Tourer - 26" or 700c wheel?

[reohn2]

Gear inches is usually the measurement of progress and means that for every turn of the cranks the rear wheel will turn X inches ie; on a 50inch gear one revolution of the cranks the bike moves forward 50inches.

'Fraid not: "It is the equivalent diameter of the drive wheel on a high-wheel bicycle."

Yes of course it is but it's also how gearing is expressed on a geared bicycle.

[PH]

Gear inches is usually the measurement of progress and means that for every turn of the cranks the rear wheel will turn X inches ie; on a 50inch gear one revolution of the cranks the bike moves forward 50inches.

'Fraid not: "It is the equivalent diameter of the drive wheel on a high-wheel bicycle."

Yes of course it is but it's also how gearing is expressed on a geared bicycle.

You've got the fundamentals wrong
On a 50inch gear one revolution of the cranks the bike moves forward 157inches.

Doesn't really matter IMO. It's a comparative tool, I've no idea what traveling X distance per pedal revolution feels like, but from experience I know X is the gear I need to get up the steepest hills, Y is a nice cruising gear and Z is one I never use. I know those numbers, I don't have to know what they represent.

[squeaker]

Gear inches is usually the measurement of progress and means that for every turn of the cranks the rear wheel will turn X inches ie; on a 50inch gear one revolution of the cranks the bike moves forward 50inches.

'Fraid not: "It is the equivalent diameter of the drive wheel on a high-wheel bicycle."

Yes of course it is but it's also how gearing is expressed on a geared bicycle.

Let me try again: you said "...for every turn of the cranks the rear wheel will turn X inches ie; on a 50inch gear one revolution of the cranks the bike moves forward 50inches." It won't in conventional notation: it will move forward by the circumference of a 50" wheel ie pi x 50 = 157" - somewhat further You described 'development'...

PS: PH got there first - must have used a higher gear

[reohn2]

'Fraid not: "It is the equivalent diameter of the drive wheel on a high-wheel bicycle."

Yes of course it is but it's also how gearing is expressed on a geared bicycle.

You've got the fundamentals wrong
On a 50inch gear one revolution of the cranks the bike moves forward 157inches.

Doesn't really matter IMO. It's a comparative tool, I've no idea what traveling X distance per pedal revolution feels like, but from experience I know X is the gear I need to get up the steepest hills, Y is a nice cruising gear and Z is one I never use. I know those numbers, I don't have to know what they represent.

You and Squeaker are right I'm in a muddle and feeling highly embarrassed as result,apologies.

[horizon]

You and Squeaker are right I'm in a muddle and feeling highly embarrassed as result,apologies.

You have very little to feel embarrassed about!

[squeaker]

You and Squeaker are right I'm in a muddle and feeling highly embarrassed as result,apologies.

You have very little to feel embarrassed about!

+1: been there, done that

[Brucey]

R2's scheme is widely used by the continentals; they call it 'development' and measure it in metres. So a ~71" gear is also 5.7m development.

Makes no sense to me (I have to look it up every time) but I daresay they find gear inches equally baffling; when all is said and done the gearing is a comparative measure.

cheers

[PH]

You and Squeaker are right I'm in a muddle and feeling highly embarrassed as result,apologies.

Ha, no need to be embarrassed.
Reminds me of my mothers map reading, she'd have no idea how many miles, but could accurately predict how long it would take to drive between any two points on the AA map.

[reohn2]

You and Squeaker are right I'm in a muddle and feeling highly embarrassed as result,apologies.

Ha, no need to be embarrassed.
Reminds me of my mothers map reading, she'd have no idea how many miles, but could accurately predict how long it would take to drive between any two points on the AA map.

Must be a woman thing MrsR2 looks on a map as a bewildering series of lines on a page but like your Mum can estimate the time needed to completes a journey with uncanny accuracy.
I've only this week bought a sat nav,which to a technophobe like me opens up a whole can of worms,I struggle with middle rings these days let a lone conversing with an unknown woman on a small TV screen on the dashboard

[LittleGreyCat]

LittleGreyCat: would you be so kind as to say how tall you are? Or simply to confirm whether you come in the "Must have 26" wheels due to height" catgegory. For some of us it isn't an issue as Spa for example don't do 26" wheels for their Tourers in the larger sizes - the issue as pointed out above is overlap (etc) as opposed to the desirability of one wheel size over another.

6 foot tall, inside leg around 32.5", feet size 11 (a.k.a. flippers).

Wavering a bit towards 26" today, but that probably won't last.

Edit: 25" to 26"

[reohn2]

LittleGreyCat: would you be so kind as to say how tall you are? Or simply to confirm whether you come in the "Must have 26" wheels due to height" catgegory. For some of us it isn't an issue as Spa for example don't do 26" wheels for their Tourers in the larger sizes - the issue as pointed out above is overlap (etc) as opposed to the desirability of one wheel size over another.

