OK, I give up - what exactly is 622mm on my 700C road rims?
Steve Freides
rims), expecting to find something that measured 622mm. I can't find
anything. The closest I get to that figure is measuring from the
outside edge on one side to the inside edge on the other. This
obviously must vary by the rim; I measured several old sewup rims. I
measured from valve stem hole to rim joint, the easiest way (seems to
me) to be sure I was measuring an accurate diameter.
I'm trying to understand the standard enough that I can measure a rim
and determine its ISO size. Is this even possible? Is it some funky
thing like from the bottom of where the tire sits inside the curve of
the rim?
Thanks in advance.
-S-
--
Seen in a local public flower bed:
"Flowers grow by the inch and die by the foot."
MAPaceBike
700mm diameter wheel, including rubber, since 622+39+39=700.)
Mark Pace
Steve Freides
And isn't the bead seat on the inside of the rim? Again, how do you
measure such a thing?
Steve "rides mostly sewups" Freides
Ed Adamthwaite
of the manufacturer. After all, if you're making tyres, that's the
measurement that you must work to and get right. Otherwise the tyres won't
fit on the rim, or worse, will come off because they are too loose.
As a question on the side:
622mm is just 0.3mm (or 12 thou) under 24.5 inches. Is this some sort of ye
olde world magic number?
--
Ed Adamthwaite
Steve Freides <sj...@idt.net> wrote in message
news:37AB5CC8...@idt.net...
Damon Rinard
>
> Isn't "bead" relevant only to clinchers?
Yep.
> And isn't the bead seat on the inside of the rim?
Yep.
> Again, how do you measure such a thing?
I don't know, I've never tried. Maybe measure diameter edge to edge,
then measure from the edge down into the bead seat. Then you could
calculate the bead seat diameter by subtraction.
> Steve "rides mostly sewups" Freides
As you infer, sewup tires don't have beads and sew up rims don't have
bead seats. Sun lists sew up rim ETRTO diameters measured edge to edge.
So a 700c sew up rim has a diameter of 632 mm (see for example their M
19 AII rim listed at http://www.sunrims.com/Products/erd%20chart.html ).
--
Damon Rinard
Damon Rinard's Bicycle Tech Site:
http://www.damonrinard.com/
Sheldon Brown
>
> I just went out and measured several of my 622mm (what we all call 700C
> rims), expecting to find something that measured 622mm. I can't find
> outside edge on one side to the inside edge on the other. This
> obviously must vary by the rim; I measured several old sewup rims. I
> measured from valve stem hole to rim joint, the easiest way (seems to
> me) to be sure I was measuring an accurate diameter.
>
> I'm trying to understand the standard enough that I can measure a rim
> and determine its ISO size. Is this even possible? Is it some funky
> thing like from the bottom of where the tire sits inside the curve of
> the rim?
That's exactly it. This "bead seat diameter" is the critical dimension,
because this is what determines which tires will fit and which won't.
This is explained in detail in my Tire Sizing article at:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tire_sizing.html
Sheldon "ISO/E.T.R.T.O." Brown
Newtonville, Massachusetts
+------------------------------------+
| Whenever people agree with me |
| I always feel I must be wrong. |
| -- Oscar Wilde |
+------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772, 617-244-1040 FAX 617-244-1041
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
Mark Feldman
> I just went out and measured several of my 622mm (what we all call 700C
> rims), expecting to find something that measured 622mm. I can't find
> anything. The closest I get to that figure is measuring from the
> outside edge on one side to the inside edge on the other. This
> obviously must vary by the rim; I measured several old sewup rims. I
> measured from valve stem hole to rim joint, the easiest way (seems to
> me) to be sure I was measuring an accurate diameter.
>
> I'm trying to understand the standard enough that I can measure a rim
> and determine its ISO size. Is this even possible? Is it some funky
> thing like from the bottom of where the tire sits inside the curve of
> the rim?
In the good old days, clincher rims were of the "drop center" variety. In
cross section, the nipples were seated in a narrow central depression, and
the tire beads sat on raised shoulders at either side of the depression.
"Bead seat diameter" refers to the diameter of these shoulders.
In modern rims clincher rims, inflation pressure forces the tire bead
under the hooked edge of the rim, which holds it in place. I don't think
that there is an obvious feature that measures 622 mm in a modern clincher
rim.
Tubular tires don't have beads that seat on the rim, so the whole "bead
seat diameter" business is moot. I would imagine that 700c tubular rims
are of such a size that they are directly interchangeable with 700c
clincher rims.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> -S-
>
> --
> Seen in a local public flower bed:
> "Flowers grow by the inch and die by the foot."
