|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Fractional size tires not equivalent to decimal size tires?
I read that on Sheldon Brown's website.
A bike that uses 20 x 1 3/8" tires cannot use 20 x 1.5 tires because the "20" represents different diameters? The actual relevant size on one appears to be 451 mm while the size of the other appears to be 406 mm. That's a big difference. Does that still hold true? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Fractional size tires not equivalent to decimal size tires?
On 6/20/2016 4:09 PM, John Doe wrote:
I read that on Sheldon Brown's website. A bike that uses 20 x 1 3/8" tires cannot use 20 x 1.5 tires because the "20" represents different diameters? The actual relevant size on one appears to be 451 mm while the size of the other appears to be 406 mm. That's a big difference. Does that still hold true? Yes. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Fractional size tires not equivalent to decimal size tires?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Fractional size tires not equivalent to decimal size tires?
On 6/20/2016 6:09 PM, John Doe wrote:
I read that on Sheldon Brown's website. A bike that uses 20 x 1 3/8" tires cannot use 20 x 1.5 tires because the "20" represents different diameters? The actual relevant size on one appears to be 451 mm while the size of the other appears to be 406 mm. That's a big difference. Does that still hold true? Yes. There is a long history of tire/rim development with myriad 'standards'. The "20" is nominal, roughly the outside diameter of an inflated tire, which has little to do with the inside edge if the tire where it meets the bead seat of the rim. There are/were various national standards and some proprietary formats now generally displaced by the ISO system of expressing the diameter at the seat. Fractions and decimals denote different series such that a 26x1.375 is unlike a 26x1-3/8 for example and a 26x1.5 is not at all a 26x1-1/2. There were also letter designations (F10, K2, EA1, EA3 etc). If you stay with the ISO numbers, in your example -451, you'll be fine. A -622 rim for example accepts tires marked variously 700C and 28" from some suppliers but they are actually 622 tires. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Fractional size tires not equivalent to decimal size tires?
On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 6:09:34 PM UTC-5, John Doe wrote:
I read that on Sheldon Brown's website. A bike that uses 20 x 1 3/8" tires cannot use 20 x 1.5 tires because the "20" represents different diameters? The actual relevant size on one appears to be 451 mm while the size of the other appears to be 406 mm. That's a big difference. Does that still hold true? http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rim-sizing.html Is a list of all tire size by rim Diameter. http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html#width Is a list of the range of good tire widths for the rim width. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Fractional size tires not equivalent to decimal size tires?
AMuzi wrote:
John Doe wrote: I read that on Sheldon Brown's website. A bike that uses 20 x 1 3/8" tires cannot use 20 x 1.5 tires because the "20" represents different diameters? The actual relevant size on one appears to be 451 mm while the size of the other appears to be 406 mm. That's a big difference. Does that still hold true? Yes. There is a long history of tire/rim development with myriad 'standards'. The "20" is nominal, roughly the outside diameter of an inflated tire, which has little to do with the inside edge if the tire where it meets the bead seat of the rim. There are/were various national standards and some proprietary formats now generally displaced by the ISO system of expressing the diameter at the seat. Fractions and decimals denote different series such that a 26x1.375 is unlike a 26x1-3/8 for example and a 26x1.5 is not at all a 26x1-1/2. There were also letter designations (F10, K2, EA1, EA3 etc). If you stay with the ISO numbers, in your example -451, you'll be fine. A -622 rim for example accepts tires marked variously 700C and 28" from some suppliers but they are actually 622 tires. Can this first one be replaced by the second one? Kenda K-184, 20 x 1 3/8" (37-440) Sunlt K-143, 20 X 1-3/8" (37-451) Assuming the rim is perfect for the first one (37-440). Thanks. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Fractional size tires not equivalent to decimal size tires?
On 6/21/2016 3:13 PM, John Doe wrote:
AMuzi wrote: John Doe wrote: I read that on Sheldon Brown's website. A bike that uses 20 x 1 3/8" tires cannot use 20 x 1.5 tires because the "20" represents different diameters? The actual relevant size on one appears to be 451 mm while the size of the other appears to be 406 mm. That's a big difference. Does that still hold true? Yes. There is a long history of tire/rim development with myriad 'standards'. The "20" is nominal, roughly the outside diameter of an inflated tire, which has little to do with the inside edge if the tire where it meets the bead seat of the rim. There are/were various national standards and some proprietary formats now generally displaced by the ISO system of expressing the diameter at the seat. Fractions and decimals denote different series such that a 26x1.375 is unlike a 26x1-3/8 for example and a 26x1.5 is not at all a 26x1-1/2. There were also letter designations (F10, K2, EA1, EA3 etc). If you stay with the ISO numbers, in your example -451, you'll be fine. A -622 rim for example accepts tires marked variously 700C and 28" from some suppliers but they are actually 622 tires. Can this first one be replaced by the second one? Kenda K-184, 20 x 1 3/8" (37-440) Sunlt K-143, 20 X 1-3/8" (37-451) Assuming the rim is perfect for the first one (37-440). Uh, the ISO -451 is larger diameter than a -440. That's what the ISO number means. Neither's better or worse but you can't mount a tire on the wrong size rim. Either get a -440 rim and a -440 tire OR get a -451 rim with a -451 tire. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Fractional size tires not equivalent to decimal size tires?
On 6/21/2016 1:13 PM, John Doe wrote:
AMuzi wrote: John Doe wrote: I read that on Sheldon Brown's website. A bike that uses 20 x 1 3/8" tires cannot use 20 x 1.5 tires because the "20" represents different diameters? The actual relevant size on one appears to be 451 mm while the size of the other appears to be 406 mm. That's a big difference. Does that still hold true? Yes. There is a long history of tire/rim development with myriad 'standards'. The "20" is nominal, roughly the outside diameter of an inflated tire, which has little to do with the inside edge if the tire where it meets the bead seat of the rim. There are/were various national standards and some proprietary formats now generally displaced by the ISO system of expressing the diameter at the seat. Fractions and decimals denote different series such that a 26x1.375 is unlike a 26x1-3/8 for example and a 26x1.5 is not at all a 26x1-1/2. There were also letter designations (F10, K2, EA1, EA3 etc). If you stay with the ISO numbers, in your example -451, you'll be fine. A -622 rim for example accepts tires marked variously 700C and 28" from some suppliers but they are actually 622 tires. Can this first one be replaced by the second one? Kenda K-184, 20 x 1 3/8" (37-440) Sunlt K-143, 20 X 1-3/8" (37-451) Assuming the rim is perfect for the first one (37-440). No. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
what size of tires does a 10 speed bicycle use? | [email protected] | General | 4 | March 10th 07 10:53 PM |
FA: THREE NEW SLICK TIRES SIZE 26 X 1.25 | vintage | Marketplace | 0 | May 13th 06 01:42 AM |
FS: Schwinn Size Tires | Frankie | Marketplace | 0 | September 27th 04 05:47 PM |
Replacing tires, size question | jazu | Mountain Biking | 4 | June 7th 04 01:49 AM |
Size of tubes for 2.3 tires | Erling Ringen Elvsrud | Techniques | 4 | September 8th 03 03:08 AM |