6 foot tall, inside leg around 32.5", feet size 11 (a.k.a. flippers).

Wavering a bit towards 25" today, but that probably won't last.

You're the same height and shoe size as me, I ride a large in a compact frame.That means for a dropbarred bike between 57cm and 59cm effective toptube length with a longer or shorter stem as suits.
For a bike with straight handlebars a longer effective toptube is needed at around 61cm to 63cm .
That's assuming your other body measurements arms and torso lengths are in proportion.

[LittleGreyCat]

<snip>
If you want to take the tyre size into account when working out gearing without frying your grey matter it is easiest if you use a gear calculator like this;

http://ritzelrechner.de/?GR=DERS&KB=34,48&RZ=11,12,13,14,15,17,19,21,23,25,28&UF=2100&TF=90&SL=2.6&UN=MPH&DV=gearInches&GR2=DERS&KB2=34,48&RZ2=11,12,13,14,15,17,19,21,23,25,28&UF2=2135

where you get to choose the tyre size from a drop-down menu. As above, it is set to compare gearing for 54-559 tyres with 25-622 ones.

Finally got round to doing all the measuring and reading labels and stuff.

My mountain bike is
http://ritzelrechner.de/?GR=DERS&KB=28,38,48&RZ=32,13&UF=2075&TF=90&SL=2.6&UN=MPH&DV=gearInches&GR2=DERS&KB2=34,48&RZ2=11,12,13,14,15,17,19,21,23,25,28&UF2=2135

and for comparison my old Dawes is
http://ritzelrechner.de/?GR=DERS&KB=30,42,52&RZ=28,12&UF=2075&TF=90&SL=2.6&UN=MPH&DV=gearInches&GR2=DERS&KB2=34,48&RZ2=11,12,13,14,15,17,19,21,23,25,28&UF2=2135

Interestingly it also gives a speed in MPH against a given cadence. With cadence set to 90 the maximum and minimum speeds are
Mountain Bike 6-25.5
Dawes Galaxy 7.5-32

This, I think, illustrates why I was looking for a higher top gear when coasting down a hill gets you up to over 30 mph.

Interestingly, the Spa Cycles Wayfarer in 700C is
http://ritzelrechner.de/?GR=DERS&KB=28,38,48&RZ=11,12,14,16,18,21,24,28,32&UF=2170&TF=90&SL=2.6&UN=MPH&DV=gearInches&GR2=DERS&KB2=34,48&RZ2=11,12,13,14,15,17,19,21,23,25,28&UF2=2135
which gives a top gear very slightly higher than the Dawes and a bottom gear not much higher than the Mountain Bike. This does look like a good gear range at first view.

Am I moving back towards the 700C?

[gregoryoftours]

Your failure could have been a freehub body centre failure but this would have been apparent when the hub was taken apart, so my money is on the hollow bolt itself having worked a bit loose and then not seeming loose enough to be worth tightening when the hub was inspected (*). The way the wheel moved around is absolutely symptomatic of a gradually worsening loose freehub body bolt/interface; the hub bearing themselves (if they are adjusted correctly) tend to mask the loose freehub body, and when the axle is out, any slight movement tends to be dismissed as play in the freehub body bearings, not the freehub body moving around wholesale. Of course it moves a lot more once you are sat on the bike pedalling.

cheers

That all makes sense really with what I can remember of what happened with that wheel, I guess the bolt must have been mashed to not fit a 10mm Allen key. It was a shame to ditch the wheel because it was quite a nice one! What size of 12pt bit fits that bolt? would it be an M12?

[Brucey]

I'll double-check how the size of these bits is referred to; I have a set and I just use the one that fits. Note that there are tri-square and bi-hex versions of 12pt spline bits; you need the latter really but the former can also fit at a pinch



cheers

[thelawnet]

There's a few other practical considerations, 26" are apparently more readily available in some remote parts of the world, there's more road tyres available in 700C and more chunky tyres in 26" (Though the gravel trend has changed that somewhat) 26" has stopped being the norm for MTBs so future tyre choice may become restricted.

The original question was around 650B (584etro), not the (old) 26in MTB (559 etro) size. I'd be surprised if there is anywhere in the world where the 650B is the most commonly available tyre.

I'm in Indonesia, Schwalbe's factory is here.

26" is dead on anything other than $100 BSOs, and 26" tyres are limited to old stock or very cheap and nasty stuff. I'm not going to say 27.5" is more common than 26" as a generic spare part, but it's certainly more available than 29"/700c, especially as the roads are so bad road tyres aren't very popular. My local general store (not a bike shop) has 26 & 27.5" tubes but doesn't sell 29".

I think 27.5" is more popular than 29" out of choice, because of local shortness of stature.

I have a couple of 27.5" MTBs and a 29" MTB, but I much prefer 29" over rocks and so on. I can get high-quality tyres (talking tyres in the 2.1-2.35" width range here) in 27.5" or 29" only, so 26" isn't even a consideration.