--
Mark Feldman
mdfe...@earthlink.net mfel...@mfgenv.com
James Connell
back when sewups were the tires of choice, the rule was a (race) bike
could not have a Tire diameter of more than 700mm. so depending on the
width of the tire you used a different rim diameter. there were 700A (a
very narrow tire), 700B ( a little wider), 700C (which as pointed out
was about 35mm wide), there may have been others. in this country the
industry settled on the 700C diameter of 622mm for it's clincher tires
and a sew up rim will measure 622mm from the bottom of the tire seating
surface.
Steve Freides wrote:
>
> Isn't "bead" relevant only to clinchers?
>
> And isn't the bead seat on the inside of the rim? Again, how do you
> measure such a thing?
>
> Steve "rides mostly sewups" Freides
>
> MAPaceBike wrote:
> >
> > Bead Seat Diameter. (If you had a true 39mm tire, you would then have a true
> > 700mm diameter wheel, including rubber, since 622+39+39=700.)
> > Mark Pace
> >
> > >
> > >I just went out and measured several of my 622mm (what we all call 700C
> > >rims), expecting to find something that measured 622mm. I can't find
> > >anything.
--
James Connell
Do not Fold, Spindle, or Mutilate.
The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily
reflect those of the author.
Sheldon Brown
>
> back when sewups were the tires of choice, the rule was a (race) bike
> could not have a Tire diameter of more than 700mm. so depending on the
> width of the tire you used a different rim diameter. there were 700A (a
> very narrow tire), 700B ( a little wider), 700C (which as pointed out
> was about 35mm wide), there may have been others.
I don't know of such a rule, but older frames were built to fit 700 mm
tires, so you wouldn't lightly go to a larger size, whatever the
regulation might be. Moser used oversized wheels for his hour record
ride in Mexico City.
This designation applies to clinchers, not tubulars. It is true that
there were once 700a, 700b and 700c _clincher_ tires and rims as described.
In a Very Bad Move, GT bicycles invented and marketed an un-necessary
tire size which they called "700d" a few years back. My condolences to
suckers who bought bikes that require this size.
> in this country the industry settled on the 700C diameter of 622mm for
> it's clincher tires
If by "this country" you mean the U.S. or U.K., actually the industry
settled on "27 inch"/630 mm for road clinchers back in the '50s. The
622 mm size was adapted in the early '80s, as part of a move toward
international standardization, and because this size was more easily
interchangeable with tubulars.
Sheldon "Tyres" Brown
Newtonville, Massachusetts
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| Readers interested in learning to put up their own Web |
| pages may be interested in some of the material I have |
| put up on my site, including an introductory page that |
| shows how the HTML language works: |
| http://www.sheldonbrown.com/web_sample1.html |
| Web Browser setup tips: |
| http://www.sheldonbrown.com/web_tips.html |
| Web Glossary: |
| http://www.sheldonbrown.com/web_glossary.html |
| Links to other Web/HTML instructional pages: |
| http://www.sheldonbrown.com/computer-net_links.html |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
James Connell
if you keep checking ( look back to the '20s) y'll find it was sewups
the rule applied to.
so maybe it should be sheldon (what a jackass) brown.
--
Aksel Koplev
James Connell skrev i meddelelsen
<37AE5B52...@ipns.com>...
>after the groping around----
>
>back when sewups were the tires of choice, the rule was a
(race) bike
>could not have a Tire diameter of more than 700mm. so
depending on the
>width of the tire you used a different rim diameter. there
were 700A (a
>very narrow tire), 700B ( a little wider), 700C (which as
pointed out
country the
>industry settled on the 700C diameter of 622mm for it's
clincher tires
tire seating
>surface.
According to my information 700 B is ETRTO 40-635 (40 mm
wide).
The 700C is originally French, and the 700 was the diameter
of the tire measured to the outer perimeter.
Regards
aksel
James Connell
is measured to the outside of the tire (which originally was limited by
the rules of french racing to 700 mm) but a 700A was also only 700 mm in
diameter as well (the 700B also). the original sizing method is no
longer in use, as far as i know.
i have never heard of a modern 700 A or B (at least in the states).
Is the "ETRTO 40-635 (40 mm wide)" a sewup or clincher? if it's sewup it
is not part of the old system because 635 + 40 + 40 is more than 700 mm.
the modern 700D was an odd tire size used by schwinn for some of their
cross bikes about '92, about the same time they were trying to
popularize the 650B. i have no idea if there was a D size in the old
system ( seems that if there was it would be a very Fat tire!).
it may very well have been dreamed up by GT but leave it to schwinn to
use a new nightmare.
