Huh!

Time to replace a tire, so I went to my cache (a dark plastic, sealed,
garbage bag) and noticed something, well, quirky. Two Panaracer
Paselas, in different sizes, were next to each other. The 28c version
had a tag that noted the standard size was 622x28; the alleged 32 was
tagged 622x29.

I noticed the 32 (or is that 29) is pretty narrow when mounted.

Sorta looks like Truth in Advertising only went halfway. I do wonder
why they call a 29 a 32, or why the 28 wasn't really a 26.

Pat

Email address works as is.

In article ,
Patrick Lamb writes:
Time to replace a tire, so I went to my cache (a dark plastic, sealed,
garbage bag) and noticed something, well, quirky. Two Panaracer
Paselas, in different sizes, were next to each other. The 28c version
had a tag that noted the standard size was 622x28; the alleged 32 was
tagged 622x29.

I noticed the 32 (or is that 29) is pretty narrow when mounted.

Sorta looks like Truth in Advertising only went halfway. I do wonder
why they call a 29 a 32, or why the 28 wasn't really a 26.

Tire sizes are about as notoriously unconventionalized
as frame sizes. I guess it all depends on how one
measures them. Throw the vernier/dial calipers out
the window. OTOH, don't do that. Maybe it partly
depends on how the tires perform -- if they sorta act
like typical 28s, well then, they're 28s, more-or-less.

Actually, 29s sound like an interesting urban-riding
compromise between General Purpose 28s and fatter
touring 32s. If fenders fit around 'em, so much
the better.

The 26s sound like an evil kludge between 23s/25s
and 28s.


cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca