I'm working on a bike as a sort of Christmas present. It needs tires,
and the rider would like tires as wide as possible. It's a Cannondale
touring bike, and like mine, the limiting spot for clearance is about
37mm between the chainstays. Rims are Sun CR18, so these are stout wheels.

After considerable thought, I thought 32s might be a bit too tight. I
ordered in a set of Continental Grand Prix 5000s, one of the few good
tires I find in a 30mm width. I picked them up at a LBS today.

Installed, I was disappointed to see they measure just 27mm inflated. I
guess I should have gone with 32s, which might have come out closer to
30mm.

It's not a huge problem. These will work. But my question:

I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the rim. I also
know that many manufacturers tend to overstate tire width, yielding
tires narrower than claimed, partly so they can brag about lighter
weight. (If they call it a 30 but it's only a 27, some people will say
"Wow, that's light for a 30!")

Is there some sort database somewhere that gives reliable info on actual
installed width of specific tires on specific rims?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 10:05:22 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> I'm working on a bike as a sort of Christmas present. It needs tires,
> and the rider would like tires as wide as possible. It's a Cannondale
> touring bike, and like mine, the limiting spot for clearance is about
> 37mm between the chainstays. Rims are Sun CR18, so these are stout wheels..
>
> After considerable thought, I thought 32s might be a bit too tight. I
> ordered in a set of Continental Grand Prix 5000s, one of the few good
> tires I find in a 30mm width. I picked them up at a LBS today.
>
> Installed, I was disappointed to see they measure just 27mm inflated. I
> guess I should have gone with 32s, which might have come out closer to
> 30mm.
>
> It's not a huge problem. These will work. But my question:
>
> I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the rim. I also
> know that many manufacturers tend to overstate tire width, yielding
> tires narrower than claimed, partly so they can brag about lighter
> weight. (If they call it a 30 but it's only a 27, some people will say
> "Wow, that's light for a 30!")
>
> Is there some sort database somewhere that gives reliable info on actual
> installed width of specific tires on specific rims?
>

I've looked for such a database in the past with no luck. The best I was able to find are reviews of the specific tires. Even the reviews that compare tires only compare a few. The challenge here is that the same tire model may change from year to year due to intentional design changes which get incorporated as the molds wear out (I'm not aware of how many tires are generally produced before a mold is considered to be at the end of it's lifespan, but I imagine it's in the 100K range), so the same tire from year to year may have very different dimensions - recall my recent anecdote of the Fortezza Tricomp debacle.

I also just replaced the rear tire on my Cdale Habit - WTB Ranger 2.8 to a Vittoria Martello 2.8. The WTB fit well with tight-but-comfortable clearance, while the injection molding nibs on the Vittoria are hitting the seat-stays.

Unfortunately, actual vs predicted tire sizing is pretty much a crap shoot.

On 12/21/2023 9:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> I'm working on a bike as a sort of Christmas present. It
> needs tires, and the rider would like tires as wide as
> possible. It's a Cannondale touring bike, and like mine, the
> limiting spot for clearance is about 37mm between the
> chainstays. Rims are Sun CR18, so these are stout wheels.
>
> After considerable thought, I thought 32s might be a bit too
> tight. I ordered in a set of Continental Grand Prix 5000s,
> one of the few good tires I find in a 30mm width. I picked
> them up at a LBS today.
>
> Installed, I was disappointed to see they measure just 27mm
> inflated. I guess I should have gone with 32s, which might
> have come out closer to 30mm.
>
> It's not a huge problem. These will work. But my question:
>
> I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the
> rim. I also know that many manufacturers tend to overstate
> tire width, yielding tires narrower than claimed, partly so
> they can brag about lighter weight. (If they call it a 30
> but it's only a 27, some people will say "Wow, that's light
> for a 30!")
>
> Is there some sort database somewhere that gives reliable
> info on actual installed width of specific tires on specific
> rims?
>

None I know. An experienced mechanic can give some direction
but that's about it.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 5:58:51 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/21/2023 9:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > I'm working on a bike as a sort of Christmas present. It
> > needs tires, and the rider would like tires as wide as
> > possible. It's a Cannondale touring bike, and like mine, the
> > limiting spot for clearance is about 37mm between the
> > chainstays. Rims are Sun CR18, so these are stout wheels.
> >
> > After considerable thought, I thought 32s might be a bit too
> > tight. I ordered in a set of Continental Grand Prix 5000s,
> > one of the few good tires I find in a 30mm width. I picked
> > them up at a LBS today.
> >
> > Installed, I was disappointed to see they measure just 27mm
> > inflated. I guess I should have gone with 32s, which might
> > have come out closer to 30mm.
> >
> > It's not a huge problem. These will work. But my question:
> >
> > I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the
> > rim. I also know that many manufacturers tend to overstate
> > tire width, yielding tires narrower than claimed, partly so
> > they can brag about lighter weight. (If they call it a 30
> > but it's only a 27, some people will say "Wow, that's light
> > for a 30!")
> >
> > Is there some sort database somewhere that gives reliable
> > info on actual installed width of specific tires on specific
> > rims?
> >
> None I know. An experienced mechanic can give some direction
> but that's about it.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> a...@yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
I find it curious that Frank is a supposed engineer and cannot take into account the inner width of rims.

On 12/22/2023 10:28 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 5:58:51 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 12/21/2023 9:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> I'm working on a bike as a sort of Christmas present. It
>>> needs tires, and the rider would like tires as wide as
>>> possible. It's a Cannondale touring bike, and like mine, the
>>> limiting spot for clearance is about 37mm between the
>>> chainstays. Rims are Sun CR18, so these are stout wheels.
>>>
>>> After considerable thought, I thought 32s might be a bit too
>>> tight. I ordered in a set of Continental Grand Prix 5000s,
>>> one of the few good tires I find in a 30mm width. I picked
>>> them up at a LBS today.
>>>
>>> Installed, I was disappointed to see they measure just 27mm
>>> inflated. I guess I should have gone with 32s, which might
>>> have come out closer to 30mm.
>>>
>>> It's not a huge problem. These will work. But my question:
>>>
>>> I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the
>>> rim. I also know that many manufacturers tend to overstate
>>> tire width, yielding tires narrower than claimed, partly so
>>> they can brag about lighter weight. (If they call it a 30
>>> but it's only a 27, some people will say "Wow, that's light
>>> for a 30!")
>>>
>>> Is there some sort database somewhere that gives reliable
>>> info on actual installed width of specific tires on specific
>>> rims?
>>>
>> None I know. An experienced mechanic can give some direction
>> but that's about it.
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> a...@yellowjersey.org
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> I find it curious that Frank is a supposed engineer and cannot take into account the inner width of rims.