--
MAPaceBike
>Is the "ETRTO 40-635 (40 mm wide)" a sewup or clincher? if it's sewup it
>is not part of the old system because 635 + 40 + 40 is more than 700 mm.
I have seen these 635's in clinchers only, on Westwood "F" type rims, in widths
from around 35-42, on bikes like the Raleigh DL-1 'bobby bike', also other
roughly similar utilitarian-type bikes made in several European and Asian
countries. These bikes usually use rod actuated stirrup brakes [or sometimes
hub brakes]. The tires are marked with a fractional size, like 28x1-1/2 or
28x1-3/8 or 28x1-5/8.
I haven't been able to get anything but cheap Chinese tires in the US for these
in about ten years, but Continental sells a 622-47 'Top Touring' - great tire -
which actually measures what it says it is, and comes out to its full 716mm, or
about 28-1/4" diameter, which will clear in very few frames [even 'cross' or
'hybrid'], but works great in a converted DL-1, fenders and all.
There may be an antique version of a tubular-type tire in a 28" or somthing
larger than "622" like a 'US Chain Tread Tire' or something, but if there is,
that's about all I know about one.
Mark Pace
Rick Denney
>well sheldon, that only poves you don't know as much as you thought!
>if you keep checking ( look back to the '20s) y'll find it was sewups
>the rule applied to.
>
>so maybe it should be sheldon (what a jackass) brown.
>
Sheldon is too nice a guy to comment on this. But I'm not.
This comment was far out of proportion to Sheldon's post, even if it
turns out he was wrong (a dangerous assumption). As such, your only
purpose seems to be to aggravate rather than illuminate.
If what Sheldon said offended you such that this response seemed
appropriate, then I respectfully suggest you bring a thicker skin to
RBT.
Rick "Peace" Denney
Joshua_Putnam
>In the good old days, clincher rims were of the "drop center" variety. In
>cross section, the nipples were seated in a narrow central depression, and
>the tire beads sat on raised shoulders at either side of the depression.
>"Bead seat diameter" refers to the diameter of these shoulders.
>In modern rims clincher rims, inflation pressure forces the tire bead
>under the hooked edge of the rim, which holds it in place. I don't think
>that there is an obvious feature that measures 622 mm in a modern clincher
>rim.
I believe you're correct. I have a catalog full of CAD drawings
of Mavic rim sections with specifications, and while there's a
clearly defined feature *above* the bead on hook-beaded rims,
there isn't always a raised shoulder beneath the bead. (Every
time I mention this, I get asked where to get such a catalog.
Have your LBS phone Mavic and ask for their OEM Rims Range
catalog, or have them pick it up for you at Interbike.)
--
Jo...@WolfeNet.com is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/
Joshua_Putnam
>back when sewups were the tires of choice, the rule was a (race) bike
>could not have a Tire diameter of more than 700mm. so depending on the
>width of the tire you used a different rim diameter. there were 700A (a
>very narrow tire), 700B ( a little wider), 700C (which as pointed out
>was about 35mm wide), there may have been others. in this country the
>industry settled on the 700C diameter of 622mm for it's clincher tires
>and a sew up rim will measure 622mm from the bottom of the tire seating
>surface.
700C clinchers have a 622mm bead seat diameter, but 700C
tubulars are ETRTO 632mm, *not* 622mm.
Mavic's OEM rim catalog gives full specs for all of its rim
sections, and there really isn't anything on a 700C tubular that
reliably measures 622mm, which is why they aren't ETRTO 622.
It shouldn't really be surprising that a standard based on the
outside diameter of the tire will give different rim diameters
between clincher and tubular construction.
Similarly, road-racing 26" clinchers are ETRTO 571mm, but the
same size of tubular is ETRTO 582mm.
Oh, and for everyone who complains that some clincher rims are
much harder to mount tires on than others, you're absolutely
right: the bead seat diameter is fixes, but the height of the rim
section above the BSD varies -- some rims are speced one or two
mm larger in outside diameter than others.
Aksel Koplev
James Connell skrev i meddelelsen
>>
>Is the "ETRTO 40-635 (40 mm wide)" a sewup or clincher? if
it's sewup it
>is not part of the old system because 635 + 40 + 40 is more
than 700 mm.
>
Aksel
G.T.
James Connell wrote in message <37AEEE0D...@ipns.com>...
>well sheldon, that only poves you don't know as much as you thought!
>if you keep checking ( look back to the '20s) y'll find it was sewups
>the rule applied to.
>
How about giving us a URL or, even better, a copy of the rulebook to confirm
that assertion?
Maybe it should be James "I AM a jackass" Connell as suggested by your
ignorant statement that "in this country the industry settled on the 700C
diameter of 622mm for it's clincher tires". When exactly did they settle on
the 700C size? How long have you worked in your shop, James, a year? Two?
