). So there will be a ready market for many more years. Just look at the tyres that are still available in other really obsolete sizes.

Kapalasa wrote:26" mountain bikes are also going out of fashion here in South Africa, which is a shame as my touring bicycle is one. If I buy tyres now, how long do tyres last unused, before they perish?

I hate when this sort of thing happens as it sort of writes off the bike? whats so wrong with 26" wheels any way that a need to go to the latest fashion? is it just that? I bet none of it matters to Joe and Jane Bloggs who buy most of the bikes? I dont feel short changed on my Dawes 1-Down that has 26" wheels and I am an enthuisiast! What about the rest of the world is this change just afflict the developed world? all countries?

29ers are too big for perhaps a quarter or a third of western males, and for most western females. Elsewhere, people are shorter, so there they make even less sense. They are an identity thing, and as impractical for most ordinary people as road bikes with very skinny tyres.

NeilM wrote:I understand that in general terms I have a few options; buy something suitable and adapt it (I have seen 1990's mtb's mentioned several times), buy a touring frame and build it up to my spec, or have a frame custom built for me.

But my question is, what size wheels? 26" or 700c?

My average touring speed on my 700c tourer is 12.5 mph, on my 90's mtb with 1.75 tyres (travel contacts) its 9.5 mph. Both have been on longish tours (Spain back to the UK- Uk to switzerland and back amongst others ) all on road both with the same loaded pannier / tent weight of 16-20kg.

Speed isn't essential when touring but I'm easily knocking out an extra 10-15 miles a day on the 700c wheels and on a month long tour it adds up.

I actually built up the 90's mtb thinking it would be a go anywhere answer to my other bike but the truth is its heavier and far slower.

I must honestly say I cannot discern any difference, as long as I use fast tyres on my 26 inch bike. That is important, because 26 inch bikes are often also used with heavier and slower tyres. The Travel Contacts e.g. are precisely in that category of stiff, heavy and slow. At speeds below, say, 20 km the biggest diference is made by fast tyres, and honestly not much else. Weight comes in when you climb. Controlled tests have shown at best minimal differences between wheel sizes. And how could it be different, given that with fatter tyres on 26 inch wheels outside diameters differ only very little (see above). For valid comparisons, bike frame and seating position should be as close as possible. If the 28 inch bike has a more sporty and efficient position that could make a big difference.

I must honestly say I cannot discern any difference, as long as I use fast tyres on my 26 inch bike. That is important, because 26 inch bikes are often also used with heavier and slower tyres. The Travel Contacts e.g. are precisely in that category of stiff, heavy and slow. At speeds below, say, 20 km the biggest diference is made by fast tyres, and honestly not much else. Weight comes in when you climb. Controlled tests have shown at best minimal differences between wheel sizes. And how could it be different, given that with fatter tyres on 26 inch wheels outside diameters differ only very little (see above). For valid comparisons, bike frame and seating position should be as close as possible. If the 28 inch bike has a more sporty and efficient position that could make a big difference.

ossie wrote:

NeilM wrote:I understand that in general terms I have a few options; buy something suitable and adapt it (I have seen 1990's mtb's mentioned several times), buy a touring frame and build it up to my spec, or have a frame custom built for me.

But my question is, what size wheels? 26" or 700c?

My average touring speed on my 700c tourer is 12.5 mph, on my 90's mtb with 1.75 tyres (travel contacts) its 9.5 mph. Both have been on longish tours (Spain back to the UK- Uk to switzerland and back amongst others ) all on road both with the same loaded pannier / tent weight of 16-20kg.

Speed isn't essential when touring but I'm easily knocking out an extra 10-15 miles a day on the 700c wheels and on a month long tour it adds up.

I actually built up the 90's mtb thinking it would be a go anywhere answer to my other bike but the truth is its heavier and far slower.

would be interesting to see pictures of both to see what is being compared?

ossie wrote:My average touring speed on my 700c tourer is 12.5 mph, on my 90's mtb with 1.75 tyres (travel contacts) its 9.5 mph. Both have been on longish tours (Spain back to the UK- Uk to switzerland and back amongst others ) all on road both with the same loaded pannier / tent weight of 16-20kg.

Speed isn't essential when touring but I'm easily knocking out an extra 10-15 miles a day on the 700c wheels and on a month long tour it adds up.

I actually built up the 90's mtb thinking it would be a go anywhere answer to my other bike but the truth is its heavier and far slower.

That's really useful, thanks.

Bonefishblues wrote:I don't have any stats to hand, but tbh I'd be surprised if the difference was as pronounced as that with comparable tyres - perhaps other can help?

Tests have been done showing that larger wheels have lower rolling resistance, but the difference is only significant off-road.

Mr Evil wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:I don't have any stats to hand, but tbh I'd be surprised if the difference was as pronounced as that with comparable tyres - perhaps other can help?

Tests have been done showing that larger wheels have lower rolling resistance, but the difference is only significant off-road.

but you have also to offset that with fatter tyres roll better than skiny ones so the total effect of large v small and fat v thin might be zero?

mercalia wrote:but you have also to offset that with fatter tyres roll better than skiny ones so the total effect of large v small and fat v thin might be zero?

If you compare large rims with small tyres to small rims with large tyres then yes. That might be the situation if you're deciding what wheels to use with an existing frame, but if you are buying a new frame, especially if it's custom made, then you get more freedom to choose combinations of diameter and width.

willem jongman wrote:. The Travel Contacts e.g. are precisely in that category of stiff, heavy and slow.

Lets be clear hear Willem - no one sets out on a tour on a fully loaded 26" wheeled 90's mtb with speed in mind.

However the continental travel contacts are semi slicks and are probably the fastest tyres I've used on a mtb.... When fully loaded, travelling over several thousand miles you need to gauge speed, puncture protection and weight. If you can advise me of more suitable tyres for fully loaded touring that would could offer better performance with the same protection then I'm all ears.

mercalia wrote:
would be interesting to see pictures of both to see what is being compared?

A Raleigh 90's mtb and a Tricross ..not sure pics will help but if you insist

That mtb does not look particularly slow, even though the 28 inch with its more sporty seating position and drop bars should be faster. I have used the Travelcontacts, and that is why I said they are slow and stiff. It is quite a lot of very thick rubber. I think e.g the Schwalbe Big Apple would be both faster and more comfortable, and by quite a margin, and with pretty good puncture protection. Personally, I am not too worried by the risk of punctures, so my current 26 inch loaded touring tyres are the 52mm Compass Rat Trap Pass. The bike has drop bars, and is fast, real fast.

ossie wrote:

mercalia wrote:
would be interesting to see pictures of both to see what is being compared?

A Raleigh 90's mtb and a Tricross ..not sure pics will help but if you insist

The "mt bike" looks very nice - is the effective gearing much different to the other? My Dawes 1-Down is slower simply becuase the gearing and wheels size make it so? my middle front ring is a 36. I would suppose you would tend to run most of the time in that ring what ever it is and adjust the energy required accordingly and maybe ride faster on the 700c?