I find it curious that someone who "read out three libraries" doesn't
realize Frank wrote the exact opposite.
"I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the rim".

dumbass.

On 12/22/2023 9:28 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 5:58:51 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 12/21/2023 9:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> I'm working on a bike as a sort of Christmas present. It
>>> needs tires, and the rider would like tires as wide as
>>> possible. It's a Cannondale touring bike, and like mine, the
>>> limiting spot for clearance is about 37mm between the
>>> chainstays. Rims are Sun CR18, so these are stout wheels.
>>>
>>> After considerable thought, I thought 32s might be a bit too
>>> tight. I ordered in a set of Continental Grand Prix 5000s,
>>> one of the few good tires I find in a 30mm width. I picked
>>> them up at a LBS today.
>>>
>>> Installed, I was disappointed to see they measure just 27mm
>>> inflated. I guess I should have gone with 32s, which might
>>> have come out closer to 30mm.
>>>
>>> It's not a huge problem. These will work. But my question:
>>>
>>> I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the
>>> rim. I also know that many manufacturers tend to overstate
>>> tire width, yielding tires narrower than claimed, partly so
>>> they can brag about lighter weight. (If they call it a 30
>>> but it's only a 27, some people will say "Wow, that's light
>>> for a 30!")
>>>
>>> Is there some sort database somewhere that gives reliable
>>> info on actual installed width of specific tires on specific
>>> rims?
>>>
>> None I know. An experienced mechanic can give some direction
>> but that's about it.

> I find it curious that Frank is a supposed engineer and cannot take into account the inner width of rims.

It's not ordered. It's chaotic because stated size and
actual tire cross section/ volume are largely unrelated.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 7:34:33 AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 12/22/2023 10:28 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 5:58:51 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 12/21/2023 9:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> I'm working on a bike as a sort of Christmas present. It
> >>> needs tires, and the rider would like tires as wide as
> >>> possible. It's a Cannondale touring bike, and like mine, the
> >>> limiting spot for clearance is about 37mm between the
> >>> chainstays. Rims are Sun CR18, so these are stout wheels.
> >>>
> >>> After considerable thought, I thought 32s might be a bit too
> >>> tight. I ordered in a set of Continental Grand Prix 5000s,
> >>> one of the few good tires I find in a 30mm width. I picked
> >>> them up at a LBS today.
> >>>
> >>> Installed, I was disappointed to see they measure just 27mm
> >>> inflated. I guess I should have gone with 32s, which might
> >>> have come out closer to 30mm.
> >>>
> >>> It's not a huge problem. These will work. But my question:
> >>>
> >>> I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the
> >>> rim. I also know that many manufacturers tend to overstate
> >>> tire width, yielding tires narrower than claimed, partly so
> >>> they can brag about lighter weight. (If they call it a 30
> >>> but it's only a 27, some people will say "Wow, that's light
> >>> for a 30!")
> >>>
> >>> Is there some sort database somewhere that gives reliable
> >>> info on actual installed width of specific tires on specific
> >>> rims?
> >>>
> >> None I know. An experienced mechanic can give some direction
> >> but that's about it.
> >> --
> >> Andrew Muzi
> >> a...@yellowjersey.org
> >> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> > I find it curious that Frank is a supposed engineer and cannot take into account the inner width of rims.
> I find it curious that someone who "read out three libraries" doesn't
> realize Frank wrote the exact opposite.
> "I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the rim".
> dumbass.

When you're through agreeing with yourself it might possibly occur to you that Frank was complaining about inflated tire width while using a racing tire. Racing tires are constructed differently than touring tires but obviously you don't know that. It must be all of that racing you do that you can't tell the difference between a CX tire and a road tire.

You're simply too stupid to talk to and I will now drop this iteration of your idiocy in the kill file that Liebermann claims does exist because he can tell by the message header.,

On 12/22/2023 10:28 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 5:58:51 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 12/21/2023 9:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> I'm working on a bike as a sort of Christmas present. It
>>> needs tires, and the rider would like tires as wide as
>>> possible. It's a Cannondale touring bike, and like mine, the
>>> limiting spot for clearance is about 37mm between the
>>> chainstays. Rims are Sun CR18, so these are stout wheels.
>>>
>>> After considerable thought, I thought 32s might be a bit too
>>> tight. I ordered in a set of Continental Grand Prix 5000s,
>>> one of the few good tires I find in a 30mm width. I picked
>>> them up at a LBS today.
>>>
>>> Installed, I was disappointed to see they measure just 27mm
>>> inflated. I guess I should have gone with 32s, which might
>>> have come out closer to 30mm.
>>>
>>> It's not a huge problem. These will work. But my question:
>>>
>>> I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the
>>> rim. I also know that many manufacturers tend to overstate
>>> tire width, yielding tires narrower than claimed, partly so
>>> they can brag about lighter weight. (If they call it a 30
>>> but it's only a 27, some people will say "Wow, that's light
>>> for a 30!")
>>>
>>> Is there some sort database somewhere that gives reliable
>>> info on actual installed width of specific tires on specific
>>> rims?
>>>
>> None I know. An experienced mechanic can give some direction
>> but that's about it.
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> a...@yellowjersey.org
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> I find it curious that Frank is a supposed engineer and cannot take into account the inner width of rims.

I'm not at all surprised that Tom couldn't understand what I wrote.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/22/2023 9:49 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 7:34:33 AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 12/22/2023 10:28 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 5:58:51 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 12/21/2023 9:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> I'm working on a bike as a sort of Christmas present. It
>>>>> needs tires, and the rider would like tires as wide as
>>>>> possible. It's a Cannondale touring bike, and like mine, the
>>>>> limiting spot for clearance is about 37mm between the
>>>>> chainstays. Rims are Sun CR18, so these are stout wheels.
>>>>>
>>>>> After considerable thought, I thought 32s might be a bit too
>>>>> tight. I ordered in a set of Continental Grand Prix 5000s,
>>>>> one of the few good tires I find in a 30mm width. I picked
>>>>> them up at a LBS today.
>>>>>
>>>>> Installed, I was disappointed to see they measure just 27mm
>>>>> inflated. I guess I should have gone with 32s, which might
>>>>> have come out closer to 30mm.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not a huge problem. These will work. But my question:
>>>>>
>>>>> I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the
>>>>> rim. I also know that many manufacturers tend to overstate
>>>>> tire width, yielding tires narrower than claimed, partly so
>>>>> they can brag about lighter weight. (If they call it a 30
>>>>> but it's only a 27, some people will say "Wow, that's light
>>>>> for a 30!")
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there some sort database somewhere that gives reliable
>>>>> info on actual installed width of specific tires on specific
>>>>> rims?
>>>>>
>>>> None I know. An experienced mechanic can give some direction
>>>> but that's about it.

>>> I find it curious that Frank is a supposed engineer and cannot take into account the inner width of rims.
>> I find it curious that someone who "read out three libraries" doesn't
>> realize Frank wrote the exact opposite.
>> "I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the rim".
>> dumbass.
>
> When you're through agreeing with yourself it might possibly occur to you that Frank was complaining about inflated tire width while using a racing tire. Racing tires are constructed differently than touring tires but obviously you don't know that. It must be all of that racing you do that you can't tell the difference between a CX tire and a road tire.
>
> You're simply too stupid to talk to and I will now drop this iteration of your idiocy in the kill file that Liebermann claims does exist because he can tell by the message header.,

??? WTF? That 'distinction' is not an actual distinction.

Modern race bikes ship with 700-28 clinchers which, to me,
are 'touring tires', quite unlike my 23mm tubulars.

--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 12/22/2023 10:49 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 7:34:33 AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 12/22/2023 10:28 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 5:58:51 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 12/21/2023 9:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> I'm working on a bike as a sort of Christmas present. It
>>>>> needs tires, and the rider would like tires as wide as
>>>>> possible. It's a Cannondale touring bike, and like mine, the
>>>>> limiting spot for clearance is about 37mm between the
>>>>> chainstays. Rims are Sun CR18, so these are stout wheels.
>>>>>
>>>>> After considerable thought, I thought 32s might be a bit too
>>>>> tight. I ordered in a set of Continental Grand Prix 5000s,
>>>>> one of the few good tires I find in a 30mm width. I picked
>>>>> them up at a LBS today.
>>>>>
>>>>> Installed, I was disappointed to see they measure just 27mm
>>>>> inflated. I guess I should have gone with 32s, which might
>>>>> have come out closer to 30mm.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not a huge problem. These will work. But my question:
>>>>>
>>>>> I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the
>>>>> rim. I also know that many manufacturers tend to overstate
>>>>> tire width, yielding tires narrower than claimed, partly so
>>>>> they can brag about lighter weight. (If they call it a 30
>>>>> but it's only a 27, some people will say "Wow, that's light
>>>>> for a 30!")
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there some sort database somewhere that gives reliable
>>>>> info on actual installed width of specific tires on specific
>>>>> rims?
>>>>>
>>>> None I know. An experienced mechanic can give some direction
>>>> but that's about it.
>>>> --
>>>> Andrew Muzi
>>>> a...@yellowjersey.org
>>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>> I find it curious that Frank is a supposed engineer and cannot take into account the inner width of rims.
>> I find it curious that someone who "read out three libraries" doesn't
>> realize Frank wrote the exact opposite.
>> "I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the rim".
>> dumbass.
>
> When you're through agreeing with yourself it might possibly occur to you that Frank was complaining about inflated tire width while using a racing tire.

Yup, I figure that out from the OP when I first read it.

> Racing tires are constructed differently than touring tires but obviously you don't know that.

There was no mention of touring tires vs racing tires, and whether the
tire is a 'racing' vs 'touring' has nothing to do with the advertised vs
realized tire width, but feel free to edify us on how tire construction
inherently affects the realized vs advertised width in the context of
touring vs racing tires. (I'm sure that will be along right after you
explain how PWM is used to test cables)

> It must be all of that racing you do that you can't tell the difference between a CX tire and a road tire.

Oh, wait, now we're talking about CX tires? So I shouldn't run a CX tire
in a downtown criterium? Thanks, I had no idea.

>
> You're simply too stupid to talk to

lol... says the guy who reads "I know actual installed tire width
depends partly on the rim" and claims it proves Frank doesn't understand
you have to take the rim width into account. That's right up there with
a guy who reads "The CC frame is equipped with our own exclusive
straight blade unicrown fork" from the Steelman website and insists
Steelman never made unicrown forks.

> and I will now drop this iteration of your idiocy in the kill file

Blocking me won't prevent you from making an idiot of yourself.

> that Liebermann claims does exist because he can tell by the message header.,

wait, I thought Jeff was in you kill file as well. If so, how were you
aware that he wrote you can't be using a killfile since your messages
headers show you're responding through google groups? Oh, right, it's
all those people that email you about all the goings on here....sure....

--
Add xx to reply

On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 02:53:14 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 10:05:22?PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> I'm working on a bike as a sort of Christmas present. It needs tires,
>> and the rider would like tires as wide as possible. It's a Cannondale
>> touring bike, and like mine, the limiting spot for clearance is about
>> 37mm between the chainstays. Rims are Sun CR18, so these are stout wheels.
>>
>> After considerable thought, I thought 32s might be a bit too tight. I
>> ordered in a set of Continental Grand Prix 5000s, one of the few good
>> tires I find in a 30mm width. I picked them up at a LBS today.
>>
>> Installed, I was disappointed to see they measure just 27mm inflated. I
>> guess I should have gone with 32s, which might have come out closer to
>> 30mm.
>>
>> It's not a huge problem. These will work. But my question:
>>
>> I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the rim. I also
>> know that many manufacturers tend to overstate tire width, yielding
>> tires narrower than claimed, partly so they can brag about lighter
>> weight. (If they call it a 30 but it's only a 27, some people will say
>> "Wow, that's light for a 30!")
>>
>> Is there some sort database somewhere that gives reliable info on actual
>> installed width of specific tires on specific rims?
>>
>
>I've looked for such a database in the past with no luck. The best I was able to find are reviews of the specific tires. Even the reviews that compare tires only compare a few. The challenge here is that the same tire model may change from year to year due to intentional design changes which get incorporated as the molds wear out (I'm not aware of how many tires are generally produced before a mold is considered to be at the end of it's lifespan, but I imagine it's in the 100K range), so the same tire from year to year may have very different dimensions - recall my recent anecdote of the Fortezza Tricomp debacle.
>
>I also just replaced the rear tire on my Cdale Habit - WTB Ranger 2.8 to a Vittoria Martello 2.8. The WTB fit well with tight-but-comfortable clearance, while the injection molding nibs on the Vittoria are hitting the seat-stays.
>
>Unfortunately, actual vs predicted tire sizing is pretty much a crap shoot.

see
http://biketouringnews.com/components-touring-bicycles/tire-sizes-actual-vs-nominal/
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 07:49:28 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 7:34:33?AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 12/22/2023 10:28 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 5:58:51?AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> On 12/21/2023 9:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>> I'm working on a bike as a sort of Christmas present. It
>> >>> needs tires, and the rider would like tires as wide as
>> >>> possible. It's a Cannondale touring bike, and like mine, the
>> >>> limiting spot for clearance is about 37mm between the
>> >>> chainstays. Rims are Sun CR18, so these are stout wheels.
>> >>>
>> >>> After considerable thought, I thought 32s might be a bit too
>> >>> tight. I ordered in a set of Continental Grand Prix 5000s,
>> >>> one of the few good tires I find in a 30mm width. I picked
>> >>> them up at a LBS today.
>> >>>
>> >>> Installed, I was disappointed to see they measure just 27mm
>> >>> inflated. I guess I should have gone with 32s, which might
>> >>> have come out closer to 30mm.
>> >>>
>> >>> It's not a huge problem. These will work. But my question:
>> >>>
>> >>> I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the
>> >>> rim. I also know that many manufacturers tend to overstate
>> >>> tire width, yielding tires narrower than claimed, partly so
>> >>> they can brag about lighter weight. (If they call it a 30
>> >>> but it's only a 27, some people will say "Wow, that's light
>> >>> for a 30!")
>> >>>
>> >>> Is there some sort database somewhere that gives reliable
>> >>> info on actual installed width of specific tires on specific
>> >>> rims?
>> >>>
>> >> None I know. An experienced mechanic can give some direction
>> >> but that's about it.
>> >> --
>> >> Andrew Muzi
>> >> a...@yellowjersey.org
>> >> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>> > I find it curious that Frank is a supposed engineer and cannot take into account the inner width of rims.
>> I find it curious that someone who "read out three libraries" doesn't
>> realize Frank wrote the exact opposite.
>> "I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the rim".
>> dumbass.
>
>When you're through agreeing with yourself it might possibly occur to you that Frank was complaining about inflated tire width while using a racing tire. Racing tires are constructed differently than touring tires but obviously you don't know that. It must be all of that racing you do that you can't tell the difference between a CX tire and a road tire.
>
>You're simply too stupid to talk to and I will now drop this iteration of your idiocy in the kill file that Liebermann claims does exist because he can tell by the message header.,

Interesting statement. Can you tell us what the different construction
is between racing tires and plain old road tires.

Maybe the racing tires are made with hot air and moonbeams to be super
light in weight while road tires are made from "fabric" and rubber?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 07:49:28 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>You're simply too stupid to talk to...

Are you now in the lecturing business? Last time I checked, this was
a discussion group about bicycle technology. In a discussion group,
you talk *WITH* others, not to them.

>and I will now drop this iteration of your idiocy in the kill
>file that Liebermann claims does exist because he can tell by
>the message header.,

Your NNTP message header includes a line with:
User-Agent: G2/1.0
User-Agent is your Usenet news reader. G2/1.0 is one way to identify
a web based news reader. Since your NNTP message header also
includes:
Message-ID: <c7e8a15b-e7fc-41e2-b234-062a2b416f3fn@googlegroups.com>
you are posting directly to Google Groups from a web browser. Google
Groups does include a kill file or message filter as a feature.

I've posted the above explanation to RBT at least 4 times in the past
to counter your dissemination of false information. I suspect that
you have run out discussion points and are now recycling old news due
to your lack of a functional imagination.

There's another reason that assures me that you don't have a
functional kill file. Kill files are complicated and require a
working knowledge of regex (regular expressions) to be useful. Since
you have asked for no assistance with kill files and regex, I can
easily deduce that you are not a kill file user.

Anyway, it won't matter after Feb 22, 2024, when you can no longer
post misinformation to RBT. Of course, you will attempt to obtain an
alternate Usenet News service provider. However, because nobody in
RBT will be willing or able to help you setup a Usenet News client,
you will soon disappear from RBT and Usenet. You will not be missed.

You have 2 months and the clock is ticking. 2 months is probably not
long enough for you to post corrections for your misinformation,
provide accurate numbers to replace the one's that you contrived,
apologize to those in RBT who you have insulted, confess to contriving
false employment, repent for your numerous sins, and offer forgiveness
for putting words in the mouth of your critics. You can still redeem
what's left of your reputation by doing something useful instead of
destructive for the next 2 months.