Greg
>so maybe it should be sheldon (what a jackass) brown.
>
>Sheldon Brown wrote:
>>
>> In a mixture of guesswork and truth, it was written:
>> > after the groping around----
>> >
>> > back when sewups were the tires of choice, the rule was a (race) bike
>> > could not have a Tire diameter of more than 700mm. so depending on the
>> > width of the tire you used a different rim diameter. there were 700A (a
>> > very narrow tire), 700B ( a little wider), 700C (which as pointed out
>> > was about 35mm wide), there may have been others.
>>
>> I don't know of such a rule, but older frames were built to fit 700 mm
>> tires, so you wouldn't lightly go to a larger size, whatever the
>> regulation might be. Moser used oversized wheels for his hour record
>> ride in Mexico City.
>>
>> This designation applies to clinchers, not tubulars. It is true that
>> there were once 700a, 700b and 700c _clincher_ tires and rims as
described.
>>
>> In a Very Bad Move, GT bicycles invented and marketed an un-necessary
>> tire size which they called "700d" a few years back. My condolences to
>> suckers who bought bikes that require this size.
>>
>> > in this country the industry settled on the 700C diameter of 622mm for
>> > it's clincher tires
>>
>> If by "this country" you mean the U.S. or U.K., actually the industry
>> settled on "27 inch"/630 mm for road clinchers back in the '50s. The
>> 622 mm size was adapted in the early '80s, as part of a move toward
>> international standardization, and because this size was more easily
>> interchangeable with tubulars.
>>
>> Sheldon "Tyres" Brown
>> Newtonville, Massachusetts
>> +----------------------------------------------------------+
>> | Readers interested in learning to put up their own Web |
>> | pages may be interested in some of the material I have |
>> | put up on my site, including an introductory page that |
>> | shows how the HTML language works: |
>> | http://www.sheldonbrown.com/web_sample1.html |
>> | Web Browser setup tips: |
>> | http://www.sheldonbrown.com/web_tips.html |
>> | Web Glossary: |
>> | http://www.sheldonbrown.com/web_glossary.html |
>> | Links to other Web/HTML instructional pages: |
>> | http://www.sheldonbrown.com/computer-net_links.html |
>> +----------------------------------------------------------+
>> Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
>> Phone 617-244-9772, 617-244-1040 FAX 617-244-1041
>> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris
>> Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
>
Sheldon Brown
> >
> > In a mixture of guesswork and truth, it was written:
> > > after the groping around----
> > >
> > > back when sewups were the tires of choice, the rule was a (race) bike
> > > could not have a Tire diameter of more than 700mm. so depending on the
> > > width of the tire you used a different rim diameter. there were 700A (a
> > > very narrow tire), 700B ( a little wider), 700C (which as pointed out
> > > was about 35mm wide), there may have been others.
> >
> > I don't know of such a rule, but older frames were built to fit 700 mm
> > tires, so you wouldn't lightly go to a larger size, whatever the
> > regulation might be. Moser used oversized wheels for his hour record
> > ride in Mexico City.
> >
> > This designation applies to clinchers, not tubulars. It is true that
> > there were once 700a, 700b and 700c _clincher_ tires and rims as described.
James Connell wrote:
>
> well sheldon, that only poves you don't know as much as you thought!
> if you keep checking ( look back to the '20s) y'll find it was sewups
> the rule applied to.
I didn't deny the possible existence of such a rule, merely stated that
I'd never heard of it.
Sutherland's Handbook for Bicycle Mechanics lists 700a & 700b as
_clincher_ sizes. I've never heard of tubulars in these sizes, and
remain skeptical that they ever existed.
> so maybe it should be sheldon (what a jackass) brown.
>Sheldon "HEE-Haw" Brown
Newtonville, Massachusetts
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| It is good to learn from your mistakes; |
| It is better to learn from the mistakes of others. |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
Steve Freides
>
> I would imagine that 700c tubular rims are of such a size that they are directly
> interchangeable with 700c clincher rims.
And Joshua Putnam wrote:
> 700C clinchers have a 622mm bead seat diameter, but 700C
> tubulars are ETRTO 632mm, *not* 622mm.
My experience to date is that Joshua is correct and Mark is wrong here.
My new custom frame found my brake pads near the top of the adjusting
slots. The frame make and I have both concluded that the sewups I ride,
which he didn't think were different in size from the clinchers he
usually plans for, are, in fact, larger in diameter.
Mark Feldman
I'll preface this reply by stating that I don't ride tubulars. My
experience is that brake pad position depends on the particular rim
being used. I recently put new wheels on one of my bikes, and had to
reposition the pads vertically, despite the fact that both sets of rims
were labeled 622. Is is possible that your rims have a deeper than
average "trough", which would bring the braking surface higher for a
given tire diameter?
Also, are tubulars labeled with an ETRTO designation? Just curious.
It would seem that the ETRTO designations are not quite as unambiguous
as I had been led to believe...
Regards,
Joshua_Putnam
>And Joshua Putnam wrote:
>> 700C clinchers have a 622mm bead seat diameter, but 700C
>> tubulars are ETRTO 632mm, *not* 622mm.
>My experience to date is that Joshua is correct and Mark is wrong here.
>My new custom frame found my brake pads near the top of the adjusting
>slots. The frame make and I have both concluded that the sewups I ride,
>which he didn't think were different in size from the clinchers he
>usually plans for, are, in fact, larger in diameter.
The top of the brake track on a tubular should be about the same
height as the top of the brake track on a clincher. The rims are
measured at different places, so the different ETRTO designation
doesn't mean the rims have a different brake track diameter.
One difference that can be important is that many tubulars have a
much narrower brake track, so that pads that were centered on a
clincher might be hanging below the brake track on a tubular rim.
James Connell
i suggest you look at sutherlands pg. 12-16.
if you actually Measure a rim y'll find it is 635 in Outside diameter
and the inside diameter (i.e. where the smallest tire diameter is) is
622.
thats what it means in sutherlands when they say rim circumference =
1955 --- 1995 / 3.14159 == 622.3
if you poor fricking fools would get out there in the real world you
wouldn't just quote what you read.
Rick Denney
>get out the old tape measure you damn computer/bike geeks!
This will surely strengthen what you say. (Sarcasm intended.)
>i suggest you look at sutherlands pg. 12-16.
An unimpeachible source. (As before.)
>if you actually Measure a rim y'll find it is 635 in Outside diameter
>and the inside diameter (i.e. where the smallest tire diameter is) is
>622.
Which rim? Are they all the same?
And the "inside diameter" cannot be measured on all rims. The inside
edge of the tire does not necessarily rest against anything, because
the bead hook is what's doing the work.
It's not so easy to measure the bead diameter by measuring the
circumference, unless your tape measure is both long enough, narrow
enough, and flexible enough to fit just in the right spot, even
assuming the right spot is physically there. What question are you
trying to answer?
>thats what it means in sutherlands when they say rim circumference =
>1955 --- 1995 / 3.14159 == 622.3
>if you poor fricking fools would get out there in the real world you
>wouldn't just quote what you read.
How this applies to what Josh wrote is beyond me. What you say has
nothing at all do with with the compatibility of the brake surface
diameter between various rims. Again, what question are you trying to
answer?
Rick "Take a chill pill" Denney
Joshua_Putnam
>get out the old tape measure you damn computer/bike geeks!
>i suggest you look at sutherlands pg. 12-16.
>if you actually Measure a rim y'll find it is 635 in Outside diameter
That's simply wrong for most rims, and a good reason not to
blindly trust any single source, e.g. Sutherland's.
The actual outside diameter of a 622 ETRTO rim can vary by
several millimeters, since it's not a critical dimension to tire
fit. You can see this if you measure a variety of rims, rather
than blindly parroting what it says in Sutherland's.
Further, if you actually look at the specifications from various
rim manufacturers in addition to measuring rims, you'll find that
635 is actually larger than the average modern 622 rim.
>and the inside diameter (i.e. where the smallest tire diameter is) is
>622.
Not quite -- it's where the bottom of the bead seat is. Many
tires have a bit more rubber that hangs down below that, but that
part doesn't matter for sizing.
>if you poor fricking fools would get out there in the real world you
>wouldn't just quote what you read.
What is it they say about pots and kettles?
James Connell
now pull your head out of your ass and just listen to your betters.
all you is prove just how fucking stupid you really are about bikes
Rick Denney wrote:
>
> James Connell <jc...@ipns.com> wrote:
>
> >get out the old tape measure you damn computer/bike geeks!
>
> This will surely strengthen what you say. (Sarcasm intended.)
>
> >i suggest you look at sutherlands pg. 12-16.
>
> An unimpeachible source. (As before.)
>
> >if you actually Measure a rim y'll find it is 635 in Outside diameter
> >and the inside diameter (i.e. where the smallest tire diameter is) is
> >622.
>
> Which rim? Are they all the same?
>
> And the "inside diameter" cannot be measured on all rims. The inside
> edge of the tire does not necessarily rest against anything, because
> the bead hook is what's doing the work.