08/03/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/cJi96AJ2A3k/m/JEyDC0TDBgAJ>
"I'll bet that there wasn't anything I didn't do wrong"

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 16:32:26 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 07:49:28 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
><cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You're simply too stupid to talk to...
>
>Are you now in the lecturing business? Last time I checked, this was
>a discussion group about bicycle technology. In a discussion group,
>you talk *WITH* others, not to them.
>
>>and I will now drop this iteration of your idiocy in the kill
>>file that Liebermann claims does exist because he can tell by
>>the message header.,
>
>Your NNTP message header includes a line with:
>User-Agent: G2/1.0
>User-Agent is your Usenet news reader. G2/1.0 is one way to identify
>a web based news reader. Since your NNTP message header also
>includes:
>Message-ID: <c7e8a15b-e7fc-41e2-b234-062a2b416f3fn@googlegroups.com>
>you are posting directly to Google Groups from a web browser. Google
>Groups does include a kill file or message filter as a feature.
>
>I've posted the above explanation to RBT at least 4 times in the past
>to counter your dissemination of false information. I suspect that
>you have run out discussion points and are now recycling old news due
>to your lack of a functional imagination.
>
>There's another reason that assures me that you don't have a
>functional kill file. Kill files are complicated and require a
>working knowledge of regex (regular expressions) to be useful. Since
>you have asked for no assistance with kill files and regex, I can
>easily deduce that you are not a kill file user.
>
>Anyway, it won't matter after Feb 22, 2024, when you can no longer
>post misinformation to RBT. Of course, you will attempt to obtain an
>alternate Usenet News service provider. However, because nobody in
>RBT will be willing or able to help you setup a Usenet News client,
>you will soon disappear from RBT and Usenet. You will not be missed.
>
>You have 2 months and the clock is ticking. 2 months is probably not
>long enough for you to post corrections for your misinformation,
>provide accurate numbers to replace the one's that you contrived,
>apologize to those in RBT who you have insulted, confess to contriving
>false employment, repent for your numerous sins, and offer forgiveness
>for putting words in the mouth of your critics. You can still redeem
>what's left of your reputation by doing something useful instead of
>destructive for the next 2 months.
>
>08/03/2022
><https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/cJi96AJ2A3k/m/JEyDC0TDBgAJ>
>"I'll bet that there wasn't anything I didn't do wrong"

Even a casual look at Tom's posting to RBT shows a history of 18
years, more or less. Do you really expect Tom to clean all those years
of garbage from the Internet in only 2 months?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 07:40:59 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Even a casual look at Tom's posting to RBT shows a history of 18
>years, more or less. Do you really expect Tom to clean all those years
>of garbage from the Internet in only 2 months?

No. I expect Tom to try. Absolution will only be delivered after
repentance although I would prefer retribution.

Here's some of the earliest stuff I could find by Tom, from 1992 to
1997:
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/search?q=author%3AThomas+author%3AKunich>

Notice that nothing has changed Tom in 26 years:
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/t4LjtZqnKHI/m/5yfqZlqAriYJ>
"Ahh, you're back Jobst. Now you can solve the mystery involved
around the Tour. Were you or were you NOT the naked running man on
the Champs on the final day of the Tour?"

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 16:51:59 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 07:40:59 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Even a casual look at Tom's posting to RBT shows a history of 18
>>years, more or less. Do you really expect Tom to clean all those years
>>of garbage from the Internet in only 2 months?
>
>No. I expect Tom to try. Absolution will only be delivered after
>repentance although I would prefer retribution.
>
>Here's some of the earliest stuff I could find by Tom, from 1992 to
>1997:
><https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/search?q=author%3AThomas+author%3AKunich>
>
>Notice that nothing has changed Tom in 26 years:
><https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/t4LjtZqnKHI/m/5yfqZlqAriYJ>
>"Ahh, you're back Jobst. Now you can solve the mystery involved
>around the Tour. Were you or were you NOT the naked running man on
>the Champs on the final day of the Tour?"

Goodness! I thought that 17 or 18 years was a long time and now I
learn it was a lot longer.

You know, perhaps this is why Tom had all those short term jobs... can
you imagine anyone willing to put up with him, as he displays himself
on the Web, for more then a very short time?

Can you imagine the reply a Personnel Manager might get when he calls
one of Tom's previous employers and asks, We've been looking at this
guy "Tom Kunich", says he worked for you for a while. What can you
tell me about him?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 09:15:25 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 16:51:59 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 07:40:59 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Even a casual look at Tom's posting to RBT shows a history of 18
>>>years, more or less. Do you really expect Tom to clean all those years
>>>of garbage from the Internet in only 2 months?
>>
>>No. I expect Tom to try. Absolution will only be delivered after
>>repentance although I would prefer retribution.
>>
>>Here's some of the earliest stuff I could find by Tom, from 1992 to
>>1997:
>><https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/search?q=author%3AThomas+author%3AKunich>
>>
>>Notice that nothing has changed Tom in 26 years:
>><https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/t4LjtZqnKHI/m/5yfqZlqAriYJ>
>>"Ahh, you're back Jobst. Now you can solve the mystery involved
>>around the Tour. Were you or were you NOT the naked running man on
>>the Champs on the final day of the Tour?"
>
>Goodness! I thought that 17 or 18 years was a long time and now I
>learn it was a lot longer.

Add another 5 years. I arbitrarily selected a quote from 1997.
2023 - 1997 = 26 years
However, the time span for the articles I found were from 1992 to
1997. Therefore, the earliest article was posted:
2023 - 1992 = 31 years ago.
In about 2 weeks, it will be 2024, so you can also add 1 additional
year for:
2024 - 1992 = 32 years ago.
In that year, Tom would have been 32 years old.

>You know, perhaps this is why Tom had all those short term jobs... can
>you imagine anyone willing to put up with him, as he displays himself
>on the Web, for more then a very short time?

I believe a better question is what was Tom doing during the 19 years
between the end of his military career and the fist job listed on his
resume.

>Can you imagine the reply a Personnel Manager might get when he calls
>one of Tom's previous employers and asks, We've been looking at this
>guy "Tom Kunich", says he worked for you for a while. What can you
>tell me about him?