>
> It's not so easy to measure the bead diameter by measuring the
> circumference, unless your tape measure is both long enough, narrow
> enough, and flexible enough to fit just in the right spot, even
> assuming the right spot is physically there. What question are you
> trying to answer?
>
> >thats what it means in sutherlands when they say rim circumference =
> >1955 --- 1995 / 3.14159 == 622.3
> >if you poor fricking fools would get out there in the real world you
> >wouldn't just quote what you read.
>
James Connell
TUBULAR RIMS NIT WIT
Joshua_Putnam wrote:
>
> In <37B1DF16...@ipns.com> James Connell <jc...@ipns.com> writes:
>
> >get out the old tape measure you damn computer/bike geeks!
> >i suggest you look at sutherlands pg. 12-16.
> >if you actually Measure a rim y'll find it is 635 in Outside diameter
>
> That's simply wrong for most rims, and a good reason not to
> blindly trust any single source, e.g. Sutherland's.
>
> The actual outside diameter of a 622 ETRTO rim can vary by
> several millimeters, since it's not a critical dimension to tire
> fit. You can see this if you measure a variety of rims, rather
> than blindly parroting what it says in Sutherland's.
>
> Further, if you actually look at the specifications from various
> rim manufacturers in addition to measuring rims, you'll find that
> 635 is actually larger than the average modern 622 rim.
>
> >and the inside diameter (i.e. where the smallest tire diameter is) is
> >622.
>
> Not quite -- it's where the bottom of the bead seat is. Many
> tires have a bit more rubber that hangs down below that, but that
> part doesn't matter for sizing.
>
> >if you poor fricking fools would get out there in the real world you
> >wouldn't just quote what you read.
>
G.T.
alt.mountain-bike?
Greg
James Connell wrote in message <37B20887...@ipns.com>...
>i'm talking about sew up tyres you insufferable TWIT
>now pull your head out of your ass and just listen to your betters.
>all you is prove just how fucking stupid you really are about bikes
>
>Rick Denney wrote:
>>
>> James Connell <jc...@ipns.com> wrote:
>>
>> >get out the old tape measure you damn computer/bike geeks!
>>
>> This will surely strengthen what you say. (Sarcasm intended.)
>>
>> >i suggest you look at sutherlands pg. 12-16.
>>
>> An unimpeachible source. (As before.)
>>
>> >if you actually Measure a rim y'll find it is 635 in Outside diameter
>> >and the inside diameter (i.e. where the smallest tire diameter is) is
>> >622.
>>
>> Which rim? Are they all the same?
>>
>> And the "inside diameter" cannot be measured on all rims. The inside
>> edge of the tire does not necessarily rest against anything, because
>> the bead hook is what's doing the work.
>>
>> It's not so easy to measure the bead diameter by measuring the
>> circumference, unless your tape measure is both long enough, narrow
>> enough, and flexible enough to fit just in the right spot, even
>> assuming the right spot is physically there. What question are you
>> trying to answer?
>>
>> >thats what it means in sutherlands when they say rim circumference =
>> >1955 --- 1995 / 3.14159 == 622.3
>> >if you poor fricking fools would get out there in the real world you
>> >wouldn't just quote what you read.
>>
Joshua_Putnam
>as i told that damn fool denny (it fits you as well)
>TUBULAR RIMS NIT WIT
This was a discussion of what is 622mm on 700C road rims. The
answer is that the ETRTO designation for clinchers measures the
bead seat diameter, which is 622mm on clinchers. It is not 622mm
on tubulars, whose ETRTO size is 632mm, not 622mm.
If you can't be bothered to follow the thread, can't be bothered
to look up the applicable standards, and can't be bothered to
actually measure any rims, can't you at least refrain from
posting misinformation and defending it with bluster?
Rick Denney
>i'm talking about sew up tyres you insufferable TWIT
>now pull your head out of your ass and just listen to your betters.
>all you is prove just how fucking stupid you really are about bikes
>
Well, I suppose that put me in my place.
You may be talking about sew-ups but nobody else is. Josh's post
wasn't talking about sew-ups, and the 622 mm dimension has no
relationship to tubular rims. So, who's head is up their ass?
Rick "How's the view?" Denney
James Connell
"
Mark Feldman wrote:
>
> I would imagine that 700c tubular rims are of such a size that they ________________
are directly
> interchangeable with 700c clincher rims.
And Joshua Putnam wrote:
> 700C clinchers have a 622mm bead seat diameter, but 700C
> tubulars are ETRTO 632mm, *not* 622mm. <--- what does this say FOOL!!
_____________________________________
My experience to date is that Joshua is correct and Mark is wrong here.
My new custom frame found my brake pads near the top of the adjusting
slots. The frame make and I have both concluded that the sewups I ride,
which he didn't think were different in size from the clinchers he
usually plans for, are, in fact, larger in diameter.
"
so you see denny, you nitwit, tubulars ( that is another name for sewups
in case you didn't know) you are WRONG once more. w3hy not just admit
your dumber than a BB spindle and be done with it?
--
James Connell
just before you say tubulars don't have a bead seat ;) again your a damn
fool!
--
Mark Feldman
> --
>
> James Connell
>
> Do not Fold, Spindle, or Mutilate.
> The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily
> reflect those of the author.
Drew Smith
Mark Feldman <mfel...@mfgenv.com> wrote in message
news:37B2F7E2...@mfgenv.com...
Rick Denney
>so you see denny, you nitwit, tubulars ( that is another name for sewups
>in case you didn't know) you are WRONG once more. w3hy not just admit
>your dumber than a BB spindle and be done with it?
>
<plonk>
Rick "And he can't even spell my name right" Denney
Joshua_Putnam
>you claim to be right because of BEAD SEAT diameter than in the post
>just before you say tubulars don't have a bead seat ;) again your a damn
>fool!
Correct. Nothing on a 700C tubular rim is specified at 622mm.
They aren't ETRTO 622 rims. That's why a thread about 622mm
rims is, by definition, a discussion of clincher rims.
Only a troll seeking attention above all else would continue
posting disinformation about tubular rims in a thread about
clincher rims.
The important thing to remember about trolls is that they get
satisfaction from seeing their posts replied to -- attention of
any sort gets them off, even if they're showing themselves to be
fools. (Mike Vandeman comes to mind.)
So, if you're just going to keep posting incorrect dimensions for
tubular rims in a discussion of clincher rims, you can take my
continued silence as recognition that you're nothing but a troll.
James Connell
world.
lets look at the thread -
steve freids posts a question about 700c wheels.
2 people answer him directly.
he replies to MAPacebike that he is talking about sewup wheels not
clinchers.
i give him a little history of the 700c sizeing.
seldon brown then claims i'm mistaken ( qouteing sutherlands manual as
proof).
i tell him He is wrong and suggest he look farther.
2 twits jump do his defence ( if anybody is capable of defending himself
in a technical argument on this group, it's seldon).
one twit has absolutly nothing to add, just an insult.
the other twit (who can't seem to wipe his nose without consulting
brant's book) claims seldon is never wrong. but has Nothing to add on
his own.
seldon on the other hand graciously responds.
i clarify my first post in a sub thread with Aksel Kopev.
Joshua Putman has meanwhile answered my first post with a claim that
disputes my first post. but only quotes Modern standards and does not
take into account the History ( which is what my post was about) of the
700x size.
when i tell him to measure the rim, the original 2 twits return. AGAIN
with nothing to offer in the way of technical data. one twit even
pretends to misunderstand the subject.( whats really funny is that after
defending seldon for using sutherlands, he then makes light of it's
data. ( a true fool).) this twit even goes so far as to try to BE
seldon(talk about needing help) by copying seldon's way of signing off!
putman then claims I'M blindly using a book (i never looked in
sutherlands for the original post, but i think that is where seldon got
his data). talk about irony!
putman continues to quote rim size standards apparently not realizeing (
or choosing to ignore) that i'm not disagreeing with him, only pointing
out a different aspect, that is why both clichers and sewups have a 700C
designation.
now put me in the killfile you fucking GEEKS! as they say "IGNORANCE is
bliss".
James Connell
i've seen pouting 7year olds use this type argument put it really made
us laugh at the shop coming from an "adult"(???).
' it can't be different than it say's in this book '
"> They aren't ETRTO 622 rims. That's why a thread about 622mm
> rims is, by definition, a discussion of clincher rims."
the question was about 700C not ETRTO standards.
OH , i'm not a troll, i'm a professional bike mechanic.
but i must admit i do enjoy it when the pretenders in this group start
spouting off.
--
Tom Kunich
news:37B6D5B8...@ipns.com...
> feel free both of you. that is the way the ignorant act all over the
> world. lets look at the thread -
OK let's do that Mr. Professional Mechanic.
> steve freids posts a question about 700c wheels.
> 2 people answer him directly. he replies to MAPacebike that he is talking
> about sewup wheels not clinchers.
Fine, but why are you insisting that sewups have some sort of measurement of
622 mm when, in fact, there is no such standard? Moreover, all you have to
do is pull a sewup rim off of the wall in your professionally outfitted
mechanic's shop and compare it directly with a new clincher rim to see that
a sewup rim is larger in diameter EVERYWHERE than a clincher 700c rim.