Tom probably received a glowing reference from his current employer at
the time. They were probably glad to get rid of Tom and a highly
positive reference would be much easier than firing him.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 10:58:35 PM UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 09:15:25 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 16:51:59 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 07:40:59 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>Even a casual look at Tom's posting to RBT shows a history of 18
> >>>years, more or less. Do you really expect Tom to clean all those years
> >>>of garbage from the Internet in only 2 months?
> >>
> >>No. I expect Tom to try. Absolution will only be delivered after
> >>repentance although I would prefer retribution.

a) it's going to take a lot longer than two months for him to undo all the damage he's done here
2) moot point, because it ain't gonna happen

> >>
> >>Here's some of the earliest stuff I could find by Tom, from 1992 to
> >>1997:
> >><https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/search?q=author%3AThomas+author%3AKunich>
> >>
> >>Notice that nothing has changed Tom in 26 years:
> >><https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/t4LjtZqnKHI/m/5yfqZlqAriYJ>
> >>"Ahh, you're back Jobst. Now you can solve the mystery involved
> >>around the Tour. Were you or were you NOT the naked running man on
> >>the Champs on the final day of the Tour?"
> >
> >Goodness! I thought that 17 or 18 years was a long time and now I
> >learn it was a lot longer.
> Add another 5 years. I arbitrarily selected a quote from 1997.
> 2023 - 1997 = 26 years
> However, the time span for the articles I found were from 1992 to
> 1997. Therefore, the earliest article was posted:
> 2023 - 1992 = 31 years ago.
> In about 2 weeks, it will be 2024, so you can also add 1 additional
> year for:
> 2024 - 1992 = 32 years ago.
> In that year, Tom would have been 32 years old.

32? since he's allegedly in his late 70's I'm thinking he would have been closer to 50 back then

> >You know, perhaps this is why Tom had all those short term jobs... can
> >you imagine anyone willing to put up with him, as he displays himself
> >on the Web, for more then a very short time?
> I believe a better question is what was Tom doing during the 19 years
> between the end of his military career and the fist job listed on his
> resume.
> >Can you imagine the reply a Personnel Manager might get when he calls
> >one of Tom's previous employers and asks, We've been looking at this
> >guy "Tom Kunich", says he worked for you for a while. What can you
> >tell me about him?
> Tom probably received a glowing reference from his current employer at
> the time. They were probably glad to get rid of Tom and a highly
> positive reference would be much easier than firing him.

I've mentioned, I actually did that once to get rid of somebody that they wouldn't let me fire.

> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I'm working on a bike as a sort of Christmas present. It needs tires,
> and the rider would like tires as wide as possible. It's a Cannondale
> touring bike, and like mine, the limiting spot for clearance is about
> 37mm between the chainstays. Rims are Sun CR18, so these are stout wheels.
>
> After considerable thought, I thought 32s might be a bit too tight. I
> ordered in a set of Continental Grand Prix 5000s, one of the few good
> tires I find in a 30mm width. I picked them up at a LBS today.
>
> Installed, I was disappointed to see they measure just 27mm inflated. I
> guess I should have gone with 32s, which might have come out closer to
> 30mm.
>
Maybe maybe not!

> It's not a huge problem. These will work. But my question:
>
> I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the rim. I also
> know that many manufacturers tend to overstate tire width, yielding
> tires narrower than claimed, partly so they can brag about lighter
> weight. (If they call it a 30 but it's only a 27, some people will say
> "Wow, that's light for a 30!")
>
I have heard it claimed but I’m not convinced by it particularly across a
range.

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/specials/grand-prix-5000-comparison

25-32mm GP5000Seem to be broadly within range, on a similar width rim as
well.

I’ve had the reverse with some Panaracer GravelKings SK that blew up big,
which made mud clearance more tricky.

> Is there some sort database somewhere that gives reliable info on actual
> installed width of specific tires on specific rims?
>
I believe SRAM did have some sort of technology but for that but couldn’t
convince others to adopt it?

Roger Merriman

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> On 12/22/2023 9:49 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 7:34:33 AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>> On 12/22/2023 10:28 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 5:58:51 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 12/21/2023 9:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> I'm working on a bike as a sort of Christmas present. It
>>>>>> needs tires, and the rider would like tires as wide as
>>>>>> possible. It's a Cannondale touring bike, and like mine, the
>>>>>> limiting spot for clearance is about 37mm between the
>>>>>> chainstays. Rims are Sun CR18, so these are stout wheels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After considerable thought, I thought 32s might be a bit too
>>>>>> tight. I ordered in a set of Continental Grand Prix 5000s,
>>>>>> one of the few good tires I find in a 30mm width. I picked
>>>>>> them up at a LBS today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Installed, I was disappointed to see they measure just 27mm
>>>>>> inflated. I guess I should have gone with 32s, which might
>>>>>> have come out closer to 30mm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not a huge problem. These will work. But my question:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the
>>>>>> rim. I also know that many manufacturers tend to overstate
>>>>>> tire width, yielding tires narrower than claimed, partly so
>>>>>> they can brag about lighter weight. (If they call it a 30
>>>>>> but it's only a 27, some people will say "Wow, that's light
>>>>>> for a 30!")
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there some sort database somewhere that gives reliable
>>>>>> info on actual installed width of specific tires on specific
>>>>>> rims?
>>>>>>
>>>>> None I know. An experienced mechanic can give some direction
>>>>> but that's about it.
>
>
>>>> I find it curious that Frank is a supposed engineer and cannot take
>>>> into account the inner width of rims.
>>> I find it curious that someone who "read out three libraries" doesn't
>>> realize Frank wrote the exact opposite.
>>> "I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the rim".
>>> dumbass.
>>
>> When you're through agreeing with yourself it might possibly occur to
>> you that Frank was complaining about inflated tire width while using a
>> racing tire. Racing tires are constructed differently than touring tires
>> but obviously you don't know that. It must be all of that racing you do
>> that you can't tell the difference between a CX tire and a road tire.
>>
>> You're simply too stupid to talk to and I will now drop this iteration
>> of your idiocy in the kill file that Liebermann claims does exist
>> because he can tell by the message header.,
>
> ??? WTF? That 'distinction' is not an actual distinction.
>
> Modern race bikes ship with 700-28 clinchers which, to me,
> are 'touring tires', quite unlike my 23mm tubulars.
>
>
Similar or same sized tires see also some Gravel tires, but touring tires
do have more robust sidewalls and generally construction is more robust not
as robust as more Gravity focused MTB tires but certainly Marathons and
similar will survive glass slashing that would be career ending for a road
or Gravel tire.