This isn't hard and the question is why you feel it necessary to have
started your postings on this thread with nothing but insults and bad
grammar added to incorrect spelling and the inability to relate to anyone
smarter than, say, a 12 year old?
> i give him a little history of the 700c sizeing.
And what history was that? Where did you learn this history James? I would
say that someone that needs to proclaim their own secret understanding of
the world in such a manner has a lot of doubt about what they do know.
> seldon brown then claims i'm mistaken ( qouteing sutherlands manual as
> proof). i tell him He is wrong and suggest he look farther.
You also appear to have a problem discerning discussion from "claims".
Sheldon suggested that there is more to knowledge than something published
from one source. It is not important that the bead diameter of a clincher be
known. This is because it changes due to manufacturing tolerance and the
'real' design. Some rims are made with bead seat diameters different from
the 622 mm standard since if you actually made a rim with such a bead seat
diameter it would be terribly hard to mount a tire.
But, of course you're talking about sewups (or tubulars or whatever you want
to call them in order to demonstrate your moral superiority and enhanced
knowledge.) And 622 mm is not a measurement used on sewups. The question is
what your posting about 1955 mm seat circumference had to do with anything
at all.
> 2 twits jump do his defence ( if anybody is capable of defending himself
> in a technical argument on this group, it's seldon).
Two people jump to comment on your foul posting. At least they are capable
of correctly spelling Sheldon's name.
> one twit has absolutly nothing to add, just an insult.
> the other twit (who can't seem to wipe his nose without consulting
> brant's book) claims seldon is never wrong. but has Nothing to add on
> his own.
And you really think that your phoney "History" adds something? Most of the
European standards before the 40's were written in French. At least Sheldon
is fluent in French. Can you say that you can read applicable notes on the
subject? You seem to have a lot of trouble with English.
> seldon on the other hand graciously responds.
> i clarify my first post in a sub thread with Aksel Kopev.
You mean that you have been continuously abusive from your very first
posting. You have shown no intensions of adding anything to the thread aside
from trying to prove superior knowledge. Unfortunately your entire arguments
have been shot through with holes of ignorance and contempt for others.
> Joshua Putman has meanwhile answered my first post with a claim that
> disputes my first post. but only quotes Modern standards and does not
> take into account the History ( which is what my post was about) of the
> 700x size.
Again, where have you recieved all this training in "History"? You see I
know a bit about history and suspect that the only standard for wheels on
bicycles previous to the 40's was that the outside diameter of the tire not
exceed 700 mm so that various frame manufacturers could fit a wheel into
their frames. Most manufacturers built every single part on their bikes and
bought nothing but raw materials. Standards of any sort were rare.
I also learned how to use hand tools to manipulate steel -- to build tubes,
lugs and - SURPRISE - rims. So I know very well that your history is nothing
but the ravings of a troubled adolescent.
> when i tell him to measure the rim, the original 2 twits return.
Perhaps you can tell us where a sewup rim measures 622 mm?
> putman then claims I'M blindly using a book (i never looked in
> sutherlands for the original post, but i think that is where seldon got
> his data). talk about irony!
Wait a minute! Do you mean that you posted all of that insulting drivel and
hadn't even read the pertinent information yourself? Is it any wonder you
were talking about clincher bead diameters instead of tubular seat
diameters?
> putman continues to quote rim size standards apparently not realizeing (
> or choosing to ignore) that i'm not disagreeing with him, only pointing
> out a different aspect, that is why both clichers and sewups have a 700C
> designation.
Pardon me, Putman wrote a correct set of standards which you seem to have
completely ignored. Which is that CLINCHERS use a bead diameter of 622 mm
the measurement about which Steve Freides originally asked) whereas tubular
rims have a seat diameter of 632 mm. Clinchers no more have an outside
diameter of 700 mm than 27" tires have an outside diameter of 27".
Obviously Freides made a mistake in his original posting since he was trying
to find some sort of measurement of 622 mm on a sewup rim. The correct
answer would have been to inform him that there is no measurements of 622 mm
on a sewup rim. Most people assumed that since he was talking about 622 mm
that he was not talking about a sewup rim but rather a clincher. This was
completely understandable. You, on the other hand, seem to have missed both
mistakes and instead used the time to throw insults about. There's something
really adult.
And you seem to have been wrong on just about every count. First you chime
in with a completely juvenile series of poorly worded, attrociously spelled
missives designed to heighten your self perception by denigrating everyone
else. Secondly, you started arguing about the 622 mm size and your mistaken
understanding of 'History'. Thirdly, I have yet to see you make any correct
claims about the seat diameter of a tubular rim.
> now put me in the killfile you fucking GEEKS! as they say "IGNORANCE is
> bliss".
And its plain that you must be the most blissful person on the planet.