I generally retire the Big Apples on the commute bike when it gets too many
gashes, even quite large slashes doesn’t result in bulging etc.

Roger Merriman

On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 08:10:49 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 10:58:35?PM UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 09:15:25 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:

>> >Goodness! I thought that 17 or 18 years was a long time and now I
>> >learn it was a lot longer.
>> Add another 5 years. I arbitrarily selected a quote from 1997.
>> 2023 - 1997 = 26 years
>> However, the time span for the articles I found were from 1992 to
>> 1997. Therefore, the earliest article was posted:
>> 2023 - 1992 = 31 years ago.
>> In about 2 weeks, it will be 2024, so you can also add 1 additional
>> year for:
>> 2024 - 1992 = 32 years ago.
>> In that year, Tom would have been 32 years old.
>
>32? since he's allegedly in his late 70's I'm thinking he would have been closer to 50 back then

Oops. My mistake. Tom was born in 1944. In 1992, he would have
been: 1992 - 1944 = 48 years old. Hopefully, when my eyesight is
fixed, my math will improve.

I thought it might be interesting to see from what company Tom was
posting his Usenet news from in 1992. In 1992, we were just getting
connected to the internet in Santa Cruz CA and almost everything was
going through two local universities. That was well before 1996, when
Sprint was first to resell bandwidth to individual users. In 1992,
one had to be either associated with a large company or university in
order to obtain internet access. Tom's online resume:
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/details/experience/>
shows Tom working for "Various Companies" which isn't much help.
Perhaps one of these companies had internet access?

This is Tom's earliest posting that I could find (Aug 25, 1992):
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/8sQFgxIS71c/m/jc1rpspUjVIJ>
Unfortunately, the article does not show Tom's email domain or
signature, which would have given me a clue. About half the other RBT
postings are from sites, companies and universities. That
information, and much more was previously available on Google Groups,
but was removed over the years by Google. Oh well.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 08:10:49 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 10:58:35?PM UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 09:15:25 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 16:51:59 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 07:40:59 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Even a casual look at Tom's posting to RBT shows a history of 18
>> >>>years, more or less. Do you really expect Tom to clean all those years
>> >>>of garbage from the Internet in only 2 months?
>> >>
>> >>No. I expect Tom to try. Absolution will only be delivered after
>> >>repentance although I would prefer retribution.
>
>a) it's going to take a lot longer than two months for him to undo all the damage he's done here
>2) moot point, because it ain't gonna happen
>
>
>> >>
>> >>Here's some of the earliest stuff I could find by Tom, from 1992 to
>> >>1997:
>> >><https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/search?q=author%3AThomas+author%3AKunich>
>> >>
>> >>Notice that nothing has changed Tom in 26 years:
>> >><https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/t4LjtZqnKHI/m/5yfqZlqAriYJ>
>> >>"Ahh, you're back Jobst. Now you can solve the mystery involved
>> >>around the Tour. Were you or were you NOT the naked running man on
>> >>the Champs on the final day of the Tour?"
>> >
>> >Goodness! I thought that 17 or 18 years was a long time and now I
>> >learn it was a lot longer.
>> Add another 5 years. I arbitrarily selected a quote from 1997.
>> 2023 - 1997 = 26 years
>> However, the time span for the articles I found were from 1992 to
>> 1997. Therefore, the earliest article was posted:
>> 2023 - 1992 = 31 years ago.
>> In about 2 weeks, it will be 2024, so you can also add 1 additional
>> year for:
>> 2024 - 1992 = 32 years ago.
>> In that year, Tom would have been 32 years old.
>
>32? since he's allegedly in his late 70's I'm thinking he would have been closer to 50 back then
>
>> >You know, perhaps this is why Tom had all those short term jobs... can
>> >you imagine anyone willing to put up with him, as he displays himself
>> >on the Web, for more then a very short time?
>> I believe a better question is what was Tom doing during the 19 years
>> between the end of his military career and the fist job listed on his
>> resume.
>> >Can you imagine the reply a Personnel Manager might get when he calls
>> >one of Tom's previous employers and asks, We've been looking at this
>> >guy "Tom Kunich", says he worked for you for a while. What can you
>> >tell me about him?
>> Tom probably received a glowing reference from his current employer at
>> the time. They were probably glad to get rid of Tom and a highly
>> positive reference would be much easier than firing him.
>
>I've mentioned, I actually did that once to get rid of somebody that they wouldn't let me fire.
>

I spent 30, or so, years working as a "foreign worker" in countries
that offered no "protection" to foreigners working there and a company
could fire you any time that they wanted to and I never saw any
oppression of the workers as U.S. Unions seem to allege. The only rule
was that if you brought a guy into the country to work then you had to
get him out of the country if he quit or you fired him.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 22:04:08 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:

>AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> On 12/22/2023 9:49 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 7:34:33?AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>> On 12/22/2023 10:28 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 5:58:51?AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/21/2023 9:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm working on a bike as a sort of Christmas present. It
>>>>>>> needs tires, and the rider would like tires as wide as
>>>>>>> possible. It's a Cannondale touring bike, and like mine, the
>>>>>>> limiting spot for clearance is about 37mm between the
>>>>>>> chainstays. Rims are Sun CR18, so these are stout wheels.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After considerable thought, I thought 32s might be a bit too
>>>>>>> tight. I ordered in a set of Continental Grand Prix 5000s,
>>>>>>> one of the few good tires I find in a 30mm width. I picked
>>>>>>> them up at a LBS today.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Installed, I was disappointed to see they measure just 27mm
>>>>>>> inflated. I guess I should have gone with 32s, which might
>>>>>>> have come out closer to 30mm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not a huge problem. These will work. But my question:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the
>>>>>>> rim. I also know that many manufacturers tend to overstate
>>>>>>> tire width, yielding tires narrower than claimed, partly so
>>>>>>> they can brag about lighter weight. (If they call it a 30
>>>>>>> but it's only a 27, some people will say "Wow, that's light
>>>>>>> for a 30!")
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there some sort database somewhere that gives reliable
>>>>>>> info on actual installed width of specific tires on specific
>>>>>>> rims?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> None I know. An experienced mechanic can give some direction
>>>>>> but that's about it.
>>
>>
>>>>> I find it curious that Frank is a supposed engineer and cannot take
>>>>> into account the inner width of rims.
>>>> I find it curious that someone who "read out three libraries" doesn't
>>>> realize Frank wrote the exact opposite.
>>>> "I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the rim".
>>>> dumbass.
>>>
>>> When you're through agreeing with yourself it might possibly occur to
>>> you that Frank was complaining about inflated tire width while using a
>>> racing tire. Racing tires are constructed differently than touring tires
>>> but obviously you don't know that. It must be all of that racing you do
>>> that you can't tell the difference between a CX tire and a road tire.
>>>
>>> You're simply too stupid to talk to and I will now drop this iteration
>>> of your idiocy in the kill file that Liebermann claims does exist
>>> because he can tell by the message header.,
>>
>> ??? WTF? That 'distinction' is not an actual distinction.
>>
>> Modern race bikes ship with 700-28 clinchers which, to me,
>> are 'touring tires', quite unlike my 23mm tubulars.
>>
>>
>Similar or same sized tires see also some Gravel tires, but touring tires
>do have more robust sidewalls and generally construction is more robust not
>as robust as more Gravity focused MTB tires but certainly Marathons and
>similar will survive glass slashing that would be career ending for a road
>or Gravel tire.
>
>I generally retire the Big Apples on the commute bike when it gets too many
>gashes, even quite large slashes doesn’t result in bulging etc.
>
>Roger Merriman

Are the roads really that bad where you are? Broken glass gashing
tires?

Granted much of my bike riding has been in developing countries where
glass bottles can be resold and thus aren't usually scattered on the
roads. In fact the worse flat I can remember was running over a stick
with a bent nail in it, punched two holes in the tire... which rather
emphasized the foolishness in running over sticks :-) That was back in
the days before I carried spare inner tubes - sitting in the mud on
the side of the road, in the rain, trying to get a patch to stick on a
wet inner tube...

--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 22:04:08 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> On 12/22/2023 9:49 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 7:34:33?AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>> On 12/22/2023 10:28 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 5:58:51?AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/21/2023 9:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm working on a bike as a sort of Christmas present. It
>>>>>>>> needs tires, and the rider would like tires as wide as
>>>>>>>> possible. It's a Cannondale touring bike, and like mine, the
>>>>>>>> limiting spot for clearance is about 37mm between the
>>>>>>>> chainstays. Rims are Sun CR18, so these are stout wheels.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After considerable thought, I thought 32s might be a bit too
>>>>>>>> tight. I ordered in a set of Continental Grand Prix 5000s,
>>>>>>>> one of the few good tires I find in a 30mm width. I picked
>>>>>>>> them up at a LBS today.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Installed, I was disappointed to see they measure just 27mm
>>>>>>>> inflated. I guess I should have gone with 32s, which might
>>>>>>>> have come out closer to 30mm.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not a huge problem. These will work. But my question:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the
>>>>>>>> rim. I also know that many manufacturers tend to overstate
>>>>>>>> tire width, yielding tires narrower than claimed, partly so
>>>>>>>> they can brag about lighter weight. (If they call it a 30
>>>>>>>> but it's only a 27, some people will say "Wow, that's light
>>>>>>>> for a 30!")
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is there some sort database somewhere that gives reliable
>>>>>>>> info on actual installed width of specific tires on specific
>>>>>>>> rims?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None I know. An experienced mechanic can give some direction
>>>>>>> but that's about it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> I find it curious that Frank is a supposed engineer and cannot take
>>>>>> into account the inner width of rims.
>>>>> I find it curious that someone who "read out three libraries" doesn't
>>>>> realize Frank wrote the exact opposite.
>>>>> "I know actual installed tire width depends partly on the rim".
>>>>> dumbass.
>>>>
>>>> When you're through agreeing with yourself it might possibly occur to
>>>> you that Frank was complaining about inflated tire width while using a
>>>> racing tire. Racing tires are constructed differently than touring tires
>>>> but obviously you don't know that. It must be all of that racing you do
>>>> that you can't tell the difference between a CX tire and a road tire.
>>>>
>>>> You're simply too stupid to talk to and I will now drop this iteration
>>>> of your idiocy in the kill file that Liebermann claims does exist
>>>> because he can tell by the message header.,
>>>
>>> ??? WTF? That 'distinction' is not an actual distinction.
>>>
>>> Modern race bikes ship with 700-28 clinchers which, to me,
>>> are 'touring tires', quite unlike my 23mm tubulars.
>>>
>>>
>> Similar or same sized tires see also some Gravel tires, but touring tires
>> do have more robust sidewalls and generally construction is more robust not
>> as robust as more Gravity focused MTB tires but certainly Marathons and
>> similar will survive glass slashing that would be career ending for a road
>> or Gravel tire.
>>
>> I generally retire the Big Apples on the commute bike when it gets too many
>> gashes, even quite large slashes doesn’t result in bulging etc.
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>
> Are the roads really that bad where you are? Broken glass gashing
> tires?
>
> Granted much of my bike riding has been in developing countries where
> glass bottles can be resold and thus aren't usually scattered on the
> roads. In fact the worse flat I can remember was running over a stick
> with a bent nail in it, punched two holes in the tire... which rather
> emphasized the foolishness in running over sticks :-) That was back in
> the days before I carried spare inner tubes - sitting in the mud on
> the side of the road, in the rain, trying to get a patch to stick on a
> wet inner tube...
>

The commute or rather a short section of it, some is dropped bottles lot is
car debris which you get on side of bypass type roads, particularly unloved
areas such as areas north of Heathrow.

Roger Merriman

On 12/23/2023 7:59 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Are the roads really that bad where you are? Broken glass gashing
>> tires?...
>
> The commute or rather a short section of it, some is dropped bottles lot is
> car debris which you get on side of bypass type roads, particularly unloved
> areas such as areas north of Heathrow.

I'll mention that glass shards, whether from bottles or crashed cars,
are much less of a problem for cyclists who ride out in the lane, rather
than at the far edge. Car tires tend to sweep pavement clean.

--
- Frank Krygowski